Do you *have* to use a healing surge?

[Kzach]

So, one of my favourite classes to play in 4e is the shielding cleric with pacifist healing.

It's freakin' uber.

The problem comes when I notice that the bonus healing he gives often is enough to heal someone without the expenditure of a healing surge.

So the question then becomes does the person HAVE to spend a healing surge?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, one of my favourite classes to play in 4e is the shielding cleric with pacifist healing.

It's freakin' uber.

The problem comes when I notice that the bonus healing he gives often is enough to heal someone without the expenditure of a healing surge.

So the question then becomes does the person HAVE to spend a healing surge?

Yes. If not, the terrorists have already won.

Er, i mean if not, after-combat healing would be free.

Actual rules proof I leave to other people.

 

[Kzach]

Actual rules proof I leave to other people.

That's the thing though, isn't it. If you read RAW it states with most healing powers, "...the target can spend a healing surge and..."

But what if they don't want or need to?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's the thing though, isn't it. If you read RAW it states with most healing powers, "...the target can spend a healing surge and..."

But what if they don't want or need to?

The expression is usually something like "and heal additional hit points equal to <bla>".

If you don't spend a healing surge, it wouldn't be additional hit points, it would just be healing.

That's about how far I am going to do in analyzing rules texts. I think anything that goes further usually ends up in debates about the nature of grammar, syntax and semantics of the English language and RAW vs RAI.

My advice: Just learn to wait with your healing until someone screams "bloodied". And if it's really an uberpowerer, wait a little longer until someone screams "argh, I am down!"

 

[Flipguarder]

That's the thing though, isn't it. If you read RAW it states with most healing powers, "...the target can spend a healing surge and..."

But what if they don't want or need to?

then they don't get healed. Helaing-surge-free heals is way overpowered.

 

[Trevelyan]

It's pretty simple really. When the cleric uses healing word on another PC, that PC can spend a healing surge and if they do then they get additional healing. But the character is entitled to refuse the healing, in which case they get bugger all.

 

[chitzk0i]

The easiest thing to do would be to not heal people until they need it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Stop overhealing or you will get too much aggro.

 

[DracoSuave]

So, one of my favourite classes to play in 4e is the shielding cleric with pacifist healing.

It's freakin' uber.

The problem comes when I notice that the bonus healing he gives often is enough to heal someone without the expenditure of a healing surge.

So the question then becomes does the person HAVE to spend a healing surge?

Bonus healing is a bonus to healing. No healing surge, no healing, and therefore the bonus to healing doesn't apply.

And Pacifist Healing only applies when they spend a healing surge -anyways-. So no healing surge, no Pacifist Healing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's pretty simple really. When the cleric uses healing word on another PC, that PC can spend a healing surge and if they do then they get additional healing. But the character is entitled to refuse the healing, in which case they get bugger all.

Bonus healing is a bonus to healing. No healing surge, no healing, and therefore the bonus to healing doesn't apply.

And Pacifist Healing only applies when they spend a healing surge -anyways-. So no healing surge, no Pacifist Healing.

These.

The reason the "can" phrasing is there is so that the power cannot be used to force people to spend surges if they don't want to. But if they don't, the power does nada.

The only way to heal someone without spending surges if the power specifies in so many words. (Like those that say the target "heals as though they'd spend a surge.)