Mark of Healing

[Jhaelen]

When CS consistently give the same answer to a question, it is considered as close to a fact as you can get.

Considered by whom?
I disagree. IME, CS interpretations are entirely worthless to support your case in an argument.

I'd rule it doesn't work.

@DanceOfMasks: Please! Don't get silly. Unlike with Magic tournaments nobody can earn their living by participating in RPGA games. There's zero need for D&D rules to be as watertight as they are in Magic. Even in RPGA games, RAI should always trump RAW.

If a player came to my table with a character built using infinite cheese, I'd give him infinite kicks just as he deserves.

 

[eamon]

Target is specifically defined and it is part of each power's description.

Let's say, for argument, there was a power that dealt damage and had the effect of "If the target is affected by a warlock's curse and this power drops the target to zero hit points, then the warlock gains the benefit of two creatures dropping rather than one."

This power has an effect that explicily benefits the warlock; however, it would be difficult to argue that the warlock is a target of the power.

The healing from Astral Seal is this sort of effect: Any ally no matter where they were when the power was used (heck, they could have been in another dimension or not yet summoned) can take advantage of the benefit. But, clearly, the power that generated the benefit was never used on them.

I see where you're going with this; but Mark of Healing does not work on allies targetted by healing-keyword powers, it works on allies that you use a power on. I agree that CS doesn't have the best of interpretations here, but the feat text doesn't unequivocally refer to targets, merely the more generic notion of "using".

Colloquially, you're clearly using the power to affect your ally, so in a sense you're using the power on that ally and not just on the target.

So, while my first instinct would have been not not apply the feat's benefit to non-targets, it's not a clearcut case.

The concept that using a power on something is equivalent to targetting that something must have consequences elsewhere too. Does anyone have any examples? They may help deciding what's the best ruling.

 

[bganon]

I'm not sure, would that be the case? The Player's Guide (using House Lyrandar as an example) says your mark "is a direct manifestation of the Prophecy and has nothing to do with the bloodline of the house" and they simply "would not claim you." I don't have the campaign guide, which might say more.

The ECS elaborates slightly, but the basic idea is in that case they really don't know what to do with you. I think "would not claim you" really means "deathly afraid of even being thought to be associated with you". Keep in mind that in the setting, mixing dragonmark bloodlines lead to a horribly bloody conflict in the past, and the Houses were set up specifically to avoid another one.

So one option is that the House leaves you alone, pretends you don't exist, and hopes the feeling is mutual. Another is that the House sends assassins after you. Of course, they can always do both

Anyway, in terms of everyday RP drawback... I think having a mark not associated with your race could be almost as bad as an aberrant mark, as far as how common folk would react to you.

 

[Destil]

I'd be tempted to not allow it as written, as if you do it makes Astral Seal the better version of two other at wills, minus damage (the defense hit will make up for that).

Then again, Mark of Healing is one of a very small number of feats (5 I think right now) that I've been tempted to muck with for power level concerns, and the only dragonmarked feat in the group (I'd most likely make it a +2 feat bonus to healing granted when you heal someone and they spend a surge per tier)...

 

[DracoSuave]

But they should be wrong here... as pointed out, the power states a different thing... if it was worded in this way: "if an ally is granted healing by one of your healing powers..." then of course it would work but here: no!

Wrong.

Astral Seal is a power with the healing keyword and is therefore a healing power. It, as well as the many encounter powers that say 'target an enemy but somehow affect your buddy' are all used on the ally, even if not targetting them.

Mark of Healing only cares about healing powers. It doesn't mention or affect healing, or hit point loss or gain at all.

If you had a power that had the Healing keyword that said 'Target ally gets +2 AC, and you gain 5 temporary hitpoints' then the ally is STILL GOING TO GET THE SAVING THROW.

THIS DISCUSSION JUST ENDED.

 

[Kzach]

THIS DISCUSSION JUST ENDED.

Yes sir, general, sir!

Permission to kill the dissenters, sir?!

 

[Umbran]

THIS DISCUSSION JUST ENDED.

Now, let us be clear about something.

If you don't want to take part in the discussion any more, that's just fine. But this is a public message board. You don't get to declare when others may or may not speak on a matter. Trying to do so is pretty darned rude.

On EN World, we expect our users to be polite, and to show each other a modicum of respect. If you wouldn't do it at someone else's dinner party, you probably shouldn't do it here, either.

 

[Rothe_]

If you go with "use what is the most fun for you":

I will go with not using astral seal in play at all. And even if I wound use it, I would minimize any bonuses granted for it. Healing has become absurdly powerful in 4e. Anything that is at-will surgeless healing is not the thing to make the game more fun. Even for the players, it becomes more tedious to heal and heal and heal, never to feel threatened by the loss of surges.

 

[Maelronde]

my problem with this ruling is the following:

My cleric is a full heal build. he takes nothing but healing powers and healing items.

He has mark of healing, stream of life, and saving grace. In one round, after this daily is activated, according to this CS ruling:

Astral Seal. (Heal + save)
End of turn: Roll save: Success! (Give someone a save +6, ongoing effect persists)
Beginning of next turn: Stream of life: Point at someone, they are healed. They get a save.
Astral Seal ......repeat cycle.

Completely nullifies all ongoing damage or save ends effects.
And he has compassionate healer ontop of all of this......*sigh*

Therefore, I have ruled against the OP Mark of healing interpretation. I suggest you do the same, but if your cleric isn't munchkining, it might still work out...
What do you guys think of this situation? Should I let him do this?

 

[surfarcher]

Interesting.

In my games seriously muchkining heal-bots like this will eventually run into a L+3 or L+4 encounter with intelligents (artilleries with a synergised soldier or three) that will focus-fire him the first time he pulls that in front of them. One round of good DM rolls and that heal-bot will be out.

Comes down to the fine line between good specialisation and metagaming/munchkining I guess.