D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook preview: "New Spells"

[Stalker0]

That said, I don't think WotC should design content with the idea that the DMs will fix the balance after publication by controlling how much gold and other resources player characters can lay their hands on.

Though I like Heroes' feast, I do agree with you here. Ultimately resources are too flimsy to be a good balancing mechanism. Ideally something that has a more universal "cost" is more ideal. Take exhaustion as one possible option, or X amount of healing surges (the healing dice, can't remember their actual name)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Though I like Heroes' feast, I do agree with you here. Ultimately resources are too flimsy to be a good balancing mechanism. Ideally something that has a more universal "cost" is more ideal. Take exhaustion as one possible option, or X amount of healing surges (the healing dice, can't remember their actual name)

Ooh, pre-spending hit dice (5E healing surges) would make it an interesting choice.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

But this is literally the problem. No one healed. No one who understood the game math ever took Cure Wounds. Instead, they took Healing Word, waited until their ally was down, then bonus action got them on their feet so they could misty step/fireball/smite ect. This is why people got furious at Healing Word, why people constantly demanded an end to pop-healing. Because it was the only effective healing in-combat. The only healing strategy that actually worked the vast majority of the time.

It doesn't make anything "too easy" again, that fight where my cleric was constantly healing my allies every single turn? It was nearly a TPK. And because of Mass Suggestion, I didn't have an option beyond healing them. But because my healing was actually effective, I was able to keep everyone up.



So is it magic missile or burning hands you think is overpowered compared to a 2nd level spell? Because those were the examples I was using, to showcase how utterly deplorable Cloud of Daggers was. Which of these 1st level spells needs nerfed in your opinion?

Different spells for different situations?

I dunno. I realize different groups and different samples an all.

I don’t know why would would need cure wounds to be a clutch combat spell at all. There are many paths to more hit points.

If you have five minutes and the spells to burn, getting a party healthy before they can long rest has a place. It may not generally be in combat as noted and if it is (maybe you want someone to soak one hit vs die the next round, whatever) it’s ok with me.

It’s ok if we have different priorities and expectations. One of us will be happy with the changes either way.

I like the book covers for sure.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

One DM spell that they've mentioned, and we have no actual evidence of any non-player side improvements or changes, because all the playtests and previews have been about the PH. There is no proof of what you're saying, and they've had ample time to provide some. Assuming they care about players more than DMs is not unreasonable.

Then watch some videos from the last 10 years and look up some statistics. DMs buy books.

 

[OB1]

I am no longer listening to campaign three, but if they're limiting their casting, that's new. All the time they spent screwing around in the arctic in campaign two, they cast Heroes Feast every single time, to the point that Mercer would double-check with them when they didn't mention it at the start of the adventuring day.

Per CritRole Stats, Heroes Feast was cast 3 times in Campaign 2, and only once so far in campaign 3.

I did misremember how many times it was cast in campaign 1 (15 times over the 70 or so sessions they had access to it) and I think that led to Mercer making it more difficult to get the jewel encrusted material component in the next campaign.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If that's the perspective, than why not make shield +10 AC, or +15 AC? Heck lets just make them immune to attacks?

The point is that we know there is an amount of strength for shield that is weak, one that is reasonable, and ones that are overpowered. The notion that you can ignore shield doesn't work in many cases from my argument before. So it then comes back down to.... is a +5 to AC for shield "too much"?

I honestly don't think it is.

A few posters said it was utterly fine for a wizard with mage armor. Other posters have side it was fine for Eldritch Knights.

It seems the main problem people have with Shield, is when it is part of a highly defensive build that comes online about level 4. And, well, I'm usually not too concerned when "with this specific build they can..." arguments. Yeah, if you combine the right classes, feats and species with shield, you can make a character with very high AC. A level 1 fighter with chain mail, a shield, and defensive can start with 19 AC and that is nearly impossible to hit with monsters that have a +4 to hit. That's the point. That is what the player wanted.

Is it a little frustrating? Sure, a bit. But I play it up just like I play up my frustrations with the Barbarian just not dying or the rogue having a stealth result of 32 when they rolled an 8. The character is doing exactly what the player wanted, and if I truly, desperately needed to cause hp damage to a character with high AC who can use a daily resource to pump it higher temporarily.... Well, I think I can pull that off with minimal difficulty.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don’t know why would would need cure wounds to be a clutch combat spell at all. There are many paths to more hit points.

Because part of the fantasy of playing a magical healer is being able to heal people mid-combat. And that option was missing from the most iconic healing spell in the game.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Per CritRole Stats, Heroes Feast was cast 3 times in Campaign 2, and only once so far in campaign 3.

Critters never cease to amaze me.

Well, the spell made a big impression on me, apparently larger than its actual use in play.

I did misremember how many times it was cast in campaign 1 (15 times over the 70 or so sessions they had access to it) and I think that led to Mercer making it more difficult to get the jewel encrusted material component in the next campaign.

Yep, that's my reading as well.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am not assuming that. I am assuming that WotC cares about player "fun" through awesome super powers more than GM enjoyment in running the game, presumably because there are more players than GMs, and therefore more potential profit from focusing on them.

I find the theories highly suspicious...
...that because players outnumber GMs they more important (hint: with no GM there's no game)
...that players only care about "winning" or manifesting their awesomeness, and only the GM cares about balance and ability to run the game

Sorry, that's unconvincing.

 

[Aldarc]

If that's the perspective, than why not make shield +10 AC, or +15 AC? Heck lets just make them immune to attacks?

The point is that we know there is an amount of strength for shield that is weak, one that is reasonable, and ones that are overpowered. The notion that you can ignore shield doesn't work in many cases from my argument before. So it then comes back down to.... is a +5 to AC for shield "too much"?

I do think that Shield is a little too good. I'm not sure if I have ever seen a caster with access to Shield NOT take the spell, and I've seen a fair number of players take certain subclasses just to get Shield. Treantmonk had a similar experience, and he thinks that the spell breaks bounded accuracy.

I even remember that the playtest Forge Cleric had Shield on its spell list. I was playing the playtest version in a campaign. It was so potent and OP IMHO that I requested a self-nerf to the DM. We replaced the Shield spell with Identify, which is what I recommended in the feedback for that UA playtest.

I get that the wizard typically has a lower AC, but a wizard with Mage Armor has higher unmodified AC than a Rogue in light armor.

For comparison: In Pathfinder 2, Shield is a cantrip that provides only a +1 bonus to AC. Once cast, it can't be cast again until 10 minutes later.