[Proposal] - Healing's Word back as Divine Power

Velmont · Dec 5, 2010

Since Divine Power is up, WotC have made many changes to debuff the Cleric (and more precisely, the Pacifist Healer). The latest update have removed the Divine tag on the Healing Power.

I think that removing first kill the flavor of it. Healing have long time been the field of divine, but now only the runepriest have a divine class feature to heal. So if healing word is no more Divine, how the cleric is doing his healing?

Second, why the Runepriest healing feature is still Divine, why the Artificer and Bard feature are still Arcane, why the Shaman power is still primal, why the Warlord feature is still Martial and why the Ardent power is still Psionic?

Also, technically talking, if the problem come from Pacifist feat, why they haven't errated the feat instead to modify Healing Word.

So I propose to give back the Divine keyword to the cleric's Healing Word.

Please note that I am making this proposal in both L4W and LEB, so you can look on the other thread to see the argumentation.

Ozymandias79 · Dec 5, 2010

well, I try to keep my Word so YES to this proposal

and also I am in favor to allow rogues use any crossbow to sneak, not just hand crossbow as the rules are at the moment due to the Essentials change to sneak attack

H.M.Gimlord · Dec 5, 2010

Before I vote, I want to hear other opinions, but I'm leaning toward allowing this. The Divine keyword seems to be the only difference between Healing Word and the warlord power Inspiring Word. Thus allowing the cleric to take advantage of other powers that trigger off the use of Divine powers. Otherwise, why not eradicate Healing Word altogether and give the Cleric Inspiring Word?

renau1g · Dec 5, 2010

I'm also in agreement Vel. I know we've spoked at length in the Moonwatch thread re: the many kicks to the groin that Pacifist's have suffered. Seems silly not to be Divine.

I also vote YES

H.M.Gimlord · Dec 5, 2010

~~I'll go ahead and put in my YES too. Though~~ I'd like to know the rationale behind WotC's change (if any).

*edit* Vote changed here.

Ozymandias79 · Dec 5, 2010

the second part of essentials has Druid build that is a primal leader that has Healing word, as it would be strange for a primal character to use a divine power they simply removed the divine keyword on healing word

renau1g · Dec 5, 2010

My thoughts are that they feel Pacifist Healer feat is too strong, so by removing the Divine keyword from HW they effectively nerf the feat without having to actually say they're nerfing the feat (which would likely draw a lot more anger from people who bought Divine Power)

Dekana · Dec 5, 2010

Flavor is no reason to house rule something with a mechanical effect. I think it's clear, in the absence of any essentials errata, that WOTC thought healing word's interaction with pacifist healer was a problem, so this is the solution they went with. It's frustrating that they can't just leave this issue alone already, but I like to trust WOTC when they do change something...

renau1g · Dec 5, 2010

My thoughts re: Pacifist Healer from experience with River over the past year or so (wow...I can't believe it's been that long!) in Trouble in Moonwatch in LEB. At first I agree, I really struggled to challenge them without n+3 or n+4 encounters. Now, with the MM3 damage expressions changes + the nerf's to Healer's Lore/Astral Seal, and a few other reductions in the healing output, I now have no problem challenging them. I just ran an n+1 encounter that ko'd 2/5 PC's and had one of them down to teen hp (their defender). The group used 3 AP's and two Daily's in the fight... and they were still challenged. I love, love, love the new damage and it really becomes hard for a healer to keep everyone topped up now. I think they did this because Ozy's comments and for that I really think it's stupid.

KarinsDad · Dec 5, 2010

H.M.Gimlord said:
I'll go ahead and put in my YES too. Though I'd like to know the rationale behind WotC's change (if any).

The rational is that Pacifist Healer's is borderline broken as originally written and WotC got complaints by DMs and fixed it.

I don't have a horse in this race here, but I do on LEB. If it gets voted in here, then people will complain that it wasn't voted in on LEB.

The PC that Velmont runs on LEB is River. This is a comparison of River's healing pre-update, post-update, and without the feat at all:

River with original Pacifist Healer's feat: 2 Healing Words at 3d6+14, Healer's Mercy at 2d6+14 (assume 2 targets), Word of Vigor at 3d6+14 (assume 3 targets). Total average extra healing: 19d6+98 = 164

River with nerfed Pacifist Healer's feat: 2 Healing Words at 2d6+10, Healer's Mercy at d6+14 (assume 2 targets), Word of Vigor at 3d6+14. Total average extra healing: 17d6+90 = 149

River without the Pacifist Healer's feat: 12d6+70 = 112

I look at things like Weapon Focus. That might be an extra 5 hit points per encounter of damage.

I look at things like Pacifist Healer and even nerfed, that's an extra 37 points of healing per encounter. That's extremely nice for a feat.

To say that 37 extra points of healing is not enough and that the extra 52 points of healing is required is not valid from a balance POV. The feat is already powerful.

There is a very valid reason WotC updated this. Pacifist Healers as originally written can be easily powergamed into making it extremely difficult for a DM to even challenge a party (I had 5 PCs go from bloodied and some unconscious in a tough fight to nearly fully healed due to Pacifist Healer plus Healer's Mercy in my one game on LEB). And if the Cleric goes down in round two of the fight and the NPCs keep him down (unconscious or stunned), the DM can do a TPK because he made the encounter a lot more challenging in order to balance out the extra healing.