D&D 5E Should Cure and Inflict Wounds should be touch spells? *Now with a Survey!* REVEALED TO ALL

[Cyberen]

Advantage at touching range ?
Disadvantage for healing as a swift action ?
Inclusive and interesting tactically ?
(I voted Touch)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, touch.

You can have other spells that cure/inflict at range, and I have not the slightest issue with a given character ignoring touch-range spells for something more suited to their "I'M A SQUISHY HEALER!" playstyle (Oh! I know! Call it "Healing Word," you handsome geniuses.). But touch is clutch for the actual CLW. Because healing shouldn't be impersonal!

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Will we ever see the results of the poll?

Anyway, I voted "25ft. is enough". I can live with range: touch as well, but I think that it is not the healer's duty to run around to heal, I guess some players want to be more than healbots and feat taxing them doesn't seem to be the best way.
But I suggest giving a bonus when actually using range: touch like increased healing or defensive buff for the target and/or the cleric.

Another option would be adding a disclaimer which tells DMs and players alike that they can use CLW up to a range of 25ft. If you don't like adding options, make the disclaimer so that you can remove the range and play it touch only.

But personally I'd prefer CLW with 25ft range and a bonus when used at touch range.

Because healing shouldn't be impersonal!

Are you discriminating damage dealing in general as impersonal because it's ok to do that at any range.
Well, I usually play a fighter and they are totally 'in your face'-personal.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Are you discriminating damage dealing in general as impersonal because it's ok to do that at any range.
Well, I usually play a fighter and they are totally 'in your face'-personal.

Yeah, killin' can be done personal or impersonal, but it's a little weird to be all "I don't care about you enough to touch you, but I guess I'll save your life by willing divine magic through me."

Though more seriously, for me, the touch-range has all sorts of good iconography and meaning behind it. The cleric's healing is patterned after religious experience, after all -- intensely personal, intimate, even. Overtures of "humble servant of humanity" and "getting close to the people you're helping" and all that good religious empathy jazz.

I'm basically fine with ranged healing, as a spell a cleric could prepare instead of CLW (Healing Word!), but the Cure Wounds spells themselves being touch is iconic for a few good reasons, IMO.

 

[Minigiant]

The stronger Cure Wounds should be touch range. Another weaker healing spell should be ranged.

 

[Argyle King]

Touch for full benefit. Each 5ft increment between you and the target reduces the effect. Max range is 25ft.

 

[Blackwarder]

Current poll results:

More than 25 feet: 2 3.33%
25 is enough: 16. 26.67%
between 5 to 25 feet: 10 16.67%
I prefer touch: 29 48.33%
Other: 3 5%

Again sorry for my mix up, first time posting a poll.

Warder

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Range: 25 feet means players on both sides of the coin can play how they want "within the rules". Ranged casters can heal/harm at range within the rules, and Clerics who wish to only deliver the Cures/Inflicts via touch can also do so "within the rules". It's inclusive.

Range: Touch means that players who wish Cures/Inflicts only delivered via touch, can do so "within the rules". Ranged casters however are now excluded from casting from range "within the rules" and the DM either has to houserule it, or you need to put a cost (via feat or some other method) to allow it. It's exclusive.

That being said... I do have absolutely no problem adding a line to the spells that grants a bonus to those players who choose to cast Cures/Inflicts via Touch (even when the spell allows up to 25 feet in range.) Something like "When this spell is cast via Touch rather than at Range, the Cleric gains a +1 bonus to AC until the end of his next turn." Thus, a PC voluntarily choosing to make it harder on himself gains a bonus to do so. But both types of players still can play their style within the rules.

That's false equivalence. If the rules say that healing spells have range, and you "choose" to play a cleric who insists on touch healing, then when you are in the middle of a fight and another player's character dies because you didn't want to risk getting killed yourself to heal them, everyone is going to complain about your "decision" to not use the full range of the spell. You said in the other thread that players don't play optimally because of their egos - well it's more about playing as part of a group, as part of a team that has expectations of you. If you ruin one person's game because you play voluntarily differently from the rules you are being selfish in everyone else's eyes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's false equivalence. If the rules say that healing spells have range, and you "choose" to play a cleric who insists on touch healing, then when you are in the middle of a fight and another player's character dies because you didn't want to risk getting killed yourself to heal them, everyone is going to complain about your "decision" to not use the full range of the spell. You said in the other thread that players don't play optimally because of their egos - well it's more about playing as part of a group, as part of a team that has expectations of you. If you ruin one person's game because you play voluntarily differently from the rules you are being selfish in everyone else's eyes.

No... the group should already know at the beginning of the campaign that despite the rules saying a cleric CAN cast Cure Wounds at 25 feet... you are choosing (due to roleplaying decisions) to only cast at Touch range. If later on a fellow player gets p.o.d because they found themselves in an untenable position and you were unable to get to them to heal them (despite knowing full well that they needed to be within range for you to get to them to touch them)... then THAT GUY is being a dickwad. He should have known going in to the game how you were playing the character. He can't bitch about it later on and not be the jerk.

But you know what? In NO WAY should the game put rules into place for no other reason than to just save players or DMs from "looking like a jerk". That's ridiculous. Put rules into place because they make sense for the game, the situation, and to allow as many players as many usable and useful options possible without going overboard. NOT because we need to baby players and DMs who are afraid to "say no!"

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

No... the group should already know at the beginning of the campaign that despite the rules saying a cleric CAN cast Cure Wounds at 25 feet... you are choosing (due to roleplaying decisions) to only cast at Touch range. If later on a fellow player gets p.o.d because they found themselves in an untenable position and you were unable to get to them to heal them (despite knowing full well that they needed to be within range for you to get to them to touch them)... then THAT GUY is being a dickwad. He should have known going in to the game how you were playing the character. He can't bitch about it later on and not be the jerk.

But you know what? In NO WAY should the game put rules into place for no other reason than to just save players or DMs from "looking like a jerk". That's ridiculous. Put rules into place because they make sense for the game, the situation, and to allow as many players as many usable and useful options possible without going overboard. NOT because we need to baby players and DMs who are afraid to "say no!"

I have a feeling that the group would complain when you first made the decision.. but anyway, wasn't one of your reasons against touch healing that it was exclusive, because it required the DM to declare that healing spells worked at range and a DM that didn't was a jerk? Because I agree that rules should not exist just to save face. I don't see how ranged healing makes any more sense than touch healing for the overall game nor for the situation. I also don't see how it's any 'more useful', by negating the risk of a character wading into melee, than say, a rule that gives magic unlimited range, so wizards never even have to go near danger.

What ranged healing allows is risk-free healing in the middle of combat, in fact it doesn't even take your action at the moment, and to me that's a slow return to the assumed healing that was thrown out every combat in 4E and made combat grinding and the consequences of battle transient. I'd rather have no healing in combat, but if we must have it, it should be important, but challenging - I'd rather the spell force you to take that risk of wandering into melee and in return bring the Fighter back to near full strength (rather than 1 hit down again).