Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nyeshet" data-source="post: 3515458" data-attributes="member: 18363"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Wouldn't the use of such a spell break a Paladin's code of conduct? (truth over falsehood, and all that)? I see no problem with a Bard having use of it, of course, or even a non-lawful cleric, actually, but a Paladin? That just seems odd . . . .As for the Healing Touch reserve feat, I've been expecting it. Not quite sure what to think of it, although I like the idea of a Bard or Ranger taking it, thus allowing a party to adventure without the need of a class partially devoted to healing (Cleric). I wouldn't mind a feat that allowed non-Rogues to search for and disarm magic traps more than DC 20, in fact. Something like that probably already exists in a third party book or pdf somewhere, but seeing it from WotC would sort of put the final nail in that coffin (the many WotC new base classes and PrCs that get that roguish ability already have partially nailed that coffin shut). The healing reserve feat is perfectly balanced for "typical" RaW / core D&D games as WotC views them, but it is a bit strong for many gaming groups - my own included. I might allow it, but I'd likely weaken it to 1 hp per level of spell, limit it to use only once per 1d4 rounds, and perhaps set a daily limit equal to the user's total hp (or perhaps double that). That would be for a normal hp type game. For a wounds and vitality type game it would heal the surface damage, but not the deeper core damage. Oh, and it would keep to the 1 hp per level. That would be enough for balancing, I think.[Edit] So it limits you to only half total hp? It seems this is little more than a way to gain the major benfit of Dragon Shaman without level dipping, then. Still not bad, however, especially if the party lacks a cleric. I might still limit it to 1 hp per spell level, however - if only to firmly push it out of combat time and into recovery time. I would treat it like a cleric aiding a wounded for a few minutes after combat, their divine empowerment allowing them a type of faith healing as it were. Hmm, if it were more limited (to 1 hp per spell level per minute of continuous contact) it would far closer mimic the idea of a cleric slowly faith healing a wounded individual between combats. I would even consider taking off the half total hp limit for that, considering how long it would take to heal up an entire party that is terribly injured. Hmm, or perhaps the clerics (or Paladins or perhaps a few other divine classes and PrCs) could get the 1 hp per minute of contact as a new form of Lay on Hands. At lower levels that would heal up most NPCs after just a minute or three. At higher levels the cleric or Paladin could take a feat to empower that to 1 hp per spell level per round, to a total of half hp - a major boost as it were, certainly worthy of a feat. However, if a character without the faith healing (but with healing spells) took the feat they would just get what the healers normally have: 1 hp per minute, but limited to half total hp to reflect their lack of divine connection compared to clerics, etc. An interesting idea. I'll have to work with it a bit more, however. I've played with the idea of clerics having Lay on Hands before (instead of spontaneous casting), and even the idea of clerics being able to use Lay on Hands points towards greater healings (ability damage, blindness, curses, diseases, poisons, etc), and even the idea of clerics being able to curse 'non believers' and apostates / heretics of their faith by a a type of reverse healing using lay on hands points, but this idea (unlimited healing, albeit far slower) is a bit new. I'll have to work with it a bit more to see how well it could work out. [/edit]</blockquote>

Verification