-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Should Cure and Inflict Wounds should be touch spells? *Now with a Survey!* REVEALED TO ALL
- Thread starter Blackwarder
- Start date
While I can sympathize with those who want to lessen or make in combat healing more difficult, D&D has always relied upon it to a greater or lesser degree. The answer, pure and simple, is that the designers don't want to 'force' cleric players into the role of doing nothing but playing the combat medic in fight by reacting to who needs heals and moving around accordingly. Touch based healing may provide an interesting tactical dilemma to some, but many may feel the social/table pressure to be the combat medic. Thus the swift action and ranged heals. Clerics can still do something else in combat, like fight, flank or 'hold the line' while still giving those in need a healing boost. It is a response to the emergent play of 'having to play the healbot' and not getting to do something 'fun' (I realize that there are some who see no problem with this and/or enjoy playing the combat support/medic role; or have not seen this 'problem'. There are many who have though).
Range: Touch as a base rule with an option for 25' range means a DM who allows range is being a nice guy that allows his players more options and lets characters be more powerful.
Range: 25' as a base rule with an option for touch only means a DM who restricts range is being a jerk who nerfs the cleric and forces the character in to the role the DM wants rather than what the player wants.
It's almost always easier for a DM to allow more options than it is to restrict them.
I thought it was the player who wanted touch based heals? If it is indeed a DM-may-I situation, then I agree that is a poor situation all around.
Stormonu said:
I'm not sure that makes you a 'jerk', but it seems from the responses that many want the cleric to 'pay' tactically for in combat healing through actions and movement. I would prefer if in combat healing was less necessary or more rare myself, either through a longer casting time or some such, but that is not the case, or likely to be. If we are going to have in combat healing, then it would be nice if the cleric had more options to do so without tying up his movement and actions.
Philousk
Explorer
I chose other.
For my part, I wish there were two ways to cast Cure and Inflict Wounds.
.
1. Range (25 feet). The less effective but also less dangerous avoiding body-to-body and attacks of opportunity. However, it can also perform another action at the same time. In this way, the type of dice would be lowered by one notch.
For example, Cure wounds heal 1d6+4 Hp instead of 1d8+4 Hp.
2. Touch. The most effective method because it illustrates the special relationship between the healer and the wounded. It also expresses the sacrifice for his faith in braving danger in directly delivering divine magic (cure or inflict) on the target. In this way, it requires a move action. The type of dice remains unchanged, but the cure or inflict is added bonus of wisdom cleric.
For example, a cleric with 18 wisdom casting Cure wounds with a slot of 4nd level spell, heal 7d8 + 11 Hp instead of 7d6 + 7 Hp by range.
No change for Cure Wounds, Mass or Cure Wounds, Improved Mass.
Thus, we obtain a compromise between the two main schools of thought.
For my part, I wish there were two ways to cast Cure and Inflict Wounds.
.
1. Range (25 feet). The less effective but also less dangerous avoiding body-to-body and attacks of opportunity. However, it can also perform another action at the same time. In this way, the type of dice would be lowered by one notch.
For example, Cure wounds heal 1d6+4 Hp instead of 1d8+4 Hp.
2. Touch. The most effective method because it illustrates the special relationship between the healer and the wounded. It also expresses the sacrifice for his faith in braving danger in directly delivering divine magic (cure or inflict) on the target. In this way, it requires a move action. The type of dice remains unchanged, but the cure or inflict is added bonus of wisdom cleric.
For example, a cleric with 18 wisdom casting Cure wounds with a slot of 4nd level spell, heal 7d8 + 11 Hp instead of 7d6 + 7 Hp by range.
No change for Cure Wounds, Mass or Cure Wounds, Improved Mass.
Thus, we obtain a compromise between the two main schools of thought.
And yet... if the rule is Range: Touch, the DM doesn't have to allow Range: 25 feet (by breaking the rules)... and thus he's also a jerk. And considering all the Encounters games and convention games etc. etc. out there... all of which will probably use official D&D rules and not allow for houserules (or the DM to be a "nice guy")... we're much more like to see those no-ranged "jerk DMs" than we are the small segment of DMs who won't allow ranged healing in their home games.
IMO, some spells should be auto-metamagicked to allow distance upgrade from Touch, similar to previous editions but instead of costing you feats you fuel it by using a higher level spell slot. I.e. if you are a level 1 cleric, no luck for you, you gotta run around, but once you get level 3 and thus level 2 spells, then in a pinch you can cast one of your 1st level cure spells as a 2nd level, keeping the same healing value, mind you, but upgrading the range from Touch to Close.
Same thing with Harm, though I'd make it cost 2 spell levels to cast it at range. Still quite powerful considering the default level 1 damage it does, but not OP.
Same thing with Harm, though I'd make it cost 2 spell levels to cast it at range. Still quite powerful considering the default level 1 damage it does, but not OP.
Similar Threads
- Poll