Is this lesser version of Life Transference balanced

balancednd-5ehomebrew-reviewspellswizard

My ("plain vanilla" dnd 5e) wizard is now near level 8, and I was thinking to equip him with a straightforward reduced version of "Life Transference".

The purpose of this is merely as an emergency maneuver to prevent the other members of our party (or mainly the cleric) from staying unconscious (or dying) when reduced to 0 HP, for which a 3rd level spell as "Life Transference" seems to me a bit over-killing (also, given his reduced HP, it can be dangerous for my wizard to sacrifice those 4d8 HP in a single round)

This is what I come up with:

Sacrifical Leech

1st-level necromancy
Casting time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V,S
Duration: Instantaneous

You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries. You take (1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier) necrotic damage, which can’t be reduced in any way, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.

At Higher Levels:
When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 1st level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 1st.

Spell Lists: Cleric, Wizard

BTW:
the section "At Higher Levels" is not that important to me
so maybe it can be removed altogether.

So my question is: does this sound balanced for the game?

Best Answer

This seems balanced compared to Life Transference

Life transference, at 3rd level, costs 4d8, and heals for twice that. Your spell, at 1d8 + spellcasting ability modifier, compares proportionally to that.

It does heal for twice what cure wounds does, and at a distance, but, of course, it has the disadvantage of the necrotic damage.

Is it balanced otherwise?

As @Darth_Pseudonym points out in his answer, life transference is supposed to be dangerous to the wizard. And it's relatively costly, requiring a 3rd level slot. By making emergency healing relatively cheap for wizards, they're encroaching on other classes skills.

Is it balanced within the party?

Bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, and artificers can all cast cure wounds. There are many other ways to heal -- healing potions, for one. So, maybe within the party it makes more sense for the wizard to let other healing classes do the healing, and stick to what wizards are good at.

Does the DM think this is balanced?

That's the real question. You'll have to ask them.

Some DMs might be just fine with it; after all, there are many ways to heal just a few hit points. Lots of classes have cure wounds, there are other features such as the paladin's laying on of hands, and there are also healing potions.

Other DMs might think the game has enough healing, and wants that emergency maneuver to cost a 3rd-level slot, plus the risk of significant damage to the wizard.

But . . . should wizards even heal?

In comments, @SeriousBri points out, "[w]izards are not supposed to heal", and @Joel_Harmon notes that the role of the wizard "does not generally include cheap healing."

Indeed, life transference is from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and in both the Basic Rules and the Player's Handbook, wizards have no spells which heal others.

So, another consideration for the DM is to what extent they want to allow wizards to do healing, even slightly expensive healing.

Related Topic