No, Healing Word Is Not Overpowered

Every so often, a popular channel or blog will post some ludicrous opinion that is based on the shakiest logic (or a complete misunderstanding) and it will get completely overblown and poison the well for those too lazy to look into the matter themselves (and let’s be honest, we’ve all been there before). These fallacious sentiments can circulate for years and cause confusion, arguments, and sometimes even name calling if not rooted out and shown to be the product of ignorance before they can gain traction. Unfortunately, it’s not always possible to catch them quickly enough; as Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”.

Well, we’ve strapped into our heaviest boots and we’re ready now to take on a new lie that has been circulating in the D&D community these past few weeks. No, healing word is not overpowered.

Before you read on, we would ask that you consider whitelisting us on AdBlock. We get it, ads are annoying. That’s why we don’t run ads that play audio or pop up. Additionally, our ads are vetted to not contain any malicious code. Alternatively, you can become a patron on Patreon and enjoy all of our articles guilt free, as well as get exclusive patron-only content!

The Lie

This idea was put forward three weeks ago by Cody from the YouTube RPG channel Taking20. While we generally find that the quality of channels is inversely proportional to the clickbait in their titles, Cody really does have some decent content. Unfortunately, his video “Overpowered Spell is Wrecking Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition Games” is most assuredly not one of them.

In his video, Cody inveighs rather strongly against healing word, calling it “overpowered” and a “get-out-of-jail-free card”. He argues that it abuses the action economy, that it is too freely available, and that it eliminates all sense of urgency in combat. Honestly, we could write whole articles about how to creatively and effectively employ the options for dealing with healer-heavy groups that he discounts out of hand (in particular, building encounters that challenge your players), but in this article we’re solely going to look at why he’s wrong about healing word.

The Action Economy

One of Cody’s biggest qualms with this spell is that it seems to abuse the action economy. As a bonus action spell that works at range, a healer doesn’t have to provoke opportunity attacks to leave an enemy’s threatened space so that they can run over to their fallen comrade and heal them. Instead, the character can cast healing word using a bonus action and still be able to use their action to cast a cantrip or make an attack, all without “adding actions to the economy” (i.e. triggering opportunity attacks from enemies). He calls this casting it “for free”, and he couldn’t be more wrong for more reasons.

Given that Cody came to Fifth Edition from Third Edition, we’re quite disappointed in him for holding this opinion. The reason why this spell has been designed this way should be evident to anyone who played a healer in previous editions, where you were essentially an ambulatory hit point dispenser. At a certain point in a fight, every round for a Third-Edition healer consisted of running to their various fallen party members and casting cure wounds. This was part of the game design; it was expected. Clerics even had a feature called spontaneous casting that allowed them to drop a spell they had prepared to cast cure wounds (this was back when you prepared spells to spell slots, so if you wanted to cast cure wounds more than once you needed to have it prepared multiple times).

What Fifth Edition has done with healing word is liberate those characters who would otherwise have been relegated to full-time healers. With healing word, you can heal an ally and also attack an enemy, making you feel as though you are more than just your spell slots. Everyone gets to have fun in combat, not just the non-healers. This is in keeping with the design strategy of Fifth Edition placing fun over balance.

Additionally, Cody also ignores a major drawback to casting a bonus action spell: that it limits your options for what spells you can cast using your action on that turn to cantrips. This is not an inconsequential drawback, especially if you’ve lost concentration on your key spells, such as a buff spell that really helps your party’s effectiveness (like bless or shield of faith), or a spell which debuffs your enemies (like bestow curse). Spellcasters can do much, much more when they use their action to cast their spells than when they use their action to attack, but that’s part of the cost of healing.

Part of the cost, because…

Spell Slots are Finite

Healing word is not a cantrip that can be cast infinitely; it is a 1st-level spell. Even though this fact is acknowledged in the video, it isn’t actually given due consideration. At one point in his video, Cody remarks, “When players finally do get access to level 2 spell slots and level 3 spell slots, now they don’t have three or four casts of healing word. Now they have six or seven or 10 or 12 casts of healing word. Twelve get-out-of-jail-free cards.”

We don’t want to pass judgment on how Cody plays D&D, but it must be said that a spellcaster who never casts a spell other than healing word is not leveraging their class’ abilities very well. If there are issues with combat, it’s more likely because the caster is saving all their spell slots for healing word than because that spell has got the barbarian back on his feet. Barbarians are tough; they have a d12 hit die and they resist the three most common damage types while raging. If the barbarian is going down, it’s probably because the party is not putting out enough damage in the race to pulverize the other side first. The fact that the spellcaster is hoarding their spell slots probably has something to do with that.

In fact, anyone who has tried to play a healer in Fifth Edition has probably figured out that this is exactly the wrong strategy to use. Why? Well, it’s because…

Healing Is Less Effective Than Dealing Damage

You are never going to out-heal the damage output of your enemies. That is just not how Fifth Edition combat is designed.

The length of a typical combat encounter varies based on the many factors that come into play, but an oft-cited average (and one that fits our experience) is five rounds. The mathematics of calculating a monster’s challenge rating come with an inherent presumption that they creature will be around for at least three rounds (the three-round average damage output, the hit points it regenerates over the course of three rounds, etc. are all factored into its final CR), and many monsters have abilities that recharge on a roll of a 5 or a 6 on a d6, effectively becoming harder to defeat if a party lets the fight drag on longer than expected (read: longer than the game mechanics assume a typical combat will go). Reduce all of this down to the very basics and you get the basic concept behind any fight—not a test of endurance, but rather a race to reduce the other side to zero hit points first.

A party that wants to survive won’t sit back and let the enemies hit them with everything, hoping to be able to outlast them with spells that can never heal more damage than a party suffers. Smart parties will attempt to establish superiority over the battlefield and force enemies to fight at a disadvantage. If you give up battlefield superiority, chances are you have already lost and no amount of healing words will help you. Spells are a big part of maintaining control, and it is an overly generous DM who does not punish their players for expecting to be able to get away with not using them. There is a lot of merit to saving a spell slot for a clutch heal, but hit points are worth more than spell slots and if you run out of the former then the latter become meaningless.

The Real Problem

We don’t disbelieve Cody that his experience in organized play is that healing word is a highly effective spell. Had he said healing word is “wrecking organized play”, we would have taken a less harsh view of his sentiments—not that he’d be much closer to being right. The fact that this spell shines at conventions, however, is a great indicator of what the actual problem is.

Unlike in a home game when the DM can create each encounter from the ground up, tailoring them to challenge the PCs, encounters in pre-made adventures are designed purely through mathematics in order to offer some challenge to every conceivable party composition. Such encounters are not designed to respond differently if there is an abundance of healing magic, or DMs haven’t had an opportunity to fully consider the different tactics the monsters might have to deal with such situations. Likewise, because of the uncertainty of what any given party composition will be in organized play, there are a disproportionate number of people who take healing spells, and healing word specifically, as compared to home games where players can discuss and plan the party ahead of time and generally have a more well-rounded result.

A party of strangers is also not going to have the same synergy as a party where each player knows the abilities of their companions. As such, the players will be far more likely to play conservatively, putting them in the position I described above where they’re hoarding their spell slots and suffering more damage than necessary because of it. This isn’t a problem with the healing word spell, it’s an issue of how a party behaves when the players don’t necessarily trust each other.

Conclusion

Cody at Take20 has put forward some good ideas in his YouTube videos, but his recent rant about healing word that is taking the Internet by storm is really just shortsighted. His argument is based on a questionable belief that healing must trigger opportunity attacks, and he completely ignores the inefficiency of spamming this spell over using the same spell slots to deal damage, as well as the reasons why players might play this way. Ultimately, the problems he raises are issues of encounter design and questionable DMing practices.

The problem is not and never has been with a single 1st-level spell.


Like this article? Become a patron on Patreon to support us to write more content!

Have your own experience with healing word? Share it in the comments below!

10 thoughts on “No, Healing Word Is Not Overpowered”

    1. Thanks for your comment!

      You are quite right. We’ll update the article… and our spell list. Wow.

      Best!
      – the Archmage

  1. Some of us prefer the 3.5e version of the healer’s role. You assert that the 5e way is “placing fun above balance” but personally I’d have a lot more fun figuring out how to heal my party while staying alive myself as opposed to doung the weird hodgepodge of jobs a 5e cleric has. As such i just don’t find the spell “fun.”

    1. Then play 3.5.

      Seems quite simple, really: play what gives you the experience you want, don’t say there is a “problem” with a system that does not do what you want.

    2. You can build a party that way… with the 3.5 feel, but it’s a choice.

      One of the things that Cody of Take20 doesn’t factor in, and one of the things Ipsimus leaves out of this article is that 5th Edition’s game design for PC classes is much more wide open than in previous editions.

      You can have a stalking thief built as a monk, or a woodsy ranger built as a rogue, or a healer built as a bard. The “role/responsibility” overlap for the PC classes is vast. The cleric is no longer, necessarily the best healer in the game.

      In the group I’m currently running with, our cleric is an undead slayer and almost never has time for healing anyone. She’s too busy bashing monsters. The bard that I play is our party’s healer, and he’s arguably better at it than she is.

      My point is that the flexibility of the PC class abilities that is specifically built into 5e makes the old modes of thought doable, but not mandatory for optimal party layout and player fun.

      1. Thanks for your comment!

        You raise a very good point, one of several that we wish we could have covered in this article. As many people tend to skim after 2,000 words, however, we had to limit the scope to simply replying to the video in question.

        We hope to cover this topic in another post. Be sure to check back or subscribe to get updates when new articles come out!

    1. Thanks for your comment!

      You’re quite right. We meant bless.

      We’ve updated the article. Sorry for the confusion.

      Best,
      – the Archmage

  2. I agree strongly that 5e is a totally different beast. I think we’ve all seen the argument against concentration, for example; or people wanting to put masterwork items back into the game.

    I personally found the delivery a little dramatic, though, tbh. It was a little funny to cite “Lies!!” or criticize clickbaity titles in the same breath to me. A simple “I disagree” might have been sufficient? Especially with so prevalent a misconception. Ideas like this are common enough I probably wouldn’t even say they ‘poison the well’ as common as they are – it hasn’t been drained of the stagnant old water in the first place.

    I might argue, actually, that 5e didn’t express the change in ideals very clearly from 4 to 5. They kind of came off (to me at least) with this “We’re going back to 3.5” impression; I had to work it out myself how significantly different 5e is.

    A simple example:
    I have a friend who is convinced that every action, ever, should fit into a skill category. But Angry GM really hit it on the head, in my view, when he stated it was more about the Ability check, hence the wording change (“Wisdom (Survival)” instead of “Survival Check”) in the DMG, despite it feeling a little wonky going against previous editions.
    The idea being that abilities need not be married to proficiencies, and that deciding which ability, and THEN whether a proficiency applies, was the game-changing difference between 2e and 3e. As opposed to offering an extensive, all-encompassing list of Skill Buttons to push in any given situation. It was to facilitate creative actions under the same mechanic, not offer a solution to every gameplay situation. Which I totally agree with. (Though I’m less familiar with pre-3e. It makes sense to me, though.)
    I dunno. Just an example.

    Great article, friend.

    1. …er. Wording is a little awkward there. I didn’t mean to say that 3e distinguished abilities and skill proficiencies; rather that 5e makes that distinction *better* than 3e did, and that’s why we ended up with the skill-button mentality in the first place. But the real value was the unified ability score mechanic, not the list of skills.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *