Is Cure Wounds a terrible spell?

[MrUberGr]

Going through the DMG, I reached the "create a spell" part. It isn't a very extensive part and I think it should have more than haldf a column to it. However, it has a pretty comprehensive table, about spell damage and spell heal. For example, it says a 1st level spell should heal 2d10 damage. However, Cure Wounds, which is a 1st level heal spell, only heals 1d8. The Life Domain Cleric is ok because he gets to add his Wisdom and I don't know what else. But, for me, as a bard, it's absolutely terrible. I can't go on burning a ton of slots for healing and, even if I did, my heals wouldn't do much good.

So, what do you think, maybe this spell should be improved some how?

[Eslin]

Going through the DMG, I reached the "create a spell" part. It isn't a very extensive part and I think it should have more than haldf a column to it. However, it has a pretty comprehensive table, about spell damage and spell heal. For example, it says a 1st level spell should heal 2d10 damage. However, Cure Wounds, which is a 1st level heal spell, only heals 1d8. The Life Domain Cleric is ok because he gets to add his Wisdom and I don't know what else. But, for me, as a bard, it's absolutely terrible. I can't go on burning a ton of slots for healing and, even if I did, my heals wouldn't do much good.

So, what do you think, maybe this spell should be improved some how?

Part of it is the guarantee. Unlike a damage spell, there's no chance it'll miss or be saved against and no chance they're resistant or immune to it.

[Giant2005]

You add your Cha to that heal which still isn't enough to reach the same average that you would get from 2d10 though...
Maybe you could decide that touching someone requires an attack roll and take 3 levels of Assassin so you can crit your friends with surprise heals :smallbiggrin:.

[JAL_1138]

I'd argue the other way, that the 2d10 create-a-spell is way, way too high. Then again, I get nervous and twitchy if I go too long without my character nearly dying horribly, so take that with a half-pound of salt. (I have a terrible case of "back in my day, dagnabbit" AD&D grognardism that means I tend to view low-level characters as mayflies in a world composed entirely of bug-zappers and spiders.)

[Nasagi]

I agree, it feels like 2d10 seems a little much. Most 1st level spells I've seen average around a d10, if not lower

[Eslin]

I agree, it feels like 2d10 seems a little much. Most 1st level spells I've seen average around a d10, if not lower

That's not true. Think about first level damage spells - 2d10's average is 11, magic missile does 10.5, guiding bolt does 14, chromatic orb does 13.5, burning hands does 10.5 in an aoe, witch bolt does 6.5 but is repeatable every turn.

[RealCheese]

My dmg is still en route, but if the wording lumps damage and healing spells together, perhaps it's true that the difference is the 'autohit' that healing spells have. If you were looking at the section about making your own to actually make your own, then how about something that you cast and the next creature to hit you in combat (friend or foe) deals no damage to you but is healed for something like 2d8 or 2d10, add +d8/+d10 per level higher than first the expended spellslot is? Not perfect but could start some brainstorming.

[MrUberGr]

Huh, I never really read the spell, cause I thought the spellcasting modifier was added from the cleric's life domain feature, which I played before my bard :smallredface:. The few times I used it, I only rolled d8's. Still, I think the heal it does is not viable for higher levels. It could help keep you alive a bit, but it won't help you heal up before going on to the next part of the dungeon.

[JAL_1138]

Huh, I never really read the spell, cause I thought the spellcasting modifier was added from the cleric's life domain feature, which I played before my bard :smallredface:. The few times I used it, I only rolled d8's. Still, I think the heal it does is not viable for higher levels. It could help keep you alive a bit, but it won't help you heal up before going on to the next part of the dungeon.

It scales ok by the slot it's cast from, although that does limit your higher-level slots too.

[mr_odd]

You add your Cha to that heal which still isn't enough to reach the same average that you would get from 2d10 though...
Maybe you could decide that touching someone requires an attack roll and take 3 levels of Assassin so you can crit your friends with surprise heals :smallbiggrin:.

I would enjoy playing that character way too much haha

[Dalebert]

Part of it is the guarantee. Unlike a damage spell, there's no chance it'll miss or be saved against and no chance they're resistant or immune to it.

But how does that explain the discrepancy between the DMG and the basic 1st level heal spell they created--Cure Wounds? Who wants to save or be immune to a benefit? That's irrelevant. And it's touch-based, so if someone doesn't want you to touch them, then you'll have to make an attack roll just as you do with something like Shocking Grasp, right?


It scales ok by the slot it's cast from, although that does limit your higher-level slots too.

This is why I like my lock dipped one level of bard. :smallbiggrin:

[Ziegander]

So, since we already have a 1st level evocation that is an autohit from 120ft away of the best damage type (force) that deals 3d4+3 (avg 10.5) divided any way you choose between one to three creatures within range, I think it's safe to call Cure Wounds a really terrible spell. Like among the worst spells in the game. It is, and always has been, and as long as WotC keeps designing it, it seems it always will be. Even with a Life Cleric, the very most damage that Cure Wounds can heal from a 1st-level slot is 1d8+7 (avg 11.5), from touch range, and it can't be divided up between multiple creatures. Though, cast by a Life Cleric it can heal 9d8+23 in a 9th level slot, automaximized to 95, which, when compared to Mass Heal or even Power Word Heal, is still pathetic.

If it healed 2d8+casting mod (avg ~12 before ability score increases) at a 60ft range or so, it would be better. 2d10 without mod would suffice as well.

[Pex]

Perhaps they really,really want characters to use their HD worth of healing during short rests. With Cure Wounds not being so optimal they're trying to emphasize clerics not being healbots. Healing is important and there, but everyone needs to take care of it not just one class. Life Domain is for those players who like playing healing clerics.

[odigity]

...I think it's safe to call Cure Wounds a really terrible spell. Like among the worst spells in the game. It is, and always has been, and as long as WotC keeps designing it, it seems it always will be.


Yes, it is a terrible spell.

I get the feeling WotC wants the bulk of your healing to come from yourself in the form of Hit Dice/Second Wind/Long Rest/etc, with magic to supplement when you're desperate. But maybe that's just me. And that doesn't mean you have to respect their preference.


If it healed 2d8+casting mod (avg ~12 before ability score increases) at a 60ft range or so, it would be better. 2d10 without mod would suffice as well.

That would make it almost pointless to learn Healing Word.


...Sanctuary (keep someone from being killed, using only a bonus action) are both excellent

Wow, I've never looked at Sanctuary in this edition. I assume it was something like 1 action, duration 1 hr, ritual, but is instead 1 bonus action, duration 1 rd, no ritual. Practically the opposite values from what I expected. Interesting. So, basically to protect a char who's about to die for a few rounds so they can escape or heal themselves?

[MrUberGr]

Yes, HD are a good option when you have a DM that thinks it's reasonable to find an hour of peace and quiet in a dungeon. :smalltongue:

So, most of us agree it's not a good option. What possible fix could we implement? Maybe upsizing the dice rolled from 1d8 to 2d6? 1d10 would still not be a good option since the smallest amount would still be 1+mod, with a small average. Possibly even 3d4, for 3+mod min and 7.5 average.

[charcoalninja]

Perhaps they really,really want characters to use their HD worth of healing during short rests. With Cure Wounds not being so optimal they're trying to emphasize clerics not being healbots. Healing is important and there, but everyone needs to take care of it not just one class. Life Domain is for those players who like playing healing clerics.

It's my biggest beef with this edition. Unless you spend every facet of your being at doing it, the leader role from 4e (my favourite playstyle) is dead and gone. Healing magic and abilities just don't compare. 1d8+spellcasting mod cure wounds... Vs. 3d10 Inflict wounds. Seriously?

What a disappointment.

[odigity]

Yes, HD are a good option when you have a DM that thinks it's reasonable to find an hour of peace and quiet in a dungeon. :smalltongue:

The entire edition was obviously designed around the assumption of short rests (Action Surge, Manuevers, Ki Points, Warlock spell slots, Wild Shape, etc). If your DM is unwilling to give you sufficient 1hr rest opportunities, and you don't have access to Rope Trick or Tiny Hut, then I suggest you propose to them using the alternate 5m short rest rule from the DMG.

[bloodshed343]

The leader role in 4e is less about healing and more about enabling novas. "Haste" is a very good enabling spell. Bless and Bard Inspiration work well too. It's nothing compared to a 4e lazylord or /switch though.

[odigity]

Been inspired by this thread to go research the options for healing to compare them to each other. I realize that one way to obtain healing is to use conjuration to summon some creatures with healing abilities, but I don't want to have to go through the entire monster manual on top of the entire spell list in the PHB. Could anyone with that knowledge already please point out what creatures you can summon for healing, and via what spell/ability?

[RustyArmor]

Seeing as most cantrips do same, if not more dmg then cure wounds, yes I agree with Cure wound being dreadfully weak. Heck inflict wounds is also a 1st level touch spell and it does 3d10 necrotic damage.

[JFahy]

For example, it says a 1st level spell should heal 2d10 damage. However, Cure Wounds, which is a 1st level heal spell, only heals 1d8. The Life Domain Cleric is ok because he gets to add his Wisdom and I don't know what else. But, for me, as a bard, it's absolutely terrible. I can't go on burning a ton of slots for healing and, even if I did, my heals wouldn't do much good.

So, what do you think, maybe this spell should be improved some how?

Healing doesn't have to be competitive in efficiency - it's nearly cornered the
market on 'things that move another character's hit point total away from zero'.
Like any spell, it just has to be good enough that in some cases it's your best option.

[Sudokori]

Okay so a 1st level spell heals for 1d8+whatever hit points? Well what kind of stuff are 1st level characters gonna be doing that requires the 2d10 in the DMs custom spell creation thing?
Where are 1st level clerics going to get access to custom spells at low levels? I'm bad at arguing.

Alternatively if you still wanted to roll this by a dm you could make it have a casting time of 1 minute and a (cheap and common) material component, so it can only be used out of combat if you were adamant about having the spell.

[SharkForce]

Healing doesn't have to be competitive in efficiency - it's nearly cornered the
market on 'things that move another character's hit point total away from zero'.
Like any spell, it just has to be good enough that in some cases it's your best option.

it *does* have to compete with effectiveness for the spell slot, however.

suppose for a moment that i use a command to make a powerful enemy lose their turn and thus deal 0 damage this round, when it might have been expected for them to deal a large amount of damage had it acted. if a command spell could potentially prevent 50-60 damage per spell slot level, i'd almost be a fool to use that spell slot on something silly like a cure wounds spell.

now, granted, at level 1 you're not going to be preventing that much damage with a command spell... but you still could prevent quite a bit. keep a wizard from casting a magic missile and force them prone while one or more melee characters are standing next to him, and you definitely prevented 3d4+3 damage and quite possibly more if the wizard dies.

(of course, a wizard is not necessarily an ideal target, but basically the point i'm trying to make is that using the slot can prevent an enemy from dealing damage while also acting as a form of offense. cure wounds needs to stay competitive with that to be worth the slot and the action cost).

[JFahy]

it *does* have to compete with effectiveness for the spell slot, however.

suppose for a moment that i use a command to make a powerful enemy lose their turn and thus deal 0 damage this round, when it might have been expected for them to deal a large amount of damage had it acted. if a command spell could potentially prevent 50-60 damage per spell slot level, i'd almost be a fool to use that spell slot on something silly like a cure wounds spell.


Sure you would. Now let's let reality intrude for a minute - Command doesn't work every time and it doesn't work on every creature and sometimes you're busy or out of range. When a seat belt can prevent 50-60 damage from a nasty head-on collision, you'd almost be a fool to buy your city a hospital with a trauma centre - and yet there they are. Efficiency is cool, but it's not the same as effectiveness.

[SharkForce]

Sure you would. Now let's let reality intrude for a minute - Command doesn't work every time and it doesn't work on every creature and sometimes you're busy or out of range. When a seat belt can prevent 50-60 damage from a nasty head-on collision, you'd almost be a fool to buy your city a hospital with a trauma centre - and yet there they are. Efficiency is cool, but it's not the same as effectiveness.

cure light wounds doesn't always help either. you have limited options to spend your actions on. nullifying one regular hit of one weak enemy is very very rarely an optimal choice for how to spend your action. word of healing uses your bonus action (leaving you free to bash in a kobold's head or something, and thus prevent more damage from occurring), from range. you should almost never be healing in combat if you can help it, and you generally have better things to do with your spell slots than healing outside of battle.

[JFahy]

cure light wounds doesn't always help either. you have limited options to spend your actions on. nullifying one regular hit of one weak enemy is very very rarely an optimal choice for how to spend your action.

Don't count hits - count actions. If a fighter with 20AC goes down fighting things that do d6+1, you're nullifying half a dozen attacks and getting him back into the fight with a single action. Easier than carrying his heavy ass while trying to run.


word of healing uses your bonus action (leaving you free to bash in a kobold's head or something, and thus prevent more damage from occurring), from range.

Sure, there are better spells that you get later on. Cure Wounds can help you survive to get those. :smallwink: (My group's level 4 now, so Cure Wounds is still a significant part of the toolkit. Will they outgrow it? Perhaps.)



...you should almost never be healing in combat if you can help it...

And you should almost never need antibiotics or parachutes. My players
use heals to get fallen people up, or to keep themselves more than one
hit away from death, probably every 2-3 fights. Am I running the deadliest
campaign ever? I didn't think I was but you're making me wonder now.

(I don't normally like to slice up a quote this much, but you covered quite
a few things in a relatively small amount of text. Hope you're okay with it.
If it comes off as belligerent, I assure you I didn't want it to.)

[SharkForce]

healing word gets your fighter on his feat just as surely, from range, without using up your main action, and is also level 1.

cure wounds is a terrible spell.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Command doesn't make Cure Wounds irrelevant. Healing Word does. Indeed, sometimes you have to bring someone back up from zero. But it's still better to do that at range as a bonus action, and as pointed out the marginal difference in HP healed is so low as not to matter much.

[SharkForce]

command was not intended to be an example of a spell that does cure light wounds, but better... command is an example of a spell that is likely to be a better use of a slot. not because it does the same thing better, but because it is likely to prevent as much damage if used properly as cure wounds would heal, while assisting with offense at the same time.

but yes, healing word is basically a better version of cure light wounds. goodberry provides a better out-of-combat healing effect.

of course, if you really want to break spell slot efficiency, arguably a life cleric heals 40 HP per goodberry spell... best use of magic initiate ever, imo :P (while you're at it, pick up shilellagh and a spell cantrip that doesn't suck for damage as much as sacred flame).

then again, don't be too surprised if your DM bludgeons you to death with a flipped table if you try and pull that interpretation (still, 10 HP and food for everyone out of a level 1 slot, *possibly* 13 HP if your DM is somehow feeling generous after you tried to claim 4 HP per berry, isn't an awful deal either).

[Ashrym]

I agree with healing word for emergency healing in combat over spending an action. I am better off spending that action to prevent more damage and out-of-combat healing is the better solution. The difference in a first level slot is negligible (2 hp avg) and neither scales well in higher level slots and better options aren't far away.

Cure wounds scales better as far as hp go but still costs actions and movement for small amounts of hp difference.

[Sartharina]

Okay so a 1st level spell heals for 1d8+whatever hit points? Well what kind of stuff are 1st level characters gonna be doing that requires the 2d10 in the DMs custom spell creation thing?Any sort of fight at all. Monsters deal more damage in a single at-will attack than a level 1 cleric can heal in a day. Forget multiple encounters that day.

And it needs to be good for the first five levels.

Hell... a level 1 FIGHTER has better healing than a level 1 cleric!

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

command was not intended to be an example of a spell that does cure light wounds, but better... command is an example of a spell that is likely to be a better use of a slot. not because it does the same thing better, but because it is likely to prevent as much damage if used properly as cure wounds would heal, while assisting with offense at the same time.

but yes, healing word is basically a better version of cure light wounds. goodberry provides a better out-of-combat healing effect.

of course, if you really want to break spell slot efficiency, arguably a life cleric heals 40 HP per goodberry spell... best use of magic initiate ever, imo :P (while you're at it, pick up shilellagh and a spell cantrip that doesn't suck for damage as much as sacred flame).

then again, don't be too surprised if your DM bludgeons you to death with a flipped table if you try and pull that interpretation (still, 10 HP and food for everyone out of a level 1 slot, *possibly* 13 HP if your DM is somehow feeling generous after you tried to claim 4 HP per berry, isn't an awful deal either).My reading of the arguments goes something like this:

OP: Is Cure Wounds a terrible spell?
Many posters: Cure Wounds' main job is to prevent damage. Look at all these spells that prevent more damage than Cure Wounds. Therefore Cure Wounds is terrible.
JFahy: But Cure Wounds can bring people up from zero, therefore providing actions.
You and I: Healing Word has that particular benefit, but does it better (i.e. the trade-off of 2 HP/slot level for range and action advantage is definitely worthwhile).

So yeah, no one was countering the other part.

As far as Goodberry goes, you're right that out of combat healing is better handled with effects other than Cure Wounds. But I wouldn't assume you have a Life Cleric who spent a feat (mostly) to be more efficient at healing out of combat.

JFahy brought up a good point: If you have very defensive characters who don't take a lot of damage, then Cures are more efficient because the DPR characters take is actually lower. For instance, Cures are actually quite good on a high CON high DEX sword-n-board barbearian since he has high main saves, decent AC, and resistance on most damage types. In this corner case, the Cure heals-per-round may actually outpace the damage per round against. The issue is that, outside of these corner cases, bounded accuracy and the 6 saving throw types pretty much ensure that characters are going to take a lot of damage quickly. The main defense against this damage is hit points, which scale much faster than cures...

[SharkForce]

i've got to assume that someone who chose to be a life cleric did so because they wanted to heal.

*if* your DM actually ruled the goodberry cheese to work, you'd almost be crazy to not use it. 40 HP out of a single level 1 spell slot? that's over half what you get from a *heal* spell.

not just that, but it covers all food needs you'll ever face pretty much, can be distributed much more readily, and it comes with 2 free wisdom-based attack cantrips* on a class that has a *terrible* attack cantrip.

honestly, even without any extra benefits at all, it's pretty danged good as a spell. if your DM is nuts enough to let you get 4 HP per berry, you've either got someone who's completely clueless (or spineless), or your DM is going to run the kind of game where you will die horribly if you don't take it.

it's pretty worthwhile for a human cleric to take at level 1. i mean, i don't know that i'd get very excited at level 12 or anything, after you've maxed your wisdom, but it's pretty danged tempting to pick it up, imo.

* you could choose non-attack cantrips. but the cantrips on the druid list that you really want as a cleric are the attack cantrips.

[Abithrios]

i've got to assume that someone who chose to be a life cleric did so because they wanted to heal.

*if* your DM actually ruled the goodberry cheese to work, you'd almost be crazy to not use it. 40 HP out of a single level 1 spell slot? that's over half what you get from a *heal* spell.

not just that, but it covers all food needs you'll ever face pretty much, can be distributed much more readily, and it comes with 2 free wisdom-based attack cantrips* on a class that has a *terrible* attack cantrip.

honestly, even without any extra benefits at all, it's pretty danged good as a spell. if your DM is nuts enough to let you get 4 HP per berry, you've either got someone who's completely clueless (or spineless), or your DM is going to run the kind of game where you will die horribly if you don't take it.

it's pretty worthwhile for a human cleric to take at level 1. i mean, i don't know that i'd get very excited at level 12 or anything, after you've maxed your wisdom, but it's pretty danged tempting to pick it up, imo.

* you could choose non-attack cantrips. but the cantrips on the druid list that you really want as a cleric are the attack cantrips.

Alternatively, such a DM wants to focus on other parts of the game and does not feel the need to require the cleric spend too many spells on healing. Personally, I like that in 3.5, you can just buy all the magical healing you need fairly cheaply, no dedicated healer needed. Is there some way to do something similar to that in 5e?

[pwykersotz]

*if* your DM actually ruled the goodberry cheese to work, you'd almost be crazy to not use it. 40 HP out of a single level 1 spell slot? that's over half what you get from a *heal* spell.

I had to read up on life cleric again to figure out what "Goodberry cheese" was. Am I alone in thinking that it would create 3 extra berries? It says the spell provides more HP, not that each discrete point healed has more power, after all.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Because of the wording of the Life cleric feature, I'd say it doesn't apply, since the cleric isn't casting the spell "to restore hit points to a creature", it's casting the spell to create a temporary magical item, some berries.

[LuthielValkire]

Going through the DMG, I reached the "create a spell" part. It isn't a very extensive part and I think it should have more than haldf a column to it. However, it has a pretty comprehensive table, about spell damage and spell heal. For example, it says a 1st level spell should heal 2d10 damage. However, Cure Wounds, which is a 1st level heal spell, only heals 1d8. The Life Domain Cleric is ok because he gets to add his Wisdom and I don't know what else. But, for me, as a bard, it's absolutely terrible. I can't go on burning a ton of slots for healing and, even if I did, my heals wouldn't do much good.

So, what do you think, maybe this spell should be improved some how?

I think it's basically inferior to false life and aid. False life being an arcane spell that prevents just slightly less than the same damage but without the opportunity cost of spending an action in combat. Aid at level 2 and 15 hp with zero opportunity cost if cast pre combat is markedly superior to cure wounds in the same slot at 2d8 +3 = 12 and an action in combat or after. False life in the same slot is 11.5 with zero opportunity cost in combat. Using this logic, on the basis of false life as preventive healing, makes the sorcerer/wizard/warlock about as effective at mitigating damage as a base cleric using cure wounds. Even a life cleric would be looking at the trade off and scratching her head.

The cleric doesn't really come into its own on healing/damage mitigation until the mass heal effects for in and out of combat or until the heal spell itself becomes available much later.

In this edition, it appears that healing/damage mitigation is now the job of the whole party -- especially at low levels. It would be very helpful, in general, for other classes to help support the cleric some in this regard. And having a martial human with the combat medic feat is a huge boon in this respect.

[odigity]

I think it's basically inferior to false life and aid...

It's a good point, but it's also balanced by the possibility of the person you cast False Life on not taking any damage before the 1hr duration expires, thereby wasting that slot.

[LuthielValkire]

It's a good point, but it's also balanced by the possibility of the person you cast False Life on not taking any damage before the 1hr duration expires, thereby wasting that slot.

True. But with decent scouting and planning we can be pretty sure some combats are coming. Of course, you could end up missed and then the spell slot is wasted, which may balance out the opportunity cost somewhat. My experience is that the hits tend to fall pretty often enough, though.

[SharkForce]

I had to read up on life cleric again to figure out what "Goodberry cheese" was. Am I alone in thinking that it would create 3 extra berries? It says the spell provides more HP, not that each discrete point healed has more power, after all.

funny, i think i introduced the idea upthread.

in any event, i don't know if you're alone or not in thinking it would give you more berries, but i'm not sure it should even heal extra at all. i don't think it should give extra berries (if it gives anything, i'd expect it to have one berry heal 3 extra HP).

my main point is that goodberry is a better source of out-of-combat healing (plus it means you never have to track your rations again) because the amount healed per spell slot is higher and because you can distribute the healing as needed. life cleric goodberry cheese was sort of a side-topic that came up, and which i don't support :P

whether or not the rules say it works like that (and it takes pretty sketchy logic to read it that way imo), i wouldn't allow it in a game where i was DMing.

but if i was a life cleric in a game where a DM said yes, i'd probably use it, under the assumption that i'm probably going to need it.

as to the DM wanting to reduce the need to focus on healing, if anything, you've done the reverse. goodberry became such a powerful use of my level 1 slots it's hard to justify spending them on anything else.

[Vogonjeltz]

Command doesn't make Cure Wounds irrelevant. Healing Word does. Indeed, sometimes you have to bring someone back up from zero. But it's still better to do that at range as a bonus action, and as pointed out the marginal difference in HP healed is so low as not to matter much.

Cure Wounds has a d8 to the Word's d4, that means 50% of the time you're going to be healing more with Cure Wounds than is even possible with Healing Word. Granted, touch range, but still it's a vast improvement if you're close enough to get to touch range (which you probably are in any given encounter).


command was not intended to be an example of a spell that does cure light wounds, but better... command is an example of a spell that is likely to be a better use of a slot. not because it does the same thing better, but because it is likely to prevent as much damage if used properly as cure wounds would heal, while assisting with offense at the same time.

but yes, healing word is basically a better version of cure light wounds. goodberry provides a better out-of-combat healing effect.

of course, if you really want to break spell slot efficiency, arguably a life cleric heals 40 HP per goodberry spell... best use of magic initiate ever, imo :P (while you're at it, pick up shilellagh and a spell cantrip that doesn't suck for damage as much as sacred flame).

then again, don't be too surprised if your DM bludgeons you to death with a flipped table if you try and pull that interpretation (still, 10 HP and food for everyone out of a level 1 slot, *possibly* 13 HP if your DM is somehow feeling generous after you tried to claim 4 HP per berry, isn't an awful deal either).

Potentially, yes, if the opponent isn't undead AND it fails a Wisdom saving throw. Neither of which impacts the utility of Cure Wounds.

Healing Word is ranged at the cost of being totally inferior for actually healing. Goodberry is more efficient per spell slot, but vastly less efficient per action (hence out of combat only) and arguably receives no benefit from a Life Cleric as the Disciple of Life ability works when you restore life to someone with a spell. Goodberry makes a berry. That that berry when ingested provides benefits has no relation to the requirement of a spell restoring life.

[SharkForce]

using an action to heal in combat is simply not optimal. the quicker you kill things, the quicker the encounter ends, the less damage you take.

the only time healing is particularly worthwhile is in an emergency situation where someone goes down, and even then it's only worth it if the spell will keep them up for several rounds. cure wounds requires you to be adjacent to the target and spend your full action, meaning you otherwise contribute basically nothing this round. healing word uses up only your bonus action, can be done from long range, and gets your ally back on their feat which is basically all you really care about anyways.

cure wounds is basically never the best choice, though for a cleric at least it may be the slightly superior choice outside of combat (unless they have access to goodberry, which even baseline is a superior tool for out-of-combat healing since you can distribute it as needed).

and command is merely one example. if you prefer, spend the slot on cause wounds instead. at level 1, it's got a pretty solid shot at putting an enemy under, which again is much more likely to keep your party alive than a few extra HP.

[Sartharina]

You don't need to keep someone up for several rounds if they have a more effective array of actions than you do - they merely need to survive until they get their next action if it's more effective than what your action would be, or be revived if they get dropped.

That said - 9 times out of 10, Healing Word is superior to Cure Wounds because the only HP that matters is the last one, and the Healing Word stands downed warriors just as well as Cure Wounds.

[MeeposFire]

Cure Wounds has a d8 to the Word's d4, that means 50% of the time you're going to be healing more with Cure Wounds than is even possible with Healing Word. Granted, touch range, but still it's a vast improvement if you're close enough to get to touch range (which you probably are in any given encounter).





Healing word is 50% of the possible ROLL of cure wounds but remember it gets your casting on top of that. As your stats increase the difference becomes less significant. This changes if you cast it at a higher level slot but I think that is long term small as using either spell like that isn't very efficient compared to the alternatives.

Also range is the less important part. Bonus action casting is the real boon. You can bring somebody back up with healing word and get to cast a cantrip or smack somebody with your mace. If you cast cure you have to probably move AND no attacks or other spells. This is a huge bonus for an average cost of 2 HP per spell level.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Cure Wounds has a d8 to the Word's d4, that means 50% of the time you're going to be healing more with Cure Wounds than is even possible with Healing Word. Granted, touch range, but still it's a vast improvement if you're close enough to get to touch range (which you probably are in any given encounter).Like I said, it's a marginal difference in HP. At first level, the most slot-efficient either spell will ever be, the difference on average is two hit points. Two. That is not worth range and action advantage.

And as discussed upthread, using a higher level slot to cure Xd8+WIS is not worthwhile compared to other things you can do with that slot. Like in 3e, in-combat healing is for bringing people back to consciousness so they can act, and that's about it. If HP can yo-yo up and down with massive heals like in 4e you can't really have fast and deadly combat as intended.

[DireSickFish]

I will agree with the fact that cure wounds is worse than healing word for the above reasons. The AoE heals you get at higher levels are nice for spread out damage. Cure wounds does have its own niche. I don't think it's the go-to healing spell anymore (that would be healing word) but there are times when you just need to pour healing into your "tanks" or whoever is taking damage to end the encounter or keep it going.

A lot of people feel like they are going to -die- if they are low on hp, and will leave you high and dry to drink potions because of it. It's a psychological advantage not a mechanical one. They think that you are keeping them up and have your back if you are using cure wounds to keep them up vs waiting still they drop to healing word.

I don't care what is practically more effective, when I told my party at character creation I was going to have healing word for triage and no cure wounds they got worried. Healing potions were purchased in preparation for this.

What are our options for higher level healing besides heal? Goodberry has been a good comparison for the lvl1 slot but what about burning a lvl3 slot, lv4 ect. What is our best use for healing at each slot? Every level we boost a spell puts cure wounds above healing word despite the drawbacks of range and action economy. After all we can only use cantrips or auto attacks for damage if we healing word, which is not the highest damage output.

[SharkForce]

aura of vitality (efficient, but probably only out of combat, heal over time, concentration required)
beacon of hope (unfortunately also concentration required, maximizes healing; only efficient if you're sitting down to do a *lot* of healing)
mass cure wounds (not the most efficient, but if everyone's wounded it's not too bad).
prayer of healing (mildly more efficient than cure wounds, but also very much an out-of-combat option)
mass healing word exists, but doesn't scale well and is only really good for getting 2+ people on their feet with one action. if you need it, you probably should consider the strategy of running away instead.

those are your spell-based healing options before you get level 6 spells.

as to strategies beyond that... remind your party that you're not their slave. if they're going to be on the front line, they should use planning to reduce the damage they take. if they're not on the front line, they should use planning to avoid being hit as much as possible.

and use spells that take away the enemy's ability to act, or that take away their ability to act effectively. preferably area spells. even if it only works on half the targets, two fights of half the numbers are much easier than one big fight (for this purpose, even wall spells can do the job of splitting one big battle into two small battles).

also, the heroism spell if your party has it can soak up a lot of damage over the course of a battle potentially.

[Rummy]

Rangers and Paladins don't get Healing Word, but they get Cure Wounds.

[The_Ditto]

Cure Wounds has a d8 to the Word's d4, that means 50% of the time you're going to be healing more with Cure Wounds than is even possible with Healing Word.

Actually, just to be nitpicky :)

The stats are actually more in your favour than you think:

18.75% d4 rolls higher
68.75% d8 rolls higher
12.5% they tie.

(32 possible outcomes when you roll 1d8 + 1d4, 4 results are ties, 6 are d4 higher, 22 are d8 higher)

(not sure where your stats get added, so I can't show that % ... )

[Tenmujiin]

Alternatively, such a DM wants to focus on other parts of the game and does not feel the need to require the cleric spend too many spells on healing. Personally, I like that in 3.5, you can just buy all the magical healing you need fairly cheaply, no dedicated healer needed. Is there some way to do something similar to that in 5e?

Hit dice fills this role rather nicely, basically you can roll 1/2 your hit dice and regain that much health each day while also keeping all of them for use after a tough fight. I'm playing a cleric in my group's current campaign and I haven't actually prepared cure wounds at any point. My spell slots have been much better spent on thunder-wave and shatter (tempest cleric) and my actions are better spent slicing open heathen throats. Its taking some effort to convince my party that I'm not just a healbot but when the paladin put out more healing than I was capable of with lay on hands after I got him on his feet with healing word (also killing two enemies, one with my longsword the other with my thunderous rebuke when it tried to stop my cast) I think they got the idea (ironically I almost put the paladin back on the ground the next round with my maximised shatter, also killing the 7 enemies around him).

TL:DR you don't need a dedicated healer in 5e, between HD and the occasional class feature you can get by just fine and clerics are much better spending their time on other things, much like in 3.x


Rangers and Paladins don't get Healing Word, but they get Cure Wounds.

Paladins get lay on hands instead and rangers probably don't have the spells known for cure wounds to be worth learning over more rangery spells.

[Vogonjeltz]

using an action to heal in combat is simply not optimal. the quicker you kill things, the quicker the encounter ends, the less damage you take.

the only time healing is particularly worthwhile is in an emergency situation where someone goes down, and even then it's only worth it if the spell will keep them up for several rounds. cure wounds requires you to be adjacent to the target and spend your full action, meaning you otherwise contribute basically nothing this round. healing word uses up only your bonus action, can be done from long range, and gets your ally back on their feat which is basically all you really care about anyways.

cure wounds is basically never the best choice, though for a cleric at least it may be the slightly superior choice outside of combat (unless they have access to goodberry, which even baseline is a superior tool for out-of-combat healing since you can distribute it as needed).

and command is merely one example. if you prefer, spend the slot on cause wounds instead. at level 1, it's got a pretty solid shot at putting an enemy under, which again is much more likely to keep your party alive than a few extra HP.

It's not optimal when there is no threat of death. Against an enemy with a strong will save, it is Command that is not optimal. In any fight where it is possible for any of the PCs to receive 3 attacks after falling unconcious, it is incredibly optimal.

Remember, 3 hits while unconcious = instant death, no saves, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

It's also inefficient to allow teammates to get dropped, as they are likely to miss their turn even if you get them back up before they suffer some combination of 3 failures and die. Dead characters deal no damage.


You don't need to keep someone up for several rounds if they have a more effective array of actions than you do - they merely need to survive until they get their next action if it's more effective than what your action would be, or be revived if they get dropped.

That said - 9 times out of 10, Healing Word is superior to Cure Wounds because the only HP that matters is the last one, and the Healing Word stands downed warriors just as well as Cure Wounds.

No, what matters is if you have enough HP to survive X hits + 3, maybe even x + 2 if you fail your saving throw, or x + 1 if it's a crit. Unless you're sitting in the niche case of only fighting single monsters that lack any form of multi-attack, using Healing Word just as a stop-gap is likely to get your teammates killed.


Healing word is 50% of the possible ROLL of cure wounds but remember it gets your casting on top of that. As your stats increase the difference becomes less significant. This changes if you cast it at a higher level slot but I think that is long term small as using either spell like that isn't very efficient compared to the alternatives.

Also range is the less important part. Bonus action casting is the real boon. You can bring somebody back up with healing word and get to cast a cantrip or smack somebody with your mace. If you cast cure you have to probably move AND no attacks or other spells. This is a huge bonus for an average cost of 2 HP per spell level.

Healing Word averages 2 less in a 1st level slot with the increment increasing by 2 for each level slot above (4 @ 2nd; 6 @ 3rd, etc...).


Like I said, it's a marginal difference in HP. At first level, the most slot-efficient either spell will ever be, the difference on average is two hit points. Two. That is not worth range and action advantage.

And as discussed upthread, using a higher level slot to cure Xd8+WIS is not worthwhile compared to other things you can do with that slot. Like in 3e, in-combat healing is for bringing people back to consciousness so they can act, and that's about it. If HP can yo-yo up and down with massive heals like in 4e you can't really have fast and deadly combat as intended.

I was looking at another 1st level spell (Magic Missile) which scales less efficiently than its counterpart, Cure Wounds. I don't disagree that higher level slots are probably better spent with higher level spells. But I do disagree that it scales terribly. It's already better than comparable spells (Healing Word included).

[Sartharina]

No, what matters is if you have enough HP to survive X hits + 3, maybe even x + 2 if you fail your saving throw, or x + 1 if it's a crit. Unless you're sitting in the niche case of only fighting single monsters that lack any form of multi-attack, using Healing Word just as a stop-gap is likely to get your teammates killed.
Cure Wounds does not heal enough more than Healing Word to provide that level of buffer against attacks.

Neither spell is worth casting out of a slot greater than 2.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I was looking at another 1st level spell (Magic Missile) which scales less efficiently than its counterpart, Cure Wounds. I don't disagree that higher level slots are probably better spent with higher level spells. But I do disagree that it scales terribly. It's already better than comparable spells (Healing Word included).In general, spells scale poorly by spell slot. Magic Missile is certainly no exception. The fact that using Cure Wounds in a higher level spell slot is a less terrible idea than using Healing Word to do the same (arguably; there's still action advantage and range) doesn't give much of an advantage.

[Freelance GM]

The weird thing is that Cure Wounds actually did heal 2d8 at 1st level for the majority of the D&D: Next playtest... I wonder what made them change it?

[odigity]

The weird thing is that Cure Wounds actually did heal 2d8 at 1st level for the majority of the D&D: Next playtest... I wonder what made them change it?

Loki......

[GiantOctopodes]

The Healer feat provides 1d6+5 HP gained at 1st level, and 1d6+24 at 20th level, and is usable once per party member per short rest. I think that is likely a better means of healing than actually using cure light wounds, pretty much ever. That is after all a *lot* of spell slots it is effectively replacing (depending on the size of your party and how often you short rest, of course).

[Pex]

The Healer feat provides 1d6+5 HP gained at 1st level, and 1d6+24 at 20th level, and is usable once per party member per short rest. I think that is likely a better means of healing than actually using cure light wounds, pretty much ever. That is after all a *lot* of spell slots it is effectively replacing (depending on the size of your party and how often you short rest, of course).

Trouble is, who's going to spend the feat to be the party's healbot? Don't everyone look at the cleric. :smallsmile: It's a nice feat, but what you give up for it is a lot. Will that be worth it to anyone other than those who really do like playing the healer?

[GiantOctopodes]

Trouble is, who's going to spend the feat to be the party's healbot? Don't everyone look at the cleric. :smallsmile: It's a nice feat, but what you give up for it is a lot. Will that be worth it to anyone other than those who really do like playing the healer?

In my campaign, I took it. I am in no way shape or form ever going to spend actions in combat healing people, mind you, especially since it only works once per short rest anyway, and I have better things to use my actions on besides. However, I thoroughly believe that in 5e it is less about individual optimization and more about party optimization, and a party wherein someone has taken that ability is imho stronger than one in which no one has taken it, even if the choice is suboptimal compared to other alternatives from the standpoint of personal power. The thing that's great about it, as well as spells like Crusader's Mantle, is that it's a whole party buff that doesn't stack with itself, so there is no reason to ever have more than one player in the party take it. So, if you've hit level 4 and no one else is taking it, take it yourself. And then lord it over everyone else and charge them half as much as they would have spent on healing potions to heal the equivalent amount of HP, and laugh maniacally as you steal all their money. Or not, you'll still be better off than if no one took it.

[SharkForce]

ideally, a rogue (if available) would be the one to take the feat :P

(they can use it as a bonus action, after all).

failing that, a human caster would be fairly ideal. you gain relatively little from most feats anyways, although if you start with an odd casting stat something to boost it may be very very tempting...

[TheOOB]

Maybe I'm missing something, but cure wounds heals 1d8 plus your spellcasting ability mod, which in most cases better than 2d10(as it can't whiff and only heal 2).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Maybe I'm missing something, but cure wounds heals 1d8 plus your spellcasting ability mod, which in most cases better than 2d10(as it can't whiff and only heal 2).Note that, before ASIs and with standard ability generation, casting stat will probably be +3. The expected value of 2d10 is 11, compared to 7.5 for 1d8+3. The probability of rolling a 2 on 2d10 is 1%. The probability of rolling 7 or below on 2d10 is 21%. The probability of rolling 7 or below on 1d8+3 is 50%. By 2nd-3rd level, healing someone for 7 damage counts as a whiff. At higher levels, you're probably not using Cure Wounds either way, but just for comparison's sake 1d8+5's average is still only 9.5.

So in general, 2d10 will blow 1d8+stat out of the water. The one exception is at first level, where the 2d10 result is more likely to be truncated by maximum HP. If we generously truncate at 6, 1d8+3's average becomes 5.625, and 2d10's average becomes 5.78. And in this case, 2d10's long tail is a bigger deal.

[odigity]

While I am on board the CW-sucks train, I do have a funny addendum -- a team-mate convinced me today that Cure Woulds is actually the best choice for his character. He's playing a Warlock about to dip first level of Bard, and chose Cure Wounds because:

1) he can treat it as a ranged spell instead of touch because he has a familiar
2) he'll always be casting it at his maximum spell slot level (Warlock), so we'll benefit from the increased scaling (+2pts/spell slot lvl)
3) he gets back spell slots during a short rest, so if we're about to short rest, and he still has slots left, might as well convert them all into CW castings before the short rest (free HP!)

This is the first and only case I've heard so far in 5e that does in fact justify CW as a valid choice. :)

PS-We already have a full Bard with Healing Word, so that aspect is covered (getting someone up for another turn). But now the Warlock could instead use CW to bring some one back up high enough to actually take a few hits before going down again, which is not a bad second option to have in the party.

[PinkysBrain]

No, what matters is if you have enough HP to survive X hits + 3, maybe even x + 2 if you fail your saving throw, or x + 1 if it's a crit. Unless you're sitting in the niche case of only fighting single monsters that lack any form of multi-attack, using Healing Word just as a stop-gap is likely to get your teammates killed.

Whether you use it or not, healing word exists ... if they don't make those hits and kill your teammates you will use it once they are engaged with someone else. Healing word forces intelligent creatures to coup de grace all day every day.

So you might as well cast it and hope the enemies close to your teammate die that round.

[Vogonjeltz]

Whether you use it or not, healing word exists ... if they don't make those hits and kill your teammates you will use it once they are engaged with someone else. Healing word forces intelligent creatures to coup de grace all day every day.

So you might as well cast it and hope the enemies close to your teammate die that round.

I was making the argument that it's just a bad play to allow someone to ride that close to the line of being knocked out, because it's so easy to kill someone who has been knocked out. Cure Wounds is much better at keeping someone away from the danger zone than Healing Word is.

So while Healing Word is equally proficient at bringing someone unconcious back into the fight, if they're at the point of being unconcious there's already a significant risk of them being dead before you can act to help them anyway (rendering the ability to do so from ranged fairly moot). The important bit is keeping them away from going down at all.

[MeeposFire]

I was making the argument that it's just a bad play to allow someone to ride that close to the line of being knocked out, because it's so easy to kill someone who has been knocked out. Cure Wounds is much better at keeping someone away from the danger zone than Healing Word is.

So while Healing Word is equally proficient at bringing someone unconcious back into the fight, if they're at the point of being unconcious there's already a significant risk of them being dead before you can act to help them anyway (rendering the ability to do so from ranged fairly moot). The important bit is keeping them away from going down at all.

An extra 2 points of healing per spell level (and chances are you are not using over a 2nd level spell on this anyway) is not worth giving up a full action in the middle of a fight compared to the small cost of a bonus action. Your cleric heals a tiny bit more and does nothing else. My cleric heals almost as much and can smack somebody with a mace, sling a stone, use an item, interact with something, or cast a cantrip. The vast majority of the time cure just does not come close to comparing to the sheer versatility of healing word and unless you want to waste 2 slots on low level basic heals I just don't see cure wounds being worth it over healing word as your only go to low level healing option.

[SharkForce]

most enemies won't spend their time stabbing the person who's down when there are other threats still alive and fighting. they could, but the vast majority of the time, it's a terrible idea. once everyone is down, then you can stab the unconscious as many times as you want.

[GiantOctopodes]

most enemies won't spend their time stabbing the person who's down when there are other threats still alive and fighting. they could, but the vast majority of the time, it's a terrible idea. once everyone is down, then you can stab the unconscious as many times as you want.

That is absolutely true in the real world, but I would argue that in a world where healing magic exists, the opposite is true. When trying to reduce the combat effectiveness of the enemy force, if someone is down, you make sure they *stay* down. In fact, in my experience, D&D tactics look something like this:

1) Kill the squishiest targets first
2) Focus on eliminating whole targets
3) Kill the healers
4) Kill AOE attackers

And normally, you worry about disabling those you're not ready to kill yet (tough guys), then mop the floor with the soft targets, to reduce their ability to harm you in return, before turning your attention to the harder targets. If enemies weren't automatically killed when down, you can bet that actually killing them becomes a very real priority whenever there are healers around (which is true in our campaign- enemies are not automatically killed when down, so we make *very* sure the job is done). Why would the enemies think any differently? They knock a guy down, he gets back up, kills two more people, they knock him down again, and you think they would really just ignore him and focus on others, instead of finishing the job?

I get the whole philosophy of "well, the DM is nice, he won't just kill my character like that, so he'll prioritize standing targets", and to an extent it's valid. But if I were the NPCs, that's not at all where my priorities would be.

[MeeposFire]

There is a small chance that those couple HP can be the difference from 1 hit to two hits but it isn't that big of a chance. Most of the time the difference will be for naught and so you would have been better of using your bonus action to heal and then using your action to do something to actually otherwise improve the situation.

I just don't see cure wounds being worth the opportunity cost of the action or the spell known generally speaking unless you have nothing better to spend those costs.

[Dalebert]

They knock a guy down, he gets back up, kills two more people, they knock him down again, and you think they would really just ignore him and focus on others, instead of finishing the job?

That's my thought. I imagine magical healers are rare enough that it's not quite standard practice to "double-tap" but intelligent enemies won't walk away and just let you to come back to life after the first time it happens in an encounter. And more intelligent enemies will recognize a potential healer and be on guard for it beforehand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmA2WYyw-_A

[Pex]

If it helps you can adopt a house rule my group uses. Pathfinder game but can still apply.

All healing outside of combat is maximized.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

An intelligent enemy's response is to focus down the healer so he doesn't have to waste actions double tapping. Only when it's revealed that there are multiple healers might you start seeing double tapping, and they only have time to do so if they can multiattack or have other special actions.

It is not bad play to use healing to make sure people are conscious and then spend the rest of your time preventing damage via better abilities. It is bad play to put pressure on the healer to spend his actions suboptimally playing the bandaid box when he doesn't want to.

[SharkForce]

yeah, my experience with any sort of game where there is a healer around is that a group of human players will almost always do everything in their power to kill the healer first, then work on everyone else.

if we're going to talk about the tactics of intelligent creatures, i would expect them to do the same.

[GiantOctopodes]

yeah, my experience with any sort of game where there is a healer around is that a group of human players will almost always do everything in their power to kill the healer first, then work on everyone else.

if we're going to talk about the tactics of intelligent creatures, i would expect them to do the same.

That is most often true, but isn't necessarily true. If, for example, the healer is a paladin or tanky cleric who is very difficult to damage in the first place, and he is with a squishy rogue or mage type who is much easier to bring to harm, but who deals substantial damage, my experience is you go after the softer targets, the one on whom you can more readily exceed the healing per round of the healer in question.

Put another way, if you have a BBEG healer, and a bunch of mooks, you don't focus on the BBEG and let the mooks beat on you the whole time, you focus fire the mooks into the ground one at a time. I would expect intelligent enemies to make the same kind of threat assessment and intelligently choose targets to focus their efforts upon.

[SharkForce]

paladins and tanky clerics are fairly tough, but still generally speaking don't handle focused fire all that well.

but i suppose if circumstances dictated that you could not damage the healer effectively, then sure it makes sense to focus someone down and then overkill them. cure wounds is still not going to be a good spell choice though, because it simply doesn't heal enough anyways to keep the squishier members up.

if for some reason taking out the healer is not an option, i'd actually expect the enemy to pretty much abandon the idea of a straight-up fight and use different tactics entirely. if different tactics are not available, i'd expect them to simply retreat entirely.

[PinkysBrain]

Focus fire is usually prevented by not having too many ranged enemies to begin with ... groups of ranged enemies are tactically boring and a PC killer.

[Silvanshei]

I just want to throw it out there, but Cure Wounds is way better for my cleric to use than Healing Word. I would rather my bonus action be spent attacking with Spiritual Weapon.

[UrielAwakened]

5e botched healing mechanics in general.

I could never imagine playing a 5e Cleric after being so useful as a 4e healer. Bonus action heals for Surge value + 6d6 + Wis? Three times an encounter? And I get to attack too? Awesome.

[Hears You]

5e botched healing mechanics in general.

I could never imagine playing a 5e Cleric after being so useful as a 4e healer. Bonus action heals for Surge value + 6d6 + Wis? Three times an encounter? And I get to attack too? Awesome.

Healing felt strong in 4e, but players felt unkillable which is a different style of game.

I do think 5e's pogo mode is wonky and bad, but 4e's "yeah we just grind everything out" style was also a problem at times. I like the idea of healing being pushed into out of combat with some tools inside it, but it's kinda a mess as is with how encounters go.
Generally you can judge the quality of a game on it's resource management, and in RPGs that resource is often HP, and it's pretty clear that not much thought was put into it.

Still wonna know why the 2d8 Cure Wounds was dropped from the playtest. Like that feels like it would actually negate an attack, and when combat is often 3-4 rounds that might be a useful action compared to what it is now.

[UrielAwakened]

I really want to play a variant of 5e where any healing that requires you to spend an action also lets the target spend hit dice equal to the spell level.

Suddenly Cure Light Wounds heals 1d8+1d12+Wis+Your Barb's Con mod. Healing Word is no longer the default best option.

[JackPhoenix]

Why necromance 4 years old thread just because someone (or thing, considering ramsai's post from threads he showed up looks more like some kind of bot) can't read the rules?

[Snails]

Perhaps they really,really want characters to use their HD worth of healing during short rests. With Cure Wounds not being so optimal they're trying to emphasize clerics not being healbots. Healing is important and there, but everyone needs to take care of it not just one class. Life Domain is for those players who like playing healing clerics.

On the nose. It is a very purposeful design decision.

Healing is not supposed to be so good that playing a healbot is obviously optimal.
Healing is not supposed to be so good that it is even required have a healing PC in the party.

The second point is oft overlooked. An adventure module should not be impossible because there are 0 clerics in the party or easy because there are 2. Yes, the players will inevitably pay a price for a lack of certain kinds of diversity in the party -- working around handicaps is part of the fun. But it is simply stupid for the mechanics to severely punish players for playing PCs they want to play. The infamous NPC Cleric is just a hack for bad game design.

You should rely on Hit Dice for healing. Spells/potions are available to give a helping hand to PCs that have suffered very bad luck, and burned through Hit Dice too quickly.

Players who want powerful healing can choose the correct Domain.

[Kane0]

I add an extra d8 for Cure Wounds. Makes it competitive for sacrificing your action in combat, out of combat it's still better to use Hit Die, feats/abilities and other spells like Prayer of Healing or Aura of Vitality.

I do like the idea of 1d8 + Stat + recipient can spend a hit die though.

[Beechgnome]

Looking at the DMG it lists the typical damages for spellS at each level, and depending on targets, ie 1d10 for cantrip, 2d10 for 1st etc.

Then, in a separate paragraph, it sort of tosses off: 'You can also use the spell damage table to determine how many hit points a healing spell restores. A cantrip shouldn't offer healing.'

You could, but you shouldn't. My suspicion, Is they just didn't think this through. By the chart, a multiple healing 3rd level spell should heal 6d6 per target, but mass healing word heals d4 + spellcasting modifiers. The chart is a damage chart. Full stop.

If you were inclined, look at the actual healing spells in the game, factor in bonus actions etc., and come up with a better chart. But it would need to just ignore that damage chart. For the comparison purposes, it is useless.

(It is fine as a damage chart).

[sambojin]

Old thread, yes. But they fixed the healing problem (but not CW). They gave us Healing Spirit, which is so far on the other side of vanilla PHB healing that it's ridiculous. Sure, it takes a lvl2 slot, but it does absolutely everything heal'y really quite well.

Bonus action, at range, movable, heal-over-time, amazing for Pogo'ing and out-of-combat healing, abusable with conga-lining, great slot->HP as standard, scales pretty absurdly.

Yes, it's concentration. But it almost makes XgtE the thing you *need* your PHB+1 to be if you want to be a good healer in AL. So no Volo races, no SCAG stuff, but you'll be a good healer with certain classes with just that one spell. But not as a cleric. No siree, no good healing for them.

So, in other words, they mucked up healing the other way. Hooray! The system works exactly as expected (IE, it still doesn't, unintendly so).