Why were people mad about the healing spirit nerf?

[Garresh]

I was taking a break when the nerf happened, so I missed the memo. But doing some research to update my healing guide and I see a TON of complaints about the nerf in various corners of the internet.

I get being mad at some of the other nerfs, like the gish cantrips not being twinnable anymore. Or changes that directly limited or harmed a certain playstyle.

But why healing spirit? The spell is still excellent. It heals similar to 2 healing words, but spread out over 4(at least) interactions, with better scaling. It also scales better with any healing amplifier class features. By every metric it's still an extremely efficient healing spell with a unique role in combat. It pays for its superiority by requiring concentration. But it also makes a good out of combat heal for high level druids with max wis who can spare low level slots. To me it seems perfectly fine. It wasn't fair for a second level spell to outclass a level 3 paladin spell.

Am I missing something?

[Man_Over_Game]

I was taking a break when the nerf happened, so I missed the memo. But doing some research to update my healing guide and I see a TON of complaints about the nerf in various corners of the internet.

I get being mad at some of the other nerfs, like the gish cantrips not being twinnable anymore. Or changes that directly limited or harmed a certain playstyle.

But why healing spirit? The spell is still excellent. It heals similar to 2 healing words, but spread out over 4(at least) interactions, with better scaling. It also scales better with any healing amplifier class features. By every metric it's still an extremely efficient healing spell with a unique role in combat. It pays for its superiority by requiring concentration. But it also makes a good out of combat heal for high level druids with max wis who can spare low level slots. To me it seems perfectly fine. It wasn't fair for a second level spell to outclass a level 3 paladin spell.

Am I missing something?

Lack of perspective. People who like something will always feel slighted when it's taken from them, even if it's in their best interest. The players complaining about the nerf aren't the kind to be the ones who would care about fixing the game in the first place.

And that's not strange, the same thing can happen with any extreme. For instance, I personally think that DnD would be better if all of the casters were limited to 5th level spells and earned them as they were over the 20 levels, but a lot of folks would have some strong words about that regardless of how good my reasoning was.

Players don't like feeling punished for doing something right. Players naturally have fun winning, games are made to be fun, using strong mechanics is a way to win, so leveraging strong mechanics shouldn't be punished. And if a player can't blame themselves, they'll blame the game. For that reason, it's generally in a developer's best interest to buff things rather than nerf them.

Unfortunately, that itself can create a spiral where things constantly get regularly buffed to the point a game goes out of control (See: Borderlands 3).

So, in conclusion, balance is complicated, and people are fickle. Players really don't know what's good for them, but not all devs who think they do know either.

[Christew]

Lack of perspective. People who like something will always feel slighted when it's taken from them, even if it's in their best interest. The players complaining about the nerf aren't the kind to be the ones who would care about fixing the game in the first place.
Mostly this.

Also:
1) Many are unsatisfied with the curve that healing follows in 5e. HS being significantly outside that curve caused some to view it as the first "good" healing spell.
2) Many tables don't use an extended adventuring day. This limits the ability to view HD and healing as a resource to be managed throughout the day. HS was used by some as a convenient shorthand for "everyone starts every combat at full HP."

But yeah, mostly people just don't like having their toys taken away and pre-errata HS was a particularly shiny toy.

[Snowbluff]

HS was used by some as a convenient shorthand for "everyone starts every combat at full HP."

Well, this is how it should be. Usually you can put out a couple of heals after one fight, and you get a short rest later. However, the adventuring day is often broken so that short rests aren't used, so the hit dice people are normally entitled to go waste.

[strangebloke]

My players weren't mad! It meant that the spell was unbanned and they could actually use it!

[OldTrees1]

When Healing Spirit was 1d6 per creature per turn per 10 rounds, it was dramatically stronger than Aura of Vitality's 2d6 per 10 rounds. The accidental "per creature per turn" made it way above curve.

So people criticized it. During that criticism people reached their own conclusions about what it should be. Some compared it to Prayer of Healing (12d8+6Mod ~= 20d6 with a long casting time). Personally I pegged it as "10d6 would be fair for a 2nd level spell. 160d6 is too much for my playstyle.

Then apparently WotC heard the criticism and they chose to nerf the spell. However it seemed even the most savage critics were surprised that it was nerfed so low. Remember my 10d6 estimate? WotC chose roughly 5d6. The whiplash might have sent the message "we are not really listening" which is a bit aggravating.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I believe that it was generally agreed that it was too strong, but a lot of people felt like they went too far with the nerf.

Honestly, if they'd errata'd it to work one per turn, then it would have been fine. Little on the powerful side, but healing should be a little stronger than other options of that level (imo). If cast out of a 3rd level spell, it'd match the 2d6/1 minute healing rate of aura of vitality.

[nickl_2000]

I think this explains everything.


I had a toy
you took away my toy
I want my toy back

[Townopolis]

When Healing Spirit was 1d6 per creature per turn per 10 rounds, it was dramatically stronger than Aura of Vitality's 2d6 per 10 rounds. The accidental "per creature per turn" made it way above curve.

So people criticized it. During that criticism people reached their own conclusions about what it should be. Some compared it to Prayer of Healing (12d8+6Mod ~= 20d6 with a long casting time). Personally I pegged it as "10d6 would be fair for a 2nd level spell. 160d6 is too much for my playstyle.

Then apparently WotC heard the criticism and they chose to nerf the spell. However it seemed even the most savage critics were surprised that it was nerfed so low. Remember my 10d6 estimate? WotC chose roughly 5d6. The whiplash might have sent the message "we are not really listening" which is a bit aggravating.

This, more or less. Most folks I spoke with figured 10d6 was the appropriate balance point.

Also, when it was nerfed, it really hit rangers, specifically, who were briefly real happy to have a good non-combat healing spell other than goodberry. In its current form, it's still okay for shillelagh beastmasters, who are Wisdom builds anyway, but it's not worth a pick for the rest of the rangers.

So now it's a druid/multiclassed cleric spell and rangers are back to spamming goodberry.

Though, to be fair, goodberry is really good, and 2nd+ slots are better spent on spike growth and summons, anyway.

[Havlock]

It was written poorly.
The lazy writing left it open to abuse.
So players abused it.
And the devs corrected their mistake.
Now players sad ☹

[DarknessEternal]

The spell went from overpowered to underpowered.

It's still a great example of poor design.

Not even trying to make it a usable spell is a big failure.

[Kane0]

Once per round would have been fine, if perhaps a touch on the string side for a second level spell. There wasnt a need for the Wis mod limitation IMO.

[Captain Panda]

But why healing spirit? The spell is still excellent.


The spell is far, far from excellent.


It heals similar to 2 healing words, but spread out over 4(at least) interactions, with better scaling. It also scales better with any healing amplifier class features. By every metric it's still an extremely efficient healing spell with a unique role in combat. It pays for its superiority by requiring concentration. But it also makes a good out of combat heal for high level druids with max wis who can spare low level slots. To me it seems perfectly fine. It wasn't fair for a second level spell to outclass a level 3 paladin spell.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, you're missing quite a lot. The spell went from very good out of combat healing for the druid and, importantly, the ranger (who people always poo poo on) to pretty horrible. If you cast it at its intended level (2nd level slot, 3rd level character as a druid), assuming a wisdom of 16, it does 4d6 healing. 3d6 if you have 14 wisdom, which you'd expect from a ranger and which for a druid is not an unreasonable score to put there as druids typically need their casting stat less than other casters.

Healing spirit: 4d6, so 14 healing spread over 4 rounds. 3d6, or 10.5 healing over 3 rounds if you have a wisdom of 14, as a ranger is likely to have (or a druid who prioritizes other stats)
Cure wounds: 2d8+3, so 12 healing instantly.

So yeah, the spell has been shanked.

In combat, spreading out healing in small bursts can, situationally, be useful. It isn't always. It also isn't instant the way a healing word would be, so you could bonus action move the spirit onto a downed ally, and have an enemy between you and your ally in initiative just kill your ally outright. Oops. For this reason it is and always kind of was a bad idea to use in combat. But let's assume your healing actually lands appropriately, it's still not a great spell because you have to compare it to the competition. That could have been a summoned beast, or spike growth, or heat metal. It could have been a spell that stopped you from having your team get its ass beat in the first place, in other words.

Out of combat, it's a terrible spell as a ranger and on the very lowest side of 'meh' as a druid, absolutely not worth a preparation slot anymore. Just use yesterday's goodberries for your out of combat healing.

It's actually worse as you level up, not better. If you're a level 5+ druid after a fight, you could be concentrating on conjure animals. Now in the past there was a hard choice, cast a 2nd level spell slot that will act as an out of combat big heal for the team, or just keep the animals out and use goodberries? Goodberries, even pre-nerf, were typically the right choice, but there were cases where healing spirit was better if the team took a massive beating. These days there's no choice to make, keep concentration on animals up and just use the berries.

In order for healing spirit, these days, to be worth using we have to make a few assumptions. We have to assume you aren't concentrating on something important, the party is heavily injured, and you don't have goodberries or healing potions or hit dice left to spend on healing, and you're the only healer around. I'm having a hard time seeing that being a common enough use case to justify preparing the spell. Druids get a lot of really, really good spells... healing spirit is no longer one of them.



Then apparently WotC heard the criticism and they chose to nerf the spell. However it seemed even the most savage critics were surprised that it was nerfed so low. Remember my 10d6 estimate? WotC chose roughly 5d6. The whiplash might have sent the message "we are not really listening" which is a bit aggravating.

Strongly agree. They used a chainsaw instead of a scalpel. I liked the spell for the style of game I DM, but I could see how it might be a problem as it was before. They listened to the mob and way over corrected.

[OldTrees1]

Strongly agree. They used a chainsaw instead of a scalpel. I liked the spell for the style of game I DM, but I could see how it might be a problem as it was before. They listened to the mob and way over corrected.

In this case the "mob" was right, but the "mob" was asking for a scalpel. Instead of a scalpel, WotC used a chainsaw. Even the harshest critics got whiplash and questioned if WotC actually listened.

"Mob": Could you remove this thorn in my leg?
WotC: Okay. *Amputates leg*
"Mob": Wait, What!? Were you even listening!!

[strangebloke]

I can't understand why anyone would want such a spell in their games. It effectively made not only druids but rangers better healers than clerics or paladin, violated an entire style of play (attrition) by itself, and was clearly and obviously overtuned.

The new ruling is better. Its still a good spell. If you want the blatantly-broken spell from earlier its much easier to push a buff at the table than a nerf.

[Theodoxus]

I can't understand why anyone would want such a spell in their games. It effectively made not only druids but rangers better healers than clerics or paladin, violated an entire style of play (attrition) by itself, and was clearly and obviously overtuned.

The new ruling is better. Its still a good spell. If you want the blatantly-broken spell from earlier its much easier to push a buff at the table than a nerf.

This. No one (outside of AL) is forcing you to use the errata - or even the whole errata. If you feel the nerf was overtuned, scale it back. If you don't like Wis mod # of heals, make it a number. Doesn't have to be 10 rounds, it could be smaller - it's your game. Just because WotC's spells have durations in whole minutes doesn't mean you have to. Have it last 8 rounds if that works better. Heck, be super weird, have the spell last Wis Mod + PB rounds! Then it does scale better with level, and even that baseline Ranger with a 14 Wis is getting at least 5 rounds of healing out it.

Or, go the other direction, have it only last Wis mod rounds, but it has the "unlimited" healing potential of the original spell. Better for non-combat healing, still decent (to decent-ish) in-combat healing.

I never ever understood the gnashing of teeth over errata. At my table, I run how I want to run. Any player can self-nerf if they want to, but I don't religiously follow errata... maybe I'm an outlier.

[TyGuy]

What's interesting is that someone from WotC initially proposed a much fairer house rule long before the errata. Can't remember if it was Crawford or Mearls. Just a statement of "woops, this was an oversight. Feel free to try our house rule of 2xCasting Mod = number of ticks of healing"

For me, I recognized it was broken in first print and didn't feel entitled to it RAW. But I thought it was still worth concentration and a spot on the spells known list with the proposed 2xmod heals.

The errata made me role my eyes and think "I'm not doing that" as either DM or taking it as a PC.

As DM I'll keep the 2xmod heals. I think 1 heal per round for 10 rounds is a contender, but makes it too similar to AoV.

[MoiMagnus]

This. No one (outside of AL) is forcing you to use the errata - or even the whole errata. If you feel the nerf was overtuned, scale it back.
...
I never ever understood the gnashing of teeth over errata. At my table, I run how I want to run. Any player can self-nerf if they want to, but I don't religiously follow errata... maybe I'm an outlier.

You're kind of assuming that tables are homogenous.
A lot of upset peoples probably come from tables that did not reach unanimity on whether or not "strong" Healing Spirit was good for the game or not.

And in heterogeneous tables, the words of WotC have a lot of weight on which side of the argument wins.

Some GMs just don't want to be bothered tweaking balance of the game (they paid money for the books, so they want something that works without having to do game design by themself), so they will just blindly follow whatever is the updated version of the game.

Some GMs where already in agreement that HS was OP, but did not feel like taking away options that are "officially approved" by WotC, as they though that it was not worth the argument with the players. Alternatively, they were GMs that did not have the confidence to assert that a spell from the official books was unbalanced and instead might have blame their own GMing style for making this spell OP.

[OldTrees1]

I never ever understood the gnashing of teeth

Oddly enough "mad" is a spectrum from very mild to very severe. I don't think I encountered anyone that would gnash their teeth over this nerf. I have seen people criticize the nerf as an example of WotC not listening even when they pretend to be listening.

Garresh, the opening poster, saw mere "complaints". I think the context given by this thread is enough to understand those complaints.

[Theodoxus]

You're kind of assuming that tables are homogenous.
A lot of upset peoples probably come from tables that did not reach unanimity on whether or not "strong" Healing Spirit was good for the game or not.

And in heterogeneous tables, the words of WotC have a lot of weight on which side of the argument wins.

Some GMs just don't want to be bothered tweaking balance of the game (they paid money for the books, so they want something that works without having to do game design by themself), so they will just blindly follow whatever is the updated version of the game.

Some GMs where already in agreement that HS was OP, but did not feel like taking away options that are "officially approved" by WotC, as they though that it was not worth the argument with the players. Alternatively, they were GMs that did not have the confidence to assert that a spell from the official books was unbalanced and instead might have blame their own GMing style for making this spell OP.

The only assumption I have is that AL tables are the only ones that necessarily have to follow errata. My gut assumption is that most DMs are like me, and don't follow WotC et al on Twitter, don't go actively looking for errata on the WotC website and don't use DnDBeyond (which I assume tabulates said errata, but... not a user). 10/10, when i hear about errata, it's from a player who brings it up. 8/10 it's mostly small corrections like gerunds or other grammatical mistakes. When its an actual rule change, like with HS, I measure it against the original and pick or modify it, however I like.

Heck, I do the same thing when it's an actual published change. SCAGtrips in Tasha's? I decide which to use as I own both books. Revised Beastmaster? Updated Bladesinger? My game, my table, my decision on which to run. I let the players know. If errata comes in mid-campaign, I weight it and make the decision. If it's going to heavily alter a player's build, even if I am in agreement with the correction, I'll let the original play through until the end of the campaign and then the next one that starts up will use it.

Is this not how my fellow DMs not run?


Oddly enough "mad" is a spectrum from very mild to very severe. I don't think I encountered anyone that would gnash their teeth over this nerf. I have seen people criticize the nerf as an example of WotC not listening even when they pretend to be listening.

Garresh, the opening poster, saw mere "complaints". I think the context given by this thread is enough to understand those complaints.

My comment was in regards to general errata, not this one specifically. The few times I've caught a discussion thread here over errata it seems someone is "going mad" about it. Sure, I used a bit of hyperbole to accentuate my point, but it still stands. Outside of AL, conventions or whatever official games there are, errata is completely optional; to use or ignore.

[Ogre Mage]

https://pics.me.me/thumb_thats-my-precious-memegenerator-net-thats-my-precious-scary-smeagol-51587934.png