# December 1st UA Spell changes



## Gadget

Any thoughts on the spell changes in the new UA?

I think the Guidance and Resistance changes are long overdue, though you could still spam Guidance all day if you wanted to; that may cause some heartburn at many tables.  I think Spiritual Weapon and Banishment will be the more controversial spell changes (with maybe Aid thrown in by some).  

Personally, I think the Spiritual Weapon one was a bit overdue, as running that along with Spirit Guardians was almost mandatory.  Yet one could argue that Spirit Guardians was the one that needed to be reigned in and Spiritual Weapon is now overshadowed by the 1st level Bless, as they are both competing for concentration.  Should Bless have been toned down?   

Having seen Guidance and Resistance, do we think True Strike and possibly Blade Ward will follow the same pattern?


----------



## Stalker0

Gadget said:


> Yet one could argue that Spirit Guardians was the one that needed to be reigned in and Spiritual Weapon is now overshadowed by the 1st level Bless, as they are both competing for concentration.  Should Bless have been toned down?



This is my perspective. If WOTC had nerfed spirit guardians, spirtual weapon, and bless, but buff a number of other spells....I could dig it. That would shake up the cleric a bit, which would be great.

But this is just a lame change. Spiritual weapon won't see much see in comparison now that it fights for the all important concentration slot. I think it will be bless and SG all the way.


----------



## Stalker0

I also feel the guidance in the last packet was a lot better. It just did the job, removed any arguments at the table, gave a solid benefit, reigned it in to actual cantrip levels.

This version returns to spam but now adds arguments about how close the party is at all times.

Player: "Of course I waiting for the cleric to be nearby before I climbed that wall!"
"Of course the cleric was right near me when I bluffed that guy"
"I'm going to disable this trap, oh cleric buddy, come here!"

Its just silly. the last version was much better.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I think Guidance as a reaction (and one that doesn't even break concentration) makes the spell substantially more powerful and less evocative of the ludonarrative they are trying to tell with it. If it comes after the act it feels like it should be renamed "Mercy" or some such. That said I understand in its existing form it was a huge drain on some tables (only ever a minor annoyance at most at some of mine), and I don't think it's game breakingly powerful as reformulated, so I can see the benefits in that decision.

I do think the 10 foot range is highly unfortunate, as now we get arguments about previously irrelevant positioning during social and exploration encounters as the new locus for Guidance based slow-downs. It should be 60+ ft if they actually want to streamline play, which would be the justification for changing it to a reaction.

I find the "failed" an ability check language unfortunate wording the WotC has become attached to lately. It used to be that the DM did not have to declare explicitly whether there was a failure, success, or some result on a spectrum of failure and success, now I think in trying to get away from the "after you know the roll but before the result" language which I guess was causing trouble at some small minority of tables, they have gone with "after a failure" formulations that if some player wants to rules lawyer them really cramp my own particular DMing style of just sort of saying what happens based on that result and not always being explicit as to whether it was a failure or success. And in the case of Guidance, since it's a cantrip, the "failed" limitation really serves no purpose, as throwing extra d4s on top of successes is not a problem.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Stalker0 said:


> I also feel the guidance in the last packet was a lot better. It just did the job, removed any arguments at the table, gave a solid benefit, reigned it in to actual cantrip levels.
> 
> This version returns to spam but now adds arguments about how close the party is at all times.
> 
> Player: "Of course I waiting for the cleric to be nearby before I climbed that wall!"
> "Of course the cleric was right near me when I bluffed that guy"
> "I'm going to disable this trap, oh cleric buddy, come here!"
> 
> Its just silly. the last version was much better.



it has a verbal and somatic component. good luck with bluffing


----------



## Galandris

UngeheuerLich said:


> it has a verbal and somatic component. good luck with bluffing




Constantly muttering prayers while holding a rosary is absolutely not suspect. Having a religious friend besides you isn't either. In both these cases we don't mind in real life. The only thing that might give it is if your religious friend is knotted to you by a 10' rope.


----------



## Clint_L

The new Aid is not great. 5 temp HP for a second level spell slot is pretty weak. Now you could argue that it is really 30 HPs proactive healing, but that is only if you have 6 targets (in my home games, we generally have 4 players) and only if they all take 5 damage or more. Realistically this is probably going to average out to 10-15 HP of meaningful damage reduction per use. That's not much.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Galandris said:


> Constantly muttering prayers while holding a rosary is absolutely not suspect. Having a religious friend besides you isn't either. In both these cases we don't mind in real life. The only thing that might give it is if your religious friend is knotted to you by a 10' rope.




It might or might not be suspect... i think it is...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Benjamin Olson said:


> I think Guidance as a reaction (and one that doesn't even break concentration) makes the spell substantially more powerful and less evocative of the ludonarrative they are trying to tell with it. If it comes after the act it feels like it should be renamed "Mercy" or some such. That said I understand in its existing form it was a huge drain on some tables (only ever a minor annoyance at most at some of mine), and I don't think it's game breakingly powerful as reformulated, so I can see the benefits in that decision.
> 
> I do think the 10 foot range is highly unfortunate, as now we get arguments about previously irrelevant positioning during social and exploration encounters as the new locus for Guidance based slow-downs. It should be 60+ ft if they actually want to streamline play, which would be the justification for changing it to a reaction.




I think the 10ft requirement actually makes that spell rather balanced. So you at least have to have your guidance bot near you when you try to hide...


----------



## SakanaSensei

Galandris said:


> Constantly muttering prayers while holding a rosary is absolutely not suspect. Having a religious friend besides you isn't either. In both these cases we don't mind in real life. The only thing that might give it is if your religious friend is knotted to you by a 10' rope.



I would be very put off/uncomfortable if I was talking with someone armed to the teeth and their similarly armed to the teeth friend was sitting there chanting to a god I may or may not follow.


----------



## Xamnam

SakanaSensei said:


> I would be very put off/uncomfortable if I was talking with someone armed to the teeth and their similarly armed to the teeth friend was sitting there chanting to a god I may or may not follow.



Especially if you live in a world where that god/that god's power might actively intervene at any moment in response.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Stalker0 said:


> Player: "Of course I waiting for the cleric to be nearby before I climbed that wall!"
> "Of course the cleric was right near me when I bluffed that guy"
> "I'm going to disable this trap, oh cleric buddy, come here!"




Look gods only have a 10 foot range from their chosen vessels in which to dispense their graces. Anything more would just be ridiculous, obviously.


----------



## Greg Benage

Spiritual weapon is a pretty bad spell, now. I think shadow blade is slightly overrated for most casters, but it’s brilliant compared to spiritual weapon.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think the 10ft requirement actually makes that spell rather balanced. So you at least have to have your guidance bot near you when you try to hide...



Balance wise it's reasonable. The issue is that it replaces one way the spell was an annoying nuissance that engendered endless debates with a new way for it to be an annoying nuissance that engenders endless debates. Original formula annoying Guidance at least had a better ludonarrative (priest bestows minor skill blessing on friend, rather than priest invokes divine ward against friend's failure at last second but only up to a ten foot range). At the end of the day I'd rather it just be a little more overpowered and not slow down gameplay. Or not exist.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Greg Benage said:


> Spiritual weapon is a pretty bad spell, now. I think shadow blade is slightly overrated for most casters, but it’s brilliant compared to spiritual weapon.



It remains a solid spell choice, and not remotely "bad". It is, however, now just another spell giving a way to do ongoing bonus action damage, rather than the undisputed king of such spells, frequently cited as a major draw for the Cleric class and a top contender for anyone who gets to poach Cleric spells to poach. It has gone from a top spell to an ordinary and balanced one. 

Despite my calling it "balanced" I do not necessarily consider that a good thing for the game, when the balancing takes the form of nerfing an iconic, go-to power spell down to a boring average one.


----------



## Krachek

We can guess blade ward working as resistance but for a hit on an attack roll.
If they do they will certainly give a try for True strike giving a d4 on a miss for an attack roll using a reaction.

Banishment was a pure gold spell. Nerf is a good thing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Benjamin Olson said:


> Balance wise it's reasonable. The issue is that it replaces one way the spell was an annoying nuissance that engendered endless debates with a new way for it to be an annoying nuissance that engenders endless debates. Original formula annoying Guidance at least had a better ludonarrative (priest bestows minor skill blessing on friend, rather than priest invokes divine ward against friend's failure at last second but only up to a ten foot range). At the end of the day I'd rather it just be a little more overpowered and not slow down gameplay. Or not exist.




I do agree. 
Maybe it should be precast and cost an action to mantain each round and you need to stay in 30 ft or 60 ft range. 
Like a good version of witchbolt. 

So the narrative is that the cleric needs to pray for the duration of the action.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

Benjamin Olson said:


> Despite my calling it "balanced" I do not necessarily consider that a good thing for the game, when the balancing takes the form of nerfing an iconic, go-to power spell down to a boring average one.



You're going to have to do some fast talking to convince anyone of that...


----------



## FireLance

I am personally inclined for _guidance_ and _resistance_ to be cast on holy symbols and last eight hours. Then when the wearer of the holy symbol fails a skill check or a saving throw, they can choose to activate the spell and then cannot benefit from the spell again until they have taken a long rest. So, when a cleric gives you a holy symbol and says, "May [deity] guide/protect you," it's not just empty words.


----------



## Greg Benage

Benjamin Olson said:


> t remains a solid spell choice, and not remotely "bad".



I mean, there's no "fact of the matter" here, but I don't think there's anything remotely "solid" about it. A 1d8+mod bonus action attack for a _2nd level slot and concentration_ is bad. You're never casting this if you're trying to even vaguely optimize spellcasting.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> You're going to have to do some fast talking to convince anyone of that...



I don't particularly care if I convince anyone. Some people prefer having some spells just be "the good spells" and don't really care about balance all that much. Other people worship at the church of balance. I fall into the first category, and despite your implication that I'm the only one who does I don't think I am. 

But I am not terribly doctrinaire about the preference. I think if all the spells are more strictly balanced they'll be less interesting (as will the game on the whole), but on my list of complaints about the playtest it hardly merits mention.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Greg Benage said:


> I mean, there's no "fact of the matter" here, but I don't think there's anything remotely "solid" about it. A 1d8+mod bonus action attack for a _2nd level slot and concentration_ is bad. You're never casting this if you're trying to even vaguely optimize spellcasting.



Well no, _I_ will casting this, because I want to make use of my bonus action, and it's one of the better uses of concentration for a first tier Cleric, and after I lose concentration on whatever you consider optimal I don't necessarily want to spend an action mid-to-late fight starting up a new concentration demanding buff, when I can use a bonus action to cast a spell with immediate and ongoing results. All forms of bonus action attack are worthwhile options at low levels when attacks are scarce. Clearly you won't cast it, which is a perfectly sensible approach as well, because it is now just an average quality spell balanced to it's arcane cousin Flaming Sphere, there are other things to do with concentration, and you clearly resent it's new status as an average spell of its level. But it's not some sort of trap option, it's just now ordinary rather than exceptional.

Maybe your dictionary has a different definition of "bad" than mine, or maybe by the lofty standards of your table I'm a terrible player, but a second level concentration spell for bonus action 1d8+mod force attacks seems fine to me. It's just anemic compared to it's too-good-to-skip 5e version.


----------



## Greg Benage

Benjamin Olson said:


> Well no, _I_ will casting this, because I want to make use of my bonus action, and it's one of the better uses of concentration for a first tier Cleric, and after I lose concentration on whatever you consider optimal I don't necessarily want to spend an action mid-to-late fight starting up a new concentration demanding buff, when I can use a bonus action to cast a spell with immediate and ongoing results. Clearly you won't cast it, which is a perfectly sensible approach as well, because it is now just an average quality spell balanced to it's arcane cousin Flaming Sphere, there are other things to do with concentration, and you clearly resent it's new status as an average spell of its level. But it's not some sort of trap option, it's just now ordinary rather than exceptional.



Okay, so...
1. Can you think of anything else that clerics frequently do in combat that requires a bonus action? I can think of a big one, and it's the reason my cleric often didn't get to make _spiritual weapon_ attacks even when it didn't require concentration.
2. If you think a 1d8+mod bonus action attack is one of the better uses of concentration for a first tier cleric, I don't really know what to say about that. It's not better than _bless, _right? Like, even if you're alone, it probably _still _isn't better than _bless_ in most scenarios, but presumably you won't be alone very often.
3. Yeah, it's balanced against _flaming sphere_, except it has no area denial, doesn't deal any damage on a "miss," has a third less mobility, and can't set anything on fire. I mean, if _flaming sphere_ dealt damage only on a failed save and did nothing else, would you consider it a "solid" spell?

ETA: Also, what's the deal with the "resent" nonsense? I promise I don't "resent" any changes in the new rules, and certainly not a nerf to a 2nd-level cleric spell. It's not as if D&D will be ruined if _spiritual weapon_ is a bad spell.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Greg Benage said:


> Okay, so...
> 1. Can you think of anything else that clerics frequently do in combat that requires a bonus action? I can think of a big one, and it's the reason my cleric often didn't get to make _spiritual weapon_ attacks even when it didn't require concentration.
> 2. If you think a 1d8+mod bonus action attack is one of the better uses of concentration for a first tier cleric, I don't really know what to say about that. It's not better than _bless, _right? Like, even if you're alone, it probably _still _isn't better than _bless_ in most scenarios, but presumably you won't be alone very often.
> 3. Yeah, it's balanced against _flaming sphere_, except it has no area denial, doesn't deal any damage on a "miss," has a third less mobility, and can't set anything on fire. I mean, if _flaming sphere_ dealt damage only on a failed save and did nothing else, would you consider it a "solid" spell?



So if a spell isn't the best in all situations it is bad. Glad you could clarify your definition. 

1. Spiritual weapon is useful on any combat turn, whereas Healing Word is only a good use of your bonus action and (the spell slot) on turns where there is an ally whom it will keep in the fight or save from death.
2. Yeah, Bless is a use of concentration than this formulation of Spiritual Weapon. But I already explained that sometimes I don't want to spend my action casting a spell, and you clearly recognize that sometimes a character's allies are out of range. If I have a prep round for the combat I'd cast Bless. If the enemies are already upon me I'd often (not necessarily always, because I don't consider _always_ a prerequisite for spells not being bad) rather attack them and use my bonus action to cast Spiritual Weapon and have it attack them as well, and hopefully rinse and repeat next round, rather than invest in a spell that won't pay any dividends turn of and then have nothing to do with my bonus action. If it seems like a saving throw intensive fight or there are high AC enemies the balance shifts back more Bless-ward.
3. On a hit this spell does more average damage of a less resisted type than Flaming Sphere, at the cost of not doing a fairly piddling amount of damage on a miss (half of 2d6 rounded down is 3 damage); it is reliant on attacks rather than saving throws, which makes it compatible with a different set of other features and abilities and makes it more or less effective depending on the target; and while it lacks the battlefield control aspects of Flaming Sphere it also is not a danger or nuissance to allies in tight spaces. So I'd call them on par with each other, and both good spells for the right situation, which is what spells are supposed to be.


----------



## Greg Benage

Benjamin Olson said:


> So if a spell isn't the best in all situations it is bad. Glad you could clarify your definition.



Did I say that? If I didn't, why are you suggesting I did? 

Let me try to put it this way: If I'm a "first tier cleric" in a tough fight, I'm not going to spend my bonus actions and concentration on a 1d8+mod attack. If I'm a first tier cleric in an easier fight, I'm not spending a 2nd-level spell slot on a 1d8+mod attack. And after Tier 1, forget about it.

This is why I said "you're never going to cast this spell if you're even remotely trying to optimize spellcasting." I should have said "one" rather than "you're" -- I'm obviously not trying to tell you what you, personally, are going to do. And I use the term "optimize" extremely loosely, here -- this is kind of rudimentary spellcasting. In this respect, it's worse than a situational spell. I mean, we haven't even talked about the preparation opportunity cost. I literally can't even imagine a case where I'd regret not having this spell prepared. That sounds like a bad spell.

By the way...



> If it seems like a saving throw intensive fight or there are high AC enemies the balance shifts back more Bless-ward.




They're all very likely to be "saving throw intensive" now that it's a concentration spell! That's why I suggested _bless_ is likely a better choice for your concentration _even if you're alone_. At least you're less likely to lose it the first time you get hit by something. On the other hand, that _would_ free you up to do something more useful with your concentration.


----------



## Clint_L

Greg Benage said:


> I mean, there's no "fact of the matter" here, but I don't think there's anything remotely "solid" about it. A 1d8+mod bonus action attack for a _2nd level slot and concentration_ is bad. You're never casting this if you're trying to even vaguely optimize spellcasting.



Disagree. It is currently too good at low levels - I define "too good" as spells which are an automatic choice. Using concentration makes it an actual choice, and the attack is still just as strong; in a game where action economy is king, making sure that you have something that you can do with your bonus action is always useful. People will still take it, but now they might put some thought into it and choose it situationally.


----------



## Lojaan

I think this Guidance and Resistance are bad.

They feel like if you play a cleric you gotta give up 2 of your cantrips or your party is going to be mad at you.

May as well just reduce the number of cantrips clerics can have by 2 and give everyone in their party +d4 on all skill tests and saving throws 'cause why not. Ugh.

I dont like either of these spells as cantrips and I think they should either be removed or seriously reworked.


----------



## Dausuul

Galandris said:


> Constantly muttering prayers while holding a rosary is absolutely not suspect. Having a religious friend besides you isn't either. In both these cases we don't mind in real life. The only thing that might give it is if your religious friend is knotted to you by a 10' rope.



In real life, muttering prayers while holding a rosary is not known to be a means of resurrecting the dead, summoning warrior angels, or creating an earthquake.

In D&D-world, the rosary might as well be a machine gun, and holding it while muttering prayers is like putting your finger on the trigger. It is one hundred percent suspicious to anyone who has seen a spellcaster in action.


----------



## mellored

Greg Benage said:


> I mean, there's no "fact of the matter" here, but I don't think there's anything remotely "solid" about it. A 1d8+mod bonus action attack for a _2nd level slot and concentration_ is bad. You're never casting this if you're trying to even vaguely optimize spellcasting.



It's still the best damaging level 2 cleric spell.  Especially since you can still shoot a cantrip with it.

I mean, what else are you going to do?  Become a wizard and get flaming sphere?


----------



## Greg Benage

Clint_L said:


> Disagree. It is currently too good at low levels - I define "too good" as spells which are an automatic choice.



I mean, a lot of optimizers already _didn't _take it, so I don't think it was automatic. It's just a bit of incremental DPR. I think it ended up being automatic for a lot of tables that have one or two combats per long rest, which, granted, is unfortunately probably a significant percentage of tables. If you're in a low-level game where 2nd-level slots aren't particularly precious and the one or two fights tend to go longer, it's quite good.

In my experience, it only became automatic at higher levels, because why not, but then the little bit of incremental DPR wasn't making much difference, either.

Like I said, though, I don't think it matters very much in the grand scheme of things. I think it's a bad spell. The cleric list will hardly notice the addition of another one.


----------



## mellored

Greg Benage said:


> 3. Yeah, it's balanced against _flaming sphere_, except it has no area denial, doesn't deal any damage on a "miss," has a third less mobility, and can't set anything on fire. I mean, if _flaming sphere_ dealt damage only on a failed save and did nothing else, would you consider it a "solid" spell?



Do you think clerics should deal more damage than a wizard or sorcerer?


----------



## Greg Benage

mellored said:


> It's still the best damaging level 2 cleric spell.




That's a bloody low bar. Isn't it the only damaging level 2 cleric spell? 



mellored said:


> I mean, what else are you going to do? Become a wizard and get flaming sphere?




In my perfect world, you'd be a fire cleric and cast _flaming sphere_ (or some other cool, thematic spell) because Wizards bothered to design good domain spell lists 1-17. In the real world of 5.5e, I'm not sure what I'll be doing, but I know I won't be casting spiritual weapon!

ETA: Really bad example because I forgot about the light cleric.


----------



## Greg Benage

mellored said:


> Do you think clerics should deal more damage than a wizard or sorcerer?



Single-target direct damage? Yeah, that'd be cool, at least for a War cleric. Instead, they get to have bladesigner envy. How many editions have there been when clerics _couldn't _do more single-target damage than wizards?


----------



## mellored

Greg Benage said:


> Single-target direct damage? Yeah, that'd be cool, at least for a War cleric. Instead, they get to have bladesigner envy.



Then why would anyone play a wizard if the clerics got better damage and healing?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Greg Benage said:


> Single-target direct damage? Yeah, that'd be cool, at least for a War cleric. Instead, they get to have bladesigner envy. How many editions have there been when clerics _couldn't _do more single-target damage than wizards?




6?


----------



## Greg Benage

UngeheuerLich said:


> 6?



Uh...no? Certainly not in OD&D, B/X, AD&D or 3.x. Maybe all the others, I'm not sure.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Greg Benage said:


> Uh...no? Certainly not in OD&D, B/X, AD&D or 3.x. Maybe all the others, I'm not sure.




Oh sorry. Did you mean real single target damage, or dealing more damage with area spells than the cleric did single target?

Then we had power word kill or just finget of death...
Cleric had harm. So wizards always did one more damage than clerics... At least in the editions I remember...


----------



## Greg Benage

Sorry @UngeheuerLich, I'm not tracking. No worries.


----------



## Greg Benage

mellored said:


> Then why would anyone play a wizard if the clerics got better damage and healing?



For AoE, control, and utility?


----------



## Stalker0

Dausuul said:


> In D&D-world, the rosary might as well be a machine gun, and holding it while muttering prayers is like putting your finger on the trigger. It is one hundred percent suspicious to anyone who has seen a spellcaster in action.



Something actually very interesting that the playtest packet highlights.

Most people in the world don't have classes. Most priests in the world aren't clerics and don't have divine magic. So 99 times out of a 100 you see some guy with the rosary muttering a prayer, its just a guy muttering a prayer. It is the very rare case to see a person with actual connection to divine magic going to work.


----------



## Stalker0

Greg Benage said:


> I mean, a lot of optimizers already _didn't _take it, so I don't think it was automatic.



Yeah, the reason a lot of people took spiritual weapon is not because its amazing, its because the rest of the 2nd level spells are just really bad. I mean what else are you going to take if you want a combat spell?


----------



## Greg Benage

Stalker0 said:


> Yeah, the reason a lot of people took spiritual weapon is not because its amazing, its because the rest of the 2nd level spells are just really bad. I mean what else are you going to take if you want a combat spell?



There are some good 2nd level spells, but they're often situational (e.g. _silence_) or good in a boring way (e.g. _aid_). I would agree that there is even more design space now in 5.5e for 2nd-level combat spells that are broadly useful and aren't bad.


----------



## Pauln6

Spiritual weapon sees regular use in my campaign where there are lots of enemies spread out but both my players view it as rather dull and lacklustre.  They like Toll the Dead more, which I find thematically problematic.  Of course, an extra 1d8 radiant damage to spell attacks does beef it up slightly but I think it would die a death in my game as concentration. 

I think the 10' for Guidance feels counter intuitive.  I like resistance but it feels must have.  I'd want it for my Tome Warlock.


----------



## tetrasodium

Lojaan said:


> I think this Guidance and Resistance are bad.
> 
> They feel like if you play a cleric you gotta give up 2 of your cantrips or your party is going to be mad at you.
> 
> May as well just reduce the number of cantrips clerics can have by 2 and give everyone in their party +d4 on all skill tests and saving throws 'cause why not. Ugh.
> 
> I dont like either of these spells as cantrips and I think they should either be removed or seriously reworked.



Any divine cantrip caster can take it, as can magic initiate:divine & some races like the new aardling.  Given the ranger being a cantrip caster it's reasonable to assume decent odds paladins will have the same & even better reason to choose one like guidance or resistance over attack cantrips. In the case of aardlings  & other races the same pressure will apply if they are not a wisdom charisma or int based class.

Plus the divine spell list has 6 cantrips & by level ten the cleric can prepare 5 cantrips.  It's not really a lower level concern either since levels one & four have 3 & 4 cantrips prepared,


----------



## Lojaan

tetrasodium said:


> Any divine cantrip caster can take it, as can magic initiate:divine & some races like the new aardling.  Given the ranger being a cantrip caster it's reasonable to assume decent odds paladins will have the same & even better reason to choose one like guidance or resistance over attack cantrips. In the case of aardlings  & other races the same pressure will apply if they are not a wisdom charisma or int based class.
> 
> Plus the divine spell list has 6 cantrips & by level ten the cleric can prepare 5 cantrips.  It's not really a lower level concern either since levels one & four have 3 & 4 cantrips prepared,



That kinda makes it even worse. May as well cut them from the game and just give everyone +d4 on everything whatever.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Greg Benage said:


> There are some good 2nd level spells, but they're often situational (e.g. _silence_) or good in a boring way (e.g. _aid_). I would agree that there is even more design space now in 5.5e for 2nd-level combat spells that are broadly useful and aren't bad.




It is some kind of tradition, that the relative good damage spells are 1st, 3rd and 6th level. In between it is more utility, defense and buffs.


----------



## Reynard

Galandris said:


> Constantly muttering prayers while holding a rosary is absolutely not suspect. Having a religious friend besides you isn't either. In both these cases we don't mind in real life. The only thing that might give it is if your religious friend is knotted to you by a 10' rope.



Wait, you wouldn't be suspicious if a guy was trying to convince you to give him your SSN for a security check while his priest buddy was furiously praying over a rosary right next to him?


----------



## Pauln6

Reynard said:


> Wait, you wouldn't be suspicious if a guy was trying to convince you to give him your SSN for a security check while his priest buddy was furiously praying over a rosary right next to him?



Disadvantage with +1d4.  A worthy trade off.


----------



## OB1

I never had an issue with PCs spamming Guidance, but still love this change.  

The Spiritual Weapon update is fascinating in how it changes Cleric tactics.  It suddenly makes Cure Wounds a much better option than Healing Word in mid tiers.  Drop a 4th level SW, giving you 3d8 damage a round as a bonus, then run around the back line hitting your allies with 2nd level CWs while still doing decent damage each round.  I do think they should up the movement speed of the SW to at least 30, if not 50, though.  Otherwise it's too easy for enemies to avoid.  The speed wasn't a huge issue when it wasn't concentration (though a bit annoying), but now feels too punitive since you're giving up the ability to concentrate on other things and could end up with multiple rounds where it does nothing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Gadget said:


> Any thoughts on the spell changes in the new UA?
> 
> I think the Guidance and Resistance changes are long overdue, though you could still spam Guidance all day if you wanted to; that may cause some heartburn at many tables.  I think Spiritual Weapon and Banishment will be the more controversial spell changes (with maybe Aid thrown in by some).



Guidance was never a problem at our tables as written in 2014 so I am not sure how this fix is needed, but I trust people saw it spamed out of combat even if I didn't... BUT
how is this less spam? Just every time someone talks, searches, tracks ect they have to tie the cleric to there hip...

Resistance I have seen taken only 1 or 2 times, and never seen used well, so this MAY get it used, but again the same fear of the tie the cleric to the fighter spam...

Spiritual Weapon I really think SHOULD have been concentration, but every person playing a cleric right now in my group is complaining so I don't know how it will go over.

Aid ANOYS me... as a cleric bard or artificer it was a good 2nd level spell not broken and not a gurantee but a good one, I can't see me taking it ever as a mass barksin/heroism.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Stalker0 said:


> I also feel the guidance in the last packet was a lot better. It just did the job, removed any arguments at the table, gave a solid benefit, reigned it in to actual cantrip levels.
> 
> This version returns to spam but now adds arguments about how close the party is at all times.
> 
> Player: "Of course I waiting for the cleric to be nearby before I climbed that wall!"
> "Of course the cleric was right near me when I bluffed that guy"
> "I'm going to disable this trap, oh cleric buddy, come here!"
> 
> Its just silly. the last version was much better.



the only thing is the LAST one i didn't like the 1/day per person thing on a cantrip... it turned an at will into 2-4/day


----------



## tetrasodium

UngeheuerLich said:


> It is some kind of tradition, that the relative good damage spells are 1st, 3rd and 6th level. In between it is more utility, defense and buffs.



I think that the range helps there. Guidance only works ten feet  so hammerspace follower PCs are just going to be "nope out of range" & encouraged to be proactively involved.  shifting that to 5ft would work better in not painting the GM doing that as adversarial because it's a spell primarily used out of combat when ToTM quantum distances kick i Resistance having the 10ft has similar but it's primarily useful in combat so I don't think a drop to 5ft is appropriate.


----------



## TwoSix

The worst part of the guidance is the constant spam.  I'd make it so any one target can only benefit it from once per long rest.

Make it a minute casting time, and everyone within 60' can use the 1d4 once on a skill check of their choice in the next 8 hours.


----------



## Gadget

I see the debate on guidance continues.  It seems to me that the devs may be trying their hand at making many of these cantrips mechanically similar, so it is the same basic design for all of these cantrips.  We'll have to wait and see True Strike and Blade Ward to see if I'm right.  

I don't think the change to Spiritual Weapon makes it a _bad_ spell, per se, but it will certainly be used less.  I'm also not sure I buy that Spiritual Weapon is that iconic, unless by that it is meant that it has been in the cleric repertoire since at least the AD&D/BCMI days.  I don't remember it being that much of a "go to" spell for clerics in previous editions, but in 5e has become much more prominent, mostly due to lacking Concentration.   

IMHO, the Banishment change is more egregious.  It seems that few creatures are going to fail their Save 10 times in a row to actually be banished to their home plane.  Granted, PHB Banishment was probably in need of toning down more so than most of the other spells changed, but I don't think this was the way to do it.  They could have reigned it in by making it more niche, such that it only worked on extraplanar creatures to begin with.  This would have made it powerful, but a universal go to for most situations with a tough opponent that does not have Legendary Resistances.  They have a template:  a similar concept is in place with the Good & Evil line of spells.  

The irony is that outside of 5e, Banishment was somewhat limited, while spells like Protection from Good & Evil were much more universally applicable in play.  Now that is reversed.  Why not bring it in line by limiting to the creature types in the Good & Evil spells?


----------



## Greg Benage

GMforPowergamers said:


> Aid ANOYS me... as a cleric bard or artificer it was a good 2nd level spell not broken and not a gurantee but a good one, I can't see me taking it ever as a mass barksin/heroism.



Oh wow, missed that change. RIP.


----------



## Xamnam

Gadget said:


> IMHO, the Banishment change is more egregious.  It seems that few creatures are going to fail their Save 10 times in a row to actually be banished to their home plane.



Yeah, I understand most of the changes, and even kind of like giving the creature an opportunity to break the banishment more than once, but having it happen every round makes it very unlikely to stick.


----------



## OB1

Xamnam said:


> Yeah, I understand most of the changes, and even kind of like giving the creature an opportunity to break the banishment more than once, but having it happen every round makes it very unlikely to stick.



Maybe a better implementation would be to only give the creature a 2nd save before they are perma-banished at the end of the minute?


----------



## Amrûnril

This version of Guidance seems quite a bit stronger than the PHB version. Changing it to a reaction means you no longer need to know in advance when someone is going to make an ability check, which was previously the biggest constraint on usage.

The new version of Resistance is similar in terms of wording, but I think it's actually quite different in practice. Ability checks are most often used out of combat, meaning that using a reaction isn't generally a significant trade-off. Saving throws are more often used in combat, so the action economy acts as a balancing mechanism for Resistance in a way that it doesn't for Guidance.


----------



## mellored

TwoSix said:


> The worst part of the guidance is the constant spam.  I'd make it so any one target can only benefit it from once per long rest.
> 
> Make it a minute casting time, and everyone within 60' can use the 1d4 once on a skill check of their choice in the next 8 hours.



Guidance only changes a 1 out of 10 rolls.

So you would need to be making 20+ skill checks a day for it to be anything like 'spam'.  And, in my experience, characters rarely do more than 5 skill checks a day (unless it's a rogue sneaking).  

In a party or 5, that means you benefit twice per day.  So not worth the extra paperwork to track who got the benefits.

Also, I'm not put off if everyone keeps asking the cleric to come closer for guidance.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mellored said:


> Guidance only changes a 1 out of 10 rolls.
> 
> So you would need to be making 20+ skill checks a day for it to be anything like 'spam'.  And, in my experience, characters rarely do more than 5 skill checks a day (unless it's a rogue sneaking).



mid dungeon crawl or in a combat heavy campaign I can see that... in a social or exploration heavey campaign you might make 200 skill checks before your first attack roll. I and a few others on here talk about social based D&D games where there is almost no combat.


----------



## OB1

Agree that the new version of Guidance is just as powerful as the old (and I didn't have a problem with it in the first place, you can spam 1d10 firebolts, why not spam 1d4 skill help), what I like about the new version is that rather than the caster using it before every skill check, now they only use it on failure and failures where they think it might help.  Makes it feel more epic than the nearly 'always on' original version.


----------



## TwoSix

mellored said:


> Guidance only changes a 1 out of 10 rolls.
> 
> So you would need to be making 20+ skill checks a day for it to be anything like 'spam'.  And, in my experience, characters rarely do more than 5 skill checks a day (unless it's a rogue sneaking).
> 
> In a party or 5, that means you benefit twice per day.  So not worth the extra paperwork to track who got the benefits.
> 
> Also, I'm not put off if everyone keeps asking the cleric to come closer for guidance.



Probably different expectations.  Having 20-30 skill checks during a session is pretty normal for us, and I've definitely run into the "Oh, I make a skill check, oh I cast guidance before making that perception check, etc" situation.  

There are ways around it, of course, but it's also the case that guidance simply doesn't have to be designed where it's even an issue to address.  The game isn't improved by having a cantrip that boost skill checks whenever the cleric has an opportunity to pray for a second.  

If you restrict it to one skill check per day of the player's choice, that actually means there's a decent chance that guidance will actually turn a failure into a success, which supports the "divine assistance" narrative a whole lot more.


----------



## TwoSix

GMforPowergamers said:


> mid dungeon crawl or in a combat heavy campaign I can see that... in a social or exploration heavey campaign you might make 200 skill checks before your first attack roll. I and a few others on here talk about social based D&D games where there is almost no combat.



Honestly, I see the most skill checks in dungeon crawls.  There's an awful lot of Investigation and Theives' Tools checks for locked doors, and searching for traps, Int skill checks to identify monsters, weird runes and carvings and statues, etc.


----------



## OB1

TwoSix said:


> Honestly, I see the most skill checks in dungeon crawls.  There's an awful lot of Investigation and Theives' Tools checks for locked doors, and searching for traps, Int skill checks to identify monsters, weird runes and carvings and statues, etc.



This made me realize that searching for and disarming traps makes the new Guidance much more risky for the caster in those situations.  Same with scouting ahead of the party.  Before you could Guide the rogue and then get out of the way before they made the attempt.  Now your tethered to them.  More risk/reward.  I'm liking this new implementation more and more.


----------



## tetrasodium

mellored said:


> Guidance only changes a 1 out of 10 rolls.
> 
> So you would need to be making 20+ skill checks a day for it to be anything like 'spam'.  And, in my experience, characters rarely do more than 5 skill checks a day (unless it's a rogue sneaking).
> 
> In a party or 5, that means you benefit twice per day.  So not worth the extra paperwork to track who got the benefits.
> 
> Also, I'm not put off if everyone keeps asking the cleric to come closer for guidance.



This scenario is quite possibly one of if not the most stilted against success with the current influence rules & the results are a cakewalk.  Guidance is a spell that's guaranteed to interact with other subsystems like influence/search/study/etc & usually doing so when the out of combat action cost is a complete nonissue.  A spell like that needs to be considered in the context of how it impacts those other subsystems.


Spoiler: imagine this Well known NPC Mayor









In *this *role....


  Bob is a bard with expertise in a relevant skill, +4 or +5 charisma, & nine levels under his belt.... He needs to roll a six after factoring the +15. * Reaction guidance brings that six down to 5 maximum or 3 to 4*(_technically 3.5)_ if you figure the average for a d4.. Since the mayor is an unsettling but potentially neutral or even friendly point of contact for Nation/Deity adjacent narrative space movers & shakers in the world the players have a seriously good chance of interacting with him socially without expecting combat.  The players are almost certain to be in ToTM so 10feet becomes anyone in the entire group unless the mayor engages in things to split the party apart in ways that trigger an "it's a trap" style reactions in players.


----------



## mellored

GMforPowergamers said:


> mid dungeon crawl or in a combat heavy campaign I can see that... in a social or exploration heavey campaign you might make 200 skill checks before your first attack roll. I and a few others on here talk about social based D&D games where there is almost no combat.



The suggestion was to limit it to a long rest.  Do you make 200 skill checks before a rest?

I mean, if you want to track it by use, then that's a bit different.

But still, it effectively has a built in "a creature can only benefit from this once evey 10 rolls".

If you think that's too much, it could be reduced to a +1.


----------



## ehren37

I hate that guidance is back to being spamable. Particularly since Bards have been nerfed down to "proficiency bonus per long rest" until level level 7!


----------



## James Gasik

The problem I saw with the 1/day Guidance is that this is a cantrip choice, you only get so many of those, and it's something that is mean to be used at will.  My main issue with Guidance is that it does have an effect on the game's math, and I'm not sure how the developers see it.

The Bard can hand out a limited number of d6's to party members as their class feature.  But divine casters can choose to hand out virtually unlimited d4's.  Is this intended?

Is it simply, arcane casters do d10 damage at will, divine casters hand out +1d4 on rolls?

Is the game's math assumed that you will almost always have Help/Guidance, the way Pathfinder 1e just assumes you're going to have key buffs on you in major encounters, like Haste?

What is the intent here?  As annoying as it is to have Divine casters shout out "Guidance!" any time someone makes a die roll, is this what they are supposed to be doing?

I'd have an easier time discussing this sort of thing if they'd release a podcast, blog, whatever, talking about the game's assumptions and the math.  I mean, wasn't Bounded Accuracy supposed to remove tiny bonuses all over the place, and just have Advantage/Disadvantage be the default?  Yet Bless, Resistance, Guidance, Bards, etc.- they seem to run counter to that idea.

And once you start nitpicking "well it has verbal components, it's obviously spellcasting", etc., that makes many spells actually worthless in play, it makes me wonder what the point is meant to be.  Are we supposed to handwave that stuff?  Or are things like Guidance or Friends supposed to be "sounds good, actually useless" spells?


----------



## tetrasodium

James Gasik said:


> The problem I saw with the 1/day Guidance is that this is a cantrip choice, you only get so many of those, and it's something that is mean to be used at will.  My main issue with Guidance is that it does have an effect on the game's math, and I'm not sure how the developers see it.
> 
> The Bard can hand out a limited number of d6's to party members as their class feature.  But divine casters can choose to hand out virtually unlimited d4's.  Is this intended?
> 
> Is it simply, arcane casters do d10 damage at will, divine casters hand out +1d4 on rolls?
> 
> Is the game's math assumed that you will almost always have Help/Guidance, the way Pathfinder 1e just assumes you're going to have key buffs on you in major encounters, like Haste?
> 
> What is the intent here?  As annoying as it is to have Divine casters shout out "Guidance!" any time someone makes a die roll, is this what they are supposed to be doing?
> 
> I'd have an easier time discussing this sort of thing if they'd release a podcast, blog, whatever, talking about the game's assumptions and the math.  I mean, wasn't Bounded Accuracy supposed to remove tiny bonuses all over the place, and just have Advantage/Disadvantage be the default?  Yet Bless, Resistance, Guidance, Bards, etc.- they seem to run counter to that idea.
> 
> And once you start nitpicking "well it has verbal components, it's obviously spellcasting", etc., that makes many spells actually worthless in play, it makes me wonder what the point is meant to be.  Are we supposed to handwave that stuff?  Or are things like Guidance or Friends supposed to be "sounds good, actually useless" spells?



Having guidance draw from DCC's luck attrib mechanics for inspiration might not be a bad limiter if Wotc's trying to avoid the track who had it thing.  Make guidance allow targets to trade attribute damage for a 1:1 bonus then roll a d6 to see which attrib they took the damage in after they commit.  That could be keyed to one or more long rests to recover & maybe even make it scale. "is _this_ the moment I'm aching to take that hit to succeed" is a good question to encourage players to consider with spammable no opportunity cost things like guidance.


----------



## James Gasik

tetrasodium said:


> Having guidance draw from DCC's luck attrib mechanics for inspiration might not be a bad limiter if Wotc's trying to avoid the track who had it thing.  Make guidance allow targets to trade attribute damage for a 1:1 bonus then roll a d6 to see which attrib they took the damage in after they commit.  That could be keyed to one or more long rests to recover & maybe even make it scale. "is _this_ the moment I'm aching to take that hit to succeed" is a good question to encourage players to consider with spammable no opportunity cost things like guidance.



Like I said, if I understood what the intent actually _was_, making adjustments (or not) would be a snap.  One idea I had was having Guidance cost Hit Dice (or even, roll your Hit Die and add it as a bonus to a die roll, as a nice buff for the fighting classes!).


----------



## ehren37

GMforPowergamers said:


> the only thing is the LAST one i didn't like the 1/day per person thing on a cantrip... it turned an at will into 2-4/day



1st level bards are only handing out a d6 twice per day *total*. Once per person per long (and per short rest at later levels) rest seems reasonable.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mellored said:


> The suggestion was to limit it to a long rest.  Do you make 200 skill checks before a rest?



again, it depends... we could in 1 night roleplay through a year (although most times 2-3 months) of social encounters while we would be half way through a dungeon crawl that was all 1 LR away... so that sesion we could use guidence a dozen times on social (lots of long rests) and once in the dungeon (no long rests)


mellored said:


> But still, it effectively has a built in "a creature can only benefit from this once evey 10 rolls".



how is that built in again, I am loseing you.


mellored said:


> If you think that's too much, it could be reduced to a +1.



I don't know what the fix is... but again I never minded it as is(2014 phb), so I don't know how to fix something I haven't found the break in.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ehren37 said:


> 1st level bards are only handing out a d6 twice per day *total*. Once per person per long (and per short rest at later levels) rest seems reasonable.



does it, because bards get that PLUS there cantrips... the cleric has to choose it AS A SLOTED CANTRIP...


----------



## ehren37

GMforPowergamers said:


> does it, because bards get that PLUS there cantrips... the cleric has to choose it AS A SLOTED CANTRIP...



I'm not sure getting sidegrade to a cleric cantrip as a major class defining feature is the benefit you think it is heh. 

My current house ruled version is below.

Joining hands with other willing creatures, you impart your god's wisdom and blessing. You may affect a number of creatures equal to your proficiency bonus plus your spellcasting modifier. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of their choice. The spell ends once the bonus is used, or the recipient completes a Short or Long Rest. At 5th, 11th and 17th level, the bonus becomes a d6, d8, and d10 respectively.

*Special:* Once a target benefits from Guidance, they may not benefit from further Guidance castings until they complete a Short or Long Rest.


----------



## tetrasodium

James Gasik said:


> Like I said, if I understood what the intent actually _was_, making adjustments (or not) would be a snap.  One idea I had was having Guidance cost Hit Dice (or even, roll your Hit Die and add it as a bonus to a die roll, as a nice buff for the fighting classes!).



Yes we are kinda guessing at intent of the change & lack of clues is making it tough to weigh in. Wrt hit dice cost though I'm not sure those would be effective. Sure it puts an upper limit on the use, but the limit really only matters early tier one before you hit an unlikely number of failed checks per long rest as things are... There are extraordinarily few things that consume hit dice & even having as few as zero unspent hit dice has no real impact on anything at all.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ehren37 said:


> I'm not sure getting sidegrade to a cleric cantrip as a major class defining feature is the benefit you think it is heh.



my argument is that both need to be rethought... so


----------



## Incenjucar

One D&D has so many ways to get extra cantrips that it's not even really a cost to dedicate a slot to it.
I could see making it a normal spell action that you can use to use the Help feature at a distance or something. Off-turn cantrips in general are already too easy to abuse.


----------



## Stalker0

GMforPowergamers said:


> the only thing is the LAST one i didn't like the 1/day per person thing on a cantrip... it turned an at will into 2-4/day



Maybe the better idea is to make it a unique 1st level kind of spell, what the special caveat that the first casting of the spell each day does not consume a spell slot.


----------



## Stalker0

mellored said:


> Guidance only changes a 1 out of 10 rolls.



To me its not the fact that guidance increases the odds of a DC 15 or 20 check that makes it so powerful. It's the fact that it suddenly puts DC 25 or DC 30 checks from "nearly impossible" to "distinctly in the realm of possibility".

5e's bounded accuracy is there for a reason, DC 25s and 30s are supposed to be extremely difficult, and near impossible for most characters to consider. But guidance completely changes things, 1st level characters with a cleric can accomplish DC 25 tasks, they don't even need proficiency in the skill! Sure its not often, but the second you open up the possibility, players will jump on it. Players will want to try, because hey, I can always roll that 20. That is way too much power for a freakin cantrip.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Stalker0 said:


> Maybe the better idea is to make it a unique 1st level kind of spell, what the special caveat that the first casting of the spell each day does not consume a spell slot.



I know it wont happen. What i want is ALL spells to just be rejigged, so when preped(or known for known classes) the spell can be at will, 1/sr then spell slot, or just spell slot.

Like if you prep detect magic you can do it at will no need to use a slot, if you prep this 1st level guidance you can cast it 1/ short rest for free but can use spell slots to do it again... tasha's laugh ALWAYS costs a slot...


----------



## Greg Benage

The question I'm increasingly asking myself: If the rationale for the _aid_ and _spiritual weapon_ nerfs is that they became "automatic" or "must-have" choices, what are the _bless_ and _spirit guardians_ nerfs going to look like?


----------



## ehren37

GMforPowergamers said:


> I know it wont happen. What i want is ALL spells to just be rejigged, so when preped(or known for known classes) the spell can be at will, 1/sr then spell slot, or just spell slot.
> 
> Like if you prep detect magic you can do it at will no need to use a slot, if you prep this 1st level guidance you can cast it 1/ short rest for free but can use spell slots to do it again... tasha's laugh ALWAYS costs a slot...



I actually like this idea a lot. It could be the basis for a simpler caster. "Here's some spells, you can cast them once per short rest. You can cast it again but you're burned out until you take a long rest". More "caster-y" than a warlock without the issue of having to pick invocations/pact/patron.


----------



## Stalker0

Greg Benage said:


> The question I'm increasingly asking myself: If the rationale for the _aid_ and _spiritual weapon_ nerfs is that they became "automatic" or "must-have" choices, what are the _bless_ and _spirit guardians_ nerfs going to look like?



This is my issue with the partial nature of the packet. If you ask me if spiritual weapon is good now, it’s a strong no.

But show me a scenario where bless and spirit guardians are also nerfed, and some other spells buffed and suddenly I might go “ok they are increasing the effective variety of the cleric, I can get behind this”.

That context is very important


----------



## mellored

GMforPowergamers said:


> how is that built in again, I am loseing you.



If you need to roll a 11 to succeed, then guidance is not used on 11 to 20.
And it's useless on a roll of 1 to 6.

So, it only works on rolls between 7,8,9, and 10.  It can only trigger on 20% of the rolls.
And then the d4 is not guaranteed to actually make the difference.

So, effectively, once every 10 rolls, you turn a failure into a success.

Really, people should be spamming the help action.  It's a lot more powerful.


----------



## Stalker0

mellored said:


> Really, people should be spamming the help action.  It's a lot more powerful.



1) help requires proficiency in the skill.
2) guidance stacks with help. Why settle for one when you can have both?
3) help does not make higher dcs possible like guidance does


----------



## mellored

Stalker0 said:


> To me its not the fact that guidance increases the odds of a DC 15 or 20 check that makes it so powerful. It's the fact that it suddenly puts DC 25 or DC 30 checks from "nearly impossible" to "distinctly in the realm of possibility".



Ok, well that's a bit different from spamming it.

Hmmm....

Guidance:  reaction.  When a player rolls an ability check with disadvantage, give them advantage on the check, canceling the disadvantage.


----------



## Greg Benage

Stalker0 said:


> ut show me a scenario where bless and spirit guardians are also nerfed, and some other spells buffed and suddenly I might go “ok they are increasing the effective variety of the cleric, I can get behind this”.



Yeah, that's how I'm starting to think about it. What would a _bless_ nerf need to look like for this _spiritual weapon_ to be a compelling option for my concentration. Probably a standard casting baseline of "one target, +1d4 to attack or save once per turn for the duration." _Spirit guardians _down to 1d8/save for half in the AoE. _Maybe _2d8 if you lose the movement debuff?


----------



## mellored

Stalker0 said:


> 1) help requires proficiency in the skill.
> 2) guidance stacks with help. Why settle for one when you can have both
> 3) help does not make higher dcs possible like guidance does



How about...

Guidance, action: as part of this spell you take the help action to assist with skill.  The target can reroll one of their dice.

Or perhaps 
Guidance, action: as part of this spell you take the help action to assist with skill.  The target can't roll less than twice your ability score.


----------



## Stalker0

mellored said:


> Ok, well that's a bit different from spamming it.
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> Guidance:  reaction.  When a player rolls an ability check with disadvantage, give them advantage on the check, canceling the disadvantage.



They could make it something simply like:

Range: 60, one target making a skill check gains the benefit of the help action.

Aka the benefit is the range and that you can help without needing proficiency, but otherwise it’s nothing another pc couldn’t do in most situations. That’s more cantrip appropriate to me. It’s still spammy but at least it’s not breaking bounded accuracy


----------



## mellored

Stalker0 said:


> They could make it something simply like:
> 
> Range: 60, one target making a skill check gains the benefit of the help action.
> 
> Aka the benefit is the range and that you can help without needing proficiency, but otherwise it’s nothing another pc couldn’t do in most situations. That’s more cantrip appropriate to me. It’s still spammy but at least it’s not breaking bounded accuracy



I'm not sure the range makes sense.

Being able to help without proficiency sounds good.  Doesn't stop the spam, but keeps bounded accuracy.


----------



## Stalker0

mellored said:


> I'm not sure the range makes sense.
> 
> Being able to help without proficiency sounds good.  Doesn't stop the spam, but keeps bounded accuracy.



Another option is you want to just remove the spam entirely.

Guidance - duration 8 hours, target: self
You are proficient in all skills for the purpose of the help action.


----------



## tetrasodium

mellored said:


> Ok, well that's a bit different from spamming it.
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> Guidance:  reaction.  When a player rolls an ability check with disadvantage, give them advantage on the check, canceling the disadvantage.



I'm not sure that it's so much "different" as one of the big reasons why spells & abilities like guidance or expertise simply _can't_ exist.  Barring a return of GM tools like the old bonus types & dm's best friend things like expertise & guidance are in direct conflict of the _apparent_ mathimatical underpinnings of oned&d.  Bounded accuracy is destroyed by their low or  no cost reliable application over & over & over again.  The DC ladder & target DC for hide & the new influence actions very much makes it look like wotc wants to keep bounded accuracy part of the core mathematic foundation but having both just results in a mess thrown on the gm with a "here, _you _make it work".  

That holds true _unless_ the target DC's are set to always assume both are in use.    A change where the DC's assume those (currently) BA busting spells & abilities are _always_ in use would even do a lot of good with room opening up for players to _need_ magic items from the GM & areas the GM can choose to fill without being limited to overloading monster math or DCs elsewhere.


----------



## Clint_L

The new iteration of guidance can't go live. It undermines the DM's ability to keep things secret because it can only triggers on a failure, meaning the DM has to tell you whether or not what you were attempting succeeded. But there are tons of situations where it's vital to the story that players don't know where an attempted action was successful. For example, if they are attempting to deceive someone.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Clint_L said:


> The new iteration of guidance can't go live. It undermines the DM's ability to keep things secret because it can only triggers on a failure, meaning the DM has to tell you whether or not what you were attempting succeeded. But there are tons of situations where it's vital to the story that players don't know where an attempted action was successful. For example, if they are attempting to deceive someone.



I don't know if that matters, doesn't the soul knife already have a feature that triggers off of failing a skill check.



> *Psi-Bolstered Knack.* When your nonpsionic training fails you, your psionic power can help: if you fail an ability check using a skill or tool with which you have proficiency, you can roll one Psionic Energy die and add the number rolled to the check, potentially turning failure into success. You expend the die only if the roll succeeds.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Greg Benage said:


> The question I'm increasingly asking myself: If the rationale for the _aid_ and _spiritual weapon_ nerfs is that they became "automatic" or "must-have" choices, what are the _bless_ and _spirit guardians_ nerfs going to look like?




Bless can just stay as it is. I am not so sure about spirit guardians.


----------



## Greg Benage

UngeheuerLich said:


> Bless can just stay as it is. I am not so sure about spirit guardians.



So you think _spiritual weapon _is a "must-have" spell in 5e, but _bless_ is not?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Stalker0 said:


> Another option is you want to just remove the spam entirely.
> 
> Guidance - duration 8 hours, target: self
> You are proficient in all skills for the purpose of the help action.




Make it last 1 minute and have it cost concentration and allow to take the help action from 30 ft, and now we are talking about the right power of a cantrip.

An 8 hour lasting cantrip would be a level 1 ritual...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Greg Benage said:


> So you think _spiritual weapon _is a "must-have" spell in 5e, but _bless_ is not?




Did I say that?
But spiritual weapon in 5e does not compete for your action nor your concentration.


----------



## Greg Benage

UngeheuerLich said:


> Did I say that?



No, but you were responding to my comment which took as its premise that the designers' stated reason for the spell changes is that they became "must-have" or "automatic" choices. So when you offered that _bless _could stay the same, the implication was that you didn't think it counted as a "must-have" or "automatic" choice, while _spiritual weapon _did. Thus, I asked a clarifying question. All good?


----------



## mellored

Greg Benage said:


> So you think _spiritual weapon _is a "must-have" spell in 5e, but _bless_ is not?



Bless and healing word are both compelling level 1 choices.

Weather you cast bless in your level 2 slot, or spiritual weapon, or more healing words is now a hard choice too.  Hold person can also be clutch in the right encounter.


----------



## Greg Benage

mellored said:


> Weather you cast bless in your level 2 slot, or spiritual weapon, or more healing words is now a hard choice too.



Forget slot, you think 5e _bless_ vs. 5.5e _spiritual weapon_ for your concentration is a compelling choice?


----------



## Clint_L

Greg Benage said:


> The question I'm increasingly asking myself: If the rationale for the _aid_ and _spiritual weapon_ nerfs is that they became "automatic" or "must-have" choices, what are the _bless_ and _spirit guardians_ nerfs going to look like?



Thinking more about it, _spiritual weapon_ got a _buff_, not a _nerf._ Because now if you cast it at a higher level it does an additional d8 for every additional level, twice as good as before. So you cast this using a 5th level slot, and you are getting an extra attack of 4d8+spellcasting modifier _as a bonus action._ While still being able to cast any spell you want as your main action. That is _incredible_ action economy, almost broken. So yeah, if you could do all that PLUS have, say _spirit guardians_ up all at once, that would be flat broken (like it currently kind of is, even without that buff). Making _spiritual weapon_ a concentration spell is basically the minimum they could do to keep it from being absurd.

Edit: they buffed the spell. But they are nerfing the combo. Good - that combo is ridiculous.


----------



## mellored

Greg Benage said:


> Forget slot, you think 5e _bless_ vs. 5.5e _spiritual weapon_ for your concentration is a compelling choice?



Depends.

If I got a 3 with lots of weapon damage, or I'm facing casters then bless is good.
If my party is all casting save spells and the enemy is all weapons, then spiritual weapon.


----------



## Greg Benage

Clint_L said:


> So you cast this using a 5th level slot, and you are getting an extra attack of 4d8+spellcasting modifier _as a bonus action._



Wow, or you could cast _summon celestial _instead...


----------



## Pauln6

Clint_L said:


> Thinking more about it, _spiritual weapon_ got a _buff_, not a _nerf._ Because now if you cast it at a higher level it does an additional d8 for every additional level, twice as good as before. So you cast this using a 5th level slot, and you are getting an extra attack of 4d8+spellcasting modifier _as a bonus action._ While still being able to cast any spell you want as your main action. That is _incredible_ action economy, almost broken. So yeah, if you could do all that PLUS have, say _spirit guardians_ up all at once, that would be flat broken (like it currently kind of is, even without that buff). Making _spiritual weapon_ a concentration spell is basically the minimum they could do to keep it from being absurd.
> 
> Edit: they buffed the spell. But they are nerfing the combo. Good - that combo is ridiculous.



You also get +1d8 to spell damage after level 7.


----------



## mellored

Greg Benage said:


> Forget slot, you think 5e _bless_ vs. 5.5e _spiritual weapon_ for your concentration is a compelling choice?



More specifically....

+1d4 to 3 attacks dealing 1d8+3 damage 
= 3*0.125 * 7.5 
= 2.8125 extra damage
Vs 
1 attack dealing 1d8+3 damage.
7.5 * 50% to hit + 4.5 * .05
= 3.975 extra damage
Vs +1d4 to 3 attacks dealing 2d6+3 damage
3*0.125 * 10
= 3.75 extra damage

So I was wrong
Spiritual Weapon does more damage than bless on 3 guys with mauls.  Though the extra save makes it still the better choice in that situation.


----------



## Clint_L

Greg Benage said:


> Wow, or you could cast _summon celestial _instead...



Would that be the _summon celestial_ that costs 500gp per cast, has 40 HP, and does slightly less average damage than that _spiritual weapon_ (which should have been 5d8+mod; nice catch Pauln6)? You're right, _spiritual weapon_ is WAY better. And it's a bonus action, even on the round that you cast it!

Edit: I feel like what's actually happening is that some folks who play clerics are getting salty that an obviously busted combo is getting corrected so that _spiritual weapon_ has gone from stupid good to merely really good. _Spiritual Weapons_ should always have been a concentration spell.


----------



## Greg Benage

mellored said:


> Spiritual Weapon does more damage than bless on 3 guys with mauls.



What if the three guys with mauls make more than one attack per round? Or are we only considering the spell for 3rd and 4th level?


----------



## mellored

Greg Benage said:


> What if the three guys with mauls make more than one attack per round? Or are we only considering the spell for 3rd and 4th level?



Am I increasing the level of spiritual weapon as well?  What about comparing it to spiritual guardian?

But yea.  Bless inherently scales with ally levels.  So at level 5+,  bless will do more than a level 2 spiritual weapon.  Even with 1d8 allies.

Similar to shield being the go-to level 1 arcane spell.


----------



## Greg Benage

Clint_L said:


> Would that be the _summon celestial_ that costs 500gp per cast, has 40 HP, and does slightly less average damage than that _spiritual weapon_ (which should have been 5d8+mod; nice catch Pauln6)? You're right, _spiritual weapon_ is WAY better. And it's a bonus action, even on the round that you cast it!



The _summon celestial _in my version of the game doesn't consume the component, and a one-time cost of 500gp typically isn't a problem for 9th+ level characters in my games. The 40 hp is awesome, because it implies the celestial can do something more useful than simple DPR, i.e. tank damage that someone in the party would otherwise take. It can control its space and deal opportunity attacks. It can be buffed, which is especially great with auras. It deals melee or ranged radiant damage every round for an *hour *at no action economy cost at all, and can also grant temp hp and heal. Note that it takes an action to cast, but then the celestial takes its turn right after yours and can immediately take its two attacks per round. It can _also _be upcast, but it actually scales well: for example, when I cast it at 6th level, it gets three attacks per round.

I know we can get invested in our arguments, but c'mon, man.


----------



## Greg Benage

mellored said:


> But yea. Bless inherently scales with ally levels. So at level 5+, bless will do more than a level 2 spiritual weapon. Even with 1d8 allies.



Yes, that was my only point, so your own comparison would imply that it's a compelling choice at 3rd and 4th character levels, but wouldn't be thereafter. That seems about right, though it's clearly less compelling to me even at 3rd and 4th character level.


----------



## Pauln6

Stalker0 said:


> They could make it something simply like:
> 
> Range: 60, one target making a skill check gains the benefit of the help action.
> 
> Aka the benefit is the range and that you can help without needing proficiency, but otherwise it’s nothing another pc couldn’t do in most situations. That’s more cantrip appropriate to me. It’s still spammy but at least it’s not breaking bounded accuracy



I think that enhancing the Help action so that you don't need proficiency in the skill to grant advantage seems pretty thematic and potentially useful, plus slightly better than the non magical help action. Plus it should only apply to a task once: if you cannot listen to the wisdom of the gods to succeed then the gods cannot help you further. I would probably bring the range down to 30 feet or the same as the Rogue subclass.


----------



## mellored

Greg Benage said:


> Yes, that was my only point, so your own comparison would imply that it's a compelling choice at 3rd and 4th character levels, but wouldn't be thereafter. That seems about right, though it's clearly less compelling to me even at 3rd and 4th character level.



Well, I also assumed you cast before battle, since bless takes an action but you can sw + cantrip.
And I also assumed you did not have other competition for your bonus action (healing word).

But yeah.  I don't see a lot of reason to up cast spiritual weapon.  Probably use spiritual guardian in your 3rd slot against groups.  Healing word in your 2nd, and bless in 1st against solo or casters.


----------



## Greg Benage

mellored said:


> But yeah. I don't see a lot of reason to up cast spiritual weapon. Probably use spiritual guardian in your 3rd slot against groups. Healing word in your 2nd, and bless in 1st against solo or casters.



This is exactly where I land when we start talking about actual "must-have" cleric spells. _Bless_, _healing word_, _spirit guardians_ and probably _revivify. _You could do a replacement-level job of clericking in 5e with just those spells. So if "must-have" is your guiding design consideration, this is where I'd expect the nerf bat to fall.


----------



## mellored

Greg Benage said:


> This is exactly where I land when we start talking about actual "must-have" cleric spells. _Bless_, _healing word_, _spirit guardians_ and probably _revivify. _You could do a replacement-level job of clericking in 5e with just those spells. So if "must-have" is your guiding design consideration, this is where I'd expect the nerf bat to fall.



Stuff like Blindness/Deafness and incite greed can be more powerful if they land.

I just don't like all or nothing spells.

like if hold person started with restrained, and then roll to see if they are paralyzed or free over the next turn or 2.  Or something.


----------



## James Gasik

tetrasodium said:


> Yes we are kinda guessing at intent of the change & lack of clues is making it tough to weigh in. Wrt hit dice cost though I'm not sure those would be effective. Sure it puts an upper limit on the use, but the limit really only matters early tier one before you hit an unlikely number of failed checks per long rest as things are... There are extraordinarily few things that consume hit dice & even having as few as zero unspent hit dice has no real impact on anything at all.



Don't you only regain half your Hit Dice with a long rest though?  So at some point continued use of Guidance would be problematic.


----------



## tetrasodium

James Gasik said:


> Don't you only regain half your Hit Dice with a long rest though?  So at some point continued use of Guidance would be problematic.



Not anymore...


Spoiler: Cleric packet Long rest rules



LONG REST 
A Long Rest is a period of extended downtime—
at least 8 hours long—available to any creature. 
During a Long Rest, you sleep for at least 6 hours 
and perform no more than 2 hours of light 
activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or 
standing watch. 
BENEFITS OF THE REST 
To start a Long Rest, you must have at least 1 Hit 
Point. *When you finish the rest, you gain the 
following benefits: 
Regain All HP. You regain all lost Hit Points. 
Regain All HD. You regain all spent Hit Dice. 
HP Max Restored. If your Hit Point Maximum 
was reduced, it returns to normal. 
Ability Scores Restored. If any of your Ability 
Scores were reduced, they return to normal. 
Exhaustion Reduced. If you are Exhausted, 
your level of exhaustion decreases by 1. *
 After you finish a Long Rest, you must wait at 
least 16 hours before starting another one. 
INTERRUPTING THE REST 
A Long Rest is stopped by the following 
interruptions: 
• Combat 
• Casting a spell other than a 0-level spell 
• 1 hour of walking or other physical exertion 
If the rest was at least 1 hour long before the 
interruption, you gain the benefits of a Short 
Rest. 
 You can resume a Long Rest immediately after 
an interruption. If you do so, the rest requires 1 
additional hour to finish per interruption.


----------



## Dausuul

Greg Benage said:


> The _summon celestial _in my version of the game doesn't consume the component, and a one-time cost of 500gp typically isn't a problem for 9th+ level characters in my games. The 40 hp is awesome, because it implies the celestial can do something more useful than simple DPR, i.e. tank damage that someone in the party would otherwise take. It can control its space and deal opportunity attacks. It can be buffed, which is especially great with auras. It deals melee or ranged radiant damage every round for an *hour *at no action economy cost at all, and can also grant temp hp and heal. Note that it takes an action to cast, but then the celestial takes its turn right after yours and can immediately take its two attacks per round. It can _also _be upcast, but it actually scales well: for example, when I cast it at 6th level, it gets three attacks per round.



You can also use it as a flying mount.


----------



## James Gasik

tetrasodium said:


> Not anymore...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Cleric packet Long rest rules
> 
> 
> 
> LONG REST
> A Long Rest is a period of extended downtime—
> at least 8 hours long—available to any creature.
> During a Long Rest, you sleep for at least 6 hours
> and perform no more than 2 hours of light
> activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or
> standing watch.
> BENEFITS OF THE REST
> To start a Long Rest, you must have at least 1 Hit
> Point. *When you finish the rest, you gain the
> following benefits:
> Regain All HP. You regain all lost Hit Points.
> Regain All HD. You regain all spent Hit Dice.
> HP Max Restored. If your Hit Point Maximum
> was reduced, it returns to normal.
> Ability Scores Restored. If any of your Ability
> Scores were reduced, they return to normal.
> Exhaustion Reduced. If you are Exhausted,
> your level of exhaustion decreases by 1. *
> After you finish a Long Rest, you must wait at
> least 16 hours before starting another one.
> INTERRUPTING THE REST
> A Long Rest is stopped by the following
> interruptions:
> • Combat
> • Casting a spell other than a 0-level spell
> • 1 hour of walking or other physical exertion
> If the rest was at least 1 hour long before the
> interruption, you gain the benefits of a Short
> Rest.
> You can resume a Long Rest immediately after
> an interruption. If you do so, the rest requires 1
> additional hour to finish per interruption.



Oh well, huh.  So much for that, I guess, unless more uses for Hit Dice show up (like the Black Robe Wizard).


----------



## tetrasodium

James Gasik said:


> Oh well, huh.  So much for that, I guess, unless more uses for Hit Dice show up (like the Black Robe Wizard).



What is the black robe wizard?

Edit:  I think they might be going for using exertion as the gotta tip the devil & the devil won _that_ fiddle contestmechanic since it only recovers one point on a LR unless you are a level 11+ ranger for one more.  Linking guidance to an exhaustion hit for that d4 would probably balance it


----------



## James Gasik

tetrasodium said:


> What is the black robe wizard?



Oh it's a level 1 Feat from the new Dragonlance stuff; you gain the ability to spend Hit Dice to deal extra damage to a target who fails a save against one of your spells that deal damage.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

tetrasodium said:


> What is the black robe wizard?



when you deal damage with a spell on a failed save you can spend a HD roll it and add it to damage...

my go to evil thought is disintegrate


> this spell must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage



take a level or two of fighter (make it 3 take eldritch knight and you only lost 2 caster levels) and you can throw an extra d10 on there.


----------



## James Gasik

GMforPowergamers said:


> when you deal damage with a spell on a failed save you can spend a HD roll it and add it to damage...
> 
> my go to evil thought is disintegrate
> 
> take a level or two of fighter (make it 3 take eldritch knight and you only lost 2 caster levels) and you can throw an extra d10 on there.



Granted, the wording could use some work.  As written, you could use it with something like Wrathful Smite, and it's not clear if that's intended.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

James Gasik said:


> Granted, the wording could use some work.  As written, you could use it with something like Wrathful Smite, and it's not clear if that's intended.



yeah paly/warlock is bad enough, throw in this feat is down right evil


----------



## Stalker0

Clint_L said:


> Would that be the _summon celestial_ that costs 500gp per cast, has 40 HP, and does slightly less average damage than that _spiritual weapon_ (which should have been 5d8+mod; nice catch Pauln6)? You're right, _spiritual weapon_ is WAY better. And it's a bonus action, even on the round that you cast it!



1) The 500 gp is a 1 time cost, not ongoing.

2) The celestial gets 2 attacks. Its doing 2d6 + 7, or 4d6 + 14, so roughly 8d6 damage, just sliiightly more than the 5d8 + 5 of spiritual weapon.


----------



## Clint_L

Stalker0 said:


> 1) The 500 gp is a 1 time cost, not ongoing.
> 
> 2) The celestial gets 2 attacks. Its doing 2d6 + 7, or 4d6 + 14, so roughly 8d6 damage, just sliiightly more than the 5d8 + 5 of spiritual weapon



[deleted]


----------



## Gorck

Stalker0 said:


> 1) The 500 gp is a 1 time cost, not ongoing.



I'm not necessarily taking a side in this argument, but i wanted to point out the the 500gp cost isn't just 500gp or 500gp-worth of gems.  It's specifically a "golden reliquary," the availability of which is DM dependent.  The group's Cleric might not be able to simply stroll on down to the corner store and pick one up.  That is all; please continue this lively debate.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

mellored said:


> More specifically....
> 
> +1d4 to 3 attacks dealing 1d8+3 damage
> = 3*0.125 * 7.5
> = 2.8125 extra damage
> Vs
> 1 attack dealing 1d8+3 damage.
> 7.5 * 50% to hit + 4.5 * .05
> = 3.975 extra damage
> Vs +1d4 to 3 attacks dealing 2d6+3 damage
> 3*0.125 * 10
> = 3.75 extra damage
> 
> So I was wrong
> Spiritual Weapon does more damage than bless on 3 guys with mauls.  Though the extra save makes it still the better choice in that situation.




You did not factor in the initial vost of 1 action to activate. So another advantage for spiritual weapon.

Oh, and bless got a little downgrade by removing the - 5/+10 feats, where it was helping to remove the penalty.


----------



## Greg Benage

UngeheuerLich said:


> Oh, and bless got a little downgrade by removing the - 5/+10 feats, where it was helping to remove the penalty.




Good example of how it’s so hard to really evaluate these little changes without the full context.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Greg Benage said:


> The question I'm increasingly asking myself: If the rationale for the _aid_ and _spiritual weapon_ nerfs is that they became "automatic" or "must-have" choices, what are the _bless_ and _spirit guardians_ nerfs going to look like?



If we haven't seen the nerf Spirit Guardians needed then the only other one it possibly needs is called "Not allowing the defense action while it's up". The buff it's already had is called "Not allowing it to stack with Spiritual Weapon, allowing the cleric to simultaneously have great single target and significant AoE damage." Spirit Guardians basically requires you to get into the face of your enemies in order to do half a fireball's damage per round until you fail a concentration check. By level 7 (8 in 5e) that 3d8 is the same damage you're doing with Sacred Flame (although SG does do half damage on a save) and about half the damage output of a fireball per round. Spirit Guardians might be the star - but it's stacking with Spiritual Weapon that pushes it over the top.

Aid by contrast worked as a poor man's Mass Healing Word - and I think that's what they've stopped. It's either temp hit points or a one minute casting time so you can't use it in combat.

And Bless? I expect Bless to be unchanged. It might be powerful, but it's also a team spell that doesn't make the cleric the star of the show unlike the way Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon stacked.


----------



## Willie the Duck

Greg Benage said:


> Good example of how it’s so hard to really evaluate these little changes without the full context.



Also points out we need to know if other classes are taking power cuts or not. I am all in favor of the _Spirit Guardians/Spiritual Weapon_ combo not being the go-to option for tier-2 clerics* (gets old quickly), but at the same time are clerics** the most overvalued class in the game, particularly among the full casters? If such spells are being cut, does the rest of the cleric rework speak to commensurate power increases elsewhere (and if not, do we think that's bringing clerics closer to a baseline)?
*who are in a position to burn two spells per combat
**particularly not standout archetypes like Twilight

Edit: At some point here when I have time I'll add my overall thoughts on these changes.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Willie the Duck said:


> Also points out we need to know if other classes are taking power cuts or not. I am all in favor of the _Spirit Guardians/Spiritual Weapon_ combo not being the go-to option for tier-2 clerics* (gets old quickly), but at the same time are clerics** the most overvalued class in the game, particularly among the full casters? If such spells are being cut, does the rest of the cleric rework speak to commensurate power increases elsewhere (and if not, do we think that's bringing clerics closer to a baseline)?
> *who are in a position to burn two spells per combat
> **particularly not standout archetypes like Twilight
> 
> Edit: At some point here when I have time I'll add my overall thoughts on these changes.



We've certainly seen _some_ of the rework for other classes. In particular for feats among martials - and what's happened is that the big centralising OP combos (Great Weapon Master + accuracy buff, PAM + Spear + Shield, PAM + Sentinel comboing for lockdown out of reach, Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert) have all been nerfed while everything that wasn't top tier has been either kept steady or buffed.

The cleric has been surgically targeted with a single nerf to its OP combo (and a second nerf to a spell that was functioning in unintended ways). And the part that was targeted was the part that combos with literally anything the cleric does rather than the more powerful seeming part. (It's also been targeted with a second probably minor nerf round memorising into spell slots). 

The baseline intended seems to be basically where the cleric was without this one OP combo. Possibly higher or possibly just more flexible thanks to the new Orders. (And even Twilight probably doesn't now need much of a nerf; even the regenerating temp hit points are far less oppressive at level 6 than they were at level 2, and the heavy armour + weapon prof is now available to everyone).


----------



## Willie the Duck

Neonchameleon said:


> We've certainly seen _some_ of the rework for other classes. In particular for feats among martials - and what's happened is that the big centralising OP combos (Great Weapon Master + accuracy buff, PAM + Spear + Shield, PAM + Sentinel comboing for lockdown out of reach, Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert) have all been nerfed while everything that wasn't top tier has been either kept steady or buffed.
> 
> The cleric has been surgically targeted with a single nerf to its OP combo (and a second nerf to a spell that was functioning in unintended ways). And the part that was targeted was the part that combos with literally anything the cleric does rather than the more powerful seeming part. (It's also been targeted with a second probably minor nerf round memorising into spell slots).
> 
> The baseline intended seems to be basically where the cleric was without this one OP combo. Possibly higher or possibly just more flexible thanks to the new Orders. (And even Twilight probably doesn't now need much of a nerf; even the regenerating temp hit points are far less oppressive at level 6 than they were at level 2, and the heavy armour + weapon prof is now available to everyone).



Tend to agree -- not just feats but also nuanced 'tricks' like getting rid of sneak attacks as reactions or with SCAGtrips or the like. The point about SW being the one that works with other effects is good.


----------



## billd91

OB1 said:


> Maybe a better implementation would be to only give the creature a 2nd save before they are perma-banished at the end of the minute?



Not sure that’s much of an improvement. One of 5e banishment‘s significant strengths is the caster was in charge of when the banished creature returned (barring loss of concentration). So it worked really well as a way to temporarily shunt off a combatant and then let all your buddies prepare held attacks for when you dropped the spell and the combatant returned. A second save to avoid being deported back home may allow you to come back, but the known duration still gives the cleric!s buddies a chance to prep a coordinated welcome on your return.

The repeated save provides for uncertainty In the return timing. That’s good and a reduction in the spell‘s power. But I agree with Xamnam it may be too much since a number of things you might want to banish are magic resistant and have advantage on those saves - making them REAL hard to actually banish with multiple saves.


----------



## billd91

I am far less bothered by the spamability of guidance than I am by it being a reaction. I’ve found we can control the spamming by emphasizing how obvious and prior to the guided check it has to be. I don‘t let them say “oh, wait, guidance!” after the other player has made the roll. If they try to use it around others, it’s clear they‘re invoking divine blessing like Father Mulcahy blessing a jeep (It ain’t subtle).


----------



## Clint_L

Willie the Duck said:


> Also points out we need to know if other classes are taking power cuts or not. I am all in favor of the _Spirit Guardians/Spiritual Weapon_ combo not being the go-to option for tier-2 clerics* (gets old quickly), but at the same time are clerics** the most overvalued class in the game, particularly among the full casters? If such spells are being cut, does the rest of the cleric rework speak to commensurate power increases elsewhere (and if not, do we think that's bringing clerics closer to a baseline)?
> *who are in a position to burn two spells per combat
> **particularly not standout archetypes like Twilight
> 
> Edit: At some point here when I have time I'll add my overall thoughts on these changes.



Clerics were already one of the best classes in the game, and not being able to run those two spells at the same time doesn't change that. And Divine Spark is a baseline buff.

I'm pretty sure clerics will be just fine without that cheesy combo.


----------



## Stalker0

billd91 said:


> Not sure that’s much of an improvement. One of 5e banishment‘s significant strengths is the caster was in charge of when the banished creature returned (barring loss of concentration).



Yeah probably the better way to go with Banishment is....if they come back have them come back in a random 150 feet direction away from the original spot. That greatly reduces the chance of a party mass readied action kill fest on the creature, gives it a little breathing room to come back into the fight.


----------



## Willie the Duck

Clint_L said:


> Clerics were already one of the best classes in the game, and not being able to run those two spells at the same time doesn't change that. And Divine Spark is a baseline buff.
> 
> I'm pretty sure clerics will be just fine without that cheesy combo.



I didn't say anything to suggest they wouldn't. My point was I wanted to know if the general down powering was going to be consistent and/or if the devs were intending there to be a commensurate boost elsewhere. As Neonchameleon pointed out, there seems to be a general trend towards clipping the combos without boosts elsewhere. If there were a class I am worried about losing their power combos, it would be rogue (no more procing SA on reactions or with SCAGtrips, etc.). 

All this makes me super curious to see what happens with fighters/barbarians on one end and wizards on the other.


----------



## Stalker0

Clint_L said:


> Clerics were already one of the best classes in the game, and not being able to run those two spells at the same time doesn't change that.



Its widely considered one of the worst in my group. Everyone finds them painfully boring, most of the time when a player starts playing a cleric, they want to switch classes after a while.

The general argument has been, if you want to play a warrior with divine magic, go paladin. You want a support character, bard is so much more interesting. You want real magic, play a wizard or even a druid. The cleric is just meh.


----------



## Clint_L

Dunno what to tell you. Look at any large poll ranking the classes and you will find clerics near the top. And I don't think clerics have been down-powered, is my point. They lost one combo that always felt like a mistake (_spiritual weapon_ always seemed like it should have been a concentration spell), but they gained a really good new ability and a few other quality of life upgrades. A strong class stayed strong. 

And one example of a broken combo being nerfed is not an indicator of a "general" trend, so I'm not sure what rogues, already considered much weaker than clerics, have to do with it.


----------



## Greg Benage

Willie the Duck said:


> Also points out we need to know if other classes are taking power cuts or not. [/SIZE]




It seems as though they may be trying to reduce optimized DPR a bit. If so, a 1d8 extra attack might have more value than it does in 5e.

It also looks like clerics will lose at least some flexibility in spell preparation, and I’d expect to see something similar for other casters.


----------



## James Gasik

Greg Benage said:


> It seems as though they may be trying to reduce optimized DPR a bit. If so, a 1d8 extra attack might have more value than it does in 5e.
> 
> It also looks like clerics will lose at least some flexibility in spell preparation, and I’d expect to see something similar for other casters.



That loss in flexibility is going to be painful too, given that a large chunk of the spell list consists of "necessary spells that are rarely needed, but critical when required".


----------



## Mistwell

mellored said:


> Then why would anyone play a wizard if the clerics got better damage and healing?



Er because wizards are the swiss army knife of the game? They're they utility class, able to cover just about anything needed with some time. They're not primary damage dealers.


----------



## mellored

Mistwell said:


> They're not primary damage dealers.



Neither are clerics.


----------



## Greg Benage

James Gasik said:


> That loss in flexibility is going to be painful too, given that a large chunk of the spell list consists of "necessary spells that are rarely needed, but critical when required".




Almost back to Vancian with preparation locked to spell levels. I don’t think it’s crazy to claim casters needed a nerf. And I’m the kind of player who’s run a no-caster campaign so I think I’m least likely to be bothered by it…but hoo boy they’re inciting rebellion.

Really interesting to see what looks like a 180 from the design direction in Tasha’s in many respects. It wasn’t that long ago!


----------



## James Gasik

Greg Benage said:


> Almost back to Vancian with preparation locked to spell levels. I don’t think it’s crazy to claim casters needed a nerf. And I’m the kind of player who’s run a no-caster campaign so I think I’m least likely to be bothered by it…but hoo boy they’re inciting rebellion.
> 
> Really interesting to see what looks like a 180 from the design direction in Tasha’s in many respects. It wasn’t that long ago!



I don't mind casters being nerfed.  What I mind is when I have to prepare a bunch of spells to heal and deal with various status conditions that might come up in game, because I'm the one with access to those spells.

The game really could use non-magical methods to deal with poisons, diseases, curses, and detrimental status effects of all kinds, that are readily available to everyone, so it's not just the Cleric (or Druid's, I suppose) job!  Especially if the game is supposed to be playable without a dedicated healer.


----------



## Greg Benage

James Gasik said:


> I don't mind casters being nerfed. What I mind is when I have to prepare a bunch of spells to heal and deal with various status conditions that might come up in game, because I'm the one with access to those spells.




Perhaps a (large) majority of groups just deal with that stuff after their one fight of the day. In that case, you don’t need to prepare any of those spells - you’re good with healing word.

I don’t see any evidence that they’re not still designing a resource management game that most of their players (and most of their published adventures, tbf) avoid engaging.


----------



## Clint_L

Sorry, I'm not seeing where casters are being nerfed. One spell (_spiritual hammer_) was buffed to scale better, but an exploit was fixed that doesn't allow it to be stacked with concentration spells; most people already felt that this was a problem with it. Banishment definitely got a nerf, but again it was seen as very broken and a no-brainer choice. On the other hand, other spells are getting buffed to make them more advantageous. It's way too soon to claim that spell casters are getting nerfed overall; from what little we've seen it feels like more of a wash as WotC attempts to make spells more balanced, just as they are doing with feats.

It's possible that better balance will feel like a nerf, but then it will affect all classes because it is also happening to things like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. On the other hand, there are folks claiming that OneD&D is causing power creep. I think it's too early to tell, but none of the changes seem earthshaking to me thus far.


----------



## Mistwell

mellored said:


> Neither are clerics.



True, but why must wizards do more damage than clerics given clerics have less utility than wizards?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Mistwell said:


> True, but why must wizards do more damage than clerics given clerics have less utility than wizards?



First do clerics have less utility than wizards? Healing is pretty huge utility.

Second clerics are a whole lot tougher - more hit points, better armour, can self-heal.


----------



## Mistwell

Neonchameleon said:


> First do clerics have less utility than wizards? Healing is pretty huge utility.
> 
> Second clerics are a whole lot tougher - more hit points, better armour, can self-heal.



Yes, clerics have less utility than wizards. Utility is the wizards theme. It's not the theme for clerics. That has born out in practice, and not just for this edition. As you mention, healing is the theme of clerics - which is useful but focused and not utility.

Yes, clerics are tougher - in that they're expected to be in the mix and taking hits, unlike wizards are expected to stay in a back line out of direct trouble.

So I ask again, why shouldn't clerics do as much or more damage than wizards, particularly single-target direct damage?


----------



## mellored

Mistwell said:


> True, but why must wizards do more damage than clerics given clerics have less utility than wizards?



Clerics have betted armor and hit dice.  More defense should come along with less offense.

Sorcerers should do more damage IMO.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Mistwell said:


> Yes, clerics have less utility than wizards. Utility is the wizards theme. It's not the theme for clerics. That has born out in practice, and not just for this edition.



As I say _healing is pretty huge utility._ It's big enough that it even gets put into its own category. When you discount healing clerics have less utility - but wizards don't heal.


Mistwell said:


> Yes, clerics are tougher - in that they're expected to be in the mix and taking hits, unlike wizards are expected to stay in a back line out of direct trouble.
> 
> So I ask again, why shouldn't clerics do as much or more damage than wizards, particularly single-target direct damage?



Because wizards have better utility but clerics are tougher _and _can heal. And Clerics have very good utility - it comes with being a spellcaster.

Why should clerics be good at literally everything? Shouldn't every class be able to point to a weakness?


----------



## Mistwell

mellored said:


> Clerics have betted armor and hit dice.  More defense should come along with less offense.
> 
> Sorcerers should do more damage IMO.



Why should more defense come with less offense, since more defense along with a lot of close up healing requires they be put in more direct danger more often?

And sure, sorcerers should do more damage but we're not talking about that right now. Why shouldn't clerics do more damage than wizards, particularly single-target direct damage?


----------



## Mistwell

Neonchameleon said:


> As I say _healing is pretty huge utility._ It's big enough that it even gets put into its own category. When you discount healing clerics have less utility - but wizards don't heal.
> 
> Because wizards have better utility but clerics are tougher _and _can heal. And Clerics have very good utility - it comes with being a spellcaster.
> 
> Why should clerics be good at literally everything? Shouldn't every class be able to point to a weakness?



Healing is focused, not across the board. We're using utility in this context to mean not useful, but swiss-army-knife "thing for every occasion" which is something healing simply isn't.

Clerics healing is great for the party but truly a bit of a burden for the player - it's not like utility is more like duty. They're tougher BECAUSE they are expected to heal and get in the mix and not stand back.

Clerics definitely are not good at literally everything. They're not good at utility. They don't do area damage well, they don't do utility things like levitating or opening locks or locating traps or teleporting or putting up force walls or solving for any of the dozens of things wizards do.

Why shouldn't clerics do direct single-target damage better than wizards, given wizards do almost everything better than them in terms of utility?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Mistwell said:


> Healing is focused, not across the board. We're using utility in this context to mean not useful, but swiss-army-knife "thing for every occasion" which is something healing simply isn't.



Hit point healing is focused. But there is broader healing. Things like curing poison and disease, creating food, or raising people from the dead.


Mistwell said:


> Clerics definitely are not good at literally everything. They're not good at utility. They don't do area damage well,



Which is the point.


Mistwell said:


> they don't do utility things like levitating or opening locks or



They can certainly make it easier


Mistwell said:


> locating traps



Oh no?


Mistwell said:


> or teleporting or putting up force walls or solving for any of the dozens of things wizards do.



They do a lot of solving. The only thing you've mentioned that wizards get that clerics don't relates to mobility.


Mistwell said:


> Why shouldn't clerics do direct single-target damage better than wizards, given wizards do almost everything better than them in terms of utility?



Because clerics have more utility than you realise, do more baseline damage (by d8), are tougher, buff better, and have better healing.

Clerics might not have _the best_ utility, but they have _excellent_ utility. They also have very good toughness, excellent _baseline_ damage, the best healing, and excellent buffing. Other than their damage clerics are incredible all-rounders, the best at some things and at least second tier at literally everything.

Wizards have probably the best utility. They also have the _worst_ durability, relatively low baseline damage (bards are the worst), zero healing, and average buffing.

Or, to put things another way, the cleric package when you aren't casting a levelled spell is better - both for the cantrips and for weapon attacks and for durability (and they get things like channel). And clerics get areas of magic wizards can't touch; when they overlap wizards should normally be better.

Why do you think that the literal only comparison that matters should be non-healing utility?


----------



## Mistwell

Neonchameleon said:


> Because clerics have more utility than you realise, do more baseline damage (by d8), are tougher, buff better, and have better healing.





Oh it's just I don't understand (realize)?

I've been playing a cleric in 5e for 5 years now. I also played a wizard for about that same amount of time. I assure you, I understand just fine. The cleric, hands down, has far less utility than the wizard. They are tougher, and heal better. They don't even buff better, except in the most simplistic (direct) ways but they don't do battlefield control very well which means they don't do the more powerful buffs to the entire party like the wizard.



Neonchameleon said:


> Clerics might not have _the best_ utility, but they have _excellent_ utility.



Relative to the wizard, it's pretty meh.



Neonchameleon said:


> They also have very good toughness, excellent _baseline_ damage, the best healing, and excellent buffing. Other than their damage clerics are incredible all-rounders, the best at some things and at least second tier at literally everything.




Please do tell me what you think their "excellent baseline damage" is? Because in my experience a chunk of their baseline damage (which was never great) just got heavily nerfed (Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon). Which itself was boring but at least it was fairly consistently OK. Now it's not even that.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Mistwell said:


> Oh it's just I don't understand (realize)?
> 
> I've been playing a cleric in 5e for 5 years now. I also played a wizard for about that same amount of time. I assure you, I understand just fine. The cleric, hands down, has far less utility than the wizard. They are tougher, and heal better. They don't even buff better, except in the most simplistic (direct) ways but they don't do battlefield control very well which means they don't do the more powerful buffs to the entire party like the wizard.
> 
> 
> Relative to the wizard, it's pretty meh.



Now try the other classes. Cleric on utility easily beats pre-Tasha's sorcerer, fighter, barbarian, pre-Tasha's ranger, paladin. And challenges both warlock and druid. Yes, I left the rogue out of the comparison because what it does is so different.

Wizards are the absolute best at utility. No one disputes that. We're just asking why you want to make blast wizards crap and to buff one of the most self sufficient and all round powerful classes in the game


Mistwell said:


> Please do tell me what you think their "excellent baseline damage" is? Because in my experience a chunk of their baseline damage (which was never great) just got heavily nerfed (Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon). Which itself was boring but at least it was fairly consistently OK. Now it's not even that.



Baseline = not spending a levelled spell or other limited use ability. They get the extra d8, putting them ahead of wizards, sorcerers, bards, and druids even if not warlocks or martials.

Short version: before pushing for buffs you need a better argument than "One of the strongest classes in the game isn't as good as the wizard at the wizard's area of expertise".


----------



## Mistwell

Neonchameleon said:


> Now try the other classes.



Do you really think I have not? I mean, you and I have discussed played 5e for a decade now, dating back to the early playtest. Did you really think, what, challenging my experience with 5e was the right challenge to be making in this thread? Because if so, this discussion probably needs to end.


----------



## Maxperson

Galandris said:


> Constantly muttering prayers while holding a rosary is absolutely not suspect. Having a religious friend besides you isn't either. In both these cases we don't mind in real life. The only thing that might give it is if your religious friend is knotted to you by a 10' rope.



If you're muttering, the spell automatically fails. 

"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion."

That's very audible and clear, so if the Count can understand the language that the cleric is praying in, he's going to understand, "Oh highest god, help my friend persuade the count to do as we wish." or whatever the prayer is.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Mistwell said:


> Do you really think I have not? I mean, you and I have discussed played 5e for a decade now, dating back to the early playtest. Did you really think, what, challenging my experience with 5e was the right challenge to be making in this thread? Because if so, this discussion probably needs to end.



I meant try comparing the cleric to other classes. Because so far as I can tell you're saying "Wizards are better at this one aspect of the game they focus on than clerics despite the fact clerics are pretty good at it therefore clerics should be buffed".


----------



## James Gasik

Ok so, Clerics.  Clerics have less utility than Wizards, and do less damage.  The reason they have less utility and deal damage is because they have better defenses (slightly more hit points, better AC without investment).  Of course, to use the utility and damage they do have requires them to be in melee range, where, presumably, they're going to be targeted more, especially by enemies who recognize that they have the ability to heal.

I don't know, I think at that point, "better defense" feels kind of zero sum, since you only have to have it because it was decided that Clerics shouldn't have much range on their spells.

The real reason to make Cleric damage and utility options weaker than the Wizard's is because otherwise, you'd be using them and not being the party healbot, lol.  It sounds like backhanded niche reinforcement to me.


----------



## Neonchameleon

James Gasik said:


> Of course, to use the utility and damage they do have requires them to be in melee range, where, presumably, they're going to be targeted more, especially by enemies who recognize that they have the ability to heal.



How much actually _does_ require them to be in melee range? Healing Word got rid of most of that restriction. Lesser Restoration and Revivify do, I'll grant. And Spirit Guardians. But the Laser Cleric is definitely a thing.


----------



## Galandris

Maxperson said:


> If you're muttering, the spell automatically fails.
> 
> "Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion."
> 
> That's very audible and clear, so if the Count can understand the language that the cleric is praying in, he's going to understand, "Oh highest god, help my friend persuade the count to do as we wish." or whatever the prayer is.




Granted I was more imagining, as we picture cleric spamming Guidance "Maytheforcebewithyou... (wait 5 mississipis until the end of the round) Maytheforcebewithyou (wait 5 mississipis)"


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Stalker0 said:


> This is my perspective. If WOTC had nerfed spirit guardians, spirtual weapon, and bless, but buff a number of other spells....I could dig it. That would shake up the cleric a bit, which would be great.
> 
> But this is just a lame change. Spiritual weapon won't see much see in comparison now that it fights for the all important concentration slot. I think it will be bless and SG all the way.




 That the problem with concentration, far, far too many spells rely on it, making too many of them unused.

 Also the Divine Spell in need of the most change is Astral Projection and Planar Ally.


----------



## Mistwell

Neonchameleon said:


> I meant try comparing the cleric to other classes. Because so far as I can tell you're saying "Wizards are better at this one aspect of the game they focus on than clerics despite the fact clerics are pretty good at it therefore clerics should be buffed".



I'm just saying they should not be nerfed! They had one, boring, routine method of doing DECENT (not great) damage and that one method got nerfed.

You keep calling that mid-level ability where they can add 1d8 once per round a buff, but it's been there all the time in the subclasses. And yeah now it's either melee weapon or spell but it was always being used that way effectively anyway - whatever path you were choosing was the one you'd be using anyway.


----------



## tetrasodium

Henadic Theologian said:


> *That the problem with concentration, far, far too many spells rely on it, making too many of them unused.*
> 
> Also the Divine Spell in need of the most change is Astral Projection and Planar Ally.



I agree with the bolded bit entirely but think there is an easy test to decide if a spell _deserves_ concentration or not.  Spirit guardians by coincidence  fails that test in a way that justifies it being concentration.  



Spoiler: Specifically a test like this




does this ongoing spell make my _allies_awesome?
If yes it probably doesn't deserve concentration

is this ongoing spell save or lose? 
If yes it probably _does_ deserve concentration

Is this ongoing spell _primarily_ to make the caster themselves awesome?(ie huge & efficient damage numbers _not_just triggering an elemental vulnerability in a group that happens to have no other PCs capable of using it)
If yes it probably _does_ deserve concentration  & the effects themselves might need a hard look to decide if they are too good in aggregate on top of unlimited cantrips


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Can anyone think of any spell that is currently concentration, but maybe doesn't need to be? Perhaps they should remove concentration from some of the boring/unused ones.

I never had much of a problem with Spiritual Weapon as it was, but I can't say that I mind this change much. Better for a backline than a frontline Cleric now, which there's an option for, so it's still good.


----------



## James Gasik

FitzTheRuke said:


> Can anyone think of any spell that is currently concentration, but maybe doesn't need to be? Perhaps they should remove concentration from some of the boring/unused ones.
> 
> I never had much of a problem with Spiritual Weapon as it was, but I can't say that I mind this change much. Better for a backline than a frontline Cleric now, which there's an option for, so it's still good.



Buff spells definitely.  I rarely see them used because casters generally have better uses for their concentration.  I realize that concentration was added to prevent people from layering buffs on themselves, but now I rarely see any used, even ones that would obviously benefit the non-magical fighty characters.

Enlarge for example.  +1d4 damage for one guy for a fight is so incredibly minor of a buff it really doesn't need concentration as a limiter.

Or how about Fly?  "Oh man, it would be useful if I could just cast fly on a few of you guys, or give the melee flight when fighting those [insert flying enemy here], but...yeah sorry, I need it for my hypnotic pattern/sleet storm/whatever else."


----------



## James Gasik

Neonchameleon said:


> How much actually _does_ require them to be in melee range? Healing Word got rid of most of that restriction. Lesser Restoration and Revivify do, I'll grant. And Spirit Guardians. But the Laser Cleric is definitely a thing.



A few spells I could see wanting to cast as needed; yeah, some of these have long durations, but you might not know you need them beforehand.  Protection from Poison, Protection from Energy.  Remove Curse could totally come up in a fight.  Freedom of Movement.  Greater Restoration.  Most real healing, like Cure Wounds, Regeneration, or Power Word: Heal, though I realize there are other choices, and a lot of people seem to think that using a spell slot to Healing Word on a guy who dropped to 0 is perfectly fine- my experience is that they tend to fall over again not even 2 seconds later, lol.


----------



## Clint_L

James Gasik said:


> Ok so, Clerics.  Clerics have less utility than Wizards, and do less damage.



I don't agree with either of those statements. Clerics can heal. Wizards can't. What's the most important utility in the game? Healing. And you can spec either class to be pretty strong DPS.

Put it another way: the one class every party would like to have is a cleric.


----------



## James Gasik

Clint_L said:


> I don't agree with either of those statements. Clerics can heal. Wizards can't. What's the most important utility in the game? Healing. And you can spec either class to be pretty strong DPS.
> 
> Put it another way: the one class every party would like to have is a cleric.



Why a Cleric instead of a Bard?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Henadic Theologian said:


> That the problem with concentration, far, far too many spells rely on it, making too many of them unused.
> 
> Also the Divine Spell in need of the most change is Astral Projection and Planar Ally.




Oh yes. They are ruining my level 1 to 5 games far too often.
They are in need of an overhaul, but there are other offenders.
Bless for example could need a reduction to 1 per turn you may roll a d4... or something. To balance that I'd make the casting time a bonus action.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

James Gasik said:


> Buff spells definitely.  I rarely see them used because casters generally have better uses for their concentration.  I realize that concentration was added to prevent people from layering buffs on themselves, but now I rarely see any used, even ones that would obviously benefit the non-magical fighty characters.
> 
> Enlarge for example.  +1d4 damage for one guy for a fight is so incredibly minor of a buff it really doesn't need concentration as a limiter.
> 
> Or how about Fly?  "Oh man, it would be useful if I could just cast fly on a few of you guys, or give the melee flight when fighting those [insert flying enemy here], but...yeah sorry, I need it for my hypnotic pattern/sleet storm/whatever else."




I still think we need a second concentration slot. Minor concentration you can keep up next to standard concentration, which on top does need a concentration save if you are hit.
All self AC buffs and so on should fall into this category to make them actually useful.
Hunter's mark would also be a spell I'd put into this category.


----------



## Neonchameleon

James Gasik said:


> A few spells I could see wanting to cast as needed; yeah, some of these have long durations, but you might not know you need them beforehand.  Protection from Poison, Protection from Energy.  Remove Curse could totally come up in a fight.  Freedom of Movement.  Greater Restoration.



The irony here, of course, is that Protection From Energy, Remove Curse, and Freedom of Movement are all also wizard spells. But they don't have the resilience


James Gasik said:


> Most real healing, like Cure Wounds, Regeneration, or Power Word: Heal, though I realize there are other choices, and a lot of people seem to think that using a spell slot to Healing Word on a guy who dropped to 0 is perfectly fine- my experience is that they tend to fall over again not even 2 seconds later, lol.



In my experience Healing Word is enough to make the character last a turn for a spell slot - and still lets you attack. The best means of healing is preventing the enemy from hurting you.


James Gasik said:


> Why a Cleric instead of a Bard?



Better healing (including revivify), more toughness (medium armour + shields), more damage (remember the bard's only damage cantrip is Vicious Mockery), and the ability to change out your spell list


----------



## Maxperson

UngeheuerLich said:


> I still think we need a second concentration slot. Minor concentration you can keep up next to standard concentration, which on top does need a concentration save if you are hit.
> All self AC buffs and so on should fall into this category to make them actually useful.
> Hunter's mark would also be a spell I'd put into this category.



Perhaps a second spell concentration slot as if you were 4 levels lower to a maximum of 7th level spells.  So at 5th level you can concentrate on an extra 1st level spell.  At 9th you'd be able to concentrate on a 3rd level or lower spell.  And at 17th level your second one would be a spell of 7th level or lower.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Kind of interesting to see some of the discussion here. I'll quickly summarize my thoughts 


Guidance no longer being 1/day. Love it. SO glad that they fixed that. 
Resistance as a reaction. Love it, now the spell will actually be used. 
Banishment multiple saves. That... that is rough. Not sure if it is a good change. While something like hold person fine as multiple saves, the enemy has the chance to be messed up. Banishment actually makes them safer than being on the battlefield. Not sure. 
Aid, I'm not broken up about. temp hp instead of max hp, but double the number of targets. I can see the reasons people may say this isn't good, but I've never been highly convinced of the old version of Aid at low levels
Spiritual Weapon, being concentration is a bit rough. Then again, the damage is MUCH higher as the game progresses. I find it interesting that the main argument against spiritual weapon has been Bless, no one is mentioning aura of vitality for instance. I think it is probably a balanced change, though I would want the speed increased

But, one thing I'm kind of shocked not to see discussed so far is Prayer of Healing. This got a rather massive boost. It is only 1/day now, but anyone affected by it treats the 10 minutes as a Short Rest. That really helps this spell a lot.


----------



## Xamnam

Chaosmancer said:


> But, one thing I'm kind of shocked not to see discussed so far is Prayer of Healing. This got a rather massive boost. It is only 1/day now, but anyone affected by it treats the 10 minutes as a Short Rest. That really helps this spell a lot.



Oh shoot, didn't see that, there go my dreams for them to drop a short rest to 5/10/15 minutes across the board.


----------



## Greg Benage

Chaosmancer said:


> But, one thing I'm kind of shocked not to see discussed so far is Prayer of Healing. This got a rather massive boost. It is only 1/day now, but anyone affected by it treats the 10 minutes as a Short Rest. That really helps this spell a lot.



Short Rest +2d8 healing! It's an improved _catnap _at a lower spell level. Very good, at least for that subset of tables that have more than one fight a day.


----------



## Stalker0

Greg Benage said:


> Short Rest +2d8 healing! It's an improved _catnap _at a lower spell level. Very good, at least for that subset of tables that have more than one fight a day.



I think the assumption is that short rest abilities will be going away, so this is really just a solid recovery spell (and no issues with that whatsoever). So it will be a very solid spell, but it won't give you some of the oomph that catnap used to give in the new model.


----------



## ehren37

Clint_L said:


> I don't agree with either of those statements. Clerics can heal. Wizards can't. What's the most important utility in the game? Healing. And you can spec either class to be pretty strong DPS.
> 
> Put it another way: the one class every party would like to have is a cleric.



Everyone can heal. Take a short rest, spend your hit dice. Or guzzle a potion, it's not like gold matters by the default removal of player agency in meaningful purchases. It isn't utility so much as "let the game proceed". Having a horse isnt much utility either, it's just getting you to the fireworks factory on time.

Mind control, divination, illusions, summons, breaking action economy, altering terrain... now THAT'S utility.


----------



## tetrasodium

ehren37 said:


> Everyone can heal. Take a short rest, spend your hit dice. Or guzzle a potion, it's not like gold matters by the default removal of player agency in meaningful purchases. It isn't utility so much as "let the game proceed". Having a horse isnt much utility either, it's just getting you to the fireworks factory on time.
> 
> Mind control,



command
sanctuary
Planar Binding
etc


ehren37 said:


> divination,



Augury
Locate: object, creature.
Commune
Detect: evil, magic, Poison & disease.
*A spell literally named **divination*.
Find the path
Ok I'll give you one, find traps doesn't count as a spell.
Legend Lore
I expected to not see this one in a cleric vrs wizards comparison.... scrying
Tongues
True seeing
_What_ divination spells are missing?


ehren37 said:


> illusions



Limited to silence unless gnome or whatever but illusions aren't exactly the powerhouse in 5e that they once could be


ehren37 said:


> , summons,



Conjure celestial
guardian of faith
Planar Ally
Summon Celestial



ehren37 said:


> breaking action economy,



I have no idea what this means...
Healing word?
command?
Hold Person? 
silence  a caster?
revivify?
Banishment?
animate dead?
Create undead?



ehren37 said:


> altering terrain...



Hallow
Earthquake
Forbiddance?
Control weather



ehren37 said:


> now THAT'S utility.



5e clerics seem to have all but one of those & not a big one...


----------



## Chaosmancer

Stalker0 said:


> I think the assumption is that short rest abilities will be going away, so this is really just a solid recovery spell (and no issues with that whatsoever). So it will be a very solid spell, but it won't give you some of the oomph that catnap used to give in the new model.




Some short rest recovery is going away, but we have seen it popping up here and there. The thaumaturge Cleric ability allows a single Channel Divnity to recover on a short rest, for example.


----------



## ehren37

tetrasodium said:


> command
> sanctuary
> Planar Binding
> etc
> 
> Augury
> Locate: object, creature.
> Commune
> Detect: evil, magic, Poison & disease.
> *A spell literally named **divination*.
> Find the path
> Ok I'll give you one, find traps doesn't count as a spell.
> Legend Lore
> I expected to not see this one in a cleric vrs wizards comparison.... scrying
> Tongues
> True seeing
> _What_ divination spells are missing?
> 
> Limited to silence unless gnome or whatever but illusions aren't exactly the powerhouse in 5e that they once could be
> 
> Conjure celestial
> guardian of faith
> Planar Ally
> Summon Celestial
> 
> 
> I have no idea what this means...
> Healing word?
> command?
> Hold Person?
> silence  a caster?
> revivify?
> Banishment?
> animate dead?
> Create undead?
> 
> 
> Hallow
> Earthquake
> Forbiddance?
> Control weather
> 
> 
> 5e clerics seem to have all but one of those & not a big one...



I'm not saying that clerics don't have utility. I'm saying that HEALING isn't utility. It's the necessary butt wiping to allow the party to have fun and the adventure to proceed. Moreover, it competes with the other stuff clerics can do, and shares the same resources. 

There's a reason healers are typically the least played classes in MMO's.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

ehren37 said:


> I'm not saying that clerics don't have utility. I'm saying that HEALING isn't utility. It's the necessary butt wiping to allow the party to have fun and the adventure to proceed. Moreover, it competes with the other stuff clerics can do, and shares the same resources.
> 
> There's a reason healers are typically the least played classes in MMO's.




Healing at the right time with a bonus action is breaking (or better fixing) the action economy.

The reason healers are the least played is also because if anything goes wrong it is usually the healer (or the tank) being blamed. It seldom falls on the striker who can just not manage their aggro correctly...

Also many people just find it most fun when their damage numbers are high.
The same is true in pen and paper. Just look at DPR discussions and the neglegance of reliability, sustainability and general defence and mobility.

It falls on the healer to salvage those builds at times and then you feel like the babysitter.


----------



## Willie the Duck

RE: healers - There are plenty of people who enjoy being healers, few that enjoy games where being healer is the majority of what they do/actively competes with them doing other things. If I wanted to armchair shrink the thing, I'd say it's because healing just places their ally in the same position as they were 5 seconds ago before they got hurt, which feels less impactful or rewarding than direct attacking or support effects which actively move your allies into a more advantageous position (going from normal mode to win-condition mode instead of them going from unhurt to hurt to unhurt again). All of this does differ based on how often your party members get knocked down/would be if not for you (do you feel like a hit-point battery or like the guy keeping the soldiers on the line?). 

Re: clerics and wizards: -- I get the idea behind the notion that wizards get more utility. Historically, wizards got most of the dungeon-crawler utility spells like _comprehend languages, featherfall/spiderclimb/fly, knock, invisibility/see invisibility_, and _passwall_. Clerics got (more of the) negative status removal effects (again, the boring 'return to what you were pre-injury' spells), _silence, shape earth_, and late-game fly-alike (_airwalk_); plus everyone got _tongues, plane shift_ and energy protection spells of some kinds. Exactly how much that resonates today likely has to do with whether those spells still dominate in your chosen playstyle, and whether status-effect removal feels like being the rest of the party's 'okayness battery.'



Xamnam said:


> Oh shoot, didn't see that, there go my dreams for them to drop a short rest to 5/10/15 minutes across the board.



The one thing the videos included with this made clear to me is that no, not everything they are throwing out there as all-but-certain. If they threw out inspirations on 20 in one UA, then inspirations on 1 in the next _before they tabulated results for the first_, then they are genuinely experimenting and testing the waters on all this. Voice your preference. If the new Prayer of Healing doesn't hit 70-90%, or even if it does but in the meantime they experiment with a shorter Short Rest and that scores even higher, then they very well might scrap this in favor of something close to what you want.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Willie the Duck said:


> RE: healers - There are plenty of people who enjoy being healers, few that enjoy games where being healer is the majority of what they do/actively competes with them doing other things. If I wanted to armchair shrink the thing, I'd say it's because healing just places their ally in the same position as they were 5 seconds ago before they got hurt, which feels less impactful or rewarding than direct attacking or support effects which actively move your allies into a more advantageous position (going from normal mode to win-condition mode instead of them going from unhurt to hurt to unhurt again). All of this does differ based on how often your party members get knocked down/would be if not for you (do you feel like a hit-point battery or like the guy keeping the soldiers on the line?).
> 
> Re: clerics and wizards: -- I get the idea behind the notion that wizards get more utility. Historically, wizards got most of the dungeon-crawler utility spells like _comprehend languages, featherfall/spiderclimb/fly, knock, invisibility/see invisibility_, and _passwall_. Clerics got (more of the) negative status removal effects (again, the boring 'return to what you were pre-injury' spells), _silence, shape earth_, and late-game fly-alike (_airwalk_); plus everyone got _tongues, plane shift_ and energy protection spells of some kinds. Exactly how much that resonates today likely has to do with whether those spells still dominate in your chosen playstyle, and whether status-effect removal feels like being the rest of the party's 'okayness battery.'
> 
> 
> The one thing the videos included with this made clear to me is that no, not everything they are throwing out there as all-but-certain. If they threw out inspirations on 20 in one UA, then inspirations on 1 in the next _before they tabulated results for the first_, then they are genuinely experimenting and testing the waters on all this. Voice your preference. If the new Prayer of Healing doesn't hit 70-90%, or even if it does but in the meantime they experiment with a shorter Short Rest and that scores even higher, then they very well might scrap this in favor of something close to what you want.




I will take some of the healing discussion a bit further, because I honestly don't see healing as broken in 5e. Far from it. 

In your analysis you rightly point out that people can get frustrated that healing can only reset a party member back to where they were before. But, let us say you have a situation like a Choldrith or something else. The enemy hits your ally with an attack, deals damage, and poisons them. That was a single action from the enemy. 

To heal the poison takes a single action. To heal the damage takes a different single action. So to reset them, which isn't satisfying to many people, takes double the action economy that harming them took. That's... not good. That is actually really bad to trade two of your actions for the enemies single action. 

But it actually gets worse. Taking the Choldrith specifically they can deal an average of 21 damage a turn. To heal that would require a 4th level Cure Wounds on average? For a CR 3 enemy? Or, again, multiple actions. 

So, a single round from a single enemy has the potential to take up to three turns to reverse. Which leaves them more turns to inflict more damage. So, it doesn't feel like the healer can actually even hit the point of just reseting their allies. Instead it is "I can make us lose slower"


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> I will take some of the healing discussion...
> 
> Snip
> 
> So, a single round from a single enemy has the potential to take up to three turns to reverse. Which leaves them more turns to inflict more damage. So, it doesn't feel like the healer can actually even hit the point of just reseting their allies. Instead it is "I can make us lose slower"




While you are correct, you are also wrong.

You need not undo all damage to be an effective healer. Actually it is very frustrating if healing in general outperformes damage dealing. This will just make fights very unsatisfying.

What you need to do is heal at the right time. Sometimes healing 10 damage is enough to keep your tank from going down from the next 30 damage.
The poison condition might be irrelevant to the tank.


----------



## James Gasik

Chaosmancer said:


> I will take some of the healing discussion a bit further, because I honestly don't see healing as broken in 5e. Far from it.
> 
> In your analysis you rightly point out that people can get frustrated that healing can only reset a party member back to where they were before. But, let us say you have a situation like a Choldrith or something else. The enemy hits your ally with an attack, deals damage, and poisons them. That was a single action from the enemy.
> 
> To heal the poison takes a single action. To heal the damage takes a different single action. So to reset them, which isn't satisfying to many people, takes double the action economy that harming them took. That's... not good. That is actually really bad to trade two of your actions for the enemies single action.
> 
> But it actually gets worse. Taking the Choldrith specifically they can deal an average of 21 damage a turn. To heal that would require a 4th level Cure Wounds on average? For a CR 3 enemy? Or, again, multiple actions.
> 
> So, a single round from a single enemy has the potential to take up to three turns to reverse. Which leaves them more turns to inflict more damage. So, it doesn't feel like the healer can actually even hit the point of just reseting their allies. Instead it is "I can make us lose slower"



I had this comment months back, because I'd noticed the same issue.  That led to this thread: Heal Thyself.  The, ah, majority consensus of the forum is that healing can't be good because hit dice exist.  I still think that it's ridiculous you can't even rely on a max-level spell to even 1:1 the damage a party member can take, let alone give them a reasonable buffer, with a touch spell that has a single target, but you can read what others have to say, I suppose.


----------



## Pauln6

We use the lowest form of non magical healing, which works well for us.  In that context, I find magical healing quite lacklustre, especially compared to paladin laying on hands (which in my view should just be free cure wounds/lesser restoration proficiency bonus times per day plus Charisma bonus).  I allow an extra die of healing so baseline is 2d8+wisdom instead.


----------



## Gorck

Chaosmancer said:


> I will take some of the healing discussion a bit further, because I honestly don't see healing as broken in 5e. Far from it.
> 
> In your analysis you rightly point out that people can get frustrated that healing can only reset a party member back to where they were before. But, let us say you have a situation like a Choldrith or something else. *The enemy hits your ally with an attack, deals damage, and poisons them*. That was a single action from the enemy.
> 
> *To heal the poison takes a single action. To heal the damage takes a different single action. So to reset them, which isn't satisfying to many people, takes double the action economy that harming them took.* That's... not good. That is actually really bad to trade two of your actions for the enemies single action.
> 
> But it actually gets worse. Taking the Choldrith specifically they can deal an average of 21 damage a turn. To heal that would require a 4th level Cure Wounds on average? For a CR 3 enemy? Or, again, multiple actions.
> 
> So, a single round from a single enemy has the potential to take up to three turns to reverse. Which leaves them more turns to inflict more damage. So, it doesn't feel like the healer can actually even hit the point of just reseting their allies. Instead it is "I can make us lose slower"



I don't see anywhere in the Choldrith stat block that says they inflict the Poisoned condition.  All I see is their dagger doing additional poison damage.


----------



## Kobold Stew

I don't think this has been done yet:

What are the spells that are missing on the spell lists?

Here are the cantrips:


Spoiler



Acid Splash (a)
Blade Ward (a)
Chill Touch (a)
Dancing Lights (a)
Druidcraft (p)
Fire Bolt (a)
Friends (a)
Guidance (d, p)
Light (a, d)
Mage Hand (a)
Mending (a, p)
Message (a, p)
Minor Illusion (a)
Poison Spray (a, p)
Produce Flame (p)
Prestidigitation (a)
Ray of Frost (a)
Resistance (d, p)
Sacred Flame (d)
Shillelagh (p)
Shocking Grasp (a)
Spare the Dying (d, p)
Thaumaturgy (d)
Thorn Whip (p)
True Strike (a)
Vicious Mockery (a)



17 Arcane (7 combat, not counting True Strike)
6 Divine (1 combat)
7 Primal (4 combat)

What's missing?  (excluding Ravnica-only spells, etc.)

OPTIMIZED SPELLS: Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade, Mind Sliver. Each of these is really strong, and may be kept out or (in a later package) nerfed.
ELEMENTAL SPELLS: Control Flames, Gust, Mold Earth, Shape Water. Don't know why these would be excluded necessarily, but they could be made available to an elemental-themed Sorcerer, perhaps.
DAMAGING SPELLS: Create Bonfire, Frostbite, Infestation, Lightning Lure, Magic Stone, Sword Burst, Thunder Clap. There's flavour in all of these, but I do not think removing them will be particularly felt. I know people liked the minor terrain control of Create Bonfire. I personally only miss Magic Stone, which gave a ranged partner for Shillelagh.
OTHERS: Eldritch Blast, Primal Savagery. My guess is eldritch blast is being changed into a core feature for the Warlock, and so won't technically be a spell. Possibly Primal Savagery is being usurped by the Shifter in MotM, but it might also be available only to Barbarians or a fighter subclass.
Almost all of these (excepting Eldritch Blast?) were later additions in any case, in Tahsa or Xanathar. 

If I were suggesting changes, I would add Magic Stone (primal) and another divine spell that allows an attack roll (not a save, as Sacred Flame).


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Gorck said:


> I don't see anywhere in the Choldrith stat block that says they inflict the Poisoned condition.  All I see is their dagger doing additional poison damage.




I'd also add, that healing has 100% hit rate, while the attack has not...

... and if the tank is a barbarian, damage is reduced by a factor of 2.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

James Gasik said:


> I had this comment months back, because I'd noticed the same issue.  That led to this thread: Heal Thyself.  The, ah, majority consensus of the forum is that healing can't be good because hit dice exist.  I still think that it's ridiculous you can't even rely on a max-level spell to even 1:1 the damage a party member can take, let alone give them a reasonable buffer, with a touch spell that has a single target, but you can read what others have to say, I suppose.





Pauln6 said:


> We use the lowest form of non magical healing, which works well for us.  In that context, I find magical healing quite lacklustre, especially compared to paladin laying on hands (which in my view should just be free cure wounds/lesser restoration proficiency bonus times per day plus Charisma bonus).  I allow an extra die of healing so baseline is 2d8+wisdom instead.



in our all (not any more 1 PC died and was replaced) artificer game we stopped prepping healing for the most part.
Our alchemist cleric keeps healing word and something spirit prepped and has the healer feat...

The healer feat alone is worth 1d6+your level healing 1/short rest, healing word is a quick "Oh need to boost you mid combat" and healing spirit and HD work during short rests.


----------



## James Gasik

UngeheuerLich said:


> I'd also add, that healing has 100% hit rate, while the attack has not...
> 
> ... and if the tank is a barbarian, damage is reduced by a factor of 2.



I don't think bringing the Barbarian into this is fair though; not every group is going to have one, nor will Rage always be available.  Heck, unless you're a Totem Barbarian, there's lots of kinds of damage that isn't halved.*

*whether or not people play other kinds of Barbarians is not something I'm sure of, I've seen one Zealot personally.

As for the hit rate, well, neither does _magic missile_, but how long does it take for _cure wounds_ to catch up to the damage of one _magic missile _spell?  Upcast to 4th level?  And one of those spells has a really good range, as opposed to touch.


----------



## Kobold Stew

What's missing form the spell lists: levels 6-9.

*Level 6 spells*:
Arcane (20)
Divine (10)
Primal (9)

What's missing:

Spells from Xanathar and Tasha's: Bones of the earth, Create homunculus, Investitutre of Flame and Ice Stone and Wind, Mental Prison, Primordial Ward, Scatter, Soulcage, Summon Fiend, Tasha's Guise, Tenser's Transformation.
Drawmij's instant summons has lost the Drawmij name.

*Level 7 spells*:
Arcane (15)
Divine (7)
Primal (3)

What's missing:
* Spells from Xanathar and Tasha's: Crown of Stars, Dream of the Blue Veil, Power Word Pain, Whirlwind.

*Level 8 spells*:
Arcane (14)
Divine (4)
Primal (5)

What's missing:
* Spells from Xanathar: Horrid Wilting, Illusory Dragon, Maddening Darkness, Mighty Fortress.

*Level 9 spells*:
Arcane (12)
Divine (6)
Primal (4)

What's missing:
* Spells from Xanathar and Tasha: Blade of Disaster, Invulnerability, Mass Polymorph, Psychic Scream.

*Thoughts*.
At all of these levels, the number of spells available is  heavily weighted towards Arcanists, but not likely to affect most players in any case. The list is really like a dream board in any case.

Still, a 3:1 ratio (e.g. Arcane to Divine at level 9) seems pretty extreme, and there is no reason for bigger gaps: *I'd like to see another two level 7 Primal spells, and another 8th level Divine spell* at least.

Based on these lists, they are keeping all the PHB spells, though some are reassigned to different schools. I was half-expecting that all the Conjure creature spells would be removed, and the Summon spells (like Summon fiend), which give a stat block of the creature summoned and not choice from the MM, put in their place. That still might happen, of course.

This could be taken to suggest something about the backwards compatiility of all the spells in Tasha's and Xanathar. There will need to be some rule aboiut which spells belong in which spell list (even "if it was on the list for a class in 2014, it is part of that class's spell list still").


----------



## UngeheuerLich

James Gasik said:


> I don't think bringing the Barbarian into this is fair though; not every group is going to have one, nor will Rage always be available.  Heck, unless you're a Totem Barbarian, there's lots of kinds of damage that isn't halved.*
> 
> *whether or not people play other kinds of Barbarians is not something I'm sure of, I've seen one Zealot personally.
> 
> As for the hit rate, well, neither does _magic missile_, but how long does it take for _cure wounds_ to catch up to the damage of one _magic missile _spell?  Upcast to 4th level?  And one of those spells has a really good range, as opposed to touch.




1 magic missile: 3d4+3 damage, average 10.5

1 cure wounds: 1d8+3, average 7.5

1'd say, upcast to level 2?

I don't say, you are totally off, but healing should not be too good.

What I would do: whenever you receove magical healing, you can spend a hit die per spell level of the healing spell and regain additional healing equal to the amount rolled.

We tried that variant for a while and it nearly made healing too good. So we scaled it down to 1hd of healing per healing spell.


----------



## Dayte

Galandris said:


> Constantly muttering prayers while holding a rosary is absolutely not suspect. Having a religious friend besides you isn't either. In both these cases we don't mind in real life. The only thing that might give it is if your religious friend is knotted to you by a 10' rope.




It might be we don't mind because in real life we (or at least many of us) are not worried about divine prayers. In a world of magic, it *might* be more concerning, especially if the person in front of you looks like they might have the means or contacts to have someone capable of casting a cantrip.

Context matters, are you talking to a local farmer looking for directions, or are you talking to a merchant haggling over prices? Is it a low magic setting or does every village have a low-level divine type, remember it is a cantrip?


----------



## James Gasik

UngeheuerLich said:


> 1 magic missile: 3d4+3 damage, average 10.5
> 
> 1 cure wounds: 1d8+3, average 7.5
> 
> 1'd say, upcast to level 2?
> 
> I don't say, you are totally off, but healing should not be too good.
> 
> What I would do: whenever you receove magical healing, you can spend a hit die per spell level of the healing spell and regain additional healing equal to the amount rolled.
> 
> We tried that variant for a while and it nearly made healing too good. So we scaled it down to 1hd of healing per healing spell.



I was counting upcasting magic missile vs. cure wounds.  At level 4, it's 6d4+6 vs. 4d8+3-5.


----------



## Stalker0

In my game I houseruled the Cure Wounds upscale to be (1d8+wis) x spell level, rather than 1d8 * spell level + wis. Fixed it right up to me.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> While you are correct, you are also wrong.
> 
> You need not undo all damage to be an effective healer. Actually it is very frustrating if healing in general outperformes damage dealing. This will just make fights very unsatisfying.
> 
> What you need to do is heal at the right time. Sometimes healing 10 damage is enough to keep your tank from going down from the next 30 damage.
> The poison condition might be irrelevant to the tank.




AKA Whack-a-Mole. 

That's literally WHY the whack-a-mole problem exists, because you are just buying one more round. But if your tank has taken 10 damage, then healing them 10 damage AT ANY POINT could keep them going down from the next 30 damage... because health is static unless damage or healing takes place. 

The problem is that if you are t 50/60 hp, healing doesn't feel worth the action or spell slot. You aren't in danger. But if you are at 8/60 and the enemy can easily hit for 21 damage, healing 10 is pointless, it isn't enough. So you let them take that 20+ damage, then heal them next turn, preventing a chunk of damage. 


Now, you are sort of correct about too much healing being frustrating, but there are limits on this. For example, being able to stop a single monsters turn isn't going to drag on the fight if there is one healer and multiple monsters. And if you have a party full of dedicated healers... then yes, out-healing the damage is their strategy and it should be viable to attempt. And if they get frustrated with it... well, they are the ones implementing the strategy.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Pauln6 said:


> We use the lowest form of non magical healing, which works well for us.  In that context, I find magical healing quite lacklustre, especially compared to paladin laying on hands (which in my view should just be free cure wounds/lesser restoration proficiency bonus times per day plus Charisma bonus).  I allow an extra die of healing so baseline is 2d8+wisdom instead.




I've been considering a change to allow players to choose to spend hit dice when healed. Up to the level of the spell. 

So, a level 1 cure wounds can be 1d8+3, but then the Fighter can also spend a hit die and heal an extra 1d10+3. It gives a little more flexibility and healing, without removing the costs associated with them.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Gorck said:


> I don't see anywhere in the Choldrith stat block that says they inflict the Poisoned condition.  All I see is their dagger doing additional poison damage.




I was going off memory and remembered they were spider creatures. 

Substitute wyverns/snakes/ Erinyes or any other creature that can do exactly what I describe if you feel the need to be pendantic about it.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Kobold Stew said:


> I don't think this has been done yet:
> 
> What are the spells that are missing on the spell lists?
> 
> Here are the cantrips:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Acid Splash (a)
> Blade Ward (a)
> Chill Touch (a)
> Dancing Lights (a)
> Druidcraft (p)
> Fire Bolt (a)
> Friends (a)
> Guidance (d, p)
> Light (a, d)
> Mage Hand (a)
> Mending (a, p)
> Message (a, p)
> Minor Illusion (a)
> Poison Spray (a, p)
> Produce Flame (p)
> Prestidigitation (a)
> Ray of Frost (a)
> Resistance (d, p)
> Sacred Flame (d)
> Shillelagh (p)
> Shocking Grasp (a)
> Spare the Dying (d, p)
> Thaumaturgy (d)
> Thorn Whip (p)
> True Strike (a)
> Vicious Mockery (a)
> 
> 
> 
> 17 Arcane (7 combat, not counting True Strike)
> 6 Divine (1 combat)
> 7 Primal (4 combat)
> 
> What's missing?  (excluding Ravnica-only spells, etc.)
> 
> OPTIMIZED SPELLS: Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade, Mind Sliver. Each of these is really strong, and may be kept out or (in a later package) nerfed.
> ELEMENTAL SPELLS: Control Flames, Gust, Mold Earth, Shape Water. Don't know why these would be excluded necessarily, but they could be made available to an elemental-themed Sorcerer, perhaps.
> DAMAGING SPELLS: Create Bonfire, Frostbite, Infestation, Lightning Lure, Magic Stone, Sword Burst, Thunder Clap. There's flavour in all of these, but I do not think removing them will be particularly felt. I know people liked the minor terrain control of Create Bonfire. I personally only miss Magic Stone, which gave a ranged partner for Shillelagh.
> OTHERS: Eldritch Blast, Primal Savagery. My guess is eldritch blast is being changed into a core feature for the Warlock, and so won't technically be a spell. Possibly Primal Savagery is being usurped by the Shifter in MotM, but it might also be available only to Barbarians or a fighter subclass.
> Almost all of these (excepting Eldritch Blast?) were later additions in any case, in Tahsa or Xanathar.
> 
> If I were suggesting changes, I would add Magic Stone (primal) and another divine spell that allows an attack roll (not a save, as Sacred Flame).




I think this is mostly because they were majority spells from other sources, and they are only listing the PHB spells. Eldritch Blast is confirmed to show up in Mage Playtest


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> I'd also add, that healing has 100% hit rate, while the attack has not...
> 
> ... and if the tank is a barbarian, damage is reduced by a factor of 2.




And a healing spell costs a per day resource, while a monster's attack does not. And if the person being healed is one of twelve other classes, or is a barbarian who is not raging, then that factor of two does not apply. 

And since we are in a nitpicky mood, I'l also add that healing spells cannot critically hit and double their output. 


We could go over every single thing that damage and healing can and cannot do, but that doesn't exactly address the point.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> 1 magic missile: 3d4+3 damage, average 10.5
> 
> 1 cure wounds: 1d8+3, average 7.5
> 
> 1'd say, upcast to level 2?
> 
> I don't say, you are totally off, but healing should not be too good.




Sure, but what is too good? Magic Missile has low 1st level spell damage output, because it is a guaranteed hit, and you still need a 2nd level cure wounds to heal a 1st level Magic Missile, 

Compare to other 1st level damage

Burning Hands: 3d6 per target, average 10.5. This is potentially between 15 and 31.5 damage. And if you assume three targets, it could be between three and six level 1 Cure Wounds to heal it all. 

Guiding Bolt is 4d6 or an average of 14, that is two 1st level cure wounds, or a 3rd level cure wounds to heal. 



If a single casting could undo multiple turns of damage for multiple party members, maybe it would be too good, but we are struggling to get better than a single target's damage from another single target.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> Sure, but what is too good? Magic Missile has low 1st level spell damage output, because it is a guaranteed hit, and you still need a 2nd level cure wounds to heal a 1st level Magic Missile,
> 
> Compare to other 1st level damage
> 
> Burning Hands: 3d6 per target, average 10.5. This is potentially between 15 and 31.5 damage. And if you assume three targets, it could be between three and six level 1 Cure Wounds to heal it all.
> 
> Guiding Bolt is 4d6 or an average of 14, that is two 1st level cure wounds, or a 3rd level cure wounds to heal.
> 
> 
> 
> If a single casting could undo multiple turns of damage for multiple party members, maybe it would be too good, but we are struggling to get better than a single target's damage from another single target.




I don't say it is good enough. This is why I suggest allowing to spend hit dice, when you are healed (not unlike 4e, where you spend a healing surge). This way you get meaningful healing without dragging out fights forever.

Healing needs to be handled with care.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> AKA Whack-a-Mole.




No. Whack a Mole is healing after the tank goes down. I spoke about healing before they go down. This is usually better for the tank's action economy.

I have not encountered whack-a-mole healing in 8 years of play, but hey, maybe I am doing it wrong.


----------



## Clint_L

Most optimizers claim (correctly) that "whack a mole" is the most efficient use of healing resources in 5e, which intentionally keeps healing as a losing battle against damage. Obviously, if there is a situation where a character will miss their turn at a key moment you try to prevent it, but in general using Healing Word _after_ someone goes down is much, much more efficient in terms of action economy and resource management than trying to keep them on their feet.

I will happily argue that Healing Word is the most powerful spell in 5e, in terms of actual impact on how the game is played.


----------



## James Gasik

Clint_L said:


> Most optimizers claim (correctly) that "whack a mole" is the most efficient use of healing resources in 5e, which intentionally keeps healing as a losing battle against damage. Obviously, if there is a situation where a character will miss their turn at a key moment you try to prevent it, but in general using Healing Word _after_ someone goes down is much, much more efficient in terms of action economy and resource management than trying to keep them on their feet.
> 
> I will happily argue that Healing Word is the most powerful spell in 5e, in terms of actual impact on how the game is played.



I hate using Healing Word.  Even back in 4e, when it was far more powerful, guaranteed to heal a little more than 25% of your total health, I refused to engage in "whack-a-mole" shenanigans unless desperate.

Too often, I'd throw out one of my 2 encounter heals on a Striker who might as well be naked for as terrible as their AC was, they'd get up, throw out more damage without even thinking of using second wind or drinking a potion or anything that would prevent them from taking more damage.  Then the enemy would flatten them again, and they'd cry to me for heals.

We were playing a D&D Encounters season, the Shadowfell one, uh, Dark Legacy of Evard, I think it was.  I was trying out the new Death Priest- my Dwarven Priest of Dumathoin, Toric Azyur.  In the first session, the Blackguard was basically one-shot by these weird shadow minions that, if they hit with their attack, melded with your shadow and stopped being monsters, instead becoming an instance of ongoing 2 necrotic damage (if you made the save, they were ejected and became monsters again).  So we're doing what we can to kill these things, and the Rogue drops.

I heal him, he gets up, he falls again.

He begs for another heal, and I looked at the player and said "I don't have the resources to spend healing you.  I have one heal left, and that's for the Fighter."

I still remember how his eyes got wide and he said "but, but, you have to heal me, you're a Cleric!"

"Nope, sorry.  Second Wind or something next time."

5e Healing Word is even more ridiculous, as often it results in you being so weak that a goblin could take you out with a thrown rock.  So I refuse to prepare healing word, as I feel it's just a horrible waste of a spell slot.

The fact that Cure Wounds is also rather woeful in healing people hasn't escaped me, of course, but at least you might survive the next attack!


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't say it is good enough. This is why I suggest allowing to spend hit dice, when you are healed (not unlike 4e, where you spend a healing surge). This way you get meaningful healing without dragging out fights forever.
> 
> Healing needs to be handled with care.




Sure, it needs to be handled with care, but it also needs to be improved. However, many people claim that it is already too powerful and actually needs to be nerfed. So, clearly there are a lot of disconnects going on in the discussion around healing. 



UngeheuerLich said:


> No. Whack a Mole is healing after the tank goes down. I spoke about healing before they go down. This is usually better for the tank's action economy.
> 
> I have not encountered whack-a-mole healing in 8 years of play, but hey, maybe I am doing it wrong.




Right, but consider the Scenarios

50/60 hp, you aren't going to heal. 
40/60 hp you might heal, but it doesn't make a difference if you heal now compared to healing at 30/60 because +10 hp is +10 hp. It is the same net effect. 

However, at 5 to 10 / 60 healing before the attack is pointless. The tank is going down whether you heal them or not, unless you get lucky and roll high while the enemy rolls low on their damage. (If they miss, then your healing didn't matter, because they didn't hit them anyways)

And this is an utterly bizarre thing that shouldn't be true. You can have such low-hp that the best healing a healer can dish out does not matter and will not keep you up. You can only buy one turn if you are lucky enough the damage randomizes to put you on that edge. So, the timing really doesn't matter, as long as you don't overheal and you don't wait until your healing is worthless, healing will have the same effect regardless. And that is the majority of the time that you COULD choose to heal.


----------



## Chaosmancer

James Gasik said:


> The fact that Cure Wounds is also rather woeful in healing people hasn't escaped me, of course, but at least you might survive the next attack!




Only if facing a CR 1 or lower creature. Beyond that, damage is often far higher than 1d8+3


----------



## James Gasik

Chaosmancer said:


> Only if facing a CR 1 or lower creature. Beyond that, damage is often far higher than 1d8+3



Yeah, I made the mistake of not playing Life Clerics in 5e so far.


----------



## Clint_L

James Gasik said:


> 5e Healing Word is even more ridiculous, as often it results in you being so weak that a goblin could take you out with a thrown rock.  So I refuse to prepare healing word, as I feel it's just a horrible waste of a spell slot.



To each their own. Trying to stay ahead of damage is a sucker's game in 5e though, and that's by design. Most combats only last a few rounds, so picking someone up in time for their turn is literally all that matters. If they get knocked down again after they go, who cares? Just pick them up again before their next turn if you need them, and if the combat is still going. Death saves are a resource - they are in effect an infinitely rechargeable extra hit point pool. It's smart to use them. And _healing word_ is a bonus action with a 60 foot range that recharges death saves.

Cure wounds is an action, requires touch, and does 2 more points of healing than healing word. If you think 2 points of health is worth trading 60 foot range and a bonus action instead of action well...we see action economy very differently.

That's why I think healing word is broken and bad for the game. With healing word readily available, it is very, very hard for characters to die. It totally lowers the stakes in combat. I mean, death saves already do this, but when you combine them with healing word the encounter has to be incredibly tough or players incredibly bad for them to really be at risk. And it is widely available at level 1 as a bonus action at range, so the action economy is amazing. More encounters have been profoundly altered by healing word than any other spell in the game, which is why I think it is hands down the most powerful, consequential spell in 5e.

Not taking healing word because you think it is cheesy and broken I can respect. Not taking it because you think cure wounds is better is a difficult argument to make. I think it should be removed from the game.


----------



## James Gasik

Clint_L said:


> To each their own. Trying to stay ahead of damage is a sucker's game in 5e though, and that's by design. Most combats only last a few rounds, so picking someone up in time for their turn is literally all that matters. If they get knocked down again after they go, who cares? Just pick them up again before their next turn if you need them, and if the combat is still going. Death saves are a resource - they are in effect an infinitely rechargeable extra hit point pool. It's smart to use them. And _healing word_ is a bonus action with a 60 foot range that recharges death saves.
> 
> Cure wounds is an action, requires touch, and does 2 more points of healing than healing word. If you think 2 points of health is worth trading 60 foot range and a bonus action instead of action well...we see action economy very differently.
> 
> That's why I think healing word is broken and bad for the game. With healing word readily available, it is very, very hard for characters to die. It totally lowers the stakes in combat. I mean, death saves already do this, but when you combine them with healing word the encounter has to be incredibly tough or players incredibly bad for them to really be at risk. And it is widely available at level 1 as a bonus action at range, so the action economy is amazing. More encounters have been profoundly altered by healing word than any other spell in the game, which is why I think it is hands down the most powerful, consequential spell in 5e.
> 
> Not taking healing word because you think it is cheesy and broken I can respect. Not taking it because you think cure wounds is better is a difficult argument to make. I think it should be removed from the game.



I suppose it just comes down to how I've learned to play spellcasters- I'm miserly with my spell slots, never knowing what I'm going to need in the rest of the day.  The idea that I can burn all my spell slots giving people just enough hit points to stand (which effectively has no cost, unlike in previous editions where it could cost all your movement, or worse), just to be knocked down again by something slightly more dangerous than bad breath irks me.

I want more mileage out of my spell slots than that.  Ideally, I'd be able to prevent people from falling down in the first place, but defensive spells are really terrible.  Shield of Faith?  10% miss chance, and it takes my concentration.

I'm fully aware Cure Wounds is terrible, but I really feel better about possibly giving someone the ability to remain standing by my next turn so that I could maybe do something other than "healing word and a mediocre cantrip/weapon attack" in one encounter until I'm out of spell slots.

Again, I played in 4e, and people griped about "pop up healing" there, but you had 2 healing words in tier 1, and you couldn't afford to just heal people- you had to do some serious damage, debuff an enemy, do something else to win battles.  And it wasn't like you could heal people all day long- almost all healing required spending surges, and once those were out, you were done.

So it really comes down to I don't like this paradigm, where combat healing is atrociously feeble, out of combat healing is plentiful, and "being a healer" means to slap duct tape on a guy bleeding out so he can freaking regenerate like a troll later.

At least until you can cast _heal_, I suppose.


----------



## Clint_L

Yeah, I agree that 5e's pop-up healing paradigm is dumb. I didn't love 4e's healing any better, though, and maybe less. It's a really fine line because if you make healing too good combat becomes even more boring than it is now. 

Actually, let's be honest: combat in D&D is the least interesting part of the game, isn't it? A borked healing system is only part of it, but combat takes forever and offers a low entertainment return on the time invested.


----------



## James Gasik

Clint_L said:


> Yeah, I agree that 5e's pop-up healing paradigm is dumb. I didn't love 4e's healing any better, though, and maybe less. It's a really fine line because if you make healing too good combat becomes even more boring than it is now.
> 
> Actually, let's be honest: combat in D&D is the least interesting part of the game, isn't it? A borked healing system is only part of it, but combat takes forever and offers a low entertainment return on the time invested.



And yet, most players seem to really enjoy combat.  Go figure.


----------



## Maxperson

ehren37 said:


> it's not like gold matters by the default removal of player agency in meaningful purchases.



Players are not entitled to purchase whatever magic items they want.  Doing so is a privilege granted by some DMs, so there is no loss or removal of agency when you can't do it.


----------



## Maxperson

ehren37 said:


> I'm not saying that clerics don't have utility. I'm saying that HEALING isn't utility. It's the necessary butt wiping to allow the party to have fun and the adventure to proceed. Moreover, it competes with the other stuff clerics can do, and shares the same resources.



Healing is utility.  Hit dice are a resource quickly used up in an adventuring day if the DM is going by the guidance in the DMG and healing potions aren't so plentiful that they can take the place of a cleric.


ehren37 said:


> There's a reason healers are typically the least played classes in MMO's.



Yep.  You can sit and rest pretty much infinitely and heal in seconds and the same with mana, so you don't need many healers relative to DPS.  D&D is not an MMO, though, so apples and oranges.  D&D healing is a small fraction of the possible healing you can get in an MMO.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Only if facing a CR 1 or lower creature. Beyond that, damage is often far higher than 1d8+3



If the target is at low single digit hit points when you cast the spell, that's true.  However it is often cast before that point when the 1d8+3 can give you enough extra hit points that when combined with your own can keep you up for another round.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> Sure, it needs to be handled with care, but it also needs to be improved. However, many people claim that it is already too powerful and actually needs to be nerfed. So, clearly there are a lot of disconnects going on in the discussion around healing.




I think, too powerful is mostly used with overpowered healing abilities like the unnerfed healing spirit, not cure wounds...
Maybe the lowere end needs to be improved a bit, the high end (at low level) ab bit nerfed...


----------



## Stalker0

Clint_L said:


> Most optimizers claim (correctly) that "whack a mole" is the most efficient use of healing resources in 5e, which intentionally keeps healing as a losing battle against damage. Obviously, if there is a situation where a character will miss their turn at a key moment you try to prevent it, but in general using Healing Word _after_ someone goes down is much, much more efficient in terms of action economy and resource management than trying to keep them on their feet.
> 
> I will happily argue that Healing Word is the most powerful spell in 5e, in terms of actual impact on how the game is played.



Something that is important to remember. Technically, the delay action DOES NOT exist in 5e. Other than a readied action, there is no way move things around in the initiative order.

So while yes you could wait for a player to drop and then heal them, but if any monsters go between the dropped player and the cleric, they can walk on over, hit the player twice in melee....and instantly kill them.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Clint_L said:


> That's why I think healing word is broken and bad for the game. With healing word readily available, it is very, very hard for characters to die.




If having a healer in the party doesn't make it very very hard for characters to die, what's the point of a healer?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> If the target is at low single digit hit points when you cast the spell, that's true.  However it is often cast before that point when the 1d8+3 can give you enough extra hit points that when combined with your own can keep you up for another round.




Sure, if the enemy is dealing 21 damage, and you have 16 hp, and you can heal them for 7 hp, you've bought a round. A round you could have equally bought when they had only lost 10 hp and still have 60 to 90 hp left. 

Having healing be the most useless when it is most logical to apply is bizarre.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think, too powerful is mostly used with overpowered healing abilities like the unnerfed healing spirit, not cure wounds...
> Maybe the lowere end needs to be improved a bit, the high end (at low level) ab bit nerfed...




The unnerfed healing spirit is the one we use in our games. It is adequate. Certainly not overpowered. The high-end of healing is barely at the level I would want it. It should not be nerfed.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> The unnerfed healing spirit is the one we use in our games. It is adequate. Certainly not overpowered. The high-end of healing is barely at the level I would want it. It should not be nerfed.



The unnerfed healing spirit is totally busted. If you don´t think dancing around the spirit is more than dumb*, ok.
The nerfed one is also dumb. Just not good enough.
I think the best thing is just scrap this spell. It does not fullfill any role. It is either totally rules lawyer expolit or just a bad spell. chose one.

*because it is just way more powerful than any other spell and uses the congaline mechanic which is totally dumb. If you want healing to be more useful, just make all spells better and don´t rely on mechanical exploits.


----------



## James Gasik

I do recall a combat where healing word and "pop up" healing didn't work very well.  We were up against Magmin, who, if they hit you, light you on fire, causing you to take d6 (3) fire damage at the end of your turn unless you use your action to put yourself out.

So player goes down to the 2d6 fire damage of the Magmin's attack.  At the end of their turn, they automatically fail a death save due to the d6 fire damage.  It turns out that it's possible for a level 1 Healing Word to not heal enough hit points to prevent the d6 from knocking you back out again at the end of your turn, thus instead of having a full turn after being healed, you had to put yourself out, at which point a Magmin can easily knock you back down again.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Sure, if the enemy is dealing 21 damage, and you have 16 hp, and you can heal them for 7 hp, you've bought a round. A round you could have equally bought when they had only lost 10 hp and still have 60 to 90 hp left.



Unless you're psychic, you have no idea when they are at 60-90 hit points if they will ever hit 7, so it would be dumb to cast the spell then.  You do it when it could actually make the difference.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> If having a healer in the party doesn't make it very very hard for characters to die, what's the point of a healer?




Making sure they don't go down in the first place? I'd like to buff healing a bit, or at least have them scale better with spell level. Cure wounds can easily start at 2d8+wis and add 2d8 per spell level. But as I said, I'd rather have them unlock the characters ability to spend healing surges mid battle.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> The unnerfed healing spirit is totally busted. If you don´t think dancing around the spirit is more than dumb*, ok.
> The nerfed one is also dumb. Just not good enough.
> I think the best thing is just scrap this spell. It does not fullfill any role. It is either totally rules lawyer expolit or just a bad spell. chose one.
> 
> *because it is just way more powerful than any other spell and uses the congaline mechanic which is totally dumb. If you want healing to be more useful, just make all spells better and don´t rely on mechanical exploits.




There are a lot of different angles here, all tossed together like they are the same thing. 

1) No one, to my knowledge, has every claimed that the Healing Spirit spell is busted in Combat. You also can't congo-line in combat. Not without the kind of shenanigans which make the need for that much healing... questionable. 

2) It does fulfill a role. It is a Heal over Time spell for the Primal casters, increasing their ability to heal beyond just cure wounds and healing word. It was also a better healing spell for Rangers, who greatly benefited from it. Those are plentiful in terms of role. 

2a) Before complaining about it making Rangers too good of a healer, note that the Paladin gets Aura of Vitality, which could be compared favorably to the spell 2d6 per round instead of 1d6, costs a bonus action, but just has to be within 30 ft of the front-line (where most damage is taken) instead of in a specific 5ft square. 

3) It is more powerful than other healing spells of the same level (if used out of combat and targeting multiple creatures), sure, it is. I also think just about every single healing spell is _too weak_. Therefore, arguments that this spell is stronger than the others isn't a convincing argument for me. I want more healing spells that are stronger than what we have. Instead of nerfing or banning healing spirit, I would prefer to keep it and raise the other spells to a comparable level. 


The most powerful thing I've ever seen the spell do, in actual play, was heal a barbarian and my druid who got wrecked in a combat, back to full, out of combat. And again... shouldn't using one of my most powerful healing spells allow for that? That's why I was playing a druid focused on healing. 




UngeheuerLich said:


> Making sure they don't go down in the first place?




So, instead of making it incredibly difficult for PCs to die, you want healers to make sure they don't drop to 0 hp and risk dying... Isn't this a bit like saying that you don't want a cup of water, you want a cup of Dihydrogen Monoxide?



UngeheuerLich said:


> I'd like to buff healing a bit, or at least have them scale better with spell level. Cure wounds can easily start at 2d8+wis and add 2d8 per spell level. But as I said, I'd rather have them unlock the characters ability to spend healing surges mid battle.




Don't disagree with any of this.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Unless you're psychic, you have no idea when they are at 60-90 hit points if they will ever hit 7, so it would be dumb to cast the spell then.  You do it when it could actually make the difference.




So, it would be stupid to heal them 10 hp, when they have lost 10 hp, because you cannot know if you will hit that precise point where the impossible to predict math will land them in the sweet spot where 10 hp will make a difference... but if you wait too long, they will be low enough, from those impossible to predict random numbers, that your healing would be worthless.

And this ISN'T a reason that healing in 5e is terrible and needs a massive buff?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> Snip.




You can't introduce a spell that is so much more powerful than anything else at that level if you need rules lawyery knowledge to do so.

So, while I don't disagree that such a spell could exist, I think it was the wrong time and the wrong way to do so.

I think this spell was thought to use a reaction and shortly bedore release they thought: ah, the reaction is unneeded...
the nerf was too harsh IMO.

So the paladin aura of healing is a straight forward spell. No rules lawyering needed. No problem.

Now might be the time to reintroduce such a spell. But please, in a way that does not use dumb mechanics. The new and improved prayer of healing is a spell along that line of thought. I am looking forward to the primal version of this.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> So, it would be stupid to heal them 10 hp, when they have lost 10 hp, because you cannot know if you will hit that precise point where the impossible to predict math will land them in the sweet spot where 10 hp will make a difference... but if you wait too long, they will be low enough, from those impossible to predict random numbers, *that your healing would be worthless*.
> 
> And this ISN'T a reason that healing in 5e is terrible and needs a massive buff?



The bolded is unknown.  It would be stupid to heal them when they are at 60 hit points, because they might not take any more damage at all. It's not stupid to heal them at 10 hit points, because adding 8 hit points will often make the difference between going down to one hit and not going down to that one hit.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> You can't introduce a spell that is so much more powerful than anything else at that level if you need rules lawyery knowledge to do so.




Um... all designers have "rules lawyery" knowledge about the design they made. So... huh? Or are you saying that you can't introduce a spell of the appropriate power level if X percentage of players aren't saavy enough to realize that the other versions are incredibly weak? 

I'm really not sure what this sentence is meant to convey here



UngeheuerLich said:


> So, while I don't disagree that such a spell could exist, I think it was the wrong time and the wrong way to do so.




Okay, but just because it was introduced at "the wrong time" doesn't mean it can't still be used. I'd love if all healing spells get fixed, but part of that comes from telling the company "this is what all healing spells should be" not telling them "this is too powerful compared to other healing spells, nerf it into oblivion" which is what they did.



UngeheuerLich said:


> So the paladin aura of healing is a straight forward spell. No rules lawyering needed. No problem.




There isn't any rules lawyering needed for Healing Spirit either, so I'm not getting what the problem is.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Now might be the time to reintroduce such a spell. But please, in a way that does not use dumb mechanics. The new and improved prayer of healing is a spell along that line of thought. I am looking forward to the primal version of this.




I do hope they go back to the original version of the spell for OD&D. And I do like the new prayer of healing. Though I worry, since it is now usable once per day and clerics have a higher restriction on spell choice, that it is a sign they aren't going to actually improve healing spells.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> The bolded is unknown.  It would be stupid to heal them when they are at 60 hit points, because they might not take any more damage at all. It's not stupid to heal them at 10 hit points, because adding 8 hit points will often make the difference between going down to one hit and not going down to that one hit.




Unless the enemy they are fighting is a Charging Minotaur that does 22 points of Average damage, because then whether you have 10 or 18 hp doesn't make a difference. Or a Hobgoblin captain with an ally next to them who does an average of 19 damage with one of their two attack, because then if you have 10 or 18 hp it doesn't make a difference. 

Now, sure, it makes a difference for something like a hook horror, who does two attacks of a 11 damage. Going from 10 to 18 means that it takes two hits to knock you out instead of one hit on you and one hit on the cleric next to you. But then if the Cleric heals you again after you go down, the Hook Horror does drop you in one hit and then hits the cleric. So the cleric spent their entire turn and a spell slot to buy you a half of a monsters turn. Is that a good trade? 

And these are all CR 3 creatures. What the heck is a cleric supposed to do against more deadly threats? 

Take for instance an opening move by a CR 10 Young Adult Red Dragon. They breathe fire and hit the five members of the party for 56 damage. That is 280 damage from a single, rechargable, action. What can a cleric do about that? Even healing 56 damage to a single party member is nearly impossible for them to do in a single action, the only choice I can find that covers this much damage in a single action to this many people is Mass Heal. 



Now, sure, if you know the damage the enemy is dealing and if there is only a single enemy and if you get lucky in your timing, you can use a healing spell to buy one party member one extra turn. But is that really the fantasy of a healer in these games? That maybe, occasionally, they can buy a crucial second? No, no it isn't.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I'm intrigued by the hit die activation idea. What would be the results if Cure Wounds would let the target use hit dice equal to the spell slot level?


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Unless the enemy they are fighting is a Charging Minotaur that does 22 points of Average damage, because then whether you have 10 or 18 hp doesn't make a difference. Or a Hobgoblin captain with an ally next to them who does an average of 19 damage with one of their two attack, because then if you have 10 or 18 hp it doesn't make a difference.



Sure.  Not in every case.  Just most cases.  


Chaosmancer said:


> Now, sure, it makes a difference for something like a hook horror, who does two attacks of a 11 damage. Going from 10 to 18 means that it takes two hits to knock you out instead of one hit on you and one hit on the cleric next to you. But then if the Cleric heals you again after you go down, the Hook Horror does drop you in one hit and then hits the cleric. So the cleric spent their entire turn and a spell slot to buy you a half of a monsters turn. Is that a good trade?
> 
> And these are all CR 3 creatures. What the heck is a cleric supposed to do against more deadly threats?



Like the CR 10 Aboleth and it's 12 average damage?  Or CR 5 Cambion with it's 11 average damage?  Or CR 4 Chuul with it's 11 average damage?  Or the CR 6 cyclops which as a giant is supposed to dish out lots of damage, but barely exceeds 18 with it's 19 average damage?  Or CR 5 Barlgura with its 11 average damage?  Or the CR 9 glabrezy with its 16 average damage?

18 is sufficient to give someone a decent chance of staying up against many, many things of decently high CR.  And if you're that level, your heals will be better.


Chaosmancer said:


> Take for instance an opening move by a CR 10 Young Adult Red Dragon. They breathe fire and hit the five members of the party for 56 damage. That is 280 damage from a single, rechargable, action. What can a cleric do about that? Even healing 56 damage to a single party member is nearly impossible for them to do in a single action, the only choice I can find that covers this much damage in a single action to this many people is Mass Heal.



No.  We're talking hits, not specials with saves, and dragons to boot.  The claw averages 15.  The tail 17.  The bite barely over 18 and 19 damage.

Of course you can cherry pick something that does lots of damage with a special attack.  Most things do not.  Besides, if you can cherry pick a CR 10 red dragon, I can cherry pick resistance spells and/or tieflings PCs that are resistant to it and make their saves, only taking 14 damage from that breath.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Crimson Longinus said:


> I'm intrigued by the hit die activation idea. What would be the results if Cure Wounds would let the target use hit dice equal to the spell slot level?




I've written the spells this way, but I haven't had a chance to have a healer since I changed it. It feels like it is a good change just on paper though.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  Not in every case.  Just most cases.
> 
> Like the CR 10 Aboleth and it's 12 average damage?  Or CR 5 Cambion with it's 11 average damage?  Or CR 4 Chuul with it's 11 average damage?  Or the CR 6 cyclops which as a giant is supposed to dish out lots of damage, but barely exceeds 18 with it's 19 average damage?  Or CR 5 Barlgura with its 11 average damage?  Or the CR 9 glabrezy with its 16 average damage?
> 
> 18 is sufficient to give someone a decent chance of staying up against many, many things of decently high CR.  And if you're that level, your heals will be better.




The Aboleth which can hit three times for 12 damage, curse you with a disease to be unable to recover hp unless underwater, which cannot be removed except by a 6th level spell? And of course, we all know Aboleths are physical threats, not like they can enslave the Fighter to carve you up for far more damage. 

The Cambion, who can attack twice for 11 damage and can charm people as well. 

The Chuul who can attack twice for 11 damage, and sets up for a 1 minute paralysis 

The Cyclops who attacks twice for 19 damage or once for 28 damage. (BTW, hill giants do two attacks of 18)

The Barlgura who attacks once for 9 and twice for 11 damage. 

The Glabrezu who can attack twice for 16 and twice for 7 (or cast a spell) 


So, yes, you can cast a healing spell as your entire turn to handle between 50% to 33% of a monsters turn. But hey, that might be enough if these monsters only hit once instead of twice. Yes, Cure Wounds can be enough to stop a single attack, but when you are dealing with multi-attack and cure wounds takes an entire action, then you can't look at just the value of a single attack. I mean, you are trying to sell me that it is useful to heal from 10 to 18 hp agaisnt a monster that can casually deal 40 damage a turn. But in practice that was a waste of my action.



Maxperson said:


> No.  We're talking hits, not specials with saves, and dragons to boot.  The claw averages 15.  The tail 17.  The bite barely over 18 and 19 damage.
> 
> Of course you can cherry pick something that does lots of damage with a special attack.  Most things do not.  Besides, if you can cherry pick a CR 10 red dragon, I can cherry pick resistance spells and/or tieflings PCs that are resistant to it and make their saves, only taking 14 damage from that breath.




No, we are talking healing. And I'm not cherry picking. I talked earlier about how cure wounds can't counter burning hands. 

Also, again, stop being disingenuous with the monster's abilities. Cure wounds takes your entire action. That dragon doesn't do 15 damage (it also doesn't have a tail attack at all). Instead it does three attacks for 13+13+20 or 46 damage. Sure, you could cast a 2nd level cure wounds as a life cleric, healing 2d8+4+4 for 17 hp, and stop one of those attacks. But you only have three 2nd level spells. 

Meaning that if you did that every round, you will prevent a single round of damage from the dragon, who isn't using their iconic ability. You can heal 51 damage, and in that time the dragon will dish out 138 damage. And even if you increase that to using all of your 3rd level spells, instead of your second, you are only healing 67.5 which is just barely half of the damage being dished out. For three beefy spell slots, from the "best" healer in the entire game.


Also, we are not talking about Tieflings or Genasi, because we aren't talking about resistance. If I need to have resistance to the damage for the healer to be able to keep up, then the healer can't keep up. And while I may be in an all tiefling party that all make their saves, I could also be in an all-dwarf party that fails their saves. Or an all half-dryad homebrew party that takes double damage because of vulnerability. Once we go that route, we are going to get uselessly bogged in the minutia that frankly does not matter.


----------



## Clint_L

James Gasik said:


> And yet, most players seem to really enjoy combat.  Go figure.



Do they? I haven't seen any numbers on this, so I have no idea. In my games, players seem to feel otherwise - that it is sometimes fun and produces memorable moments, but most of the good times come from doing almost anything but combat. I agree that you need it to add consequences and danger to the story, but geez do I wish it was more streamlined and took half as long.

Going to the discussion of healing, if you buff healing you really alter the base design of the game, and would have to revamp a ton of other stuff. 5e combat is already extremely low stakes. If you buffed healing and left everything else as is, there would either be almost no risk, or DMs would have to offset the increased healing with harder hitting foes, so it would still be a wash. Or you could balance it by raising creature DPS but again...it's a wash. But you can't just buff healing and not expect anything else to change.


----------



## James Gasik

Clint_L said:


> Do they? I haven't seen any numbers on this, so I have no idea. In my games, players seem to feel otherwise - that it is sometimes fun and produces memorable moments, but most of the good times come from doing almost anything but combat. I agree that you need it to add consequences and danger to the story, but geez do I wish it was more streamlined and took half as long.
> 
> Going to the discussion of healing, if you buff healing you really alter the base design of the game, and would have to revamp a ton of other stuff. 5e combat is already extremely low stakes. If you buffed healing and left everything else as is, there would either be almost no risk, or DMs would have to offset the increased healing with harder hitting foes, so it would still be a wash. Or you could balance it by raising creature DPS but again...it's a wash. But you can't just buff healing and not expect anything else to change.



I mean if you want hard numbers, good luck.  I don't know where anyone would get them.  So all I have is anecdotal evidence on this.  Even in 4e, which could have very long combats (it wasn't unusual to have a fight take up to an hour through a combination of multiple enemies with varying abilities, interesting terrain or environmental factors, players dithering about the best course of action to take, and players using multiple abilities in a turn, not to mention both sides using out of turn actions), players would be quite happy to beat stuff up, even when other avenues of progression exist.

When I played 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e, which were mechanically dense experiences with a great many rules to recall, decision points for characters, and a pile of feats, class abilities, races, spells, and magic items to sift through, forcing you to learn how to evaluate them in order not to end up with a dud character, time and again, I would see people build combat characters, and relish any opportunity to turn enemies into piles of treasure and xp.

I got into 5e through AL, and it was much the same- even when I started playing home games with people I met through AL, optimizing a character for combat, and waiting to see what kind of crazy battles they could experience was a main draw.

While people might complain about a combat being grueling or hard during the encounter, never once did I hear anyone say "hey, maybe we could have less intense fights, or have a session more about roleplay or exploration?".

Things which I'm totally on board with, because when I'm in a combat, my first priority is to end the fight as soon as possible, to get to the interesting parts.  It's not that I can't derive some visceral enjoyment out of rolling big numbers, but I'm more of a strategist- I see combat as a puzzle to be solved, and I want to make the optimal moves to end it in the best way possible for my party.

Most TTRPG's are terrible combat simulators in the first place, yet again, it's been my experience that players seem to enjoy wanting to fight in them, even if the rules are terrible.

I mean, for a non-D&D example, I played Vampire the Masquerade since the 90's.  And for decades now, despite the fact that, as a potentially immortal being who should want to avoid combat like the plague, and the fact that the combat systems are some of the most atrocious experiences I've ever had in an RPG, people will still make combat characters and quite happily get into a fight.

I don't understand it, but that's how it is.

Now, in all fairness, yes, there are players who don't care for combat, and prefer roleplaying and story.  And I know quite a few of them.  Some, in fact, have no head for combat mechanics at all, and once you start talking about die rolls and modifiers and maneuvers, their eyes get this glazed over look.

But they always seem to be in the minority.  I can't explain it, and I'm sure a lot of people will chime in about how they've had the opposite experience and cannot conceive of my reality, lol.  But it is what it is.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> The Aboleth which can hit three times for 12 damage, curse you with a disease to be unable to recover hp unless underwater, which cannot be removed except by a 6th level spell? And of course, we all know Aboleths are physical threats, not like they can enslave the Fighter to carve you up for far more damage.
> 
> The Cambion, who can attack twice for 11 damage and can charm people as well.
> 
> The Chuul who can attack twice for 11 damage, and sets up for a 1 minute paralysis
> 
> The Cyclops who attacks twice for 19 damage or once for 28 damage. (BTW, hill giants do two attacks of 18)
> 
> The Barlgura who attacks once for 9 and twice for 11 damage.
> 
> The Glabrezu who can attack twice for 16 and twice for 7 (or cast a spell)



Number of attacks is irrelevant.  We're talking about whether *A* hit(singular) can take down someone with 18.  Can attack twice = can miss twice, can hit once and miss once, or can hit twice.  The latter is not guaranteed.


Chaosmancer said:


> No, we are talking healing. And I'm not cherry picking. I talked earlier about how cure wounds can't counter burning hands.



Okay. And?


Chaosmancer said:


> Also, again, stop being disingenuous with the monster's abilities. Cure wounds takes your entire action. That dragon doesn't do 15 damage (it also doesn't have a tail attack at all). Instead it does three attacks for 13+13+20 or 46 damage. Sure, you could cast a 2nd level cure wounds as a life cleric, healing 2d8+4+4 for 17 hp, and stop one of those attacks. But you only have three 2nd level spells.



Disingenuous is assuming that monsters always hit with all attacks.  And...

"Tail. Melee Weapon Attack: +14 to h it, reach 15 ft., one target. Hit: 17 (2d8 + 8) bludgeoning damage."  You should read the dragons you are using better.  You're the one who used an adult red dragon, not me.


----------



## Stalker0

Chaosmancer said:


> Take for instance an opening move by a CR 10 Young Adult Red Dragon. They breathe fire and hit the five members of the party for 56 damage. That is 280 damage from a single, rechargable, action. What can a cleric do about that?



To be fair, this is the alpha strike of one of the most physical imposing creatures in the game by design. Regardless of which side you are on this debate, this is simply a poor example to prove any point about healing, as this is certainly not the standard fare.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> Um... all designers have "rules lawyery" knowledge about the design they made. So... huh? Or are you saying that you can't introduce a spell of the appropriate power level if X percentage of players aren't saavy enough to realize that the other versions are incredibly weak?
> 
> I'm really not sure what this sentence is meant to convey here




Ok. I reiterate: you only get healing for everyone if you dance throught the spirit's square.
If it was meant to heal more than one person, it would not require such a mechanic.

I don't think it was the intended design and the designers were fast to nerf it, because it seems, that it was indeed not intended.

To the power: no, you can't introduce a single spell that is so much more powerful that it makes healing between combats that trivial compared to anything else.
It is like: fighters don't do enough damage with one handed weapons, so splatbook x has "the katana" which is finesse and deals 3d8 damage. It does nothing for the root of the problem and makes the game boring, because every fighter now has to take that weapon or feel way underpowered.
It also steps on the two weapon users' feet who might bot have taken great weapon and polearm master.

So if the designers intended to heal more than 1 person per round, they should have made the area of effect bigger (spirit's square and adjacent squares or so) and limit the healing to 1 per round on all those squares.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Clint_L said:


> Do they? I haven't seen any numbers on this, so I have no idea. In my games, players seem to feel otherwise - that it is sometimes fun and produces memorable moments, but most of the good times come from doing almost anything but combat. I agree that you need it to add consequences and danger to the story, but geez do I wish it was more streamlined and took half as long.
> 
> Going to the discussion of healing, if you buff healing you really alter the base design of the game, and would have to revamp a ton of other stuff. 5e combat is already extremely low stakes. If you buffed healing and left everything else as is, there would either be almost no risk, or DMs would have to offset the increased healing with harder hitting foes, so it would still be a wash. Or you could balance it by raising creature DPS but again...it's a wash. But you can't just buff healing and not expect anything else to change.




It will alter the game, but that doesn't mean it will alter it hyper-drastically. 

After all, you state that there would be "almost no risk" but... does every fight need to be a risk of PCs dropping to zero? I certainly don't think so, that seems not only rather silly but against how the game is designed now. Additionally, you already acknowledge the chance of PC death is low as the game is designed, and we have the constant discussion about how Healing word is the most powerful spell in the game because it prevents death as a bonus action. Doubling all healing wouldn't change that, but it would make OTHER strategies more viable. 

Instead of making all the play and counter-play circle around 0 hp characters and how often DMs attack them, you could actually deal with healing vs damage as a straight concept. You could have people who want to play pacifist healers ACTUALLY benefit the party by doing nothing but healing, because their healing will be significant enough that it will contribute to victory. 

I mean, I've already seen people talking about how the new Cleric's divine spark is mediocre damage but far too much healing. They are the same amount. 30 damage =/= 30 healing in the meta and that is bizarre to me.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Number of attacks is irrelevant.  We're talking about whether *A* hit(singular) can take down someone with 18.  Can attack twice = can miss twice, can hit once and miss once, or can hit twice.  The latter is not guaranteed.




No we aren't. The single hit comes from those enemies who deal single hits, not from multi-attacking foes. Even in the post you were quoting, I referenced this exact thing with the hook horror and went through it. We are talking about a single ACTION.



Maxperson said:


> Okay. And?




If the most powerful 1st level heal in the entire game can't counter the damage from a 1st level spell.... isn't that a problem? Doesn't it show that damage =/= healing? And again, single ACTION not single attack.



Maxperson said:


> Disingenuous is assuming that monsters always hit with all attacks.  And...




If a monster misses then your healing wasn't needed. Notably, monsters with multi-attack do not have less accurate attacks than single target monsters. Additionally, this is about comparing damage to healing, not accuracy. Because guess what? A Barbarian granting advantage (not raging) and having an AC of 13 is trivially easy for a creature with a +9 to hit, while a Bladesinger with magical gear to increase AC and the shield spell, with Bladesong active to push their AC to 27 isn't.

And we aren't comparing builds, a healer shouldn't be balanced as more or less effective depending on the AC of their party member, that's silly.



Maxperson said:


> "Tail. Melee Weapon Attack: +14 to h it, reach 15 ft., one target. Hit: 17 (2d8 + 8) bludgeoning damage."  You should read the dragons you are using better.  You're the one who used an adult red dragon, not me.




You should read other people's posts better. It would make you look less silly.



Chaosmancer said:


> Take for instance an opening move by a *CR 10 Young Adult Red Dragon*. They breathe fire and hit the five members of the party for 56 damage.




Of course, you could also read the monster stat block better, and notice that the Adult Red Dragon is CR 17, not CR 10, and their breath weapon does 63 damage, not 56. You really had every single chance here.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> If a monster misses then your healing wasn't needed. Notably, monsters with multi-attack do not have less accurate attacks than single target monsters. Additionally, this is about comparing damage to healing, not accuracy. Because guess what? A Barbarian granting advantage (not raging) and having an AC of 13 is trivially easy for a creature with a +9 to hit, while a Bladesinger with magical gear to increase AC and the shield spell, with Bladesong active to push their AC to 27 isn't.




So we could just make healing 3 times as powerful, but have it only affext you on a roll of 1 and 2 on a d6?
This would be 3 times as good as before?

Edit: what about a ray of healing?
You need to hit your target and it does 3 times as mich healing as healing word?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Stalker0 said:


> To be fair, this is the alpha strike of one of the most physical imposing creatures in the game by design. Regardless of which side you are on this debate, this is simply a poor example to prove any point about healing, as this is certainly not the standard fare.




Sure, it isn't the standard fare, but it isn't actually the most physically imposing creature. That'd be the Ancient Red Dragon who does 91 per creature, this is a young adult, as CR 10. This isn't supposed to be a challenging fight for a party of level 15 characters, and yet the Cleric with their 8th level spell slots has no hope of countering this damage. Not even close. 

And actually, let's take that truly terrifying single most imposing creature. It unleashes that breath weapon and does 90 damage to the party. Can the cleric fully heal a single party member? Only with a 9th level spell, Power Word Heal, or Mass Heal. The Heal spell is too little, and it is the third best amount of healing in the game behind those two which both heal truly massive amounts.


And it isn't like 70 or more damage is impossible at high CRs. The average damage of a CR 14 creature is supposed to be 70, and that's the best a cleric can do without 9th level spells gotten at LV 17. This is just the extreme end demonstration that healers are always behind the 8-ball. They cannot output enough healing to deal with at-will attacks, or to counter single massive attacks. This is part of why some people say things like Counterspell is the best healing spell in the game, because it can prevent more damage to the party than a cleric could ever possibly heal with a 3rd level slot.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> Ok. I reiterate: you only get healing for everyone if you dance throught the spirit's square.
> If it was meant to heal more than one person, it would not require such a mechanic.




You don't need to "dance through". Creatures can occupy the same 5ft space outside of combat. Ever seen a football huddle? And if that was what they wanted to fix, it would have been a trivial fix. "One creature within the spirit's square". It was absolutely meant to heal more than one person per round though, that is why it is worded the way it is. 



UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't think it was the intended design and the designers were fast to nerf it, because it seems, that it was indeed not intended.




There are far easier ways to make it heal only one person per round if that was the intent. It wasn't the intent. 



UngeheuerLich said:


> To the power: no, you can't introduce a single spell that is so much more powerful that it makes healing between combats that trivial compared to anything else.




If every other healing spell is too weak, then this one is actually on-par. And why is it bad to make healing between combats easy with a 2nd level slot? 



UngeheuerLich said:


> It is like: fighters don't do enough damage with one handed weapons, so splatbook x has "the katana" which is finesse and deals 3d8 damage. It does nothing for the root of the problem and makes the game boring, because every fighter now has to take that weapon or feel way underpowered.
> It also steps on the two weapon users' feet who might bot have taken great weapon and polearm master.




But if the problem is that 1-handed weapons don't do enough damage, and "the katana" actually does the proper amount of damage for a 1-handed weapon, instead of nerfing it to do too little damage, shouldn't you buff everything else to do enough damage? 

It sounds like what you are saying is "We have a general problem, this specific thing doesn't have that general problem and actually works. So we need to break this thing so it has the same problem, then fix the general problem" And that's just bizarre to me. 



UngeheuerLich said:


> So if the designers intended to heal more than 1 person per round, they should have made the area of effect bigger (spirit's square and adjacent squares or so) and limit the healing to 1 per round on all those squares.




You realize that this doesn't solve any of your actual complaints right? Except that you think it looks stupid to "Dance through the space" which you don't need to do. You'd still be able to heal the entire party 10d6 between combat. All this does is make it worse IN combat, when that is when it is least problematic.



UngeheuerLich said:


> So we could just make healing 3 times as powerful, but have it only affect you on a roll of 1 and 2 on a d6?
> This would be 3 times as good as before?




Making it more powerful, but less reliable does not fix the issue, no. Why would you think that is a viable solution? This just offers the chance to not  only not deal with the enemies in any capacity, but risk wasting your entire turn. 



UngeheuerLich said:


> Edit: what about a ray of healing?
> You need to hit your target and it does 3 times as mich healing as healing word?




As a 1st level, bonus action spell? Again, no one would take it. Because if you hit, you have done nothing to defeat the enemy. And if you miss, you have done nothing at all. The risks are not balanced here. 


Let's try a different tactic to explain this instead of me just saying "unreliable healing but more is bad" . Let's white room for a second. 

You have two warriors who are equally matched. Each Warrior has 50 hp and deals 10 damage on an attack. At this stage, whoever wins initiative likely wins. However, 2 - 1 is an unfair match, so the warrior who has a cleric on their side will win. 

But, what should the cleric do if they have a choice between healing 5 hp, or dealing 7 damage? 

The enemy warrior wins initiative and begins striking, in 5 rounds your ally will lose. If you heal 5 hp every round, then your ally will win, with 25 hp left, in round 5. But if you deal 7 damage every round, then your ally wins in round 3 with 30 hp left. You have left them with more health and they have won victory sooner. Dealing damage "heals" more than healing. 

Now, you can only heal 3 times during the fight, before you are completely out of healing. What leaves your ally with the most health? Just attacking and doing zero healing. Again.  I'm sure there is some mathematical way to turn this around, so that you can heal enough that even if you miss healing X% of the time, you will leave your ally with more than 30 hp, but with limited resources for healing, making it also unreliable doesn't actually make it the better choice.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> Snip.




I disagree with your resonings and prefer not to defute your arguments step by step.
I just iterate: having one clearly more powerful spell or weapon is not a fix for the underlying problem. It just makes the game more one dimensional.

If this is how you like your game to be balanced. Ok. But it is not good game design.

@unreliable spell: why do you think, hit chance does not have anything to do with average damage vs healing rate?


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> No we aren't. The single hit comes from those enemies who deal single hits, not from multi-attacking foes. Even in the post you were quoting, I referenced this exact thing with the hook horror and went through it. We are talking about a single ACTION.



Right, because a monster with 3 attacks can't land just one hit.  


Chaosmancer said:


> If the most powerful 1st level heal in the entire game can't counter the damage from a 1st level spell.... isn't that a problem?



No.  PCs are not balanced against one another or even 1st level spells used by monsters.  Taken in a white room where there are only the two spells being compared to one another, I guess it could be a problem. Taken in the actual game where there are many other resources bouncing around, including hit dice afterwards, no it's not a problem at all.


Chaosmancer said:


> Doesn't it show that damage =/= healing?



No.  Healing is more than just one spell.


Chaosmancer said:


> And we aren't comparing builds, a healer shouldn't be balanced as more or less effective depending on the AC of their party member, that's silly.



A healer isn't balanced around 1 spell, or even their magic vs. the damage of other spells.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Maxperson said:


> Right, because a monster with 3 attacks can't land just one hit.
> 
> No.  PCs are not balanced against one another or even 1st level spells used by monsters.  Taken in a white room where there are only the two spells being compared to one another, I guess it could be a problem. Taken in the actual game where there are many other resources bouncing around, including hit dice afterwards, no it's not a problem at all.
> 
> No.  Healing is more than just one spell.
> 
> A healer isn't balanced around 1 spell, or even their magic vs. the damage of other spells.




This exatly.
On top of that, 

a level 1 cure wounds can undo the average damage of a level 1 burning hand against a single person.
Having the most basic healing spell undo the whole damage of a first level spell makes combat very boring. We encountered that phenomen in the playtest. I as the DM could do nothing to scare my players (with usual low level means), because every damage I dealt was nullified with one action. So having a clock that ticks down is good for the game. Healing spells should just slow down the clock, or halt it for the frontline.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> I disagree with your resonings and prefer not to defute your arguments step by step.
> I just iterate: having one clearly more powerful spell or weapon is not a fix for the underlying problem. It just makes the game more one dimensional.
> 
> If this is how you like your game to be balanced. Ok. But it is not good game design.




So the solution is to nerf the only thing that is at the proper power level, instead of buffing the rest? Again, my position isn't that I left everything else alone and kept the basic Healing Spirit. My position is I kept the basic healing spirit, it hasn't caused any issues at any table I've used it at, AND I've buffed other healing. 

Now, I haven't been able to test my buffed healing spells, but that's just a lack of players at the moment. 



UngeheuerLich said:


> @unreliable spell: why do you think, hit chance does not have anything to do with average damage vs healing rate?




Because when I build a cleric or a druid, I do not determine the AC of my allies. In fact, I have very limited control over my allies abilities at all. The only way I have any control over them is to buff them. And buffing is not healing. 

So it seems a bit strange to base the effectiveness of my character off of someone else's character choices. 



UngeheuerLich said:


> This exatly.
> On top of that,
> 
> a level 1 cure wounds can undo the average damage of a level 1 burning hand against a single person.




Haven't read Max's yet, but I'll grab these points separately. 

Sure, it can heal the damage on one person. But a single target spell like Magic Missiles or Guiding Bolt does too much damage for Cure Wounds to heal. The point was to demonstrate 1) That I have referenced AOE saves before, so complaining about them now is silly and 2) That there are many spells at 1st level that deal more damage than Cure Wounds heals... like all of them.




UngeheuerLich said:


> Having the most basic healing spell undo the whole damage of a first level spell makes combat very boring. We encountered that phenomen in the playtest. I as the DM could do nothing to scare my players (with usual low level means), because every damage I dealt was nullified with one action. So having a clock that ticks down is good for the game. Healing spells should just slow down the clock, or halt it for the frontline.




Why should a party with a dedicated healer be scared? Is a party with a dedicated Face scared about failing basic social encounters? Is a party with a dedicated explorer scared about leaving town? Those may be just basic, easy things.... but we are talking about the most basic role of healers. Restoring hp caused by damage. 

Also, it is interesting that you refer to Cure Wounds as "the most basic healing spell". It is accurate to a degree. Do you know what you could also call it? The strongest single target healing spell until Life Transference. And until Life Transference was added to the game, it was the strongest single target healing spell until Heal. 

I mean, look at the list. Healing word is weaker. Goodberry is spread over multiple targets generally, at the very least it takes 10 actions. Prayer of Healing is multi-target and only heals as much as Cure wounds. Aura of Vitality could be stronger, but it is often spread over multiple turns and multiple targets, and the base line 2d6 is about the same as Cure Wounds at level 1. Mass Healing Word? Mass Cure Wounds? There is no stronger healing spell in the game for a single target until Heal. 

Meanwhile, does Guiding Bolt remain the single best single target damage? Not by a long-shot. First of all, it is beaten by Inflict Wounds at 1st level. But you eventually get to things like Disintegrate which do massive damage. 


And just to make my position clear, I'm only advocating for making healing spells good enough to cancel a single turn of a single monster in combat. So if you still want that clock, then you just need to have have two monsters of appropriate CR instead of one. Which you already likely did, because you need to match the parties potential action economy. There are other solutions for making the player's feel pressure than just making the damage higher. There are a lot of things I DON'T use, because they would wreck the party with little ability for them to counter-play. Heck, I realized I've almost never used enemy healers, because they aren't worth the time and effort to put on the field.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> So the solution is to nerf the only thing that is at the proper power level, instead of buffing the rest? Again, my position isn't that I left everything else alone and kept the basic Healing Spirit. My position is I kept the basic healing spirit, it hasn't caused any issues at any table I've used it at, AND I've buffed other healing.




Good thing I don´t speak about nerfing the only reasonable spell. You can do whatever you want. But you can´t introduce such an imbalanced spell in an existing game. You need to buff the rest. But since the designers were not willing to errata so much in the PHB for good reason, the Healing spirit was rightfully nerfed.
Actually if I introduced healing spirit in the UA for OneDnd, I would buff healing spirit, so that the intend is clear, whatever that is and just increase the area of the spell to make sure, that everyone understands the power without rules mastery (like: out of combat, everyone can just cuddle together... wherever this is stated explicitely in the rules).

Now is the right time to buff healing spells correctly, not back then. This is why we have OneDnD, to redo things that annoyed us for a few years.

I don´t think your idea is correct though, because that would make for a lame game (as I experienced in the next playtest*), but something should be done (hint: use hit dice more).

So, how often do you want me to reiterate that, until you stop laying words in my mouth. 

*if you like such a game, have fun with it, but for us, it was very lame. In some fights? Cool. In all fights? No thanks.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Right, because a monster with 3 attacks can't land just one hit.




That isn't what I said, Mr. "Don't read hidden meanings into my posts and you'll do better"



Maxperson said:


> No.  PCs are not balanced against one another or even 1st level spells used by monsters.  Taken in a white room where there are only the two spells being compared to one another, I guess it could be a problem. Taken in the actual game where there are many other resources bouncing around, including hit dice afterwards, no it's not a problem at all.




If the party is using hit dice, then I, as the healer, AM NOT HEALING. This should be really obvious, but Hit Dice are not something a healer (as the rules stand) interact with at all. You may as well be saying that 1st level healing spells are balanced because a Long Rest restores all hp. These are things you use if you have no healer, or your healer is tapped, they are not part of the healer's tool set. 

Also... since when have I compared a PC to a PC? I've talked about the spells, but that is a universal thing. And if PCs aren't balanced to be hit by spells used by monsters... well, that's a problem, isn't it? 

Finally, I've been comparing one monster, against one target, with one healer in the party. Does that sound like the actual game to you? of course not, you are going to have multiple monsters attacking multiple party members.... but you are also likely to still only have one dedicated healer. That doesn't make the healer more effective, it makes them less effective.



Maxperson said:


> No.  Healing is more than just one spell.




I never said it wasn't only one spell? Funny how you keep reading assumptions into my posts. But what I have talked about is how the new divine spark has been recieved

The Damage? eh, it's nice, but isn't very high. Good if you run out of spells
The healing? OMG this is far too much healing, and how many times? This is far too much. 

But they are identical numbers. In general, not just in a single spell, damage and healing are judged differently. People are acting like they should never be equal, and healing should always be highly limited and low. And I disagree, because all that does is ENCOURAGE the whack-a-mole that people hate so much.



Maxperson said:


> A healer isn't balanced around 1 spell, or even their magic vs. the damage of other spells.




What would they be balanced around then? We can look at other healing spells, but Cure Wounds is the best single Target healing in the game for quite a big chunk of gameplay. That seems like a really good place to start, but I suppose you have a different place to look? Hopefully it isn't the thing I was referencing that you quoted, the AC of their party members, because I don't think back-seat players are very highly looked upon.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> That isn't what I said, Mr. "Don't read hidden meanings into my posts and you'll do better"



My statement wasn't about your meaning, but about what your statement results in.  When we are talking about keeping someone up for *A SINGLE HIT* by healing them at 10 hit points, your Red Herring about actions results in what I said, because we would have to apply every attack as a hit for what you said to matter.


Chaosmancer said:


> If the party is using hit dice, then I, as the healer, AM NOT HEALING. This should be really obvious, but Hit Dice are not something a healer (as the rules stand) interact with at all. You may as well be saying that 1st level healing spells are balanced because a Long Rest restores all hp. These are things you use if you have no healer, or your healer is tapped, they are not part of the healer's tool set.



Apparently you only heal in white room vacuum spaces where no other PC has healing spells, no one ever uses healing potions, and no one ever uses hit dice.  The rest of us play in parties that use all sorts of different methods to heal, even when there is a healer there.

This isn't about you, the healer.  5e is taken as a whole, not some isolated white room portion. 5e is played with ALL resources available to the party to be used as needed, and 5e is balanced around ALL resources, not just you the healer.


Chaosmancer said:


> And if PCs aren't balanced to be hit by spells used by monsters... well, that's a problem, isn't it?



They are pretty balanced(just not by CR).  They're just not white room balanced such that every 1st level spell is equal and/or opposite to others.  Cure is not supposed to be the opposite of burning hands and is not balance to be.


Chaosmancer said:


> Finally, I've been comparing one monster, against one target, with one healer in the party. Does that sound like the actual game to you? of course not, you are going to have multiple monsters attacking multiple party members.... but you are also likely to still only have one dedicated healer. That doesn't make the healer more effective, it makes them less effective.



Sure.  And that's why you have Second Wind, healing potions, hit dice, etc.  The game is not balanced around a healer. It's balanced around a party and all of its resources.


Chaosmancer said:


> But they are identical numbers. In general, not just in a single spell, damage and healing are judged differently. People are acting like they should never be equal, and healing should always be highly limited and low. And I disagree, because all that does is ENCOURAGE the whack-a-mole that people hate so much.



Whack-a-mole is an issue, but not a new one. It has been around since 1e, though it became much more of a problem with hit points dropping to 0.  That's the primary issue that results in whack-a-mole, not the healing spell itself.  Your d8+whatever is going to be far less effective when cast on someone with -9 hit points.


----------



## James Gasik

Chaosmancer said:


> That isn't what I said, Mr. "Don't read hidden meanings into my posts and you'll do better"
> 
> 
> 
> If the party is using hit dice, then I, as the healer, AM NOT HEALING. This should be really obvious, but Hit Dice are not something a healer (as the rules stand) interact with at all. You may as well be saying that 1st level healing spells are balanced because a Long Rest restores all hp. These are things you use if you have no healer, or your healer is tapped, they are not part of the healer's tool set.
> 
> Also... since when have I compared a PC to a PC? I've talked about the spells, but that is a universal thing. And if PCs aren't balanced to be hit by spells used by monsters... well, that's a problem, isn't it?
> 
> Finally, I've been comparing one monster, against one target, with one healer in the party. Does that sound like the actual game to you? of course not, you are going to have multiple monsters attacking multiple party members.... but you are also likely to still only have one dedicated healer. That doesn't make the healer more effective, it makes them less effective.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it wasn't only one spell? Funny how you keep reading assumptions into my posts. But what I have talked about is how the new divine spark has been recieved
> 
> The Damage? eh, it's nice, but isn't very high. Good if you run out of spells
> The healing? OMG this is far too much healing, and how many times? This is far too much.
> 
> But they are identical numbers. In general, not just in a single spell, damage and healing are judged differently. People are acting like they should never be equal, and healing should always be highly limited and low. And I disagree, because all that does is ENCOURAGE the whack-a-mole that people hate so much.
> 
> 
> 
> What would they be balanced around then? We can look at other healing spells, but Cure Wounds is the best single Target healing in the game for quite a big chunk of gameplay. That seems like a really good place to start, but I suppose you have a different place to look? Hopefully it isn't the thing I was referencing that you quoted, the AC of their party members, because I don't think back-seat players are very highly looked upon.



There is a reason to go back to the 4e style of using hit dice to heal in order to provide better healing.  In 4e, a healing surge healed you for 25% of your maximum hit points.

You could only use this once per encounter with Second Wind, or outside of battle, after the 5 minute short rest.  Most spells that allowed you to heal gave you your healing surge value plus a bonus of some kind.

This allowed for a Healing Word to provide a significant chunk of hp, but it also limited how much healing one could receive over the course of a day.  The usual argument about healing spells comes down to this-

*The ultimate limit to how much players can accomplish in a game day is their hit point totals.  Every spell slot or ability that provides healing is _in addition to_ your use of Hit Dice.

When you take these things in aggregate, only a tough encounter can really drain the resources of non-spellcasters in any real way.  In fact, some non-spellcasters, like the Fighter, even have a resource to heal on their own, that is recoverable.

So consider a 4th level Fighter with a 16 Constitution.  Let's say they have 36 hit points.  To actually stop them from engaging in fights, you need to get them down to 50-75% of their total hit points.  By themselves, with no one else, you need to consider 4d10+8 healing from Hit Dice, and their Second Wind, which is another 1d10+2 that can refresh after a short rest.

Then you have to take into account whatever healing they could get from their Cleric/Bard/Druid/Paladin/Ranger in the party, not to mention cheap potions of healing (in a game that doesn't give you much to spend money on) and the Healer Feat.

If you're the kind of DM who uses an attrition model for adventure design, even if you limit resting using grittier rules, or ban the purchase of healing potions, this is already a high bar to achieve in order to feel like you're actually draining resources from the party.

If healing spells get better _without changing anything else_, that bar might become stratospheric.  And this is assuming you actually can fit in the fabled 6ish encounters per game day.

Anything that the players can do to rest more often also has to be addressed, since that gives them more ready access to resources.

I can't stand this model personally, I want healing magic to feel worthwhile again.  But at the same time, I'm not going to force extra battles just to pad out my adventure, and I also like big setpiece battles that are tougher than normal (and thus, might require better combat healing).

But as long as this is the way 5e is built, we're going to get pushback even if we mathematically prove that combat healing is terrible, because there are DM's who are looking at daily resources players have, and already feel it's too much.

I'm sure if Divine Spark leaves the playtest intact, that's going to be one more issue for them, especially since they also seem to want players to regain all Hit Dice at the end of a long rest, instead of half...


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> Good thing I don´t speak about nerfing the only reasonable spell. You can do whatever you want. But you can´t introduce such an imbalanced spell in an existing game. You need to buff the rest.




You seemed really upset that I included it, unnerfed, and said it was fine. Notably, even though I can supposedly do what I want I "can't" introduce the spell into the existing game. Even though I have proof in play that it is fine, because it is imbalanced.



UngeheuerLich said:


> But since the designers were not willing to errata so much in the PHB for good reason, the Healing spirit was rightfully nerfed.
> Actually if I introduced healing spirit in the UA for OneDnd, I would buff healing spirit, so that the intend is clear, whatever that is and just increase the area of the spell to make sure, that everyone understands the power without rules mastery (like: out of combat, everyone can just cuddle together... wherever this is stated explicitely in the rules).




Why does the ability to give hugs need to be explicitly stated in the rules? Heck, carrying someone IS in the rules, and that would allow you to be in the same 5 ft space. You keep acting like this was some secret hack of the game engine instead of basic logic.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Now is the right time to buff healing spells correctly, not back then. This is why we have OneDnD, to redo things that annoyed us for a few years.
> 
> I don´t think your idea is correct though, because that would make for a lame game (as I experienced in the next playtest*), but something should be done (hint: use hit dice more).
> 
> So, how often do you want me to reiterate that, until you stop laying words in my mouth.
> 
> *if you like such a game, have fun with it, but for us, it was very lame. In some fights? Cool. In all fights? No thanks.




Right, now is the time to buff healing spells. Which is why I'm talking about buffing healing spells in the thread about the new healing spells. But you can't buff them by making them stronger? Because then the game would be lame? For reasons. Reasons that seem to be a pure white-room construct and have nothing to do with the actual buffs. 

Now sure, I'd like to use Hit Dice more. That is a good mechanic that needs to be leveraged. But, again, raising healing so that a single target heal can handle the one action output of a CR appropriate monster after level 3, isn't going to make the game lame or unthreatening, unless you only ever send 1 CR appropriate monster at a time after the party. 

And even if you had a whole party of healers, all using their actions to heal all the damage you dish out every round... so what? That's their strategy. Just like if you had an entire party of bladesinging wizards using shield and taking the dodge action to be impossible to hit. It would be a really boring fight, but I'm not going to nerf dodge or remove the shield spell because it is a potential possibility.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> My statement wasn't about your meaning, but about what your statement results in.




Really? That's why the eye-roll emoji and the snide comment deriding why I said I was doing what I was doing? Because it wasn't about my meaning (which was implied by the statement you made) but about the _results _of my analysis.



Maxperson said:


> When we are talking about keeping someone up for *A SINGLE HIT* by healing them at 10 hit points,




Which we aren't. The only time we are talking about a single hit is from monsters that can only make a single attack. So stop trying to make this about a single hit. It isn't about that. 



Maxperson said:


> Apparently you only heal in white room vacuum spaces where no other PC has healing spells, no one ever uses healing potions, and no one ever uses hit dice.  The rest of us play in parties that use all sorts of different methods to heal, even when there is a healer there.
> 
> This isn't about you, the healer.  5e is taken as a whole, not some isolated white room portion. 5e is played with ALL resources available to the party to be used as needed, and 5e is balanced around ALL resources, not just you the healer.




Another PC with healing spells would be acting as a healer. So now healers can deal with 1 monster's turn by using TWO party members turns? That sounds like a good strategy to you? Because that sounds like a bad strategy to me. 

Potions? Yeah, I'm not talking about potions, because I'm talking about healers. If healers are only viable if they supplement with magic items, then healers aren't viable. Also, potions are the option mainly taken by parties WITHOUT healers. 

I'm also not talking about taking a short rest and using hit dice. Again, this has nothing to do with whether a healer in combat can properly heal the party. If you need to take a short rest while a gnoll is gnawing on your face, you are out of luck. Short Rests are mainly used to save the Healer's resources for later, during combat, when hit dice can't be used. 

And yes, in discussions about healers in 5e, the discussion is about the healer. Not every single healing resoruce that could be conceivably dreamed up by the DM. It is about "does this character have the tools to fill the role". And the answer currently, is no. They don't. That is why it is a common refrain that healing is far too anemic in DnD 5e, despite the existence of short rests, potions, other party members, and unicorns.




Maxperson said:


> They are pretty balanced(just not by CR).  They're just not white room balanced such that every 1st level spell is equal and/or opposite to others.  Cure is not supposed to be the opposite of burning hands and is not balance to be.




So which first level damage spell are they equal to? Name it.



Maxperson said:


> Sure.  And that's why you have Second Wind, healing potions, hit dice, etc.  The game is not balanced around a healer. It's balanced around a party and all of its resources.




Because every non-healer is a fighter who has second wind. 

Again, the healer should be balanced to be a proper healer. If I can't heal unless the fighter uses second wind and chugs a potion ON TOP of my best healing spell, then I suck as a healer.



Maxperson said:


> Whack-a-mole is an issue, but not a new one. It has been around since 1e, though it became much more of a problem with hit points dropping to 0.  That's the primary issue that results in whack-a-mole, not the healing spell itself.  Your d8+whatever is going to be far less effective when cast on someone with -9 hit points.




And I wouldn't wait to heal someone who is just about to fall over dead, if it wasn't the only way to make my healing matter in gameplay. A factor you keep ignoring to tell me about the wonders of potions. (which, by the way, are also a joke of a healing resource and need MAJOR buffs)


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Which we aren't. The only time we are talking about a single hit is from monsters that can only make a single attack. So stop trying to make this about a single hit. It isn't about that.



Then you're wasting your time.  I'm not going to waste mine with you.


Chaosmancer said:


> Another PC with healing spells would be acting as a healer. So now healers can deal with 1 monster's turn by using TWO party members turns? That sounds like a good strategy to you? Because that sounds like a bad strategy to me.



I never said they were healing the same hit.  I said that the game is balance around the entire party's resources, not one spell like you want to make it out to be.


Chaosmancer said:


> And yes, in discussions about healers in 5e, the discussion is about the healer. Not every single healing resoruce that could be conceivably dreamed up by the DM. It is about "does this character have the tools to fill the role". And the answer currently, is no. They don't. That is why it is a common refrain that healing is far too anemic in DnD 5e, despite the existence of short rests, potions, other party members, and unicorns.



Then again, you're wasting your time.  The game isn't balanced around the healer alone, so if you're trying to reduce it to only the healer and then talk balance, you're spinning your wheels.


Chaosmancer said:


> So which first level damage spell are they equal to? Name it.
> 
> Because every non-healer is a fighter who has second wind.
> 
> Again, the healer should be balanced to be a proper healer. If I can't heal unless the fighter uses second wind and chugs a potion ON TOP of my best healing spell, then I suck as a healer.
> 
> And I wouldn't wait to heal someone who is just about to fall over dead, if it wasn't the only way to make my healing matter in gameplay. A factor you keep ignoring to tell me about the wonders of potions. (which, by the way, are also a joke of a healing resource and need MAJOR buffs)



So this is what you aren't getting.  It's all "healing."  The barbarian with resistance to all attacks but psychic is "healing" 8 points of the 16 done when he takes half damage.  The rogue who sneak attacks and kills something early "heals" the damage that would have been done had the rogue not done so much damage so quickly and the monster lived another round or two. 

WotC has the calculations with the abilities, spells, etc. and have balanced the game around all of it, not just your healer and his one spell. 5e is resource management that is based around hit points, and that's far more than just healing.


----------



## Chaosmancer

James Gasik said:


> There is a reason to go back to the 4e style of using hit dice to heal in order to provide better healing.  In 4e, a healing surge healed you for 25% of your maximum hit points.
> 
> You could only use this once per encounter with Second Wind, or outside of battle, after the 5 minute short rest.  Most spells that allowed you to heal gave you your healing surge value plus a bonus of some kind.
> 
> This allowed for a Healing Word to provide a significant chunk of hp, but it also limited how much healing one could receive over the course of a day.  The usual argument about healing spells comes down to this-
> 
> *The ultimate limit to how much players can accomplish in a game day is their hit point totals.  Every spell slot or ability that provides healing is _in addition to_ your use of Hit Dice.
> 
> When you take these things in aggregate, only a tough encounter can really drain the resources of non-spellcasters in any real way.  In fact, some non-spellcasters, like the Fighter, even have a resource to heal on their own, that is recoverable.
> 
> So consider a 4th level Fighter with a 16 Constitution.  Let's say they have 36 hit points.  To actually stop them from engaging in fights, you need to get them down to 50-75% of their total hit points.  By themselves, with no one else, you need to consider 4d10+8 healing from Hit Dice, and their Second Wind, which is another 1d10+2 that can refresh after a short rest.
> 
> Then you have to take into account whatever healing they could get from their Cleric/Bard/Druid/Paladin/Ranger in the party, not to mention cheap potions of healing (in a game that doesn't give you much to spend money on) and the Healer Feat.
> 
> If you're the kind of DM who uses an attrition model for adventure design, even if you limit resting using grittier rules, or ban the purchase of healing potions, this is already a high bar to achieve in order to feel like you're actually draining resources from the party.
> 
> If healing spells get better _without changing anything else_, that bar might become stratospheric.  And this is assuming you actually can fit in the fabled 6ish encounters per game day.
> 
> Anything that the players can do to rest more often also has to be addressed, since that gives them more ready access to resources.
> 
> I can't stand this model personally, I want healing magic to feel worthwhile again.  But at the same time, I'm not going to force extra battles just to pad out my adventure, and I also like big setpiece battles that are tougher than normal (and thus, might require better combat healing).
> 
> But as long as this is the way 5e is built, we're going to get pushback even if we mathematically prove that combat healing is terrible, because there are DM's who are looking at daily resources players have, and already feel it's too much.
> 
> I'm sure if Divine Spark leaves the playtest intact, that's going to be one more issue for them, especially since they also seem to want players to regain all Hit Dice at the end of a long rest, instead of half...




There is a problem in your model though. And it is also a problem I addressed with a completely different rule. You assume that to stop the fighter you need to drain all of their Hit Dice. This is only true if A) You want to stop the fighter from adventuring and B) They have time to short rest during the encounters you are planning. 

I have often seen players panicking because they have reached 50% of their hp, with full HD left. I once had a game where, as a Life Cleric, I had to insist that the party only take a short rest instead of long rest, in the middle of dungeon, because we didn't need to recover all of our resources. It isn't a matter of the actual danger, but the perception of danger for many players. And if they drop to 10% of their hp, while still having all their HD, they aren't thinking "this was a boring adventure, I still had plenty in the tank", they are thinking "Dang, that was close, one more hit and I would have dropped". Because it doesn't matter what the HD are, it matters how many hp you have until you drop and if you need to seek a place to hole up and heal.

I'm still somewhat baffled by this idea that every fight and every adventure should have the party on the edge of their seat, in fear of whether or not they can survive, no matter how prepared they are for the adventure. If someone brought a healer, then I'm fine with the party being less worried about dying than if they didn't. That seems like the entire job of the healer. But right now, most parties just rely on short rests and potions and only use the healer to pop them up. The healer isn't changing gameplay by being included. In fact, many times the healer doesn't bother to use their resources on healing, because it isn't worth it.

Now, I will admit, I have  houserule that helps with attrition. It has rarely come up, just do to not having long-term games recently, but it solves the problem from a different angle. 

When you Long Rest, you don't regain hit points for free. You spend Hit Dice as normal. And, like the original rules, you only regain half your HD on a long rest (before or after you heal). This means that my attrition (when I can utilize it) isn't one day of fighting. It is multiple days of fighting. Sure, you get all your spells back, but you don't get items and you slowly drain of Hit dice. 


I'm tired and maybe not phrasing things the best, but this is where I'm at. I don't want potions and magic items to be the main healing. I don'teven particularly want Out of Combat healing to be the only viable option. I want in-combat healing to matter. Because that is when players are most engaged with their hit points, and where the healer WANTS to be the most effective. At preventing that drop to 0. Not at making the short rest more effective.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> Snip




You seem to insist, that I disagree with maoing healing stronger. Which i don't say.
You say, I am upset that you include it. No I am not upset by whatever you do. If you like such games. Fine. I don't. We are not playing an MMO... 

I don't want healing to be too powerful except for possibly the best of the best healers, not everyone.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> You seem to insist, that I disagree with maoing healing stronger. Which i don't say.




Well all I have definitively said on this front is that healing should be stronger, and offered a vague baseline for what I think it should be (1 action from a healer to heal 1 at-will action of a CR appropriate monster). And you keep pushing back that that would make the game lame because too much healing is boring. 

So, while you say you want to make healing stronger, you are disagreeing with the only model currently presented and not offering an alternative beyond something something Hit Dice. Does that mean more hit dice? Hit dice with spells (something I suggested for increasing healing to bring it in line with what I wanted)? Bonus Action Hit Dice spending? I can't exactly tell where we are at here except you disagree with me. 



UngeheuerLich said:


> You say, I am upset that you include it. No I am not upset by whatever you do. If you like such games. Fine. I don't. We are not playing an MMO...




And yet, instead of just accepting that I included it and that it has been fine, you decided to tell me how it needed to be nerfed and it is inappropriate to include it in the game. I can do what I want... as long as you can lecture me about why I'm wrong? 



UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't want healing to be too powerful except for possibly the best of the best healers, not everyone.




And how would we determine who the best of the best healers are? My guess would be Clerics and Druids. 

And how do they heal? Mostly with spells. So.... unless we are redesigning class or subclass features, all we have to discuss are spells. And certainly not "everyone" has access to healing magic. So, where am I going wrong here?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> Snip.




I give up. Let's just assume you are right.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Then you're wasting your time.  I'm not going to waste mine with you.




Feel free to stop responding at any time.



Maxperson said:


> I never said they were healing the same hit.  I said that the game is balance around the entire party's resources, not one spell like you want to make it out to be.




Is firebolt balanced around the paladin being able to divine smite? Because that is what you are saying, that any spell isn't balanced by itself, but is balanced in the context of every possible resource of a hypothetical party. That isn't how balance works. 

And I'm not trying to balance the game around a single spell. There could be a solution here by creating new spells. What I am doing is comparing this spell action, which is the best single target heal for over 10 levels of the game, against the thing it is supposed to be able to do. I'm using cure wounds because there isn't a better healing spell to use, not because I'm trying to balance the entire game on this single spell.



Maxperson said:


> Then again, you're wasting your time.  The game isn't balanced around the healer alone, so if you're trying to reduce it to only the healer and then talk balance, you're spinning your wheels.




This is madness. This is like saying that you can't balance the fighter, because the game is balanced around the entire party so you'd have to consider the rogue, wizard and cleric before being capable of even discussing the fighter. But what if the party is all fighters? Is it therefore impossible to balance the fighter? 

No. You look at the fighter, you look at what they should be able to do, and then you balance around the performance they should have. You don't need to consider every other possible thing that any party member may possibly be able to do.



Maxperson said:


> So this is what you aren't getting.  It's all "healing."  The barbarian with resistance to all attacks but psychic is "healing" 8 points of the 16 done when he takes half damage.  The rogue who sneak attacks and kills something early "heals" the damage that would have been done had the rogue not done so much damage so quickly and the monster lived another round or two.
> 
> WotC has the calculations with the abilities, spells, etc. and have balanced the game around all of it, not just your healer and his one spell. 5e is resource management that is based around hit points, and that's far more than just healing.




No, this is you not getting it. Damage isn't healing. If I say I'm building a healer then I show up with a Barbarian/Assassin Rogue then I have not made a healer. This is nonsense, a hammer saying that everything looks like a nail.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> I give up. Let's just assume you are right.




Okay, so which method would be the most balanced way to increase healing?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> Okay, so which method would be the most balanced way to increase healing?




Adding hit dice to the mix. Short burst healings. Having to spread around healing. Limiting powerful healing over the day, besides spell slots.

Having a diverse number of different spells, that are useful outside combat or in combat which telegraph it better to the reader. I like the direction of one dnd to try and make intends more obvious (what Jeremy Crawford told us in the video).

I think the new improved prayer of healing is a nice spell. I think, I'd remove the once per day limit or add ritual casting (not both).
I'd buff healing spirit to the old version in light of OneDnD and even improve it.

Bigger area (3 by 3 ft) , healing all characters in the area once per round. Equally useful in combat and outside, with the disadvantage of cocenteation durong combat.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Is firebolt balanced around the paladin being able to divine smite? Because that is what you are saying, that any spell isn't balanced by itself, but is balanced in the context of every possible resource of a hypothetical party. *That isn't how balance works.*



Neither is what you are incorrectly claiming that I'm saying.

The way it works is that WotC has calculated X amount of damage and damage prevention on average spread out over the adventuring day.  If they've calculated it at 20 points of prevention(arbitrary number), then it doesn't matter if it's 4 points from your healing spell, 8 points from barbarian resistance, and 8 points from the fighter's second wind or any other combination of 20.  20 is it.  

They know all the 1st level abilities, 2nd level abilities, etc. and they calculate those in when figuring out balance.  Looking at your healing spell in isolation the way you are doing is worthless when figuring out whether things are balanced or not.  Balance doesn't work that way.


Chaosmancer said:


> And I'm not trying to balance the game around a single spell. There could be a solution here by creating new spells.



You haven't yet shown there to be a problem, let alone gotten to the point where we should be looking at solutions.


Chaosmancer said:


> What I am doing is comparing this spell action, which is the best single target heal for over 10 levels of the game, against the thing it is supposed to be able to do. I'm using cure wounds because there isn't a better healing spell to use, not because I'm trying to balance the entire game on this single spell.



And you are looking at it in isolation, rather than as a whole with every other party member and all of their abilities.  


Chaosmancer said:


> This is madness. This is like saying that you can't balance the fighter, because the game is balanced around the entire party so you'd have to consider the rogue, wizard and cleric before being capable of even discussing the fighter. But what if the party is all fighters? Is it therefore impossible to balance the fighter?



If it's all fighters, then they have multiples of their abilities and those will be greater than a single fighter with a single ability.  WotC isn't you, though.  They have to balance groups of 4 against the monsters, and see if the totality of abilities is good.


Chaosmancer said:


> No. You look at the fighter, you look at what they should be able to do, and then you balance around the performance they should have. You don't need to consider every other possible thing that any party member may possibly be able to do.



Then you fail.  You will never achieve anything resembling balance if you continue to white room compare single classes and abilities to the game.  This is a group game, not an individual one and is not balanced around the individual.


Chaosmancer said:


> Damage isn't healing.



If I kill the monster before it would have done 12 points of damage to you, I in effect healed you for those 12 points.  High DPR classes "heal" by doing increased damage. It's not a difficult concept.


Chaosmancer said:


> If I say I'm building a healer then I show up with a Barbarian/Assassin Rogue then I have not made a healer. This is nonsense, a hammer saying that everything looks like a nail.



I put heal in "" for a reason.  You can't reasonably have thought I was literally saying they were healing.


----------



## James Gasik

Ah yes, the "death is the best status effect" approach.  It's irksome, but that's how the game has been designed for awhile.  Have everyone optimize to end combats quickly and you'll never notice how shabby in combat healing is.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> Adding hit dice to the mix. Short burst healings. Having to spread around healing. Limiting powerful healing over the day, besides spell slots.




Okay, what do we mean by "short burst healings"? That sounds the exact same as Cure Wounds to me, so what does this mean? 

Having to spread around healing sounds like just needing to spread around damage. I'm not sure how you can change healing to incentivize spreading it around unless there is damage to be healed. Unless you just cap healing and force it to spread, which just wastes it. 

If you are adding in Hit Dice, then healing is limited by the hit dice, as well as spell slots. But are you talking about things like only allowing a spell to work once per day? Because that is just annoying to track.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Having a diverse number of different spells, that are useful outside combat or in combat which telegraph it better to the reader. I like the direction of one dnd to try and make intends more obvious (what Jeremy Crawford told us in the video).




Agreed. More diverse spells for different needs are awesome.



UngeheuerLich said:


> I think the new improved prayer of healing is a nice spell. I think, I'd remove the once per day limit or add ritual casting (not both).
> I'd buff healing spirit to the old version in light of OneDnD and even improve it.




Agreed. I want to just removed the once per day limit. The ritual casting would make it even worse to have to prepare it for the day, because you would take up a prepared slot but can only use it once.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Bigger area (3 by 3 ft) , healing all characters in the area once per round. Equally useful in combat and outside, with the disadvantage of concentration during combat.




Disagree here, it would be less useful in combat (also, you made it smaller? Did you mean 3 x 3 squares?) if it only healed an area once per round. Everyone would have to group up into fireball formation instead of using 5e's movement rules to sweep in and out.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Neither is what you are incorrectly claiming that I'm saying.
> 
> The way it works is that WotC has calculated X amount of damage and damage prevention on average spread out over the adventuring day.  If they've calculated it at 20 points of prevention(arbitrary number), then it doesn't matter if it's 4 points from your healing spell, 8 points from barbarian resistance, and 8 points from the fighter's second wind or any other combination of 20.  20 is it.
> 
> They know all the 1st level abilities, 2nd level abilities, etc. and they calculate those in when figuring out balance.  Looking at your healing spell in isolation the way you are doing is worthless when figuring out whether things are balanced or not.  Balance doesn't work that way.




Are you joking right now? That isn't how they balance the game. They CAN'T balance it that way. For it to be balanced this way a group of 4 Paladins would have to have identical damage mitigation to a group of 4 sorcerers. And they don't. And they didn't balance it by saying that Sorcerers deal more damage, so that makes up for the Paladins having more healing and better saves. 

And I'm not looking at the spell in isolation. I'm looking at it while considering CR, spell slots, average monster damage design, and average hp. You keep acting like all I did was look at 1d8+wis mod and say "that can't be enough!" But that isn't what I did.



Maxperson said:


> You haven't yet shown there to be a problem, let alone gotten to the point where we should be looking at solutions.




Yes, yes I did. And even if I didn't, this conversation started with an acknowledgement by multiple parties that healing in 5e is too weak.



Maxperson said:


> And you are looking at it in isolation, rather than as a whole with every other party member and all of their abilities.




Maybe that is because there is no possible way to predict what the rest of the party looks like, or what abilities they have.



Maxperson said:


> If it's all fighters, then they have multiples of their abilities and those will be greater than a single fighter with a single ability.  WotC isn't you, though.  They have to balance groups of 4 against the monsters, and see if the totality of abilities is good.




So, 4 second winds is equal the ability to cast the Heal Spell 4 times? Because if you take the correct combination of abilities, the clerics can deal 3d8+2d8+wis+4d8+wis every round for a fight, while still having the Heal spells, so is that really balanced against 4 fighters with no feats? 

Or, and this might be a little out there, they don't actually consider every possible scenario and balance based on the consideration that any weak ability in the party will be paired with a stronger ability used by a different party member. Because that's stupid.



Maxperson said:


> Then you fail.  You will never achieve anything resembling balance if you continue to white room compare single classes and abilities to the game.  This is a group game, not an individual one and is not balanced around the individual.




I haven't failed yet. No reason to believe that it will all suddenly collapse after the years of me doing it.



Maxperson said:


> If I kill the monster before it would have done 12 points of damage to you, I in effect healed you for those 12 points.  High DPR classes "heal" by doing increased damage. It's not a difficult concept.
> 
> I put heal in "" for a reason.  You can't reasonably have thought I was literally saying they were healing.




You have not "in effect" healed me at all. Because you have no knowledge that that monster was going to deal 12 damage. Maybe it was going to deal zero damage. Maybe 5 damage. Maybe 30 damage. 

And sure, "If I kill the monster, it can't hurt me" is a concept. But it isn't the concept of a HEALER. If it was, then Assassins would be the premier healers of any game. But they aren't, they are in a category called "Damage per Round" or DPR. Healing is a different category, because DPR =/= healing. You don't just get to redefine things and pretend you are right.


----------



## Chaosmancer

James Gasik said:


> Ah yes, the "death is the best status effect" approach.  It's irksome, but that's how the game has been designed for awhile.  Have everyone optimize to end combats quickly and you'll never notice how shabby in combat healing is.




Too bad so many of us noticed how shabby in-combat healing is.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Are you joking right now? That isn't how they balance the game. They CAN'T balance it that way. For it to be balanced this way a group of 4 Paladins would have to have identical damage mitigation to a group of 4 sorcerers. And they don't. And they didn't balance it by saying that Sorcerers deal more damage, so that makes up for the Paladins having more healing and better saves.



Balance is a range, not an exact number.


Chaosmancer said:


> Yes, yes I did. And even if I didn't, this conversation started with an acknowledgement by multiple parties that healing in 5e is too weak.



That's certainly an opinion. It's not fact, though.


Chaosmancer said:


> So, 4 second winds is equal the ability to cast the Heal Spell 4 times?



Are you serious right now?


Chaosmancer said:


> Because if you take the correct combination of abilities, the clerics can deal 3d8+2d8+wis+4d8+wis every round for a fight, while still having the Heal spells, so is that really balanced against 4 fighters with no feats?



Yes, because "for a fight" doesn't equal "for every fight" like fighters maintain.  Fighters aren't behind in damage output.  They're behind in the other two pillars.


Chaosmancer said:


> You have not "in effect" healed me at all. Because you have no knowledge that that monster was going to deal 12 damage. Maybe it was going to deal zero damage. Maybe 5 damage. Maybe 30 damage.





Chaosmancer said:


> And sure, "If I kill the monster, it can't hurt me" is a concept. But it isn't the concept of a HEALER. If it was, then Assassins would be the premier healers of any game. But they aren't, they are in a category called "Damage per Round" or DPR. Healing is a different category, because DPR =/= healing. You don't just get to redefine things and pretend you are right.



You clearly don't get it, so I'm going to let this drop.


----------



## James Gasik

Chaosmancer said:


> Too bad so many of us noticed how shabby in-combat healing is.



Well that's the theory, anyways.  I'm all for getting combats done with, but optimizing for damage alone is super boring for me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> Okay, what do we mean by "short burst healings"? That sounds the exact same as Cure Wounds to me, so what does this mean?
> 
> Snip
> 
> Disagree here, it would be less useful in combat (also, you made it smaller? Did you mean 3 x 3 squares?) if it only healed an area once per round. Everyone would have to group up into fireball formation instead of using 5e's movement rules to sweep in and out.




1. Short and powerful burst healing options (as suggested: spend up to 1 hit die per spell level on top). 

2. Yes, 3 by 3 squares. 
Maybe a buff and a nerf. Yes, you need to group up, but you don't have to worry about Attacks of Opportunities. In a fight, where you need constant healing, you probably want to stay in close formation anyway.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Balance is a range, not an exact number.




And? What, because it is a range you are right about your range of "consider everything all the time, assume it is all balanced, and therefore nothing needs to be improved" but my range of "we should be able to hit close to these benchmarks" is wrong? All you are doing is asserting "because barbarian's can rage, clerical healing is balanced" and other such nonsense, meanwhile I'm showing that one action (not one attack) from a monster of equal CR to character level (CR being the challenge rating for "a group of 4 of this level should be able to defeat this monster relatively easily) generally does enough average damage (a range) that a single action from a cleric cannot provide enough average healing (a range) to counter-act. 

I have data. You have assertions that you are the most correct ever.  



Maxperson said:


> That's certainly an opinion. It's not fact, though.




Can you... disprove it? I've provided evidence backing up the claim, showing how actual healing abilities interact with the damage of monsters. You say it is false because rogues can sneak attack and kill enemies, and that should be counted as healing. 




Maxperson said:


> Are you serious right now?




You have asserted that the game is balanced so that healing abilities are balanced via party resources, damage dealing, and damage mitigation. So, a party of 4 high-level fighters with Second Wind should be equivalent to a party of 4 high-level clerics with Heal. That is your claim. If you think that is ridiculous, perhaps you have either so poorly presented your claim that you should revisit it, or you should begin to realize your claim has deep flaws. 



Maxperson said:


> Yes, because "for a fight" doesn't equal "for every fight" like fighters maintain.  Fighters aren't behind in damage output.  They're behind in the other two pillars.




Fighters can absolutely fall behind in damage output, even compared to clerics. Because while the claim is that "fighters can go all day" the truth is they cannot. They are limited by their HP, and to get enough fights per day to balance out the use of spells often takes a huge number of fights. 

Heck, let's run the numbers real fast. I was using 11th level characters. Everything is balanced against everything, as per your claim. 

To reach 3d8+2d8+wis+4d8+wis the cleric needs to cast Spirit Guardians as 3rd and Spiritual Weapon at 4th, then using a weapon cantrip like booming blade. They can do this for three fights, three rounds per fight. I know there is a 1 round delay here, but we're just getting some baseline numbers to start with. 

That would be (9d8+6) x 3 rounds or 139.5 x 3 combats or a total of 418.5 average damage. This is rough, spirit guardians is a save for half and an AOE after all, but hey, this gets us in the ballpark. 

So, a fighter with 20's in stats, sword and board, would get 3d8+21 x 3 rounds or 103.5 per fight. Which means the fighter needs a 4th fight to catch up. 

But, oops, the Cleric is in that 4th fight too, and they still have 2nd level slots and can deal 5d8+6 per round for another three fights. Which is another 256.5 damage, so over 6 fights I've got 675. Fighter after 6 fights is still half a fight behind. So we'd need to go into a 7th fight. Of course, the cleric still has two 5th level slots... 


And yes, I'm discounting that first round of cleric spellcasting for those first three combats, I'm also assuming that you are using an AOE to hit a single target. I'm discounting accuracy, but I'm also discounting save for half and the rider on the weapon cantrip. 

And remember, HP is the resource for how long the fight can go. The fighter may start with slightly more (+1 from the cleric before accounting for Con mod) but they heal much less. 16.5 every two fights, compared to the Cleric getting back 70. Which means you need FOUR second winds, which if we assume a short rest every two fights means you need 8 fights for the Fighter to heal as much as the cleric can in a single go. 


So, again, I'm not sure that these things are really balanced like you seem to think they are. 



Maxperson said:


> You clearly don't get it, so I'm going to let this drop.




Right, I'm the one who doesn't understand.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> 1. Short and powerful burst healing options (as suggested: spend up to 1 hit die per spell level on top).




Ah, I thought that was different than the hit dice consideration



UngeheuerLich said:


> 2. Yes, 3 by 3 squares.
> Maybe a buff and a nerf. Yes, you need to group up, but you don't have to worry about Attacks of Opportunities. In a fight, where you need constant healing, you probably want to stay in close formation anyway.




I don't really see much of a buff here. Instead of healing anyone who can reach the spirit, it ends up being a tight 10 ft area. And while opportunity attacks are lessened, you also have lost the freedom to move and hit targets how you want to hit them. 

I could be wrong, but it just feels overall like a nerf. Clustering like that is very very rough, especially for a d6 healing once per round.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> I could be wrong, but it just feels overall like a nerf. Clustering like that is very very rough, especially for a d6 healing once per round.




It adds up and healing spirit scales very well with spell level. Use it as a 3rd level spell and you heal 2d6 per turn (like aura of vitality), which is quite good if you can use it over 3 turns or more (after 3 turns you have negated a whole fireball of damage with a single cast of a 3rd level spell).
Seems about right for me. And again, powerful bursts of healing (a little bit buffed cure wounds) should also be viable (3d8+4) is lousy...


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> And? What, because it is a range you are right about your range of "consider everything all the time, assume it is all balanced, and therefore nothing needs to be improved" but my range of "we should be able to hit close to these benchmarks" is wrong?



They have the numbers.  You don't.  You just have feelings that something is off, and feelings aren't a reason to change things.


Chaosmancer said:


> All you are doing is asserting "because barbarian's can rage, clerical healing is balanced" and other such nonsense, meanwhile I'm showing that one action (not one attack) from a monster of equal CR to character level (CR being the challenge rating for "a group of 4 of this level should be able to defeat this monster relatively easily) generally does enough average damage (a range) that a single action from a cleric cannot provide enough average healing (a range) to counter-act.



Right. One(mine) actually deals with balance. The other(yours) is a white room isolated comparison that does not. Your minor healing spell is not intended to counteract what you are comparing it to. If it was, it would.


Chaosmancer said:


> I have data. You have assertions that you are the most correct ever.



Data when used incorrectly isn't anything at all.  Basically you have a poll and are spinning the numbers to suit your desires, but WotC has the actual play balance to consider, not your feelings on the matter.


Chaosmancer said:


> Can you... disprove it? I've provided evidence backing up the claim, showing how actual healing abilities interact with the damage of monsters. You say it is false because rogues can sneak attack and kill enemies, and that should be counted as healing.



You haven't provided a shred of evidence that there is anything wrong with balance.  You've taken two isolated things and compared them in a white room and declared that something is ubalanced based on a white room situation that doesn't deal with *entire party vs. adventuring day balance.*


Chaosmancer said:


> You have asserted that the game is balanced so that healing abilities are balanced via party resources, damage dealing, and damage mitigation. So, a party of 4 high-level fighters with Second Wind should be equivalent to a party of 4 high-level clerics with Heal.



Um, no. That was entirely you.  I never, ever made that claim.  If you wanted to actually get my claim correct(and you don't), you would have compared all of the abilities available to one 11th level group to another, and not deliberately twisted what I said compared a 1st level ability to a 6th level ability in a white room again and declared it to be what I am saying.


Chaosmancer said:


> That is your claim. If you think that is ridiculous



I think your deliberate Strawman is ridiculous, too.  We are in agreement!


Chaosmancer said:


> Fighters can absolutely fall behind in damage output, even compared to clerics. Because while the claim is that "fighters can go all day" the truth is they cannot. They are limited by their HP, and to get enough fights per day to balance out the use of spells often takes a huge number of fights.



Clerics don't have all of their spells for combat.  A group of 4 clerics will need use a good percentage of them for utility during the adventuring day, cratering their ability to dish out damage in combat. Again, you are white rooming things by incorrectly declaring that clerics will have all of their spells to use in battle.


Chaosmancer said:


> To reach 3d8+2d8+wis+4d8+wis the cleric needs to cast Spirit Guardians as 3rd and Spiritual Weapon at 4th, then using a weapon cantrip like booming blade. They can do this for three fights, three rounds per fight. I know there is a 1 round delay here, but we're just getting some baseline numbers to start with.



And if they do so, they're gimping themselves in utility outside of combat and will suffer for it.  AND they have zeroed out their 3rd and 4th level slots in 3 out of 6-8 encounters for that adventuring day.  Now they have 4 1st level spells, 3 2nd,  2 5th and 1 6th to divide up over 3-5 more encounters AND all utility for the day.

You also can't use Booming Blade unless fighters can use feats. All books outside of core are also optional and can't be assumed to be in play.


Chaosmancer said:


> That would be (9d8+6) x 3 rounds or 139.5 x 3 combats or a total of 418.5 average damage. This is rough, spirit guardians is a save for half and an AOE after all, but hey, this gets us in the ballpark.
> 
> So, a fighter with 20's in stats, sword and board, would get 3d8+21 x 3 rounds or 103.5 per fight. Which means the fighter needs a 4th fight to catch up.



They're going to get 3-5 more, so...


Chaosmancer said:


> But, oops, the Cleric is in that 4th fight too, and they still have 2nd level slots and can deal 5d8+6 per round for another three fights. Which is another 256.5 damage, so over 6 fights I've got 675. Fighter after 6 fights is still half a fight behind. So we'd need to go into a 7th fight. Of course, the cleric still has two 5th level slots...



So you ARE white rooming this into a situation that will never occur in actual game play and assuming that clerics only ever cast spells in combat.

Now try down 1/3 to half your spells AND having to heal yourselves with at least some of those slots instead of using all your slots for offense.  You know, like actually happens in real world game play and not fake white room situations where spellcasters have 100% of their slots for utility and 100% of their slots for combat in order to show how they are better than squares both in and out of combat.


Chaosmancer said:


> And remember, HP is the resource for how long the fight can go. The fighter may start with slightly more (+1 from the cleric before accounting for Con mod) but they heal much less. 16.5 every two fights, compared to the Cleric getting back 70. Which means you need FOUR second winds, which if we assume a short rest every two fights means you need 8 fights for the Fighter to heal as much as the cleric can in a single go.



Wait! You've used up every 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spell on offense, then said you have 2 5th and a 6th for the last fight.  Where are you getting this mythical clerical healing from?  They have no slots to use any.  You have spare the dying to stabilize the clerics that go unconscious and that's it.

Unless of course you want to take back a considerable amount of damage output so that you can actually heal and a considerable amount more for the utility you need to use out of combat in an adventuring day, in which case fighters action surge past you. 


Chaosmancer said:


> Right, I'm the one who doesn't understand.



Since you think that clerics have 100% of their spells for combat, 100% for healing, and 100% for utility, you clearly don't.

I'm also, given how you have twisted my claims and how you've used more than 100% of clerical spell slots, not going to trust your numbers as to how much fighters can dish out per fight.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> You also can't use Booming Blade unless fighters can use feats. All books outside of core are also optional and can't be assumed to be in play.



Well, unless they're an Arcana Cleric.  Or a High Elf.


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Well, unless they're an Arcana Cleric.  Or a High Elf.



I don't see how either of those make a difference to which books can be used for comparisons.  If he's excluding optional rules, then since all splat books are optional they have to be excluded.  Booming blade is not included in the PHB, so can't be used in any way.

High elves have to pick from PHB cantrips and arcana clerics can't be used at all.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> I don't see how either of those make a difference to which books can be used for comparisons.  If he's excluding optional rules, then since all splat books are optional they have to be excluded.  Booming blade is not included in the PHB, so can't be used in any way.
> 
> High elves have to pick from PHB cantrips and arcana clerics can't be used at all.



Ok, it's just you said we had to assume Feats, and there are ways other than Feats to get those abilities.  I haven't been fully engaged in the debate, so I missed the part where optional and non-core rules were being excluded from it.

I never made any secret about the fact that I hate the current healing paradigm and wish healing spells had more oomph, and never understood why offense =/= defense.  Pathfinder 1e had this same disparity baked into the game, as they claimed that if defense was better than offense, combats would drag on and become (more) boring.

This however, never seems to prevent monsters from having a plethora of defensive abilities in order to prevent players from killing them quickly, of course.

As much as it would be nice to reexamine the entire paradigm, I highly doubt that anything like that will come from WotC.  And, to my dismay, I must admit there is probably a good reason why it works the way it does now.

If casting big heals was optimal, characters who could cast them would feel pressure to do so, and we'd be right back to AD&D, where all your first level spells had to be "cure light wounds" and you'd never be able to cast anything more interesting.

Which was a miserable experience, so if the current state of the game is a necessary evil in order to let people play Clerics, Bards, and Druids and have more options than be walking band-aid dispensers, then so be it, I guess.


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Ok, it's just you said we had to assume Feats, and there are ways other than Feats to get those abilities.  I haven't been fully engaged in the debate, so I missed the part where optional and non-core rules were being excluded from it.



You didn't understand, probably because no one in their right mind would follow his and my conversation closely the way it's broken up.  He said that fighters could not use feats when he started comparing how much damage the two classes could put out. Presumably because feats are optional and can't be assumed to be in play.  That lead to me saying...

"You also can't use Booming Blade *unless fighters can use feats*. All books outside of core are also optional and can't be assumed to be in play." 

...because booming blade is just as optional as fighter feats are.  


James Gasik said:


> I never made any secret about the fact that I hate the current healing paradigm and wish healing spells had more oomph, and never understood why offense =/= defense.  Pathfinder 1e had this same disparity baked into the game, as they claimed that if defense was better than offense, combats would drag on and become (more) boring.



Healing was sacrificed on the altar of balance around the adventuring day and resource attrition.  If it had the oomph of yesteryear, it would unbalance things.  

I also wish it had more oomph, but that goes hand in hand with my intense dislike of balance around the adventuring day.  I wish they had never used that metric to balance the game around.


James Gasik said:


> This however, never seems to prevent monsters from having a plethora of defensive abilities in order to prevent players from killing them quickly, of course.
> 
> As much as it would be nice to reexamine the entire paradigm, I highly doubt that anything like that will come from WotC.  And, to my dismay, I must admit there is probably a good reason why it works the way it does now.



Yep. 


James Gasik said:


> If casting big heals was optimal, characters who could cast them would feel pressure to do so, and we'd be right back to AD&D, where all your first level spells had to be "cure light wounds" and you'd never be able to cast anything more interesting.



I hated that.  I actually rebelled against it when 2e came out.  I told the other players straight up that my cleric was going to be a Cleric of War or Magic or whatever and would not have much healing as I would be focused on his calling when it came to spell selection.  Then I let them know that if they wanted a dedicated healer, someone else would need to make one.  We had like 6 or 7 of us, so 2 clerics was easily doable.


James Gasik said:


> Which was a miserable experience, so if the current state of the game is a necessary evil in order to let people play Clerics, Bards, and Druids and have more options than be walking band-aid dispensers, then so be it, I guess.



I don't think it is.  I think there are ways to design the game such that spells, including healing, have more oomph without 1) sending us back to the caster dominance of yore, and 2) setting clerics up to be heal bots.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> It adds up and healing spirit scales very well with spell level. Use it as a 3rd level spell and you heal 2d6 per turn (like aura of vitality), which is quite good if you can use it over 3 turns or more (after 3 turns you have negated a whole fireball of damage with a single cast of a 3rd level spell).
> Seems about right for me. And again, powerful bursts of healing (a little bit buffed cure wounds) should also be viable (3d8+4) is lousy...




It does scale very well. I'd have to get to using it to determine whether or not the static area and clumping is as bad as I fear I guess.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> They have the numbers.  You don't.  You just have feelings that something is off, and feelings aren't a reason to change things.




I don't have numbers? Where did all my numbers come from then? I mean, sure, I felt something was off. Then I looked at the numbers. Then I checked with other people and sought other opinions, then I looked at the numbers AGAIN... I mean, I'm no paid researcher, but I really think declaring I'm basing everything off feelings when I'm showing my work is pretty lazy for a counter-argument. Especially for someone who hasn't done more than just shout I'm wrong without backing it up.



Maxperson said:


> Right. One(mine) actually deals with balance. The other(yours) is a white room isolated comparison that does not. Your minor healing spell is not intended to counteract what you are comparing it to. If it was, it would.




So, would your claim be that Wizards has NEVER overvalued something and NEVER made a mistake? I certainly would never make that claim, there is after all a trivially easy thing to point to that shows that they DO overestimate, and reams and reams of things to point towards that show that they make mistakes. 

And yours doesn't deal with actual balance, yours deals with the feeling that WoTC totally got it right the first time, despite any evidence to the contrary.



Maxperson said:


> Data when used incorrectly isn't anything at all.  Basically you have a poll and are spinning the numbers to suit your desires, but WotC has the actual play balance to consider, not your feelings on the matter.




And you still aren't doing anything to disprove me, just shouting that I'm using my feelings, despite all the facts I keep using. Getting kind of sad.




Maxperson said:


> You haven't provided a shred of evidence that there is anything wrong with balance.  You've taken two isolated things and compared them in a white room and declared that something is ubalanced based on a white room situation that doesn't deal with *entire party vs. adventuring day balance.*




And you keep asserting that I need to consider the entire party... but refuse to acknowledge that you can't predict an entire party. You are demanding the impossible, then asserting that Wizards must have done it right the first time, because... reasons! White Rooms! Feelings! 

You want to prove yourself correct? Then you need to show your work, not just insist my work is bad because I'm only looking at healing abilities vs damage.



Maxperson said:


> Um, no. That was entirely you.  I never, ever made that claim.  If you wanted to actually get my claim correct(and you don't), you would have compared all of the abilities available to one 11th level group to another, and not deliberately twisted what I said compared a 1st level ability to a 6th level ability in a white room again and declared it to be what I am saying.
> 
> I think your deliberate Strawman is ridiculous, too.  We are in agreement!




I am comparing the majority of the abilities together. Damage, spells, hp, AC, class abilities. Sure, I haven't listed every single thing in a 20 page report, but I certainly have done more than compare a scaling healing to a 6th level spell. Which I did because you claimed that the damage mitigation abilities of ANY two parties would be the same. Fighters get heavy armor, so do clerics, fighter damage, cleric damage, fighter ability to restore hp, cleric ability to restore hp. What more should I list for you to demonstrate that the fighter has less damage mitigation?



Maxperson said:


> Clerics don't have all of their spells for combat.  A group of 4 clerics will need use a good percentage of them for utility during the adventuring day, cratering their ability to dish out damage in combat. Again, you are white rooming things by incorrectly declaring that clerics will have all of their spells to use in battle.




Why would they need to use them during the adventuring day? Is the DM forcing them to use spells against their will? After all, it isn't like clerics have a massive amount of utility that they are required to use. 

And if the Clerics absolutely MUST use their spells to overcome the utility challenges of the adventuring day... aren't the fighter's just stuck and unable to progress? I mean, they get zero spells for utility. And if they are facing the same challenges... then the clerics don't need their spells for utility.



Maxperson said:


> And if they do so, they're gimping themselves in utility outside of combat and will suffer for it.  AND they have zeroed out their 3rd and 4th level slots in 3 out of 6-8 encounters for that adventuring day.  Now they have 4 1st level spells, 3 2nd,  2 5th and 1 6th to divide up over 3-5 more encounters AND all utility for the day.




Yes, you have accurately noted the usage of resources. Good job. Now tell me why I should care about this theoretical utility that you are making up? Especially since they still have many spell slots.



Maxperson said:


> You also can't use Booming Blade unless fighters can use feats. All books outside of core are also optional and can't be assumed to be in play.




Why not? I told you that was exactly what I was going to do. Didn't you read my post? I literally stated this "_Because if you* take the correct combination of abilities*, the clerics can deal 3d8+2d8+wis+4d8+wis every round for a fight, while still having the Heal spells, so *is that really balanced against 4 fighters with no feats?* _" 

And your response was the following. 


Maxperson said:


> Yes, because "for a fight" doesn't equal "for every fight" like fighters maintain.




I asked "Is that really balanced" and you said "Yes". You said it was balanced. Now suddenly, after I demonstrate the reality of that, you claim that it is unfair to not give the fighter's feats, and I can't use non-PHB materials and and and.... funny how quickly "Yes!" turned into "Wait, no, you can't do that." Maybe you should have either read a bit more closely, or considered your answer more.



Maxperson said:


> They're going to get 3-5 more, so...
> 
> So you ARE white rooming this into a situation that will never occur in actual game play and assuming that clerics only ever cast spells in combat.
> 
> Now try down 1/3 to half your spells AND having to heal yourselves with at least some of those slots instead of using all your slots for offense.  You know, like actually happens in real world game play and not fake white room situations where spellcasters have 100% of their slots for utility and 100% of their slots for combat in order to show how they are better than squares both in and out of combat.




You said Fighter's cannot fall behind in damage. I'm demonstrating that is false. You also keep harping on about this utility that I am required to spend spells on, but again, what utility am I required to use spells on? Demonstrate how I am required to spend half of Team Cleric's spells on utility spells, while Team Fighter can solve these same challenges without spells. You can't just assert yourself to be correct, you have to provide evidence.



Maxperson said:


> Wait! You've used up every 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spell on offense, then said you have 2 5th and a 6th for the last fight.  Where are you getting this mythical clerical healing from?  They have no slots to use any.  You have spare the dying to stabilize the clerics that go unconscious and that's it.
> 
> 
> Unless of course you want to take back a considerable amount of damage output so that you can actually heal and a considerable amount more for the utility you need to use out of combat in an adventuring day, in which case fighters action surge past you.




I have the 6th level slots. You know, the four 6th level slots that a team of four clerics would have is they had 6th level slots left? That's where that 70 came from. I compared the cleric's casting Heal, like I said, and having four of them becuase they are a team of clerics, like I said, against the Fighter's getting to use second wind.... like I said. 

You are really making me question if you understood the premise.



Maxperson said:


> Since you think that clerics have 100% of their spells for combat, 100% for healing, and 100% for utility, you clearly don't.
> 
> I'm also, given how you have twisted my claims and how you've used more than 100% of clerical spell slots, not going to trust your numbers as to how much fighters can dish out per fight.




What are you talking about? Do I need to take back that congratulations I gave before for accurately counting resources? 

Team Cleric has each cleric start with 4 first level spells, 3 second level, 3 third level, 3 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level.

If they cast Spiritual Weapon at 4th and Spirit Guardians at 3rd, three times each, then they have 4 first level spells, 3 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level spell.

Then, if they cast Spiritual Weapon three times at 2nd, then they have 4 first level spells, 0 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level spell.

Then, if they cast Heal as a 6th level, each member has 4 first level spells, 0 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 0 sixth level spells.


So... I haven't even used 100% of their spells, let alone 300% of them. And, I used the one spell on healing to demonstrate that the Heal Spell once is more healing than the fighter over the adventuring day, unless you get three short rests. I think your feelings are the ones that are suspect, since you are just ranting about me using 100% of the spells for healing (one spell) and 100% of the spells for utility (still not demonstrated) when that is clearly not what I demonstrated.


----------



## Chaosmancer

James Gasik said:


> Ok, it's just you said we had to assume Feats, and there are ways other than Feats to get those abilities.  I haven't been fully engaged in the debate, so I missed the part where optional and non-core rules were being excluded from it.




They weren't. Until Max demanded I exclude them for including them in my point.



James Gasik said:


> This however, never seems to prevent monsters from having a plethora of defensive abilities in order to prevent players from killing them quickly, of course.




Yeah, this was another thing I was considering recently. You never see monsters spending their turns healing other monsters. Or if you do, it is incredibly rare. I was recently thinking about a fight for my players where I would do this, and wondering if they'd call me a cheater for bringing back "dead" monsters who were actually just dying and could  be healed.



James Gasik said:


> As much as it would be nice to reexamine the entire paradigm, I highly doubt that anything like that will come from WotC.  And, to my dismay, I must admit there is probably a good reason why it works the way it does now.
> 
> If casting big heals was optimal, characters who could cast them would feel pressure to do so, and we'd be right back to AD&D, where all your first level spells had to be "cure light wounds" and you'd never be able to cast anything more interesting.
> 
> Which was a miserable experience, so if the current state of the game is a necessary evil in order to let people play Clerics, Bards, and Druids and have more options than be walking band-aid dispensers, then so be it, I guess.




Now, I will agree with this. But this is actually where the idea of the party resources DOES come into play. If there are multiple sources of healing, then even if the cleric or druid does amazing healing, this isn't all they have to do. 

But right now, I think we've swung too far the other way, where players rarely use healing abilities unless they don't understand the game math. The most I ever saw Cure Wounds used was a cleric and a druid who kept casting it on each other in the middle of a combat. And, as the DM, I wanted to scream at them, because they weren't recovering more than I was dishing out, and they were just wasting spell slots and their turns, forcing the rest of the party to pick up the slack. But they just frankly did not understand the math and assumed that the Cure Wounds spell was a viable choice to use every round after getting hit. And I know they didn't understand it, because they were shocked to realize they were running low on hp after the fight.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> I don't have numbers? Where did all my numbers come from then? I mean, sure, I felt something was off. Then I looked at the numbers. Then I checked with other people and sought other opinions, then I looked at the numbers AGAIN... I mean, I'm no paid researcher, but I really think declaring I'm basing everything off feelings when I'm showing my work is pretty lazy for a counter-argument. Especially for someone who hasn't done more than just shout I'm wrong without backing it up.



Oka then, show us WotC's secret balance numbers that you have access to and are using to base your complaint on.


Chaosmancer said:


> And you keep asserting that I need to consider the entire party... *but refuse to acknowledge that you can't predict an entire party*.



There's a reason I say that balance is a range. You'd know that if you listened to understand instead of listening to respond.


Chaosmancer said:


> I am comparing the majority of the abilities together. Damage, spells, hp, AC, class abilities. Sure, I haven't listed every single thing in a 20 page report, but I certainly have done more than compare a scaling healing to a 6th level spell. Which I did because you claimed that the damage mitigation abilities of ANY two parties would be the same. Fighters get heavy armor, so do clerics, fighter damage, cleric damage, fighter ability to restore hp, cleric ability to restore hp. What more should I list for you to demonstrate that the fighter has less damage mitigation?



Mitigation is one piece of the puzzle, which is your failure.  You don't seem to grasp that these abilities are part of a whole and the whole of not only the PC, but the whole party over the entire adventuring day is what the game is balanced around.


Chaosmancer said:


> Why would they need to use them during the adventuring day? Is the DM forcing them to use spells against their will? After all, it isn't like clerics have a massive amount of utility that they are required to use.



Maybe you haven't played the game before and don't understand that utility spells get used during the day.


Chaosmancer said:


> And if the Clerics absolutely MUST use their spells to overcome the utility challenges of the adventuring day... aren't the fighter's just stuck and unable to progress? I mean, they get zero spells for utility. And if they are facing the same challenges... then the clerics don't need their spells for utility.



They're going to use them. As for fighters and utility, perhaps you missed in all your ignoring of what I have been saying that fighters need help in the other two pillars.


Chaosmancer said:


> Yes, you have accurately noted the usage of resources. Good job. Now tell me why I should care about this theoretical utility that you are making up? Especially since they still have many spell slots.



Many?  You have literally used up every 2nd to 5th level slot for your combat damage.  They only have four 1st level spells and one 6th level spell for those "many" slots.


Chaosmancer said:


> I asked "Is that really balanced" and you said "Yes". You said it was balanced. Now suddenly, after I demonstrate the reality of that, you claim that it is unfair to not give the fighter's feats, and I can't use non-PHB materials and and and.... funny how quickly "Yes!" turned into "Wait, no, you can't do that." Maybe you should have either read a bit more closely, or considered your answer more.



You haven't demonstrated any such thing.  You incorrectly used more slots than clerics have to attack in every combat, while at the same time using those same slots for healing, and ignoring the fact that clerics will use spells for utility. 1+1 doesn't equal 7.  You don't get to use more slots than you have.


Chaosmancer said:


> Team Cleric has each cleric start with 4 first level spells, 3 second level, 3 third level, 3 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level.
> 
> If they cast Spiritual Weapon at 4th and Spirit Guardians at 3rd, three times each, then they have 4 first level spells, 3 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level spell.
> 
> Then, if they cast Spiritual Weapon three times at 2nd, then they have 4 first level spells, 0 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level spell.
> 
> Then, if they cast Heal as a 6th level, each member has 4 first level spells, 0 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 0 sixth level spells.



Oh, so now your statement that they used their 5th level spells in the 7th fight is false?  And what about an 8th?  And the utility that will be used despite your protestations?

Oh, and only having heal available is going to be death for those clerics.  The way combats work they will be brought low or knocked out in multiple encounters.  More often than 4 heal spells can handle.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> They weren't. Until Max demanded I exclude them for including them in my point.



You excluded feats which are the same as non-core rules.  Either optional rules are usable or they aren't.  You don't get to use some optional rules and then exclude the other side from also using them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> It does scale very well. I'd have to get to using it to determine whether or not the static area and clumping is as bad as I fear I guess.




Just to clarify, I would allow the caster to move the spirit as a bonus action. Probably I''d tie that heal to the bonus action as well, now that twf as a bonus action is probably gone.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> Just to clarify, I would allow the caster to move the spirit as a bonus action. Probably I''d tie that heal to the bonus action as well, now that twf as a bonus action is probably gone.




Good point


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Oka then, show us WotC's secret balance numbers that you have access to and are using to base your complaint on.




Why would they have secret balance numbers instead of the numbers out in the open in the books? They've flat told us what they expect for the damage of a monster based on its CR, and we can trivially see the player information. There is nothing hidden here, so you don't need "secret balance numbers" at all. This is just a blatant attempt to pretend like I have nothing but feelings, while ignoring the numbers I've been using. 



Maxperson said:


> There's a reason I say that balance is a range. You'd know that if you listened to understand instead of listening to respond.




So, how big of a range? What kind of factors go into this range that you clearly have access to and knowledge of? Can you provide evidence instead of just making assertions as though they were facts. 



Maxperson said:


> Mitigation is one piece of the puzzle, which is your failure.  You don't seem to grasp that these abilities are part of a whole and the whole of not only the PC, but the whole party over the entire adventuring day is what the game is balanced around.




What abilities? I've talked HP, mitigation, Healing, AC, Damage... again, instead of just saying that I'm only looking at "one piece" why don't you actually tell me what you think I'm missing. 

Because right now, I've covered the VAST majority of the things that could possibly be factors, but you keep saying that I'm only looking at one thing and ignoring everything else. And since you aren't giving any example, I'm left wondering if this is just theater because you don't have an actual point to argue against me with. 




Maxperson said:


> Maybe you haven't played the game before and don't understand that utility spells get used during the day.




Ad Hominen's won't help you. Especially for such a weak position. 



Maxperson said:


> They're going to use them. As for fighters and utility, perhaps you missed in all your ignoring of what I have been saying that fighters need help in the other two pillars.




So, here is an interesting point. The Fighters are going to lag... as in they can't solve the challenges. So, are you imagining that these two teams are facing two different sets of challenges, to force the clerics to use spells while also allowing Fighters to actually progress through the day? 

And, what are they going to use? Which Utility spells are these clerics using? "Some of them?" That isn't an answer. It is just yet another vague assertion. I'm not going to recant my assertions just because you make vague unsubstantiated claims. 



Maxperson said:


> Many?  You have literally used up every 2nd to 5th level slot for your combat damage.  They only have four 1st level spells and one 6th level spell for those "many" slots.




Wrong. Four 1st, two 5th and one 6th. Why do you keep having so much trouble keeping track of this? It really shows a lack of care that I have had to constantly correct you on what I've been saying. 



Maxperson said:


> You haven't demonstrated any such thing.  You incorrectly used more slots than clerics have to attack in every combat, while at the same time using those same slots for healing, and ignoring the fact that clerics will use spells for utility. 1+1 doesn't equal 7.  You don't get to use more slots than you have.




In order. 

Yes I did.
No I didn't use more slots than clerics have.
No, I've only used a single slot from each character for healing.
No, I haven't been ignoring utility. I've been asking you what utility they are being required to use. You have refused to answer and instead insisted I don't play DnD.
You are correct, 1+1 = 2. And 4+3+3+3+2+1-3-3-3 = 7 
Again, I've never used more slots than were had. You just seem to have a hard time counting, which is why I explained it below. You'd think that would have you take back this part of your post where you just demonstrate your inability to follow along. 



Maxperson said:


> Oh, so now your statement that they used their 5th level spells in the 7th fight is false?




I never made that assertion. I never followed the damage into the 7th fight, simply noting that by the time they reach the 7th fight they still have two 5th level spell slots, if we wanted to continue,. 



Maxperson said:


> And what about an 8th?




I never did the 8th fight, beyond noting that it would take until the 8th fight for the Fighter to have as much healing. I figured demonstrating they were behind on damage for 6 fights out of the day was sufficient. 



Maxperson said:


> And the utility that will be used despite your protestations?




Despite my asking for clarification on what utility you think a cleric will be using in this scenario, you have never once stated any. I am not protesting the use of utility spells, I'm asking what scenarios do you think that Team Fighter could solve without spells, that Team Cleric would be forced to use spells to solve. 

Since we have reached the end of your post, and you never answered this, allow me to posit something. You claimed that every party was balanced, against every party, by looking at all party resources. You claim this to be true, despite any build differences. Now then, are you aware that some people want to play blasters? That a cleric might load up on damage and healing spells, and not prepare any utility spells? Are you also aware that I have only stated three leveled spells (Spiritual Weapon, Spirit Guardians, Heal) and that the cleric can prepare approximately 14 spells at 11th level, meaning there are 11 other spells they could prepare... which could be ritual spells that do not require a spell slot? Are you also aware that clerics can have more than one cantrip, and since I have only used a cantrip that would not come from the class that there are a potential 5 cantrips that could be referenced that I have not considered yet. Additionally, clerics have skills, and skills could have utility uses, it is sort of their entire thing. 

So, beyond not all players wanting to play a utility character, we have ritual utility spells, and cantrips, and skills... all of which can cover any challenge that we can assume fighter's can cover with skills, since this cleric group has FAR more options than the fighters for utility. Which is strange, since that is while playing damage dealers that could potentially out-damage the fighters. And having comparable Hp, and the same AC. 



Maxperson said:


> Oh, and only having heal available is going to be death for those clerics.  The way combats work they will be brought low or knocked out in multiple encounters.  More often than 4 heal spells can handle.




Would they? Can you demonstrate this, or is this just another instance of "trust me, I'm right"? Because it seems to completely ignore those Hit Dice. I didn't mention them, but that's because I was accounting for class resources, and both groups were taking short rests, and therefore getting Hit Dice usage. I didn't think I needed to state them, because they would be obvious. Of course, now that I have been show repeatedly you can't count spell slots, I'm really far less certain. 



Maxperson said:


> You excluded feats which are the same as non-core rules.  Either optional rules are usable or they aren't.  You don't get to use some optional rules and then exclude the other side from also using them.




No. I excluded feats for the Fighters specifically. You claimed, again, that parties were balanced based on resources at the party level. That two disparate parties with completely different abilities and resources and builds are in fact balanced against each other. The Fighter's all took ASI's and have much higher stats, as demonstrated in the numbers. Or, are you going to claim that ASIs are not balanced vs feats? Funny, since again, when I asked the question:

_"Because if you take the correct combination of abilities, the clerics can deal 3d8+2d8+wis+4d8+wis every round for a fight, while still having the Heal spells, *so is that really balanced against 4 fighters with no feats?* "_

You said "Yes". 

So, were you wrong before, or did you just not understand the question. Again.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Why would they have secret balance numbers instead of the numbers out in the open in the books?



They design based around their formula, not the DMG guidelines.


Chaosmancer said:


> So, how big of a range? What kind of factors go into this range that you clearly have access to and knowledge of?



You need to ask WotC and see if they will share it with you.  I don't work for them and probably couldn't share due to an NDA if I did.


Chaosmancer said:


> What abilities? I've talked HP, mitigation, Healing, AC, Damage... again, instead of just saying that I'm only looking at "one piece" why don't you actually tell me what you think I'm missing.



Everything from Action Surge to fast movement to save or suck to portent.  It all makes a difference and factors in.  A single spell doing less healing than you want it to doesn't mean that it's underpowered.


Chaosmancer said:


> So, here is an interesting point. The Fighters are going to lag... as in they can't solve the challenges. So, are you imagining that these two teams are facing two different sets of challenges, to force the clerics to use spells while also allowing Fighters to actually progress through the day?



They will lag outside of the combat pillar, yes.


Chaosmancer said:


> And, what are they going to use? Which Utility spells are these clerics using? "Some of them?" That isn't an answer. It is just yet another vague assertion. I'm not going to recant my assertions just because you make vague unsubstantiated claims.



Really?  You need me to read you the utility spells clerics get?  And I already listed 3 or 4 several posts ago.  Didn't you read those?


Chaosmancer said:


> Wrong. Four 1st, two 5th and one 6th. Why do you keep having so much trouble keeping track of this? It really shows a lack of care that I have had to constantly correct you on what I've been saying.



You used your 5th level slots in one of the fights according to your posts.  Those are no longer available.


Chaosmancer said:


> No I didn't use more slots than clerics have.



You did if you didn't factor in utility.


Chaosmancer said:


> No, I've only used a single slot from each character for healing.



You do know that most combats see combatants go unconscious or very low in hit points, right.  Often multiples.  If you only have 1 slot for each cleric, they're going to TPK.  They aren't as durable as fighters.


Chaosmancer said:


> I never made that assertion. I never followed the damage into the 7th fight, simply noting that by the time they reach the 7th fight they still have two 5th level spell slots, if we wanted to continue,.



So either they use them, or they die because 4 PCs using only cantrips or maybe 1st level spells aren't going to fare well against an 11th level encounter.


Chaosmancer said:


> I never did the 8th fight, beyond noting that it would take until the 8th fight for the Fighter to have as much healing. I figured demonstrating they were behind on damage for 6 fights out of the day was sufficient.



So you just arbitrarily announced fighter damage?  Which subclass did you use? I'm guessing you went with the Champion, which is the weakest.


Chaosmancer said:


> Despite my asking for clarification on what utility you think a cleric will be using in this scenario, you have never once stated any. I am not protesting the use of utility spells, I'm asking what scenarios do you think that Team Fighter could solve without spells, that Team Cleric would be forced to use spells to solve.



This is a Red Herring.  Fighters don't have to be able to solve them.  Clerics WILL use them regardless of what another group might have done or not done.


Chaosmancer said:


> So, beyond not all players wanting to play a utility character, we have ritual utility spells, and cantrips, and skills... all of which can cover any challenge that we can assume fighter's can cover with skills, since this cleric group has FAR more options than the fighters for utility. Which is strange, since that is while playing damage dealers that could potentially out-damage the fighters. And having comparable Hp, and the same AC.



They don't have comparable HP.  They will be behind due to the fighter's larger hit dice and greater average con.


Chaosmancer said:


> Would they? Can you demonstrate this, or is this just another instance of "trust me, I'm right"? Because it seems to completely ignore those Hit Dice. I didn't mention them, but that's because I was accounting for class resources, and both groups were taking short rests, and therefore getting Hit Dice usage. I didn't think I needed to state them, because they would be obvious. Of course, now that I have been show repeatedly you can't count spell slots, I'm really far less certain.



I have years of game play where monsters dish out lots of damage in every fight.  Heal is one use.  Since it doesn't carry over and you have 4 clerics who will need healing in most fights, 4 heal spells aren't going to be that good.


Chaosmancer said:


> No. I excluded feats for the Fighters specifically. You claimed, again, that parties were balanced based on resources at the party level. That two disparate parties with completely different abilities and resources and builds are in fact balanced against each other. The Fighter's all took ASI's and have much higher stats, as demonstrated in the numbers. Or, are you going to claim that ASIs are not balanced vs feats? Funny, since again, when I asked the question:



No.  If you can use optional rules from other books, fighters can use optional feats instead of wasting ASIs on stats that they don't need.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Jeremy Crawford just admitted, that the fighters should have abilities that help them deal the damage which are currently available as feats.
So comparing anything to the fighter who does not use feats seems not fair.


----------



## James Gasik

UngeheuerLich said:


> Jeremy Crawford just admitted, that the fighters should have abilities that help them deal the damage which are currently available as feats.
> So comparing anything to the fighter who does not use feats seems not fair.



It's kind of strange though- up until the playtest, Feats were optional and not every game used them.  So does this mean that not using Feats made the game unbalanced?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

James Gasik said:


> It's kind of strange though- up until the playtest, Feats were optional and not every game used them.  So does this mean that not using Feats made the game unbalanced?




Probably yes. Not totally but a bit. It always felt that the fighter got shortchanged then.
I hope that Crawford lets deeds follow his words and design powerful abilities for the warrior group.

Edit: Also, feats are still optional mostly.
Only first level feats seem mandatory.


----------



## mellored

James Gasik said:


> It's kind of strange though- up until the playtest, Feats were optional and not every game used them.  So does this mean that not using Feats made the game unbalanced?



Getting +2 to your attack stat, and +2 to Con or Dex is just as strong as most feats.

But once you max those, getting +2 to your third favorite stat doesn't match a feat.
And for fighters in particular, they can max faster.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> They design based around their formula, not the DMG guidelines.




Where do you think the DMG guidelines for designing things for 5e CAME from? Do you think they designed stuff, had a formula that was balanced, then gave DMs a DIFFERENT formula for designing stuff? That isn't incompetent, that is flat-out malicious.



Maxperson said:


> You need to ask WotC and see if they will share it with you.  I don't work for them and probably couldn't share due to an NDA if I did.




AKA, I have no idea, yet I am asserting it as an undeniable fact but cannot even give you any guidance on what I am saying means.



Maxperson said:


> Everything from Action Surge to fast movement to save or suck to portent.  It all makes a difference and factors in.  A single spell doing less healing than you want it to doesn't mean that it's underpowered.




Clerics and fighters don't have fast movement or portent. I'm not considering any save or suck spells either. 

Now, Action Surge I did not calculate in. It is possible that could push the damage up before the 6th fight. I'm not sure exactly how one extra round of combat would work out, but it could be half a combat by fight number 6. I hadn't considered short rests when I was at that initial point, and I didn't go back to cover it after I talked about short rests, figuring we could cover it later. 

And yet.. I've been struggling even to get you to understand the spell usage, so I never went back to Action Surge. 

Also, do you realize that if I can't look at a spell and figure if it is underpowered, no one can look at a spell and determine if it is OVERpowered either, right? Any time you've looked at something and said it is too powerful, you've done exactly what I'm doing here. And I know you have discussed balance before, without taking this stance of it being impossible to determine balance.



Maxperson said:


> They will lag outside of the combat pillar, yes.




Lag how? What is going on outside of the combat pillar that they will lag in doing in this example? If they are able to proceed while lagging, then there is no reason to assume the cleric's can't as well.



Maxperson said:


> Really?  You need me to read you the utility spells clerics get?  And I already listed 3 or 4 several posts ago.  Didn't you read those?




Of course I know what spells they get, but that isn't the point. Sure, They get Water Breathing, do you need water breathing in a dungeon crawl? The answer is "sometimes" but they can also swim for 2 to 3 minutes, meaning that you'd need them to have to cover over 600 ft of distance for that to even be a concern. Augury? Augury is nice, but not nessecary. Not casting Augury is just not asking the DM if you are about to make a bad decision. Or maybe Purify Food and Drink, setting aside that they have the 1st level slots to do so, they are also seemingly in a dungeon crawl, and so that is far less likely to be needed. 

What you seem to be doing is conflating the fact that they HAVE utility spells with this idea that they are REQUIRED to use them. Which is false. Just because they have access to those spells, does not mean they are required to utilize them in any given day.



Maxperson said:


> You used your 5th level slots in one of the fights according to your posts.  Those are no longer available.




No I did not.



Maxperson said:


> You did if you didn't factor in utility.




No I would not, because you haven't established any need for utility.



Maxperson said:


> You do know that most combats see combatants go unconscious or very low in hit points, right.  Often multiples.  If you only have 1 slot for each cleric, they're going to TPK.  They aren't as durable as fighters.




No, most fights do not see that. If you are dropping people to 0 hp every single fight, you have warped things. If you would like to prove that you aren't, provide evidence, not just empty assertions.



Maxperson said:


> So either they use them, or they die because 4 PCs using only cantrips or maybe 1st level spells aren't going to fare well against an 11th level encounter.




Who says? They might do very well against a level 11 encounter. Or maybe in fight number 7 they do decide to use them, but either way I didn't cover fight number 7, so your accusations are still false.



Maxperson said:


> So you just arbitrarily announced fighter damage?  Which subclass did you use? I'm guessing you went with the Champion, which is the weakest.




Really? How do you know the Champion is the weakest? You have to account for all resources of the party, and the range of balance, so how are you determining the champion is underpowered? 

And I did not arbitrarily announce the damage, I went sword and board, to mirror the cleric having a shield for matching AC. one-handed martial weapons are 1d8, which is where my numbers came from.



Maxperson said:


> This is a Red Herring.  Fighters don't have to be able to solve them.  Clerics WILL use them regardless of what another group might have done or not done.




Why? Did they all sign a compact declaring they will use utility spells even if not neccessary so that Maxperson's claims of balance would be true? You keep asserting this opinion like it is a fact, but it is not a fact. The Clerics may choose NOT to use any utility spells. Nothing says they are required to prepare them, and nothing says they are required to cast them, and nothing says they are required to cast them with spell slots instead of as rituals.



Maxperson said:


> They don't have comparable HP.  They will be behind due to the fighter's larger hit dice and greater average con.




Behind yes, but that doesn't make them incomparable.



Maxperson said:


> I have years of game play where monsters dish out lots of damage in every fight.  Heal is one use.  Since it doesn't carry over and you have 4 clerics who will need healing in most fights, 4 heal spells aren't going to be that good.




So, you are saying that Heal isn't sufficient healing for the amount of damage the monsters will be dishing out? Based only on your "years of game play"? 

So, you would be saying that ~85 hp, plus the 70 from heal will not be enough to get through two fights and use HD? I'm making sure I understand your claim here, since you are just stating things and not backing it up beyond "I have experience"



Maxperson said:


> No.  If you can use optional rules from other books, fighters can use optional feats instead of wasting ASIs on stats that they don't need.




So, you are saying that the two parties are not balanced against each other?


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> Jeremy Crawford just admitted, that the fighters should have abilities that help them deal the damage which are currently available as feats.
> So comparing anything to the fighter who does not use feats seems not fair.




If Max had said at the beginning that a team with feats compared to a team without them was unfair, I would have potentially given feats. He did not. He said that they were balanced, because Fighters could go for longer. It is the classic argument that martials being able to "go all day" is how they are balanced. 

Kind of difficult to accept that the premise is unfair over halfway through the discussion, once he realized that the numbers were against him.


----------



## Chaosmancer

mellored said:


> Getting +2 to your attack stat, and +2 to Con or Dex is just as strong as most feats.
> 
> But once you max those, getting +2 to your third favorite stat doesn't match a feat.
> And for fighters in particular, they can max faster.




And for this scenario, Fighters are only level 11. That is only three feats I think (I'd have to check if they got one at 10th) 

So, it is possible they are only just reaching the 20 in both strength and con


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Where do you think the DMG guidelines for designing things for 5e CAME from? Do you think they designed stuff, had a formula that was balanced, then gave DMs a DIFFERENT formula for designing stuff? That isn't incompetent, that is flat-out malicious.



Those design things don't include the hidden math.  They just all fit.  You could not for instance, complete invent a new ability and rate it without having a very good chance of getting it wrong.  They would be very unlikely to get it wrong, because they have the hidden stuff.


Chaosmancer said:


> Clerics and fighters don't have fast movement or portent.



Fine. Since you want to be pedantic about it. Clerics have channel divinity and domain abilities.  Fighters have fighting styles, feats(since you insist on optional rules being usable), indomitable, etc.


Chaosmancer said:


> I'm not considering any save or suck spells either.



Why not? Clerics have those.


Chaosmancer said:


> Now, Action Surge I did not calculate in. It is possible that could push the damage up before the 6th fight. I'm not sure exactly how one extra round of combat would work out, but it could be half a combat by fight number 6. I hadn't considered short rests when I was at that initial point, and I didn't go back to cover it after I talked about short rests, figuring we could cover it later.



3 action surges, since it's not hard to have at least 2 short rests.


Chaosmancer said:


> Also, do you realize that if I can't look at a spell and figure if it is underpowered, no one can look at a spell and determine if it is OVERpowered either, right? Any time you've looked at something and said it is too powerful, you've done exactly what I'm doing here. And I know you have discussed balance before, without taking this stance of it being impossible to determine balance.



If I've said something is too powerful, that's purely my opinion about how it works in my game.  Not a fact.  And people here have said that it works just fine and isn't overpowered in their games.  

Having the opinion is fine. Change the healing spell for your game and be done with it, just like I nerf or ban things I think are too powerful or disrupt the campaign.


Chaosmancer said:


> Lag how? What is going on outside of the combat pillar that they will lag in doing in this example? If they are able to proceed while lagging, then there is no reason to assume the cleric's can't as well.



That's horribly wrong.  Just because you can suffer through something, taking lots of damage or having to go around obstacles, doesn't mean that clerics who can avoid issues aren't better at it.  

I'll let you look at some of the fighter threads to see exactly how they lag in social and exploration.


Chaosmancer said:


> Of course I know what spells they get, but that isn't the point. Sure, They get Water Breathing, do you need water breathing in a dungeon crawl? The answer is "sometimes" but they can also swim for 2 to 3 minutes, meaning that you'd need them to have to cover over 600 ft of distance for that to even be a concern. Augury? Augury is nice, but not nessecary. Not casting Augury is just not asking the DM if you are about to make a bad decision. Or maybe Purify Food and Drink, setting aside that they have the 1st level slots to do so, they are also seemingly in a dungeon crawl, and so that is far less likely to be needed.
> 
> What you seem to be doing is conflating the fact that they HAVE utility spells with this idea that they are REQUIRED to use them. Which is false. Just because they have access to those spells, does not mean they are required to utilize them in any given day.



No. I'm saying that some will be used, not that they are required. That's how players work.  If there's a problem and they have a utility spell that will solve it, it will almost always be cast.


Chaosmancer said:


> No, most fights do not see that. If you are dropping people to 0 hp every single fight, you have warped things. If you would like to prove that you aren't, provide evidence, not just empty assertions.



I love how you ignores the "or" portion of that statement in order to twist my words into "dropping people to 0 hp every single fight."


Chaosmancer said:


> Really? How do you know the Champion is the weakest? You have to account for all resources of the party, and the range of balance, so how are you determining the champion is underpowered?



The champion is not underpowered.  It is the weakest of the fighter classes.  Battle Masters have more battle utility through their maneuvers and also deal more damage. I find it convenient that you went out of your way to say no feats and use the weakest fighter in order to try and show that clerics are better, and you didn't even really manage to do that.


Chaosmancer said:


> And I did not arbitrarily announce the damage, I went sword and board, to mirror the cleric having a shield for matching AC. one-handed martial weapons are 1d8, which is where my numbers came from.



You don't need matching AC.  The fighter is better off with a two handed weapon and great weapon master.


Chaosmancer said:


> Behind yes, but that doesn't make them incomparable.



Behind by at least 22 hit points is not comparable.


Chaosmancer said:


> So, you are saying that Heal isn't sufficient healing for the amount of damage the monsters will be dishing out? Based only on your "years of game play"?



It only helps in one fight out of the 6-8 for the adventuring day.  Then they die.


Chaosmancer said:


> So, you are saying that the two parties are not balanced against each other?



I'm saying that if you get to use optional rules for the clerics, the fighters get to as well.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Those design things don't include the hidden math.  They just all fit.  You could not for instance, complete invent a new ability and rate it without having a very good chance of getting it wrong.  They would be very unlikely to get it wrong, because they have the hidden stuff.




So, when on page 274 when they show a chart that says a CR 7 monster should deal 45 to 50 damage per round, and then further on pages 277 and 278 they talk about how to split that damage, how to deal with things like aura. Heck, they directly give an equation for the first three rounds of combat. 

All of that is inaccurate because they didn't give us the hidden math? *What *hidden math? 

Or what about on pgs 283 to 284 where they talk about how to create spells, and they give a chart on spell damage per level, and then state that you can use that same chart for healing spells? Am I supposed to believe that they gave DMs false information that would be wrong because there is "hidden math" that they refused to share? 

Better yet, _how _do you _*know *_that this is the wrong information and the real numbers are using hidden math you aren't allowed to see?




Maxperson said:


> Fine. Since you want to be pedantic about it. Clerics have channel divinity and domain abilities.  Fighters have fighting styles, feats(since you insist on optional rules being usable), indomitable, etc.




Not all Channel Divinities are applicable, I figured they would skew the results to only use the ones that were. After all, Turn Undead is either completely combat ending, or useless.

I've accounted for Fighting Styles, as would be obvious from my numbers. 

The fighter team was specifically stated before my numbers to not use feats. You agree to that, no use calling foul now. 

Indomitable only works on saves, it does nothing else. There is no indication that any saves were required to be made, so no indication that Indomitable would alter the results.

Ect isn't an ability. It is a way of saying "and on and on" but it is interesting you chose to use it there, because for the Fighter there is no "and on and on". They don't get any new abilities as a base class after indomitable. 

I mention base class, and swing back to subclasses for clerics now, because yes, I didn't account for them. Doing so offers a wide range of different options. For Example, would you have been okay with me comparing a team of 4 twilight clerics to a team of Champion fighters? Therefore, it was easier and faster to use the theory of Ceteris Paribus in regards to subclasses.



Maxperson said:


> Why not? Clerics have those.




Sure they have those, but my analysis only involved Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. I mean, you could argue their damage goes down if they use Hold Person and then get multiple crits on an unmoving and non-threat target, but that requires many additional levels of math that really weren't relevant.



Maxperson said:


> 3 action surges, since it's not hard to have at least 2 short rests.




Yes, I'm aware that over six fights, with two short rests, it would be three action surges. That's how "one round of combat" could equal "half of a combat". I had not considered the effect on Action surge, but if I counted it as a full combat, then by fight #6 the fighter could actually pull a small bit ahead.



Maxperson said:


> If I've said something is too powerful, that's purely my opinion about how it works in my game.  Not a fact.  And people here have said that it works just fine and isn't overpowered in their games.
> 
> Having the opinion is fine. Change the healing spell for your game and be done with it, just like I nerf or ban things I think are too powerful or disrupt the campaign.




So... because I want to support my opinion with facts, demonstrating that there is a solid basis of reasoning behind my calls for changing the game.... that's bad? You don't like that I don't just say "I don't like this" and instead say "I don't like this, because it leads to this, and here is some math to show I'm not just making up a false problem?" 

Well... tough naughty word? I like grounding my opinions in a basis of logic and facts, that is never going to change, and I don't care that you don't like it. After all, the opinion part of this is just "this is bad". It isn't an opinon that 1st level cure wounds takes an action and heals 1d8+spellcasting modifier. Nor is it an opinion that the healing increases by 1d8 per spell level over 1st. Just like it isn't an opinion that a wyvern's stinger does an average of 35 damage, nor an opinion that it can do that and bite for another average of 11 damage. It isn't an opinion that CR 6 means it should be faced by parties around level 6, and that therefore a full-caster who has prepared Cure Wounds has their highest slot as likely a 3rd level slot (4th if they are 7th, but CR 6 is targeted at level 6). It would therefore also not be an opinion that casting a 3rd level Cure wounds and healing 3d8+mod, or an average of 13.5+mod, is less than 35 damage. It is even less than the on a save version, which is 23 damage. And increasing it to 4th level slots still leaves 18+mod, which is still less than 35 and less than 23, assuming that a 7th level character doesn't have a 20 in their spellcasting stat.

The opinion comes in with "this disparity is bad". We can debate circles about that opinion. But I am basing that opinion in facts that demonstrate the disparity as also a fact.



Maxperson said:


> That's horribly wrong.  Just because you can suffer through something, taking lots of damage or having to go around obstacles, doesn't mean that clerics who can avoid issues aren't better at it.
> 
> I'll let you look at some of the fighter threads to see exactly how they lag in social and exploration.




What does that have to do with anything? You are completely misunderstanding the point. 

The point is, if Fighters can get through it by going around the obstacle.... a cleric can just go around the obstacle. Sure, a cleric may have the potential to do something better, but that doesn't mean they are required to do so. Whatever Team Fighter is doing, Team Cleric can do the EXACT SAME THING, because fighters have nothing but skills and clever play to deal with social and exploration challenges. I'm not saying that clerics don't have options, I'm saying that part of having options is choosing to do what the fighter does. 



Maxperson said:


> No. I'm saying that some will be used, not that they are required. That's how players work.  If there's a problem and they have a utility spell that will solve it, it will almost always be cast.




"Almost always" isn't "always". They can choose NOT to cast it. You insisting that I have to dedicate slots to doing something that someone MIGHT choose to do is inane. Especially since these seem to be schrondinger's problems, that only exist long enough to force cleric spell usage but then have no effect on team fighter.  



Maxperson said:


> I love how you ignores the "or" portion of that statement in order to twist my words into "dropping people to 0 hp every single fight."




I love how you can't see two sentences as tackling two different ideas. To break this down further and help you understand what you are reading. 

No, most fights do not see [most combats see combatants go unconscious or very low in hit points].* If* you are dropping people to 0 hp every single fight (Note here that I am addressing only half of your statement, not both halves), you have warped things. If you would like to prove that you aren't [warping things by dropping people to 0 hp every fight], provide evidence, not just empty assertions.  


But sure, if you would instead like to prove that you just drop people to "very low hit points" every single fight instead of to zero, feel free. But somehow I get the feeling that you will continue to ignore my calls for you to actually back up your claims, like you have for the last dozen or so pages of this discussion.



Maxperson said:


> The champion is not underpowered.  It is the weakest of the fighter classes.




Okay, prove it. That's what I asked.



Maxperson said:


> Battle Masters have more battle utility through their maneuvers and also deal more damage. I find it convenient that you went out of your way to say no feats and use the weakest fighter in order to try and show that clerics are better, and you didn't even really manage to do that.




Show me where I claimed the champion is what I was using? Also, while the battlemaster MIGHT do more damage and MIGHT have more utility, what about the Arcane Archer? The Cavelier? The Purple Dragon Knight? Even if you prove the Battle Master is stronger than the champion (facts not in evidence, you just stated it as true) that doesn't mean the champion is the weakest fighter. 

But really, I see that this discussion is quickly reaching an end point, because you have trapped yourself. See below.



Maxperson said:


> You don't need matching AC.  The fighter is better off with a two handed weapon and great weapon master.




How are they better off? Also, you want me to have another disparity? Interesting choice. 




Maxperson said:


> I'm saying that if you get to use optional rules for the clerics, the fighters get to as well.




So, at a minimum, you have admitted that parties are not balanced if one group is using feats and the other isn't. Which is interesting. Because that means that if feats are allowed (and they often are) then using a 1-handed weapon that does 1d8+mod isn't balanced, it is actually behind. Notably, you pointed out that fighters are generally closer to balanced against spellcasters using two-handed weapons and getting a +10 damage. That's what them being "better off" would mean, right? 

But, that means that a "balanced" at-will attack would be closer to 2d6+10+mod, averaging 17+mod. So then... healing doesn't actually restore a single balanced at-will attack, does it? 4.5+mod isn't even close to 17+mod. So, this seems to indicate that.... I am probably on to something with healing being too weak, because attacks of 1d8+mod are seen as too weak as well.



Maxperson said:


> Behind by at least 22 hit points is not comparable.
> 
> It only helps in one fight out of the 6-8 for the adventuring day.  Then they die.




Interesting. So, you admit Fighter's don't have enough healing. Just, flat out. 

See, a cleric would have, on average, about 80 hp by level 11. A fighter being at least 22 point higher would place them at 102. But let's give you 120 hp and make it a 40 pt disparity, double what you claimed.

Those clerics each get +70 hp from Heal, which helps them in one fight. Then they die. That puts them at 150 hp. 

However... isn't 150 hp HIGHER than the fighter's 120? Ah, but I forgot second wind, of course. That gives them and extra 1d10+11 or 16.5 hp. Which is 136.5.... and still lower than 150. 

Additionally, you've just said :


Maxperson said:


> You don't need matching AC.  The fighter is better off with a two handed weapon and great weapon master.




Lower AC means the fighter is going to get hit more often, meaning they will take MORE damage than the clerics. Additionally, all the cleric abilities I had listed can work at range. Fighter's weapons can't. Which is potentially even more damage. 

So if clerics are doomed to death with only 150 hp, how can fighter's possible survive with only 136.5? And remember, this is DOUBLE the hp disparity that YOU claimed. By your own claims, the fighters die by the second fight, especially if your claim that every fight ends with multiple combatants at low hp, because Fighter's can't heal to full between fight 1 and fight 2, but the clerics can. 

You've trapped yourself with your own arguments. I don't even need to do anything any more. Because if Fighters can survive 6 combats with only Second Wind and Hit Dice, then Clerics should be able to do the same with Heal and Hit Dice. But if clerics can't, then fighters can't. And if fighters can't survive until fight number 6, then they can't pull ahead and match the damage output of clerics, because that requires "going all day" which you have just made clear you don't believe is actually possible. 

I guess at this point, have fun arguing with yourself, because that's who you need to disprove at this point.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> So, when on page 274 when they show a chart that says a CR 7 monster should deal 45 to 50 damage per round, and then further on pages 277 and 278 they talk about how to split that damage, how to deal with things like aura. Heck, they directly give an equation for the first three rounds of combat.
> 
> All of that is inaccurate because they didn't give us the hidden math? *What *hidden math?
> 
> Or what about on pgs 283 to 284 where they talk about how to create spells, and they give a chart on spell damage per level, and then state that you can use that same chart for healing spells? Am I supposed to believe that they gave DMs false information that would be wrong because there is "hidden math" that they refused to share?
> 
> Better yet, _how _do you _*know *_that this is the wrong information and the real numbers are using hidden math you aren't allowed to see?



Come up with an ability not on the monster features list and you will have difficulty assigning it an effective challenge rating.  They on the other hand will not have that difficulty, because they have the math that enabled them to rate the monster features.

What they've given you are tools to make a monster. They did NOT give you the math behind those tools.


Chaosmancer said:


> Not all Channel Divinities are applicable, I figured they would skew the results to only use the ones that were. After all, Turn Undead is either completely combat ending, or useless.



All abilities are applicable, because PCs are balanced for all three pillars, not just combat.


Chaosmancer said:


> I've accounted for Fighting Styles, as would be obvious from my numbers.



You did not.  You might have chosen one style and accounted for that, but there are other styles that impact combat in different ways.  Defense, great weapon fighting, etc.


Chaosmancer said:


> The fighter team was specifically stated before my numbers to not use feats. You agree to that, no use calling foul now.



I never agreed to it.  You just came up with numbers. I'm calling foul because you're cheating.  You're giving your side access to optional rules to make your side's damage better, while limiting my side's access to optional rules because they would do much better with feats.

Either both have access or neither do.  That's fair.


Chaosmancer said:


> Indomitable only works on saves, it does nothing else. There is no indication that any saves were required to be made, so no indication that Indomitable would alter the results.



Right, because you never have to make saves in combat. And I'd really like to know how often you go through 6-8 fights at 11th level without anyone having to make a save.


Chaosmancer said:


> Ect isn't an ability. It is a way of saying "and on and on" but it is interesting you chose to use it there, because for the Fighter there is no "and on and on". They don't get any new abilities as a base class after indomitable.



There are many other things for fighters.  It depends on the subclass.  Samurai have some good ones.  As do Battle Masters.  It's telling that you chose the well known weakest subclass to test against your clerics.


Chaosmancer said:


> I mention base class, and swing back to subclasses for clerics now, because yes, I didn't account for them. Doing so offers a wide range of different options. For Example, would you have been okay with me comparing a team of 4 twilight clerics to a team of Champion fighters?



Choosing 4 of the same subclass against 4 of another subclass is just more white room nonsense.  It's time to come out of the white room and try to see how things would work in a real game situation with all of the variables involved as they would be in a real game.


Chaosmancer said:


> Sure they have those, but my analysis only involved Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. I mean, you could argue their damage goes down if they use Hold Person and then get multiple crits on an unmoving and non-threat target, but that requires many additional levels of math that really weren't relevant.



It's all relevant.


Chaosmancer said:


> Yes, I'm aware that over six fights, with two short rests, it would be three action surges. That's how "one round of combat" could equal "half of a combat". I had not considered the effect on Action surge, *but if I counted it as a full combat, then by fight #6 the fighter could actually pull a small bit ahead.*



And with the weakest subclass.  Imagine if you had actually picked a good fighter subclass.


Chaosmancer said:


> So... because I want to support my opinion with facts, demonstrating that there is a solid basis of reasoning behind my calls for changing the game.... that's bad? You don't like that I don't just say "I don't like this" and instead say "I don't like this, because it leads to this, and here is some math to show I'm not just making up a false problem?"



The numbers don't really matter. All they do is support your feelings, not prove some sort of objective problem. You're saying, "I think this is over/under powered because of X numbers" and those X numbers won't be over/under powered for other people.  You can throw them in if you like, but they aren't relevant to an opinion like this.


Chaosmancer said:


> It isn't an opinon that 1st level cure wounds takes an action and heals 1d8+spellcasting modifier.



Correct.


Chaosmancer said:


> Nor is it an opinion that the healing increases by 1d8 per spell level over 1st.



Correct.

The opinion is that the healing should counter damage of the same level when you don't have the math behind it.  That's just your feelings.


Chaosmancer said:


> The opinion comes in with "this disparity is bad". We can debate circles about that opinion. But I am basing that opinion in facts that demonstrate the disparity as also a fact.



Yes, but you haven't demonstrated that it's an issue or not balanced when looked at in the totality of the 4 PCs and all of their abilities vs. the monsters.


Chaosmancer said:


> The point is, if Fighters can get through it by going around the obstacle.... a cleric can just go around the obstacle. Sure, a cleric may have the potential to do something better, but that doesn't mean they are required to do so. Whatever Team Fighter is doing, Team Cleric can do the EXACT SAME THING, because fighters have nothing but skills and clever play to deal with social and exploration challenges. I'm not saying that clerics don't have options, I'm saying that part of having options is choosing to do what the fighter does.
> 
> 
> 
> "Almost always" isn't "always". They can choose NOT to cast it. You insisting that I have to dedicate slots to doing something that someone MIGHT choose to do is inane. Especially since these seem to be schrondinger's problems, that only exist long enough to force cleric spell usage but then have no effect on team fighter.



You are violating Occam's Razor.  The simplest explanation is that the players will be players and use utility to make the obstacles easier.  Trying to claim that you will have 100% of your slots for combat since that might happen to a group once in a blue moon fails on its face.   You don't design or argue around corner cases.


Chaosmancer said:


> No, most fights do not see [most combats see combatants go unconscious or very low in hit points].* If* you are dropping people to 0 hp every single fight (Note here that I am addressing only half of your statement, not both halves), you have warped things. If you would like to prove that you aren't [warping things by dropping people to 0 hp every fight], provide evidence, not just empty assertions.



Why would I try and disprove a Strawman?  You admit to dropping half of what I said and since I didn't say I do only the half you are using, I'm under no obligation to prove or disprove something that I don't do and never said that I did.


Chaosmancer said:


> Show me where I claimed the champion is what I was using? Also, while the battlemaster MIGHT do more damage and MIGHT have more utility, what about the Arcane Archer? The Cavelier? The Purple Dragon Knight? Even if you prove the Battle Master is stronger than the champion (facts not in evidence, you just stated it as true) that doesn't mean the champion is the weakest fighter.



I refer you to the myriad of fighter threads on the forum for why the champion is the weakest.  As for you using the champion, it's the subclass with the most stability in damage for you to calculate from.

What subclass did you use?


Chaosmancer said:


> But really, I see that this discussion is quickly reaching an end point, because you have trapped yourself. See below.



Good thing we're discussing clerics. I use find traps as a utility spell and avoid the trap!!! 


Chaosmancer said:


> How are they better off? Also, you want me to have another disparity? Interesting choice.



How are they better off dishing out a ton more damage and ending fights much sooner while not sacrificing much AC?


Chaosmancer said:


> So, at a minimum, you have admitted that parties are not balanced if one group is using feats and the other isn't. Which is interesting. Because that means that if feats are allowed (and they often are) then using a 1-handed weapon that does 1d8+mod isn't balanced, it is actually behind. Notably, you pointed out that fighters are generally closer to balanced against spellcasters using two-handed weapons and getting a +10 damage. That's what them being "better off" would mean, right?



You've already demonstrated that fighters of the weakest(or one of the weakest) subclasses pull ahead of your clerics in the 6th fight of a 6-8 encounter adventuring day.  That means that they are better in all adventuring days with 6-8 fights........................without feats.  Feats just make them better, just as your optional cantrip makes your clerics better.  Of course, get rid of the optional cantrip and your clerics don't do as much damage, so the fighters without feats are even better at the those 6-8 fights.


Chaosmancer said:


> But, that means that a "balanced" at-will attack would be closer to 2d6+10+mod, averaging 17+mod. So then... healing doesn't actually restore a single balanced at-will attack, does it? 4.5+mod isn't even close to 17+mod. So, this seems to indicate that.... I am probably on to something with healing being too weak, because attacks of 1d8+mod are seen as too weak as well.



No.  It indicates that healing is not intended to be used in that fashion.  It's primarily a whack-a-mole resource in combat.


Chaosmancer said:


> See, a cleric would have, on average, about 80 hp by level 11. A fighter being at least 22 point higher would place them at 102. But let's give you 120 hp and make it a 40 pt disparity, double what you claimed.
> 
> Those clerics each get +70 hp from Heal, which helps them in one fight. Then they die. That puts them at 150 hp.
> 
> However... isn't 150 hp HIGHER than the fighter's 120? Ah, but I forgot second wind, of course. That gives them and extra 1d10+11 or 16.5 hp. Which is 136.5.... and still lower than 150.



In your white room, sure.  In an actual game battle the fighters with their two handed weapons and feats drop those monsters more quickly and don't need nearly as much healing as the clerics do.


Chaosmancer said:


> You've trapped yourself with your own arguments. I don't even need to do anything any more. Because if Fighters can survive 6 combats with only Second Wind and Hit Dice, then Clerics should be able to do the same with Heal and Hit Dice. But if clerics can't, then fighters can't. And if fighters can't survive until fight number 6, then they can't pull ahead and match the damage output of clerics, because that requires "going all day" which you have just made clear you don't believe is actually possible.



And my find traps spell worked and I avoided the "trap!"  Mostly because it didn't exist due to being another white room construction of yours.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Come up with an ability not on the monster features list and you will have difficulty assigning it an effective challenge rating.  They on the other hand will not have that difficulty, because they have the math that enabled them to rate the monster features.




Citation Needed.



Maxperson said:


> What they've given you are tools to make a monster. They did NOT give you the math behind those tools.




Yes they did. Explicitly.



Maxperson said:


> All abilities are applicable, because PCs are balanced for all three pillars, not just combat.




How applicable is Turn Undead in an adventuring day not featuring undead?



Maxperson said:


> You did not.  You might have chosen one style and accounted for that, but there are other styles that impact combat in different ways.  Defense, great weapon fighting, etc.




So I have to analyze every single fighting style to be able to decide if Fighters can heal as much as Clerics? Can't just do one, and assume each style is balanced against the others, I need to do a separate analysis for all of them. 

I call BS. That is just a smokescreen to demand I shut up because I haven't hit an arbitrary amount of work.



Maxperson said:


> I never agreed to it.  You just came up with numbers. I'm calling foul because you're cheating.  You're giving your side access to optional rules to make your side's damage better, while limiting my side's access to optional rules because they would do much better with feats.
> 
> Either both have access or neither do.  That's fair.




You did agree. Right here.



Chaosmancer said:


> So, 4 second winds is equal the ability to cast the Heal Spell 4 times? Because if you take the correct combination of abilities, the clerics can deal 3d8+2d8+wis+4d8+wis every round for a fight, while still having the Heal spells, so is that really balanced against 4 fighters with no feats?
> 
> Or, and this might be a little out there, they don't actually consider every possible scenario and balance based on the consideration that any weak ability in the party will be paired with a stronger ability used by a different party member. Because that's stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Maxperson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because "for a fight" doesn't equal "for every fight" like fighters maintain.  Fighters aren't behind in damage output.  They're behind in the other two pillars.
Click to expand...



So, I will take this as an admission that the inclusion of feats is what ACTUALLY balances things, and that healing is too weak.



Maxperson said:


> Right, because you never have to make saves in combat. And I'd really like to know how often you go through 6-8 fights at 11th level without anyone having to make a save.




Save against what? I don't NEED to use monsters that rely on saves. Again, you make assertions that my analysis is bad because I MUST include something that I am actually not required to use. Sure, maybe I will use things that use saves, maybe I won't. But that doesn't speak to anything beyond the ability to remake a save being good.



Maxperson said:


> There are many other things for fighters.  It depends on the subclass.  Samurai have some good ones.  As do Battle Masters.  It's telling that you chose the well known weakest subclass to test against your clerics.




This is why I get so immensely angry talking to you. Did you even read what I said? Obviously not. If you had read what I had written then talking about Samurai and Battle Masters would be obviously stupid. 

Try this. Read what I write. Take your time. Because this is like the 10th time in this thread alone that you have done this.



Maxperson said:


> Choosing 4 of the same subclass against 4 of another subclass is just more white room nonsense.  It's time to come out of the white room and try to see how things would work in a real game situation with all of the variables involved as they would be in a real game.




So, once more, your own claim of ANY team being balanced against ANY team is useless drivel. Because now you are backpedaling and saying that I am talking nonsense comparing these two teams. 

It seems like, in reality, you meant "Any team of properly balanced characters with relevant and powerful abilities is balanced against any other team of properly balanced characters with relevant and powerful abilities". Because, hell, even just saying that the Champion is the "weakest" subclass means that a team with a Champion is weaker and not balanced against a team with a Battlemaster. You have already introduced a scale, you just refuse to acknowledge it.



Maxperson said:


> It's all relevant.




How is a spell they don't cast and may have not even prepared relevant?



Maxperson said:


> The numbers don't really matter. All they do is support your feelings, not prove some sort of objective problem. You're saying, "I think this is over/under powered because of X numbers" and those X numbers won't be over/under powered for other people.  You can throw them in if you like, but they aren't relevant to an opinion like this.




Are those numbers different for each person? Or are they the same and their opinions about those numbers different? Cause it turns out, that is an ENTIRELY different argument.



Maxperson said:


> Correct.
> 
> Correct.




Oh, thank you Maxperson. I wasn't sure if I read things from the book meant they were correct until you stated they were. That was sarcasm.



Maxperson said:


> The opinion is that the healing should counter damage of the same level when you don't have the math behind it.  That's just your feelings.
> 
> 
> Yes, but you haven't demonstrated that it's an issue or not balanced when looked at in the totality of the 4 PCs and all of their abilities vs. the monsters.




What math am I missing? You keep asserting, but not providing concrete examples just "you need to analyze EVERYTHING". Turns out, that since healing only interacts with HP, and therefore only with combat, I don't need to analyze whether or not Reliable Talent on persuasion is balanced against it. Because they don't interact within the same pillar. Sure, a CLASS can be balanced between three pillars, but an ABILITY or a SPELL likely isn't. You could do 1 million damage, but that doesn't mean anything to the social pillar.



Maxperson said:


> You are violating Occam's Razor.  The simplest explanation is that the players will be players and use utility to make the obstacles easier.  Trying to claim that you will have 100% of your slots for combat since that might happen to a group once in a blue moon fails on its face.   You don't design or argue around corner cases.




You are violating definitions: "_Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. *It is sometimes misleadingly characterized as a general recommendation of simpler explanations over more complex ones.*_" 

Also, you are still arguing in complete ignorance of or ignoring Ceteris Paribus. You want me to devote resources to something unnamed, undefined, and potentially nonexistent just because it might happen. But you have, yet again, never proven that a group of players WON'T choose to save their slots for combat and instead take the long way around obstacles.




Maxperson said:


> Why would I try and disprove a Strawman?  You admit to dropping half of what I said and since I didn't say I do only the half you are using, I'm under no obligation to prove or disprove something that I don't do and never said that I did.




So, no evidence yet again. Tell me, how often does "Trust me, it just does" work for you? Especially as you accuse the other side of just relying on their feelings?



Maxperson said:


> I refer you to the myriad of fighter threads on the forum for why the champion is the weakest.  As for you using the champion, it's the subclass with the most stability in damage for you to calculate from.
> 
> 
> What subclass did you use?




I am not using the champion. As stated. Multiple times. 

You keep reading assumptions into my posts, while not reading my actual posts. I have already stated I didn't use subclasses.



Maxperson said:


> How are they better off dishing out a ton more damage and ending fights much sooner while not sacrificing much AC?




Interesting point. Let me consider something, you imagine dishing out more damage ends the fight sooner. And this would be better for the fighter. Yet, the Clerics are dishing out more damage per round. 

At the same time, with less healing available, don't you think that the 10% increase in hits on Team Fighter makes them more vulnerable?



Maxperson said:


> You've already demonstrated that fighters of the weakest(or one of the weakest) subclasses pull ahead of your clerics in the 6th fight of a 6-8 encounter adventuring day.  That means that they are better in all adventuring days with 6-8 fights........................without feats.  Feats just make them better, just as your optional cantrip makes your clerics better.  Of course, get rid of the optional cantrip and your clerics don't do as much damage, so the fighters without feats are even better at the those 6-8 fights.




While the Cleric still had more resources to burn on increasing the gap yet again. And, as demonstrated at the end of my last post, it doesn't seem to matter.



Maxperson said:


> No.  It indicates that healing is not intended to be used in that fashion.  It's primarily a whack-a-mole resource in combat.




Except that the design of healing spells shows you are wrong. Cure Wounds is a terrible whack-a-mole resource. It wouldn't exist in the same category as Healing Word if the design intention of healing spells was whack-a-mole.



Maxperson said:


> In your white room, sure.  In an actual game battle the fighters with their two handed weapons and feats drop those monsters more quickly and don't need nearly as much healing as the clerics do.
> 
> And my find traps spell worked and I avoided the "trap!"  Mostly because it didn't exist due to being another white room construction of yours.





_sigh_

Really? Let's take a look. 

We previously established the Cleric in the first three fights dealing 139.5 damage per fight. For two fights that is 279.

Fighter with a Greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting style is about +1 damage per attack, so that is 6d6+18 or 39 damage per round. That is 117 damage per fight or 234 damage, which is 45 damage less. Even if I account for Action Surge that is only another 39 damage, still keeping the fighter lower damage than the clerics. 

So, if the Fighter is dropping enemies quickly enough to avoid needing as much healing, then the clerics are doing it EVEN FASTER. 

Now, you'll want to insist that this is completely unfair unless I give the fighter Great Weapon Master. However, you have to remember that the -5 to hit lowers accuracy and lowers the ability for the fighter to deliver that damage. Meanwhile, part of the cleric damage is a save vs half damage, which never misses. Additionally, getting the feat means either the Fighter lowers their strength or lowers their con for less hp.

So, I'll need to do a completely different analysis here. I'll multiply the damage by 0.6 for a 60% hit rate. This will necessarily mean I'll have to assume the same for the Spirit Guardians which is innaccurate as it UNDERESTIMATES the cleric damage by assuming 0 damage when Spirit Guardians "misses".

279*0.6 = 167.40 for clerics. 

However, for the Greatsword that is a multiplier of 0.35. Adding in the damage from GWM that gives us

414*0.35 = 144.9

STILL less than the cleric which is being UNDERESTIMATED by this analysis. 

Now, I'll bet you'll want to say that the Fighter won't be using it all the time, they'll only use it in times that it "matters" or some other excuse. But frankly, the problem here is you keep assuming an answer, then insisting you are correct. Instead, look at the numbers. Then, if you disagree, prove it.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Yes they did. Explicitly.



Where? I looked at it and all it is is X thing grants this much CR.  It gives no math behind why it's that much of a CR.  I can't calculate the CR of an ability that temporarily(until a short rest) cuts a PC's level in half with a Cha save DC of 17.  I have no math to judge that by.


Chaosmancer said:


> How applicable is Turn Undead in an adventuring day not featuring undead?



Undead will almost always be encountered at some point. Just like there will be adventuring days when you never use second wind.  Just because an ability isn't universally useful, doesn't mean that it doesn't count.


Chaosmancer said:


> So I have to analyze every single fighting style to be able to decide if Fighters can heal as much as Clerics? Can't just do one, and assume each style is balanced against the others, I need to do a separate analysis for all of them.



Comparing healing is another waste of time. If you haven't gotten by now that balance is more that just healing I'm not sure what else to say.


Chaosmancer said:


> You did agree. Right here.



Where in that quote have I said, "I agree to no feats?"


Chaosmancer said:


> Save against what? I don't NEED to use monsters that rely on saves. Again, you make assertions that my analysis is bad because I MUST include something that I am actually not required to use. Sure, maybe I will use things that use saves, maybe I won't. But that doesn't speak to anything beyond the ability to remake a save being good.



Here are the CR 11 creatures from the MM

Behir: Causes saves.
Djinni: Causes saves.
Efreeti: Causes saves.
Gynosphinx: Causes saves.
Horned Devil: Causes saves.
Remorhaz: Here's one without saves!!!
Roc: Causes saves.

Only one CR 11 creature doesn't involve saves and the CRs +2/-2 from 11 are similar in the frequency of saves.  It's not a maybe you won't.  Unless you're white rooming 6-8 encounters with Remorhazes and the like, saves are a part of the adventuring day at that level.



Chaosmancer said:


> Try this. Read what I write. Take your time. Because this is like the 10th time in this thread alone that you have done this.



::holds up a mirror::


Chaosmancer said:


> How is a spell they don't cast and may have not even prepared relevant?



Because outside of your white room, it is a spell that gets cast, as do many other spells.  Clerics don't go walking around casting the same 2 spells over and over again. Or maybe some really, really boring players do that. In my experience the vast majority do not.


Chaosmancer said:


> Are those numbers different for each person? Or are they the same and their opinions about those numbers different? Cause it turns out, that is an ENTIRELY different argument.



No it's not.  You're sitting here claiming that the numbers for a spell are low and not balanced properly.  That's  you taking the same numbers we all see and forming an opinion about it that is likely not in line with WotC's design balance.


Chaosmancer said:


> What math am I missing? You keep asserting, but not providing concrete examples just "you need to analyze EVERYTHING". Turns out, that since healing only interacts with HP, and therefore only with combat, I don't need to analyze whether or not Reliable Talent on persuasion is balanced against it. Because they don't interact within the same pillar. Sure, a CLASS can be balanced between three pillars, but an ABILITY or a SPELL likely isn't. You could do 1 million damage, but that doesn't mean anything to the social pillar.



You do need to analyze everything and here's why.  If class A(cleric has good utility and social), having low healing and less combat ability when compared to the fighter with its greater combat ability is not a  problem.  It's part of the class design balance.


Chaosmancer said:


> You are violating definitions: "_Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. *It is sometimes misleadingly characterized as a general recommendation of simpler explanations over more complex ones.*_"



Yep.  The simplest explanation is you are wrong here and the game is balanced properly with regard to the healing spells.


Chaosmancer said:


> Also, you are still arguing in complete ignorance of or ignoring Ceteris Paribus. You want me to devote resources to something unnamed, undefined, and potentially nonexistent just because it might happen. But you have, yet again, never proven that a group of players WON'T choose to save their slots for combat and instead take the long way around obstacles.



First, you can't prove a negative.  Second, the chances of a party doing as you describe are somewhere between nil and almost nil. 


Chaosmancer said:


> You keep reading assumptions into my posts, while not reading my actual posts. I have already stated I didn't use subclasses.



Okay, then you're even much more wrong than you were.  Without a subclass the fighter without feats passes the cleric in the 6th fight.  Add in subclasses and it happens much sooner.  Most clerical subclass abilities deal with social and exploration.  Most fighter subclass abilities are combat related.

No wonder you're fighting so hard not to include subclasses.  Your clerics can barely hold their own in combat with full spellcasting against fighters without a subclass.


Chaosmancer said:


> Interesting point. Let me consider something, you imagine dishing out more damage ends the fight sooner. And this would be better for the fighter. Yet, the Clerics are dishing out more damage per round.



This is objectively false.  The fighters do in fact have subclasses, so you've wasted tons of my time with this nonsense comparison of only base classes.  How about you stop wasting my time and use Battle Master for the fighter?

I deleted everything else because numbers without subclasses are an irrelevant waste of time and I will no longer entertain discussion along those lines.  Battle Masters have increased damage from their superiority dice, and have the specials that come along with the maneuvers.


----------



## W'rkncacnter

Maxperson said:


> This is objectively false.  The fighters do in fact have subclasses, so you've wasted tons of my time with this nonsense comparison of only base classes.  How about you stop wasting my time and use Battle Master for the fighter?



...i mean ok what it's 2 fights per short rest right? so 82.5 damage. 5 d10s in damage (assuming you use each maneuver for extra damage and assuming the enemy passes every save because i'm not even actually a part of this argument and i don't care enough to try to account for them failing) is 5*5.5 on average every short rest which is 27.5. so 27.5*3 because 3 short rests, 82.5 damage. at 6 fights the fighter was at 724.5 damage before battle master, the extra 90 damage puts them at 807.

but then maybe the clerics are death clerics, in which case they're doing an extra 54 (5+twice cleric level twice) necrotic damage every short rest, so they get an extra 162 damage added to their spiritual weapons or booming blades over the course of those 6 fights, bringing them up to...837 damage. so, uh. today i learned death clerics can do that.

edit: also, on a broader note, you two have gotten hilariously off topic


----------



## Maxperson

W'rkncacnter said:


> ...i mean ok what it's 2 fights per short rest right? so 82.5 damage. 5 d10s in damage (assuming you use each maneuver for extra damage and assuming the enemy passes every save because i'm not even actually a part of this argument and i don't care enough to try to account for them failing) is 5*5.5 on average every short rest which is 27.5. so 27.5*3 because 3 short rests, 82.5 damage. at 6 fights the fighter was at 724.5 damage before battle master, the extra 90 damage puts them at 807.



Plus what the maneuvers do.  That can't be overlooked.  They're not just damage.


W'rkncacnter said:


> but then maybe the clerics are death clerics, in which case they're doing an extra 54 (5+twice cleric level twice) necrotic damage every short rest, so they get an extra 162 damage added to their spiritual weapons or booming blades over the course of those 6 fights, bringing them up to...837 damage. so, uh. today i learned death clerics can do that.



They still aren't going to have all slots used for combat damage. There will be utility and other healing needed.  Fighters are still ahead in combat.


----------



## W'rkncacnter

Maxperson said:


> Plus what the maneuvers do.  That can't be overlooked.  They're not just damage.
> 
> They still aren't going to have all slots used for combat damage. There will be utility and other healing needed.  Fighters are still ahead in combat.



i really don't care.


----------



## Maxperson

W'rkncacnter said:


> i really don't care.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Huh, seems I'm not getting that citation.



Maxperson said:


> Where? I looked at it and all it is is X thing grants this much CR.  It gives no math behind why it's that much of a CR.  I can't calculate the CR of an ability that temporarily(until a short rest) cuts a PC's level in half with a Cha save DC of 17.  I have no math to judge that by.




Pages 275 to 279. They have a 20 step process. It involves multiple calculations. 

As for your insane ability, of course they don't have a CR for that. Abilities don't get CR and an ability that messes with level breaks CR over its knee, since CR is in relation to level. I can tell you that a DC 17 check starts at CR 11 if you want it based on that, but no ability in the game halves someone's level on a single failed save (for VERY good reasons) so you aren't going to find a balance point listed for that.



Maxperson said:


> Undead will almost always be encountered at some point. Just like there will be adventuring days when you never use second wind.  Just because an ability isn't universally useful, doesn't mean that it doesn't count.




Citation Needed.



Maxperson said:


> Comparing healing is another waste of time. If you haven't gotten by now that balance is more that just healing I'm not sure what else to say.




So, your claim is a waste of time? Because comparing their "damage mitigation" abilities was your claim. I just wanted to discuss healing against monster damage.



Maxperson said:


> Where in that quote have I said, "I agree to no feats?"




Where I asked you if it was balanced and you said yes.



Maxperson said:


> Here are the CR 11 creatures from the MM
> 
> Behir: Causes saves.
> Djinni: Causes saves.
> Efreeti: Causes saves.
> Gynosphinx: Causes saves.
> Horned Devil: Causes saves.
> Remorhaz: Here's one without saves!!!
> Roc: Causes saves.
> 
> Only one CR 11 creature doesn't involve saves and the CRs +2/-2 from 11 are similar in the frequency of saves.  It's not a maybe you won't.  Unless you're white rooming 6-8 encounters with Remorhazes and the like, saves are a part of the adventuring day at that level.




And did you bother looking beyond the MM? Nope. And did you bother with looking at what those saves did? Nope. Because you are comparing a save versus grapple to a save versus damage to a save versus spells (only two of which have any offensive combat capability). Again, you make the same mistake, assuming just because an option exists I MUST account for every single interation of that option, because there is no difference between being grappled, taking damage, or being mildly inconvenienced with a single spell.



Maxperson said:


> ::holds up a mirror::




So, no self-reflection on your part or admitting to any mistakes you have REPEATEDLY made. 

Cool. Glad I take my time to respond to you.



Maxperson said:


> Because outside of your white room, it is a spell that gets cast, as do many other spells.  Clerics don't go walking around casting the same 2 spells over and over again. Or maybe some really, really boring players do that. In my experience the vast majority do not.




But they may also not get cast. Again, the option existing doesn't mean that the option is taken. Not seeing a lot of clerics casting Water Walk in the last seven years. But the spell does exist.



Maxperson said:


> No it's not.  You're sitting here claiming that the numbers for a spell are low and not balanced properly.  *That's  you taking the same numbers we all see and forming an opinion about it *that is likely not in line with WotC's design balance.




So, you aren't actually arguing against my numbers. You agree that my numbers are true. 

You are disagreeing that those numbers are a problem. That is a fundamentally different discussion than "those numbers are wrong" which is what you have said, repeatedly.



Maxperson said:


> You do need to analyze everything and here's why.  If class A(cleric has good utility and social), having low healing and less combat ability when compared to the fighter with its greater combat ability is not a  problem.  It's part of the class design balance.




And since "class A" has good utility, decent social, great combat ability and the best healing in the game? Also, again, why am I worried about the Bard's ability to seduce a bar maid when I'm talking about whether the best healing in the game is actually good enough? That is nonsense. I'm not looking at a third-rate healer, I'm looking at the iconic healing class of the game.... and finding it lacking in healing.



Maxperson said:


> Yep.  The simplest explanation is you are wrong here and the game is balanced properly with regard to the healing spells.




So everyone who thinks using healing spells in combat is a bad move are wrong? Based on... it being simpler that the game is designed perfectly with no flaws, despite the known flaws? 

Truly, you are an astounding pillar of logic.



Maxperson said:


> First, you can't prove a negative.  Second, the chances of a party doing as you describe are somewhere between nil and almost nil.




You can't prove it, but you can state definitively that it is true?



Maxperson said:


> Okay, then you're even much more wrong than you were.  Without a subclass the fighter without feats passes the cleric in the 6th fight.  Add in subclasses and it happens much sooner.  Most clerical subclass abilities deal with social and exploration.  Most fighter subclass abilities are combat related.
> 
> No wonder you're fighting so hard not to include subclasses.  Your clerics can barely hold their own in combat with full spellcasting against fighters without a subclass.




Most clerics deal with social and exploration? Seriously?  There are 14 official cleric subclasses. I count... 13 that have major abilities devoted to combat applications. And that's ignoring anything above level 6. 

And, again, Ceteris Paribus.



Maxperson said:


> This is objectively false.  The fighters do in fact have subclasses, so you've wasted tons of my time with this nonsense comparison of only base classes.  How about you stop wasting my time and use Battle Master for the fighter?
> 
> I deleted everything else because numbers without subclasses are an irrelevant waste of time and I will no longer entertain discussion along those lines.  Battle Masters have increased damage from their superiority dice, and have the specials that come along with the maneuvers.




So an analysis of the base classes is OBJECTIVELY false, because it doesn't use the Battle Master fighter? 

Would that make them objectively true if I used a Battle Master fighter with Evasive Footwork, Ambush, Tactical Assessment, Grappling Strike, Commanding Presence, Bait and Switch, and Rally?  Would that satisfy you with my analysis? And then I could pick a Cleric Subclass to use as well?


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Pages 275 to 279. They have a 20 step process. It involves multiple calculations.



All of which are tools for determining CR for the stuff THEY put forward with the MATH they keep secret.


Chaosmancer said:


> As for your insane ability, of course they don't have a CR for that. Abilities don't get CR



Yes they do.

Aggressive increases damage which increases CR.  Ambusher does the same with attack bonus.  Lots of abilities give increased CR.  Hell, it even lists the column those are in as "Effects on Challenge Rating."


Chaosmancer said:


> and an ability that messes with level breaks CR over its knee, since CR is in relation to level. I can tell you that a DC 17 check starts at CR 11 if you want it based on that, but no ability in the game halves someone's level on a single failed save (for VERY good reasons) so you aren't going to find a balance point listed for that.



First, it's a viable ability if used carefully.  Second, you're missing the forest for the trees.  There are literally millions of abilities not on their short list that would have "Effects on Challenge Rating" and which we cannot rate since we do not have their math.


Chaosmancer said:


> Citation Needed.



Page 24 of This is How the Game is Usually Played.


Chaosmancer said:


> And did you bother looking beyond the MM? Nope. And did you bother with looking at what those saves did? Nope. Because you are comparing a save versus grapple to a save versus damage to a save versus spells (only two of which have any offensive combat capability). Again, you make the same mistake, assuming just because an option exists I MUST account for every single interation of that option, because there is no difference between being grappled, taking damage, or being mildly inconvenienced with a single spell.



A save is a save is a save.


Chaosmancer said:


> But they may also not get cast. Again, the option existing doesn't mean that the option is taken. Not seeing a lot of clerics casting Water Walk in the last seven years. But the spell does exist.



Seen many create water?  I have.  Seen many detect evil? I have. Seen many detect poison? I have.  Purify food and drink? Yep.  The list goes on and on man.  Utility spells get used.


Chaosmancer said:


> You are disagreeing that those numbers are a problem. That is a fundamentally different discussion than "those numbers are wrong" which is what you have said, repeatedly.



They are in absolute fact, wrong.  The game cannot be played RAW to 11th level without subclasses, therefore all your numbers are wrong.  You'd have to compare levels prior to subclass which are levels 1 and 2 for most classes, but you couldn't use clerics at all.


Chaosmancer said:


> You can't prove it, but you can state definitively that it is true?



Sure.  I can't prove that you won't win the Powerball tomorrow, but I can tell you that your chances are absolutely somewhere between nil and almost nil.


Chaosmancer said:


> So an analysis of the base classes is OBJECTIVELY false, because it doesn't use the Battle Master fighter?



No.  Because you don't use any subclass which makes it a violation of RAW when comparing any class at 11th level and clerics starting at level 1.

Your numbers are an utter waste of time and energy.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> All of which are tools for determining CR for the stuff THEY put forward with the MATH they keep secret.




Citation Needed since it says it is about creating new monsters.



Maxperson said:


> Yes they do.
> 
> Aggressive increases damage which increases CR.  Ambusher does the same with attack bonus.  Lots of abilities give increased CR.  Hell, it even lists the column those are in as "Effects on Challenge Rating."




So is Agressive a CR 1 ability or a CR 12 ability? Because "increasing CR" is not the same as "has a CR". The distinction is important, especially since you split my response which covers WHY it is important.



Maxperson said:


> First, it's a viable ability if used carefully.  Second, you're missing the forest for the trees.  There are literally millions of abilities not on their short list that would have "Effects on Challenge Rating" and which we cannot rate since we do not have their math.




But altering someone's level, the measure of CR, is basically impossible to recursively give an increase to CR. Used to change level 2 to level 1 it would have a far smaller impact than being used to change level 20 to level 10. That's why what you are asking for is impossible, the variability of halving someone's level is too immense. There is no math for that. There cannot be. 

And just because there are abilities that could theoritically exist that the Designers didn't use or didn't write down, doesn't mean that there is some secrete hidden math to the game. And in fact, I'll note that since Invisibility, Flyby attack, Echolocation, and the ability to Resist or be Immune to turn undead all are given dashs to note that they do not affect CR, that many of those literally millions of abilities (whatever they are) would also not effect CR. Heck, Sunlight Sensitivity doesn't change CR.



Maxperson said:


> Page 24 of This is How the Game is Usually Played.




PG 24 of the DMG? Nope.
PG 24 of the MM? Nope.
PG 24 of the PHB? Nope. 
PG 24 of Xanathars? Nope. 

Hmm, well I guess I shouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt then. You made up a page number then said the book is "This is How the Game is Usually Played". So, in other words, you just made up something and declared it true. Which, I suspected considering the number of campaigns I've been in that didn't feature undead at all. So, no, there is no reason to believe that any given party MUST encounter undead. You are once again trying to assert as facts your own warped opinions of what should be counted.




Maxperson said:


> A save is a save is a save.




Once more proving you don't know how to analyze impact on combat.



Maxperson said:


> Seen many create water?  I have.  Seen many detect evil? I have. Seen many detect poison? I have.  Purify food and drink? Yep.  The list goes on and on man.  Utility spells get used.




Detect Poison? Never. 
Purify Food and Drink? Never
Create Water? Once. 

And, again, listen to what I am saying. I'm not saying that no cleric ever uses any utility spell. I am saying that they are not REQUIRED to use them. Do you know why I don't see Detect Poison or Purify Food and Drink? Because I essentially never poison food and drink for the party. Why have I almost never seen create water? Because my groups don't track mundane supplies, like rations. The one time I'd seen it, it was used to put out a fire. 

All you are doing is proving my point. I am not required to account for utility spells, because there is no guarantee that utility spells will need to be used. If they have pure clean water in their waterskins to last the couple of hours they are dungeon delving, then they don't need to create water or purify water.



Maxperson said:


> They are in absolute fact, wrong.  The game cannot be played RAW to 11th level without subclasses, therefore all your numbers are wrong.  You'd have to compare levels prior to subclass which are levels 1 and 2 for most classes, but you couldn't use clerics at all.




Ceteris Paribus



Maxperson said:


> Sure.  I can't prove that you won't win the Powerball tomorrow, but I can tell you that your chances are absolutely somewhere between nil and almost nil.




And yet the chances of winning the Powerball would absolutely be calculable. The math is easy if you have all the information. The problem is that you don't have all the information, such as how many tickets were sold and how many winning tickets were in circulation. 

However, you aren't doing something as simply as basic probability, you are trying to mathematically express opnions and decision-making for an unknownable group. You are essentially claiming math can make you psychic, which it can't.



Maxperson said:


> No.  Because you don't use any subclass which makes it a violation of RAW when comparing any class at 11th level and clerics starting at level 1.
> 
> Your numbers are an utter waste of time and energy.





Well, since you didn't say that my Battle Master was unacceptable, let's clear your mind and give you those subclasses you so desperately, desperately say will make all the difference. That will make this OBJECTIVELY true and make my numbers not a waste of time and energy. I'll even be nice and not use a Cleric subclass that increases damage


Team Battle Master Fighter with Evasive Footwork, Ambush, Tactical Assessment, Grappling Strike, Commanding Presence, Bait and Switch, and Rally. They are using Greatswords and GWM, I could say they increase their AC, but you don't like AC increasing, so I'll say they can get 5d10+10 temp hp per short rest (37.5 temp hp per short rest). You know what, I'll even do what you claim I did for clerics and let the Battlemaster use all their dice for utility as well, doubling or tripling their available dice. Also note at this point I've assumed a 20 str, a 14 charisma, and a 20 con as well as single feat.

So, 144.9 damage per two fights, with 174 effective hp. 

Twilight Cleric. I won't count advantage on Initiative, since the fighter can use Ambush for the same thing as well as all their other maneuvers. Channel divinity is twice between short rests, but since it is an aura not all of them can use it at the same time. So, while they get three rounds of their unique channel divinity (3d6+33 temp hp or 43.5 temp hp) every single fight, the other three clerics can restore spell slots with Harness Divine Power. They can only do it twice each, but that is an additional two 2nd level spell slots for every single cleric. 

So, a damage underestimate of 167.40 for clerics (remember, this gives Spirit Guardians zero damage on a miss, which is false) for those two fights. An effective 193.5 hp, and two more 2nd level spells than my previous anaylysis (because I wasn't using Channel Divinity before). Oh, and for three fights they could fly, potentially reducing their incoming damage significantly.  

So now with this OBJECTIVE analysis, using the Battlemaster as you insisted I do, and a cleric subclass that does not increase damage at all.... I'm left with the cleric having more damage, more effective hp, and more spell slots than before. But hey, I used the battlemaster and subclasses, so now these numbers aren't a waste of your time, right? After all, it isn't like you are going to insist on a specific subclass, and specific set of abilities in that subclass, and ban a different subclass all at the same time, right?


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Citation Needed since it says it is about creating new monsters.



Quote me any section in those DMG pages that shows the math behind the CR numbers the tools give.  Just one quote.


Chaosmancer said:


> So is Agressive a CR 1 ability or a CR 12 ability? Because "increasing CR" is not the same as "has a CR". The distinction is important, especially since you split my response which covers WHY it is important.



Pedantic=pedantic.  You know what I mean.


Chaosmancer said:


> But altering someone's level, the measure of CR, is basically impossible to recursively give an increase to CR. Used to change level 2 to level 1 it would have a far smaller impact than being used to change level 20 to level 10. That's why what you are asking for is impossible, the variability of halving someone's level is too immense. There is no math for that. There cannot be.



The save DC would show what level it is designed for.  Higher level PCs will most likely make the save and not be bothered by it. Lower level PCs shouldn't be fighting it.  In any case, it's a viable ability. 


Chaosmancer said:


> And just because there are abilities that could theoritically exist that the Designers didn't use or didn't write down



Fact, not theory.


Chaosmancer said:


> doesn't mean that there is some secrete hidden math to the game.



Sure.  They just guessed at it. There was no design(math) involved in how they chose to balance the CR adjustments. You're right and the designers are incompetent bozos.


Chaosmancer said:


> And in fact, I'll note that since Invisibility, Flyby attack, Echolocation, and the ability to Resist or be Immune to turn undead all are given dashs to note that they do not affect CR, that many of those literally millions of abilities (whatever they are) would also not effect CR. Heck, Sunlight Sensitivity doesn't change CR.



Which just proves my point all the more.  They know from their math which abilities should have CR adjustments and which should not and we don't.


Chaosmancer said:


> And, again, listen to what I am saying. I'm not saying that no cleric ever uses any utility spell. I am saying that they are not REQUIRED to use them. Do you know why I don't see Detect Poison or Purify Food and Drink? Because I essentially never poison food and drink for the party. Why have I almost never seen create water? Because my groups don't track mundane supplies, like rations. The one time I'd seen it, it was used to put out a fire.



So you house rule away that resource.  No wonder you don't see much utility. Your games don't seem to include it.


Chaosmancer said:


> All you are doing is proving my point. I am not required to account for utility spells



You are not required to.  Nor does your homebrew have any relevance to this discussion. Your experience is incredibly biased and unusable because of how you run your games.


Chaosmancer said:


> Ceteris Paribus



E Pluribus Unum.


Chaosmancer said:


> Well, since you didn't say that my Battle Master was unacceptable, let's clear your mind and give you those subclasses you so desperately, desperately say will make all the difference. That will make this OBJECTIVELY true and make my numbers not a waste of time and energy. I'll even be nice and not use a Cleric subclass that increases damage



Silence isn't approval.


Chaosmancer said:


> Team Battle Master Fighter with Evasive Footwork, Ambush, Tactical Assessment, Grappling Strike, Commanding Presence, Bait and Switch, and Rally. They are using Greatswords and GWM, I could say they increase their AC, but you don't like AC increasing, so I'll say they can get 5d10+10 temp hp per short rest (37.5 temp hp per short rest). You know what, I'll even do what you claim I did for clerics and let the Battlemaster use all their dice for utility as well, doubling or tripling their available dice. Also note at this point I've assumed a 20 str, a 14 charisma, and a 20 con as well as single feat.



A 20 con is a waste of space.  Assume a 16 and 2 feats.  Also, why avoid Disarming Attack, Precision Attack, Sweeping Attack and Menacing Attack?  Avoiding the good combat options = afraid of the result.  Why are you afraid to build a good fighter?

The second feat can be Heavy Armor Master to reduce damage taken, Lucky to improve success in battle, Sentinal for increased damage and lockdown of enemies, or another good combat feat.

I'm curious how you got to 20 str and 20 con AND a feat with just 3 feats and v. human?  Assuming you didn't roll stats, a starting 15 str and 14 con from the array + racials = 17 str, 15 con at level 1.  You've need 3 ASI's to get to 19/19 and the fourth to make both 20.


Chaosmancer said:


> Twilight Cleric. I won't count advantage on Initiative, since the fighter can use Ambush for the same thing as well as all their other maneuvers. Channel divinity is twice between short rests, but since it is an aura not all of them can use it at the same time. So, while they get three rounds of their unique channel divinity (3d6+33 temp hp or 43.5 temp hp) every single fight, the other three clerics can restore spell slots with Harness Divine Power. They can only do it twice each, but that is an additional two 2nd level spell slots for every single cleric.



Initiative isn't all that relevant.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> I'm curious how you got to 20 str and 20 con AND a feat with just 3 feats and v. human?  Assuming you didn't roll stats, a starting 15 str and 14 con from the array + racials = 17 str, 15 con at level 1.  You've need 3 ASI's to get to 19/19 and the fourth to make both 20.
> 
> Initiative isn't all that relevant.



Why are we assuming point-buy?  The PHB doesn't, it says "roll or use this array", then gives point-buy under the heading "Variant: Customizing Ability Scores".

Initiative can have relevance, if you are in a position to negate an enemy's first turn, either by killing it outright, or imposing a condition upon it that will foil it's ability to act.  This is theoretically something even a Battlemaster (let alone a squad of them) can do (though they might have to waste some time if they can't reach their enemies, which is why I prefer archery-based Battlemasters myself).

The same holds true for losing initiative against the wrong foe, like that dragon mentioned upthread.  Dragon wins initiative, outright kills an unlucky character who fails a Dex save and seriously injures the rest.  So initiative *can *seriously impact the momentum of a battle, though how often it does so is dependent on the strategies employed by the DM and the players.


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Why are we assuming point-buy?  The PHB doesn't, it says "roll or use this array", then gives point-buy under the heading "Variant: Customizing Ability Scores".



My quote literally said "array." 


James Gasik said:


> Initiative can have relevance, if you are in a position to negate an enemy's first turn, either by killing it outright, or imposing a condition upon it that will foil it's ability to act.  This is theoretically something even a Battlemaster (let alone a squad of them) can do (though they might have to waste some time if they can't reach their enemies, which is why I prefer archery-based Battlemasters myself).



This exercise is about damage per fight.  Basically against testing dummies with infinite hit points.  If we have to calculate in varying AC's, movement, resistances, excess damage beyond killing monsters, etc., it becomes impossible to figure out.  We're human and can't account for all the possible variables that will occur when 5 people play at least 4 different beings in 6-8 fights over an adventuring day.  Initiative really isn't going to matter for this exercise.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> My quote literally said "array."
> 
> This exercise is about damage per fight.  Basically against testing dummies with infinite hit points.  If we have to calculate in varying AC's, movement, resistances, excess damage beyond killing monsters, etc., it becomes impossible to figure out.  We're human and can't account for all the possible variables that will occur when 5 people play at least 4 different beings in 6-8 fights over an adventuring day.  Initiative really isn't going to matter for this exercise.



Well yeah, but I was just curious when you had both decided arrays were in use.  ^-^

As for your second point, that's fair enough, I just saw your statement saying initiative wasn't all that relevant and my first thought is "well, it can be...".

This debate is a little hard to follow sometimes.  I personally don't think there is any "hidden math" used by the designers beyond "enlightened guesstimation".  Which means that they themselves don't really know if something is balanced, and they don't really care, assuming that every DM will just ban or houserule things to make them work the way they want to, and if the result is a broken mess, well, you can't blame them, man!


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Well yeah, but I was just curious when you had both decided arrays were in use.  ^-^



We didn't agree to anything, but rolling seemed like it wouldn't really apply to this sort of comparison and point buy can't be assumed to be allowed, so I figured array.


James Gasik said:


> As for your second point, that's fair enough, I just saw your statement saying initiative wasn't all that relevant and my first thought is "well, it can be...".
> 
> This debate is a little hard to follow sometimes.  I personally don't think there is any "hidden math" used by the designers beyond "enlightened guesstimation".  Which means that they themselves don't really know if something is balanced, and they don't really care, assuming that every DM will just ban or houserule things to make them work the way they want to, and if the result is a broken mess, well, you can't blame them, man!


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Quote me any section in those DMG pages that shows the math behind the CR numbers the tools give.  Just one quote.




Using the same page numbers I've given you a dozen times.

Average damage is calculated over three rounds, example given is 37+37+90 = 164 / 3 = 54.6. 54.6 is the expected average damage for CR 8 creature.

Now, if you want to demand why a CR 8 = 51 to 56 damage, then that would be because level 8 has hp between 59 and 84 for the average party member. There isn't an equal sign, but the math is really clear.



Maxperson said:


> Pedantic=pedantic.  You know what I mean.




And yet you still split my point, and then attacked me for making a claim that is true, because supposedly "I know what you mean".



Maxperson said:


> The save DC would show what level it is designed for.  Higher level PCs will most likely make the save and not be bothered by it. Lower level PCs shouldn't be fighting it.  In any case, it's a viable ability.




So.... since you said DC 17 that makes it a appropriate for a CR 11 or a CR 12 monster. Done. I told you that the first time you asked. Where's the problem then?

Heck, you could likely figure in the amount of damage equivalent the ability does to a level 11 character and use that to figure out how it affects CR. Not exactly rocket science if you demand to know how your homebrew ability works in the math of the game.



Maxperson said:


> Fact, not theory.




Oh fun, useless pedantry.



Maxperson said:


> Sure.  They just guessed at it. There was no design(math) involved in how they chose to balance the CR adjustments. You're right and the designers are incompetent bozos.




And a strawman! Double word score.

Wrong. It isn't that they guess and there was no design involved. It doesn't mean that they are bozos. What it is, is that the math of the game isn't *hidden*. It is right there in plain sight. Just because they didn't list every possibly ability in the game doesn't mean there is *hidden* math.



Maxperson said:


> Which just proves my point all the more.  They know from their math which abilities should have CR adjustments and which should not and we don't.




Yes we do. It is blatantly obvious why these abilities don't adjust CR.



Maxperson said:


> So you house rule away that resource.  No wonder you don't see much utility. Your games don't seem to include it.




I didn't houserule anything. There was no need for the utility, so it doesn't get used. Which goes back to my initial question. WHAT utility am I REQUIRED to account for in an analysis. Because whether or not utility gets used DEPENDS on the the situation.

That isn't houseruling, that's adventure design.



Maxperson said:


> You are not required to.  Nor does your homebrew have any relevance to this discussion. Your experience is incredibly biased and unusable because of how you run your games.




And yet you have howled and wailed that I didn't include it, demanding that I factor it in. If I'm not required to factor it in... why the gnashing of teeth?



Maxperson said:


> E Pluribus Unum.




Sorry, "Out of Many, One" is not a term used in analysis of complex systems. That's on the US Money, to denote the United part of the countries history. It has no bearing on the discussion.

Ceteris Paribus  IS used in these sorts of analysis, and has bearing on why I was analyzing as I did.



Maxperson said:


> A 20 con is a waste of space.  Assume a 16 and 2 feats.  Also, why avoid Disarming Attack, Precision Attack, Sweeping Attack and Menacing Attack?  Avoiding the good combat options = afraid of the result.  Why are you afraid to build a good fighter?
> 
> The second feat can be Heavy Armor Master to reduce damage taken, Lucky to improve success in battle, Sentinal for increased damage and lockdown of enemies, or another good combat feat.
> 
> I'm curious how you got to 20 str and 20 con AND a feat with just 3 feats and v. human?  Assuming you didn't roll stats, a starting 15 str and 14 con from the array + racials = 17 str, 15 con at level 1.  You've need 3 ASI's to get to 19/19 and the fourth to make both 20.
> 
> Initiative isn't all that relevant.




Really? I didn't build a "good" fighter? But that isn't possible. The game is balanced. How are you determining that these fighter's aren't good? How do you know that Menacing Attack is better than Rally? Are you accounting for all party resources? Because balance is a range accounting for all party resources and any two teams of adventurers would be balanced....

Oh wait. Despite you saying that, that was a lie. At this point a rather blatant lie. Because it doesn't count if I use the champion (which I never did) and it doesn't count if I build a utility battlemaster (which I did) because it only counts if I build a "proper" battlemaster with the "proper" equipment and then take the "proper" feats (in a scenario that was initially no feats for team fighter) and THEN I'd be proven that ANY two teams are balanced against each other.

And it turns out, I even cheated in favor of team fighter, giving them more stats than they could have. Though, I'm curious why 20 Con is useless when the clerics are supposed to die in fight number two with their "measly" 150 effective hp, and dropping the fighter to 16 Con would leave them with fewer than 120 effective hp. Heck, you want Great Weapon Master, Lucky, Heavy Armor Mastery, Sentinel on a Variant Human Battle Master fighter wielding a greatsword with Precision attack, Menacing Attack, Sweeping Attack, and Disarming attack. And THAT will prove than any possible two teams are balanced against each other. 

Can't you see the blatant hypocrisy here? You refuse to accept the analysis of general balance unless this highly specific build is the only one considered for the other side. Yet your original claim was that I can't show that healing is too weak because ANY two parties are balanced and everything is balanced on the party level.


----------



## Chaosmancer

James Gasik said:


> Well yeah, but I was just curious when you had both decided arrays were in use.  ^-^




We never did. 

I knew if I had the clerics with feats and anything over a 16 I'd be accused of cheating. Then I figured that since the fighters were using all feats and started with 16s then they should be able to get multiple 20's.

When using Rally, I calculated a 14 charisma, because that is incredibly high for a fighter, but makes sense if you are building to utilize charisma for an ability. I never bothered to adjust the other scores back down, because it didn't matter.



James Gasik said:


> This debate is a little hard to follow sometimes.  I personally don't think there is any "hidden math" used by the designers beyond "enlightened guesstimation".  Which means that they themselves don't really know if something is balanced, and they don't really care, assuming that every DM will just ban or houserule things to make them work the way they want to, and if the result is a broken mess, well, you can't blame them, man!




Agreed. There is no hidden math. They did their best to get close, and we have all their relevant work and plenty of abilities to use as references. The claim of hidden math is just a red herring to prevent me from being able to claim that healing is less than it should be.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Using the same page numbers I've given you a dozen times.
> 
> Average damage is calculated over three rounds, example given is 37+37+90 = 164 / 3 = 54.6. 54.6 is the expected average damage for CR 8 creature.
> 
> 
> Now, if you want to demand why a CR 8 = 51 to 56 damage, then that would be because level 8 has hp between 59 and 84 for the average party member. There isn't an equal sign, but the math is really clear.



So you can't do it.  That's not the math. That's the tool their math gives you to figure out CR.  It tells you nothing about why 54.6 is good for CR 8 against a party of 4.  And no, because hit points of the party has between 59 and 85 hit points is not it. At least the tools in the DMG doesn't say that.  Nor are hit points the only measure of CR.


Chaosmancer said:


> So.... since you said DC 17 that makes it a appropriate for a CR 11 or a CR 12 monster. Done. I told you that the first time you asked. Where's the problem then?



That's the tool, not the math.  Especially since you did it wrong.  A DC 17 doesn't make it CR 11 or 12.  Let's say it's a CR 8 creature that relies on that save.  Since it's not 2 points higher than the 16 for CR 8, it remains CR 8 despite using a 17.  What's more I can make it DC 19, which is fine for level 17-20 CR according to the chart, but the CR of the creature we're building only goes from 8 to 9.  And we can adjust the save DC for the creature like that per Step 3.

Where's the math that explains why it happens that way?  Not in the DMG, that's for sure.


Chaosmancer said:


> Oh fun, useless pedantry.



You made a false claim. It's not pedantry to correct you.  It's a fact, not a theory.  They mean very different things.


Chaosmancer said:


> Yes we do. It is blatantly obvious why these abilities don't adjust CR.



Really?  Show me the math on why invisibility doesn't, but constrict does.  Where's the math on why the effective attack bonus of a creature with blood frenzy goes up by exactly 4, even though the ability is not always in use and advantage has varying effectiveness based on AC?


Chaosmancer said:


> I didn't houserule anything. There was no need for the utility, so it doesn't get used. Which goes back to my initial question. WHAT utility am I REQUIRED to account for in an analysis. Because whether or not utility gets used DEPENDS on the the situation.



If you guys don't track food, you are house ruling the game to get rid of the food consumption rules.


Chaosmancer said:


> Sorry, "Out of Many, One" is not a term used in analysis of complex systems. That's on the US Money, to denote the United part of the countries history. It has no bearing on the discussion.
> 
> Ceteris Paribus  IS used in these sorts of analysis, and has bearing on why I was analyzing as I did.



It's not applicable here.  I looked at what it was and since you're just repeating it Ad Nauseam(applicable Latin Phrase), I figured I'd throw a non-applicable Latin phrase back at you.

All other things are not equal when comparing two classes like this.  That you think it is is why you get into white room trouble so often.  White room stuff is rarely applicable to how the game actually plays.


Chaosmancer said:


> Really? I didn't build a "good" fighter? But that isn't possible. The game is balanced. How are you determining that these fighter's aren't good? How do you know that Menacing Attack is better than Rally? Are you accounting for all party resources? Because balance is a range accounting for all party resources and any two teams of adventurers would be balanced....



Fine.  Let's say you deliberately built one that you could "beat" with the clerics, rather than one with useful abilities that would be chosen.


Chaosmancer said:


> And it turns out, I even cheated in favor of team fighter, giving them more stats than they could have. Though, I'm curious why 20 Con is useless when the clerics are supposed to die in fight number two with their "measly" 150 effective hp, and dropping the fighter to 16 Con would leave them with fewer than 120 effective hp. Heck, you want Great Weapon Master, Lucky, Heavy Armor Mastery, Sentinel on a Variant Human Battle Master fighter wielding a greatsword with Precision attack, Menacing Attack, Sweeping Attack, and Disarming attack. And THAT will prove than any possible two teams are balanced against each other.



In a real fight, it wouldn't work out the way your white room comparisons do.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> So you can't do it.  That's not the math. That's the tool their math gives you to figure out CR.  It tells you nothing about why 54.6 is good for CR 8 against a party of 4.  And no, because hit points of the party has between 59 and 85 hit points is not it. At least the tools in the DMG doesn't say that.  Nor are hit points the only measure of CR.




So... why do you think the damage is listed as that? Do you think they compared the damage to AC? Maybe they compared the damage versus the player's background? Oh, I know, the secret is you compare the damage against the equipment the party is holding. 

Of course they don't state that the damage is at the CR because of the health totals. That's because it is obvious. As for hit points being the only measure, of course they aren't. You've heard of multi-variable equations right? Just because I only discussed one variable, and there is more than one variable, doesn't mean the entire thing falls apart.




Maxperson said:


> That's the tool, not the math.  Especially since you did it wrong.  A DC 17 doesn't make it CR 11 or 12.  Let's say it's a CR 8 creature that relies on that save.  Since it's not 2 points higher than the 16 for CR 8, it remains CR 8 despite using a 17.  What's more I can make it DC 19, which is fine for level 17-20 CR according to the chart, but the CR of the creature we're building only goes from 8 to 9.  And we can adjust the save DC for the creature like that per Step 3.
> 
> Where's the math that explains why it happens that way?  Not in the DMG, that's for sure.




Yet despite your claim there is no math in the DMG... you certainly seem to know exactly how to use the system and what numbers go where. Must be witchcraft, it would be impossible for you to know all that, because the design is completely hidden and incomprehensible! (By the way, the explanation might come in with that whole section about defensive vs offensive CR, and the discussion of how to average those, averages being a math thing.)



Maxperson said:


> You made a false claim. It's not pedantry to correct you.  It's a fact, not a theory.  They mean very different things.




Uh huh, because it is vitally important to clarify that it is a fact that theoritical abilities could exist. Obviously no one could otherwise understand that people can make up whatever abilities they want. And you wouldn't be using your phrasing to try and make it sound like I'm spouting theories, when I didn't actually propose a theory, but called the abilities "theoritical", which is an indication that they don't actually exist in the text of the game. Which, by the way, is a fact.



Maxperson said:


> Really?  Show me the math on why invisibility doesn't, but constrict does.  Where's the math on why the effective attack bonus of a creature with blood frenzy goes up by exactly 4, even though the ability is not always in use and advantage has varying effectiveness based on AC?




Invisibility is only advantage for a single attack. It doesn't exist long enough to affect their damage output more than getting a successful stealth roll or any other reason for advantage. There is no math for this, in the terms of a formula, but the reasoning is obvious. Meanwhile, while the disadvantage to being attacked might matter, since invisibility almost always disappears when an attack is made, the defensive use only applies as long as the enemy is out of the fight, and again, usually doesn't last long enough. You keep screaming "Math!math!math!" but there is no "abilities over time" equation to write out. 

Meanwhile. look at Constrict. It is an attack, so you deal damage when you use it unlike casting invisibility. It auto-restrains, and the enemy has to use their action to escape (not attacking you) meanwhile they have disadvantage to attack you. It is an AC of +1 effectively, because it only affects a single party member for an extended period of the fight, so it is only 1/4 as effective as permanent disadvantage. 

And Blood Frenzy is going to almost always be in use, the only time it isn't is when the party is at completely full hp, which is incredibly rare. And while the effect varies depending on AC, dozens of articles have been written about how advantage is (on average) between a +4 and a+5. 

Sure, you aren't going to get this  ∫v0dv=Vb∫t0dtm0−bt anywhere in the book, but that's because this stuff isn't physics. 



Maxperson said:


> If you guys don't track food, you are house ruling the game to get rid of the food consumption rules.




Or we aren't out of town for longer than a few days and everyone tends to buy a month of rations and restock in town all the time, because rations are cheap. And I don't feel like a couple of silver every so often is really breaking anything.



Maxperson said:


> It's not applicable here.  I looked at what it was and since you're just repeating it Ad Nauseam(applicable Latin Phrase), I figured I'd throw a non-applicable Latin phrase back at you.
> 
> All other things are not equal when comparing two classes like this.  That you think it is is why you get into white room trouble so often.  White room stuff is rarely applicable to how the game actually plays.




It doesn't literally mean all other things are equal, it means you HOLD all other things as being equal. Such as assuming that subclasses will have equal impact on the base class. Because if you assume all subclasses are about equal within the class, then assume every subclass affects the class power equally, then you can just compare the classes. 

If you don't then you can't compare the classes without first comparing the subclasses within the class, finding their balance, then looking to the classes, but then you also have to determine if the subclass has a greater or less effect on the main class, and then find a way to balance THAT. It's a huge complicated mess that was completely unnecessary for ANY point beyond your red herrings to get me to stop talking about healing.



Maxperson said:


> Fine.  Let's say you deliberately built one that you could "beat" with the clerics, rather than one with useful abilities that would be chosen.
> 
> In a real fight, it wouldn't work out the way your white room comparisons do.




So your claim that all teams are equally balanced is false. Still. I don't care how you phrase it, the very fact you lost your crap over the idea that I DARED to use the champion, followed by your tirade about how I completely mis-built the battlemasters just highlights that single fact. Because a Team can be comprised of all one class, and just this alone shows that a team of all champions wouldn't be balanced against a team of all Battlemasters. 

I don't need to prove it likely, I just need to prove it true. Because the moment it is true that not all teams are balanced against each other, you complaints about my analysis of healing collapse. Because team's aren't balanced, so I don't need to assume that the team balances the cleric's ability to restore HP.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> So... why do you think the damage is listed as that? Do you think they compared the damage to AC?



Everything.  It's just one piece of the puzzle, not a white room object like you want to make it. Neither damage, not hit points exist in isolation. This is proved by the fact that you can modify anything in the block and it doesn't shift the CR all the way to whatever you pick.  If damage vs. hit points where the end all, be all you make it out to be, modifying damage in step 3 would shift CR 1 for every *TWO* steps. It would shift it for every step.


Chaosmancer said:


> Yet despite your claim there is no math in the DMG... you certainly seem to know exactly how to use the system and what numbers go where.



I can drive a car, too.  Can't build one. You can use the tools in the DMG, but you don't know how they were built.  You don't have the math behind the tools.


Chaosmancer said:


> Uh huh, because it is vitally important to clarify that it is a fact that theoritical abilities could exist.



No. It's a fact that other abilities do exist. They aren't theoretical. DMs all over the world come up with them, being creative and all.


Chaosmancer said:


> Invisibility is only advantage for a single attack. It doesn't exist long enough to affect their damage output more than getting a successful stealth roll or any other reason for advantage. There is no math for this, in the terms of a formula, but the reasoning is obvious. Meanwhile, while the disadvantage to being attacked might matter, since invisibility almost always disappears when an attack is made, the defensive use only applies as long as the enemy is out of the fight, and again, usually doesn't last long enough. You keep screaming "Math!math!math!" but there is no "abilities over time" equation to write out.
> 
> Meanwhile. look at Constrict. It is an attack, so you deal damage when you use it unlike casting invisibility. It auto-restrains, and the enemy has to use their action to escape (not attacking you) meanwhile they have disadvantage to attack you. It is an AC of +1 effectively, because it only affects a single party member for an extended period of the fight, so it is only 1/4 as effective as permanent disadvantage.
> 
> And Blood Frenzy is going to almost always be in use, the only time it isn't is when the party is at completely full hp, which is incredibly rare. And while the effect varies depending on AC, dozens of articles have been written about how advantage is (on average) between a +4 and a+5.



It depends completely on the AC of the victim and PCs tend to have higher than normal ACs.  It's +4 or +5 if the target AC is low.


Chaosmancer said:


> Or we aren't out of town for longer than a few days and* everyone tends to buy a month of rations* and restock in town all the time, because rations are cheap. And I don't feel like a couple of silver every so often is really breaking anything.



Oof!  You house ruled encumbrance away as well.  30 days of rations is 60 pounds. Makes making strength the dump stat a lot more attractive.


Chaosmancer said:


> It doesn't literally mean all other things are equal, it means you HOLD all other things as being equal. Such as assuming that subclasses will have equal impact on the base class. Because if you assume all subclasses are about equal within the class, then assume every subclass affects the class power equally, then you can just compare the classes.



Then it's not a good assumption to make.  All subclasses are not about equal. Some are decidedly better than others.


Chaosmancer said:


> So your claim that all teams are equally balanced is false.



I never made that claim.  Your Strawman here is what is false.  I said that balance was a range.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Everything.  It's just one piece of the puzzle, not a white room object like you want to make it. Neither damage, not hit points exist in isolation. This is proved by the fact that you can modify anything in the block and it doesn't shift the CR all the way to whatever you pick.  If damage vs. hit points where the end all, be all you make it out to be, modifying damage in step 3 would shift CR 1 for every *TWO* steps. It would shift it for every step.




Then I'll start comparing damage to backgrounds. What CR is a 54 damage vs an Acolyte? Is it different than 93 damage vs a Former Cultist? Why don't we have this math! I demand the hidden math that tells me CR vs Librarian Scholar!!



Maxperson said:


> I can drive a car, too.  Can't build one. You can use the tools in the DMG, but you don't know how they were built.  You don't have the math behind the tools.




Except... we basically do. May not be laid out, but since we know CR is "the level of a party of four against this monster" and we know the average Ability Scores, ASI's, Proficiency bonuses, and ect ect, we can pretty trivially see why Damage, HP, AC, Attack Bonus and Save DCs are where they are. You say that we can't possibly know, because they didn't give us a formula, but it sure seems like we can. After all, how do you imagine Kobold Press made their monsters? The system is there, you just want it laid out in a way that it cannot be laid out.



Maxperson said:


> No. It's a fact that other abilities do exist. They aren't theoretical. DMs all over the world come up with them, being creative and all.




Cutting off where I clarify what is meant by calling them "theoritical abilities". So honest of you. I'm glad you don't try and warp the conversation to suit your own arguments. It would make trying to have any discussion with you as pleasant as having my teeth kicked in repeatedly.



Maxperson said:


> It depends completely on the AC of the victim and PCs tend to have higher than normal ACs.  It's +4 or +5 if the target AC is low.




PCs do not have higher than normal ACs. I don't even know how you could possibly justify that. And besides, Advantage is better the higher the target's AC is anyways.



Maxperson said:


> Oof!  You house ruled encumbrance away as well.  30 days of rations is 60 pounds. Makes making strength the dump stat a lot more attractive.




Oh noes! 60 lbs! But my poor character with their primary weapon, armor, and miscellaneous gear can only carry 240 lbs without any issue whatsoever! I mean, what would I do if I was carrying slightly more than 250 lbs of stuff on a 6-day journey that slowly reduced the amount of weight I was carrying! 

I've done this song and dance hundreds of times, and it isn't even related to the discussion except for you to make further pot shots attempting to discredit my numbers by attacking ANYTHING ELSE besides my actual arguments.



Maxperson said:


> Then it's not a good assumption to make.  All subclasses are not about equal. Some are decidedly better than others.




Then those need to be fixed. But it would be kind of crappy for me to judge a classes performance just because a single subclass in it wasn't up to par. So, you hold the subclasses as equal when looking at the class, then balance the subclasses agaisnt each other. Not rocket science here.



Maxperson said:


> I never made that claim.  Your Strawman here is what is false.  I said that balance was a range.




And that within this range teams are what is balanced, not individuals. You made that very clear. And then you threw a fit and demanded that I not use specific teams, because that wasn't fair. Guess your range was rather small.

Frankly Max? You have devolved to nothing but cheap shots and red herrings. I've shown you repeatedly that your assertions were wrong. You refuse to acknowledge and keep trying to squirm away from those points to attack me in every direction except the actual discussion.  Are we done here? You successfully ruined any attempt to have a discussion about fixing healing. Congrats. Hopefully someone, somewhere else, was able to have a productive conversation that will move OD&D forward in a better direction for healing spells, potions and other abilities.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Then I'll start comparing damage to backgrounds. What CR is a 54 damage vs an Acolyte? Is it different than 93 damage vs a Former Cultist? Why don't we have this math! I demand the hidden math that tells me CR vs Librarian Scholar!!



You don't want to even try to understand it seems.


Chaosmancer said:


> Except... we basically do. May not be laid out, but since we know CR is "the level of a party of four against this monster" and we know the average Ability Scores, ASI's, Proficiency bonuses, and ect ect, we can pretty trivially see why Damage, HP, AC, Attack Bonus and Save DCs are where they are. You say that we can't possibly know, because they didn't give us a formula, but it sure seems like we can. After all, how do you imagine Kobold Press made their monsters? The system is there, you just want it laid out in a way that it cannot be laid out.



Then show the background math and not just, "Hey, look at all these tools! So we know!"


Chaosmancer said:


> PCs do not have higher than normal ACs. I don't even know how you could possibly justify that. And besides, Advantage is better the higher the target's AC is anyways.



Seriously?  A PC can start with a 17(or higher) AC, which is what the tools in the DMG assigns to CR 10-12 creatures.  I'd call that higher than normal for monsters.  By the time the PCs hit 10-12th level, their ACs will be even higher.


Chaosmancer said:


> Oh noes! 60 lbs! But my poor character with their primary weapon, armor, and miscellaneous gear can only carry 240 lbs without any issue whatsoever! I mean, what would I do if I was carrying slightly more than 250 lbs of stuff on a 6-day journey that slowly reduced the amount of weight I was carrying!



Okay. So your strong PC can carry the minimums.  Now add all your extras and money and.................................you have a strong(16 strength) PC that can do it, maybe.  Depends on how much money and extras you are carrying and what kind of armor.  Most PCs aren't that strong and many dump strength to 8.


Chaosmancer said:


> Then those need to be fixed. But it would be kind of crappy for me to judge a classes performance just because a single subclass in it wasn't up to par. So, you hold the subclasses as equal when looking at the class, then balance the subclasses agaisnt each other. Not rocket science here.



Again, balance is a range.  The numbers don't have to be absolutely equal to be balanced.


Chaosmancer said:


> And that within this range teams are what is balanced, not individuals. You made that very clear.



Teams are made of individuals.  If you don't have individuals that fall into the range, then the teams can't be balanced.


----------



## Chaosmancer

_sigh_



Maxperson said:


> You don't want to even try to understand it seems.




I do understand. I understand that damage isn't related to EVERYTHING.



Maxperson said:


> Then show the background math and not just, "Hey, look at all these tools! So we know!"




Showed the math, you said it wasn't real math. There is no equation that says CR X = Hp+Damage+AC+To Hit value. CR X equals balanced (in theory) against four PCS of level X. 

We know what four PCs of level X (on average) generally look like. They are why CR X has the values it does. Again, multi-equation values. This isn't X=A+B. This is F(X) = X+1/2 x D which relates to the function F(D) = Y/3 - G. And on and on. And some of those things don't have mathematical expressions. Sorry, there is no equation for how to weigh strong saves versus weak saves. There is no mathematical way to measure fire resistance against thunder immunity. They didn't make a massive computer program that runs everything through a perfectly balanced equation to make the game. 

This "hidden math" is an illusion that you are clinging to in some desperate attempt to prevent discussion about changing the parts of the system that are broken. It doesn't exist. If it did exist, people would have found it. Instead, there is math where math works, and understanding of logic where math doesn't work.



Maxperson said:


> Seriously?  A PC can start with a 17(or higher) AC, which is what the tools in the DMG assigns to CR 10-12 creatures.  I'd call that higher than normal for monsters.  By the time the PCs hit 10-12th level, their ACs will be even higher.




A PC CAN start that high. Most don't. Also, PC AC is quite difficult to raise. From level 1 to level 12 a monster's to hit value can increase from +3 to +11. That is an 8 pt increase. Without magic items (which the game isn't balanced around) that PC with 17 AC is likely to tap out around 21, a 4 pt difference. 

Also, you didn't say "higher than normal for monsters" you said "higher than normal". Additionally, you are just making claims, not showing that advantage can't be +4 on average.



Maxperson said:


> Okay. So your strong PC can carry the minimums.  Now add all your extras and money and.................................you have a strong(16 strength) PC that can do it, maybe.  Depends on how much money and extras you are carrying and what kind of armor.  Most PCs aren't that strong and many dump strength to 8.




_sigh_

Really? Fine. Let's take a moment and consider the only question of encumbrance that actually matters. Why are you giving the PCs rewards they cannot carry? 

Because an 8 strength wizard? To carry all their necessary equipment is a dagger, a wand, a spellbook, and robes. So that is 9 lbs of gear. Even with 60 lbs of food that is 69 lbs and they can carry 120 lbs, so they still have 50lbs of extra space. Encumbrance isn't some quantum math problem of insane difficulty. The only question that actually matters is "why is the DM giving rewards the player's can't carry?" That's it. That's the only point where encumbrance matters.



Maxperson said:


> Again, balance is a range.  The numbers don't have to be absolutely equal to be balanced.




And yet, you refused to acknowledge an analysis of one subclass becuase it was "too weak" and demanded another that was "stronger" to prove balance. Must be a small range.



Maxperson said:


> Teams are made of individuals.  If you don't have individuals that fall into the range, then the teams can't be balanced.




So, balance is on the individual level, like I said originally. Good talk. Glad you finally agree with me. 

Again, are we done here? I feel I have adequately proven myself a dozen times despite your repeated "nuh uh"s


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> I do understand. I understand that damage isn't related to EVERYTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> Showed the math, you said it wasn't real math. There is no equation that says CR X = Hp+Damage+AC+To Hit value. CR X equals balanced (in theory) against four PCS of level X.
> 
> We know what four PCs of level X (on average) generally look like. They are why CR X has the values it does. Again, multi-equation values. This isn't X=A+B. This is F(X) = X+1/2 x D which relates to the function F(D) = Y/3 - G. And on and on. And some of those things don't have mathematical expressions. Sorry, there is no equation for how to weigh strong saves versus weak saves. There is no mathematical way to measure fire resistance against thunder immunity. They didn't make a massive computer program that runs everything through a perfectly balanced equation to make the game.
> 
> This "hidden math" is an illusion that you are clinging to in some desperate attempt to prevent discussion about changing the parts of the system that are broken. It doesn't exist. If it did exist, people would have found it. Instead, there is math where math works, and understanding of logic where math doesn't work.



The above explanation shows that you do not understand what I am saying.


Chaosmancer said:


> A PC CAN start that high. Most don't. Also, PC AC is quite difficult to raise. From level 1 to level 12 a monster's to hit value can increase from +3 to +11. That is an 8 pt increase. Without magic items (which the game isn't balanced around) that PC with 17 AC is likely to tap out around 21, a 4 pt difference.



Did you see the part where I said they *start* with above average AC. I didn't make a claim about how their ACs end.


Chaosmancer said:


> Also, you didn't say "higher than normal for monsters" you said "higher than normal".



I didn't say it because it went without saying.  Saying the PCs have higher than normal AC = monsters and NPCs usually having lower than normal ACs.  Quite literally everything else besides the PCs is a monster or NPC.  I didn't think I would need to explain that to you.


Chaosmancer said:


> Additionally, you are just making claims, not showing that advantage can't be +4 on average.



It's not a +4 on anything in the upper end of the AC spectrum.


Chaosmancer said:


> Let's take a moment and consider the only question of encumbrance that actually matters. Why are you giving the PCs rewards they cannot carry?



Because that's how treasure works.  If they find 12000 gold pieces in a horde, that's 240 pounds.  If they want to drag back that adamantine plate, that's 65 more pounds.  It adds up.


Chaosmancer said:


> Because an 8 strength wizard? To carry all their necessary equipment is a dagger, a wand, a spellbook, and robes. So that is 9 lbs of gear. Even with 60 lbs of food that is 69 lbs and they can carry 120 lbs, so they still have 50lbs of extra space.



You should look at wizard sheets sometime.  They carry a heck of a lot more than that usually.


Chaosmancer said:


> The only question that actually matters is "why is the DM giving rewards the player's can't carry?" That's it. That's the only point where encumbrance matters.



It's my job to set the world.  It's not my job to artificially cause the world to only give them what they can carry.  If they want to drag a 200 pound tapestry worth 25000 gold back to town, they can.  If they decide it's too heavy, that's also a decision they can make.  The tapestry isn't suddenly going to vanish or go on a diet and lose 180 pounds just so your wizard can carry it.


Chaosmancer said:


> And yet, you refused to acknowledge an analysis of one subclass becuase it was "too weak" and demanded another that was "stronger" to prove balance. Must be a small range.



No. I just called you out for cherry picking the numbers to work out in your favor.  I never said they weren't all in the balance range.


Chaosmancer said:


> So, balance is on the individual level, like I said originally. Good talk. Glad you finally agree with me.



It's both.  The game assumes a group of 4 when it works out CR.  Individuals go into that group.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> Because that's how treasure works.  If they find 12000 gold pieces in a horde, that's 240 pounds.  If they want to drag back that adamantine plate, that's 65 more pounds.  It adds up.



Why are they bothering?  It's not like the treasure does them much good.


----------



## tetrasodium

James Gasik said:


> Why are they bothering?  It's not like the treasure does them much good.



It doesn't add up either.  strength *15 before hitting _any_ penalty at all just means that Alice shrugs & hands something heavy to Bob Dave or Cindy & the group continues on with a sigh because the GM made them sit there to wait for Alice to calculate how much she was carrying  when she wasn't bothering to track a number with an implausibly high cap before.


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Why are they bothering?  It's not like the treasure does them much good.



In my game it does.  I have proactive players who come up with things to spend their money on.  They build temples, buy homes in various cities they go to frequently, sometimes they will open a shop and set NPCs up to run it so they can sell the used stuff they find, and so on.  Spending money is never an issue.


----------



## Maxperson

tetrasodium said:


> It doesn't add up either.  strength *15 before hitting _any_ penalty at all just means that Alice shrugs & hands something heavy to Bob Dave or Cindy & the group continues on with a sigh because the GM made them sit there to wait for Alice to calculate how much she was carrying  when she wasn't bothering to track a number with an implausibly high cap before.



It does add up over time.  It's something they track and has been an issue more than once.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> The above explanation shows that you do not understand what I am saying.




It is more I really stopped caring after the fifth time you insisted on something that isn't real being the only thing that mattered.



Maxperson said:


> Did you see the part where I said they *start* with above average AC. I didn't make a claim about how their ACs end.




And? Your original point wasn't about starting or ending AC at all. So who cares, I was pointing out how the difference between AC and to-hit bonuses.



Maxperson said:


> I didn't say it because it went without saying.  Saying the PCs have higher than normal AC = monsters and NPCs usually having lower than normal ACs.  Quite literally everything else besides the PCs is a monster or NPC.  I didn't think I would need to explain that to you.




Funny how you can have things that "go without saying" but I need to demonstrate the hidden math of 5e to be allowed to talk about healing spells and have hyper precise language. And this STILL doesn't prove that Blood Frenzy getting a +4 on average because of advantage is wrong.



Maxperson said:


> It's not a +4 on anything in the upper end of the AC spectrum.




Care to support that with evidence? Or are we still playing the "Max just states things as facts" game?



Maxperson said:


> Because that's how treasure works.  If they find 12000 gold pieces in a horde, that's 240 pounds.  If they want to drag back that adamantine plate, that's 65 more pounds.  It adds up.




Okay, why not give them a single 12,000 gold piece ornamental necklace then? Then it is a pound. I have the option to do that, so why don't I?



Maxperson said:


> You should look at wizard sheets sometime.  They carry a heck of a lot more than that usually.




Cool, I have 50 lbs of extra space. What else am I required to carry as "necessary equipment". Because, I did specify it was only the necessary equipment, since we are playing with encumbrance.



Maxperson said:


> It's my job to set the world.  It's not my job to artificially cause the world to only give them what they can carry.  If they want to drag a 200 pound tapestry worth 25000 gold back to town, they can.  If they decide it's too heavy, that's also a decision they can make.  The tapestry isn't suddenly going to vanish or go on a diet and lose 180 pounds just so your wizard can carry it.




And yet, you are the one setting that 200 lb tapestry there as a reward for them. And if it is too heavy, then they just don't take it. It doesn't matter. It is literally that simple. If they don't take it, it has zero impact on encumbrance. 

I remember a DM ran us through a 2e adventure once. He was a newer DM and confused, because there was this massively heavy statue locked to the floor of this mansion with Sovereign Glue, but it had this big gold value. And he asked us what we wanted to do with it. And after confirming we had no way of interacting with it, we ignored it. It was... entirely pointless for the adventure to include. Just a way to tempt us into wasting time. 

So, sure, don't have your tapestry lose weight. But also don't expect your players to care that it exists, because you by telling them it weighs more than they can carry, have declared it is useless to them.  



Maxperson said:


> No. I just called you out for cherry picking the numbers to work out in your favor.  I never said they weren't all in the balance range.




If they were in the balance range, then it wouldn't matter whether or not I cherry picked them. They would be balanced.



Maxperson said:


> It's both.  The game assumes a group of 4 when it works out CR.  Individuals go into that group.




Nope. It is the individuals by your own admission.


----------



## tetrasodium

Maxperson said:


> In my game it does.  I have proactive players who come up with things to spend their money on.  *They build temples, buy homes in various cities they go to frequently, sometimes they will open a shop and set NPCs up to run it so they can sell the used stuff they find, and so on*.  Spending money is never an issue.



That's you fixing a hole created by the encumbrance being designed to obliviate itself system with three homebrew solutions not the encumbrance system mattering enough for me to have credibility when I browbeat players into being on the ball with tracking the weight of what they are carrying.  Here's a story of three other subsystems filling a similar role...


----------



## Maxperson

tetrasodium said:


> That's you fixing a hole created by the encumbrance being designed to obliviate itself system with three homebrew solutions not the encumbrance system mattering enough for me to have credibility when I browbeat players into being on the ball with tracking the weight of what they are carrying.  Here's a story of three other subsystems filling a similar role...



No.  That's not me at all.  THEY choose things to spend money on.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Funny how you can have things that "go without saying" but I need to demonstrate the hidden math of 5e to be allowed to talk about healing spells and have hyper precise language. And this STILL doesn't prove that Blood Frenzy getting a +4 on average because of advantage is wrong.



False Equivalences are false. One is math(yours) and one is not(mine). I shouldn't have to explain to you what "everything but the PCs means."


Chaosmancer said:


> Care to support that with evidence? Or are we still playing the "Max just states things as facts" game?





			D&D 5e:  Probabilities for Advantage and Disadvantage | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
		


For everything over 15 it drops below +4 since the game rounds down, and PCs often have ACs higher than 15.


Chaosmancer said:


> Okay, why not give them a single 12,000 gold piece ornamental necklace then? Then it is a pound. I have the option to do that, so why don't I?



Because I don't do nonsense.  They'll get the jewelry and gems, but coins are and always have been part of the game.  I'm not going to alter that just so that you can dump strength.


Chaosmancer said:


> Cool, I have 50 lbs of extra space. What else am I required to carry as "necessary equipment". Because, I did specify it was only the necessary equipment, since we are playing with encumbrance.



What's not necessary?  The equipment list has a lot of commonly used items.


Chaosmancer said:


> I remember a DM ran us through a 2e adventure once. He was a newer DM and confused, because there was this massively heavy statue locked to the floor of this mansion with Sovereign Glue, but it had this big gold value. And he asked us what we wanted to do with it. And after confirming we had no way of interacting with it, we ignored it. It was... entirely pointless for the adventure to include. Just a way to tempt us into wasting time.
> 
> 
> So, sure, don't have your tapestry lose weight. But also don't expect your players to care that it exists, *because you by telling them it weighs more than they can carry, have declared it is useless to them*.



Have I?  They left it there until they could come back with a cart and get it.  I don't tell them anything is useful or useless.  I just make the world and the players can decide.


----------



## W'rkncacnter

Maxperson said:


> D&D 5e:  Probabilities for Advantage and Disadvantage | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
> 
> 
> 
> For everything over 15 it drops below +4 since the game rounds down, and PCs often have ACs higher than 15.



nah, okay, no, i need to respond to this because this is a downright insulting misinterpretation of this page.

this table is referring to *NATURAL DICE ROLLS.* it is *NOT *accounting for modifiers. advantage drops below +4 if you need to roll over a *natural 15.* monsters are (almost always) not rolling flat d20s as their attacks. they are (almost) never going to need roll a natural 15 or higher to hit a PC with 15 AC - actually, you know what? let's look at the sahuagin, since 5e.tools lists that as an example of blood frenzy.

the sahuagin is a CR1/2 creature with a +3 to hit. that means it needs a 12 (15-3=12) to hit a creature with 15 AC. advantage to hit a natural 12 increases the odds of success by 24.8%, which we round down to 20% since as you said the game rounds down (i mean...i don't know if that applies here but we'll roll with it), which comes out to...a +4 to hit. quite interesting. verily so, i would say.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Can one mark a thread so that it does not update to unread everytime someone makes a 100lines, multiquote, competely irrelevant nitpicky post?

Edit: as a reminder: the topic of this thread was: "UA spell changes"


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> Can one mark a thread so that it does not update to unread everytime someone makes a 100lines, multiquote, competely irrelevant nitpicky post?
> 
> Edit: as a reminder: the topic of this thread was: "UA spell changes"




I've tried a few times to get back to talking about healing spells, which were the major changes to spells to date, but no such luck. I'd hoped to get a chance to talk about heroism vs barkskin vs aid as well


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> I've tried a few times to get back to talking about healing spells, which were the major changes to spells to date, but no such luck. I'd hoped to get a chance to talk about heroism vs barkskin vs aid as well




So just stop. And talk about this. I think it is reasonably clear that the two of you won't convince the other one.

I think going to temp hp in aid is a good idea, because the increase of max hp is neat, but deviates too much from the standard and is an additional layer of bookkeeping. How do two aid spells stack anyway?

Heroism and barkskin are now redundand, bit I still think, that we need some other restriction than just concentration for personal buff spells.
Or: as long as you concentrate on barkskin, your constitution saves are always at least 10. (Treat a result of 9 or lower as 10).
And maybe explicitely state, that damage you completely absorb with thp does not force a con save. 
Or maybe remove the DC at least 10 bar and just make the save DC = damage taken/2.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> False Equivalences are false. One is math(yours) and one is not(mine). I shouldn't have to explain to you what "everything but the PCs means."




Well, at least I finally get you to admit that I have math. But no, I wasn't referring to my math versus you stating the value of advantage via math changing because AC is higher than normal.



Maxperson said:


> D&D 5e:  Probabilities for Advantage and Disadvantage | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
> 
> 
> 
> For everything over 15 it drops below +4 since the game rounds down, and PCs often have ACs higher than 15.




I believe W'rkncacnter provided an excellent response to why this claim is flatly misrepresenting the situation.



Maxperson said:


> Because I don't do nonsense.  They'll get the jewelry and gems, but coins are and always have been part of the game.  I'm not going to alter that just so that you can dump strength.




How is it nonsense? Who cares if coins have "always been part of the game"? And who said anything about dumping strength? You noted that the coins and armor were over 300 lbs. You of course realize that for any single character to carry that much without penalty, they needed to have a strength over 20. I don't see maxed strength as dumping strength, do you?

The obvious truth is that while you make the claim of not altering anything, you obviously are setting players up to not be able to get their proper rewards after a fight, that is the ONLY time encumbrance matters. Because people can carry their essential gear trivially. It is only when you start offering them rewards for winning that they then begin to have to deal with this system.



Maxperson said:


> What's not necessary?  The equipment list has a lot of commonly used items.




My wizard doesn't need fishing tackle, they aren't going to be fishing.
They have an 8 strength, they don't need a crowbar, they not only can't benefit from it, but they don't need it for advantage in 5e.
Don't have a crossbow or longbow, so don't need a quiver or bolt case
No need for an abacus. Not only does it not do anything, my wizard is a genius, math is easy
I can summon fire, no need for alchemist fire
No need to carry a barrel, nothing to put in it
No point in carrying a 10-ft ladder, I have adventuring companions
I'm not mining, so I don't need a miner's pick
No need for a tent. Really no need for a bedroll either. Neither improves the quality of sleep, if my character even needs sleep.
Not a strength character, so a sledgehammer is fairly useless
Don't need a grappling hook, same as not needing the ladder.
Not hunting, so I don't need the hunting trap

So... a lot of the stuff isn't necessary.




Maxperson said:


> Have I?  They left it there until they could come back with a cart and get it.  I don't tell them anything is useful or useless.  I just make the world and the players can decide.




So what practical difference was there between them getting a cart and taking it compared to them just moving 5ft every six seconds and taking it? Sounds like it literally made zero difference, so why did it matter enough to track?

And yes, you'll note 200 lbs tapestry is not in the equipment list. So you are the one who decided that is what it weighed.

Now, can we be done talking about encumbrance which has even less to do with the thread than the OTHER red herrings you keep throwing out?


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think going to temp hp in aid is a good idea, because the increase of max hp is neat, but deviates too much from the standard and is an additional layer of bookkeeping. How do two aid spells stack anyway?




I never considered two aid spells. But isn't there a general rule that two effects of the same name don't stack anyways? I think that would cover double Aid.

Going to temp hp is a debuff, because it prevents it from working with all of the VAST number of other temp hp spells. But it does get to be a full party, which is really nice. The bookkeeping is a great point, and one reason I avoided the spell, needing to track changes to max hp is rough.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Heroism and barkskin are now redundand, bit I still think, that we need some other restriction than just concentration for personal buff spells.




Well... yes and no?

Barkskin is a bonus action and grants Mod+Prof. So, starts at +2 over heroism and slowly levels with you (great mechanic, wish more spells had that)

Heroism is an action, grants only mod, but also makes you immune to frightened.

Where I struggle here is that Barkskin is 2nd level and Heroism 1st. I think the bonus action for Barkskin keeps it viable, but it gets to the point where now I am looking at Heroism and wondering if it would be worth it. It was often a hard spell for us to justify anyways.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Or: as long as you concentrate on barkskin, your constitution saves are always at least 10. (Treat a result of 9 or lower as 10).
> 
> And maybe explicitely state, that damage you completely absorb with thp does not force a con save.
> Or maybe remove the DC at least 10 bar and just make the save DC = damage taken/2.




Clarification on if Temp HP can cause concentration saves would be nice, but I think at this point we know it does. I like the idea of Barkskin giving a con save bonus, but I think that is a bit too much. Maybe something like "as long as this spell is active, you have proficiency in con saves"

I also think that with Barkskin now being temp hp, it is no longer as much a self-buff. This is VERY good for any frontliner, druid or no. And actually, with the scaling prof mod, I can see this being very worth it even at high levels. Bonus action for a 6th level spell to give the entire party regenerating 11 temp hp, for an hour? If it wasn't touch that would be really hard to beat even mid combat.

Edit: Oh. Just noticed, the spell grants the Temp hp, but losing concentration on the spell doesn't remove them like Heroism does. That's HUGE for making this more worthwhile.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Well, at least I finally get you to admit that I have math. But no, I wasn't referring to my math versus you stating the value of advantage via math changing because AC is higher than normal.



God your twisting of words is frustrating.  You know damn well that I'm talking about the hidden math.  I said so in the quote.


Chaosmancer said:


> I believe Tetrasodium provided an excellent response to why this claim is flatly misrepresenting the situation.



Except he didn't.  He provided a link to someone talking about the DM creating new subsystems for spending money, something that I do not do.  Players coming to me with what they want to spend their money on is not me creating a subsystem.


Chaosmancer said:


> How is it nonsense? Who cares if coins have "always been part of the game"? And who said anything about dumping strength? You noted that the coins and armor were over 300 lbs. You of course realize that for any single character to carry that much without penalty, they needed to have a strength over 20. I don't see maxed strength as dumping strength, do you?



What?!  How does 60 pounds of coins + 65 pounds of armor = 300+ pounds?  Or are you trying to twist things again and include the tapestry?  Because if you are, simply sharing the coins around the rest of the party and going with 65 pounds of armor + 200 for the tapestry = 265. 

Some things will be too large to carry.  That's reasonable.  If you raid a castle, there will be big and valuable things in it.


Chaosmancer said:


> The obvious truth is that while you make the claim of not altering anything, you obviously are setting players up to not be able to get their proper rewards after a fight, that is the ONLY time encumbrance matters.



Blah blah blah all I want to do is deliberately not understand Maxperson instead of having a conversation blah.

Nothing that I said could possibly be construed(only deliberately misconstrued) as setting players up not to get proper rewards.  I spoke of coins, gems, jewelry, etc. which are all easily carriable rewards.  Extras like the tapestry might take some work.

Coins and items(normal and magic) are enough to cause encumbrance issues.


Chaosmancer said:


> Because people can carry their essential gear trivially. It is only when you start offering them rewards for winning that they then begin to have to deal with this system.



Yeah, wouldn't want to include things like coins and magic items like adamantine plate mail for winning fights.  Wouldn't want them to have any rewards for winning. 


Chaosmancer said:


> So what practical difference was there between them getting a cart and taking it compared to them just moving 5ft every six seconds and taking it? Sounds like it literally made zero difference, so why did it matter enough to track?



You really want to have a move 5 feet in a dangerous world?  Do you really want to consume 6x as much food getting back to town? You didn't bring enough to cover that much extra time.  You brought 1 month of rations.  If your journey took even one week, taking six weeks to get back would cause food issues.  Oh, yeah.  You house ruled tracking food away.  Convenient for your players.


Chaosmancer said:


> And yes, you'll note 200 lbs tapestry is not in the equipment list. So you are the one who decided that is what it weighed.



A giant tapestry that takes up a wall isn't going to be light.


Chaosmancer said:


> Now, can we be done talking about encumbrance which has even less to do with the thread than the OTHER red herrings you keep throwing out?



As soon as you stop twisting what I say, sure. In this post alone you've.

1) Falsely accused me of setting players up not to get their rewards. Rewards you say they shouldn't get for winning.
2) Deliberately twisted my saying your examples involve hidden math as "admitting that yours has math."
3) Deliberately twisted two different paragraphs(one explicitly only coin and items) dealing with weight issues into "Must have them carry all the gear, coins AND tapestry."

Just respond to what I say and you'll be fine.  We can actually have a conversation.  If I break something up and it's two different paragraphs, they aren't together and twisting them together the way you do is going to be wrong. You already know that, though, since I've told it to you at least two dozen times over the years.


----------



## W'rkncacnter

Chaosmancer said:


> I believe *Tetrasodium* provided an excellent response to why this claim is flatly misrepresenting the situation.



uh--


W'rkncacnter said:


> nah, okay, no, i need to respond to this because this is a downright insulting misinterpretation of this page.[...]



huh? i think you mixed up some names somewhere


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> God your twisting of words is frustrating.
> 
> Blah blah blah all I want to do is deliberately not understand Maxperson...
> 
> As soon as you stop twisting what I say, sure. In this post alone you've.
> 
> 1) Falsely accused me of setting players up not to get their rewards. Rewards you say they shouldn't get for winning.
> 2) Deliberately twisted my saying your examples involve hidden math as "admitting that yours has math."
> 3) Deliberately twisted two different paragraphs(one explicitly only coin and items) dealing with weight issues into "Must have them carry all the gear, coins AND tapestry."



*Mod Note:*

If it is so bad, why, on this good green Earth, haven't you used the Ignore feature? There is a point where you own choices are part of the problem.  



Chaosmancer said:


> Now, can we be done talking about encumbrance which has even less to do with the thread than the OTHER red herrings you keep throwing out?




And you spend an entire post on encumbrance, and only then admit it isn't relevant to the thread?  You _choose_ to use your time that way, but try to blame someone else for the waste.  Kind of transparent, that. 

If you two cannot control the manner of engagement, the other tools that may be applied are rather blunt, and you will not enjoy them being used.  So... make better choices, and moderate yourselves.  Please.


----------



## Chaosmancer

W'rkncacnter said:


> uh--
> 
> huh? i think you mixed up some names somewhere




Oh, I am so sorry. I have no idea how I did that. Fixing it now


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Because that's how treasure works.  If they find 12000 gold pieces in a horde, that's 240 pounds.  If they want to drag back that adamantine plate, that's 65 more pounds.  It adds up.







Maxperson said:


> What?!  How does 60 pounds of coins + 65 pounds of armor = 300+ pounds?  Or are you trying to twist things again and include the tapestry?  Because if you are, simply sharing the coins around the rest of the party and going with 65 pounds of armor + 200 for the tapestry = 265.


----------



## Maxperson

@Chaosmancer You are correct.  I misremembered the weight of the coins.  In any case, the weight doesn't really matter since the party is 4 people, not one person with a 20 strength.  Plus, if they have to leave some behind and come back later, they have that option.  The world isn't a convenient place where everything magically conforms to the amount they can carry and no more.


----------

