4E [Proposal] - Healing's Word back as Divine Power

Velmont

Villager
Since Divine Power is up, WotC have made many changes to debuff the Cleric (and more precisely, the Pacifist Healer). The latest update have removed the Divine tag on the Healing Power.

I think that removing first kill the flavor of it. Healing have long time been the field of divine, but now only the runepriest have a divine class feature to heal. So if healing word is no more Divine, how the cleric is doing his healing?

Second, why the Runepriest healing feature is still Divine, why the Artificer and Bard feature are still Arcane, why the Shaman power is still primal, why the Warlord feature is still Martial and why the Ardent power is still Psionic?

Also, technically talking, if the problem come from Pacifist feat, why they haven't errated the feat instead to modify Healing Word.

So I propose to give back the Divine keyword to the clearic's Healing Word.

Please note that I am making this proposal in both L4W and LEB, so you can look on the other thread to see the argumentation.
 

renau1g

Villager
I'm also in agreement Vel. I know we've spoked at length in the Moonwatch thread re: the many kicks to the groin that Pacifist's have suffered. Seems silly not to be Divine. Personally, I haven't seen it be that bad after removing the Astral Seal Healer's Lore ability. River heals more, but the trade-off is that the party is really only 4 sets of attack actions vs. another party of 5, so the damage negation by killing enemies more quickly for party #2 may or may not be around the same as the Pacifist ability.

I also vote YES
 

KarinsDad

Villager
Before voting, I think we should do the math.

Personally, I think that the problem is the Pacifist Healer's feat as well. It doesn't really limit the PC in any significant way, but gives a HUGE helping of extra healing that the Warlord and Bard and most of the other Leaders do not get.

I'll post some comparisons between various classes shortly. I am leaning on voting NO at this point, just because of how ridiculous the amount of healing with a Pacifist Healer has become.
 

Velmont

Villager
Before voting, I think we should do the math.

Personally, I think that the problem is the Pacifist Healer's feat as well. It doesn't really limit the PC in any significant way, but gives a HUGE helping of extra healing that the Warlord and Bard and most of the other Leaders do not get.

I'll post some comparisons between various classes shortly. I am leaning on voting NO at this point, just because of how ridiculous the amount of healing with a Pacifist Healer has become.
If you want to do the math, have you consider too that a death enemy doesn't deal damage? That's a good way to prevent damage by killing an enemy and the Pacifist cannot do a lot of damage, and only to non bloodied enemy unless he want to be stunned. So he is very unlikely help on that side.

Also, with monster from MM3 that will spring in some encounter from now on, those monster deals more damage than from MM1 and MM2.

Also, now it is very hard to boost none HS healing power (which I find a fair debuff), so their is still limits to the healing you can give. But I agree that in PbP, adventure generally doesn't ask to stretch your resources over many encounter.
 

renau1g

Villager
I pretty much factor River's damage at 0 when I look at a fight before springing it on you. MM3 has been a huge help. Look at the last fight. n+1 encounter that dropped 2 of you and had Rumbum pretty beat up. If the ballista's had been a bit more accurate at first it would've been far worse (shooting 2/10 on their first few attacks). You also used 2 daily's and 3 AP's, which was probably a pretty good job actually, many groups hoard resources for some reason, and yet you used 4 of River's Surges, 4 of Rumbum's, and what 3 of Pok's? So 25% of Rumbum's about 40% of River's and 50% of Pok's... despite River...
 

KarinsDad

Villager
River with original Pacifist Healer's feat: 2 Healing Words at 3d6+14, Healer's Mercy at 2d6+14 (assume 2 targets), Word of Vigor at 3d6+14 (assume 3 targets). Total average extra healing: 19d6+98 = 164

River with nerfed Pacifist Healer's feat: 2 Healing Words at 2d6+10, Healer's Mercy at d6+14 (assume 2 targets), Word of Vigor at 3d6+14. Total average extra healing: 17d6+90 = 149

River without the Pacifist Healer's feat: 12d6+70 = 112

I look at things like Weapon Focus. That might be an extra 5 hit points per encounter of damage.

I look at things like Pacifist Healer and even nerfed, that's an extra 37 points of healing per encounter. That's extremely nice for a feat.

To say that 37 extra points of healing is not enough and that the extra 52 points of healing is required is not valid from a balance POV. The feat is already powerful.

How many feats out there give an extra 30+ points of healing?

How many feats out there give an extra 30+ points of temporary hit points for that matter?

I look at the other leaders where they don't add a d6+4 at first level, instead they add either the d6 or the 4 or neither. Clerics are already the mega-healers. Do we want to encourage everyone to always play a Cleric because the other healers suck even more?


To me, the unnerfed Pacifist Healer is SO powerful that it is virtually a required feat. It's the bigger, badder, better aspect of 4E.

Note: I see this bigger, badder, better a lot. One of my players created a first level Slayer that had a +10 to hit with a normal attack, +13 with a charge, and he did striker level damage. Normal melee PCs have either a +6 or +7 to hit at first level and +7 or +8 with a charge. Increasing the chance to hit on every single attack by 15% to 25% is just wrong.

The lack of balance is getting out of hand. IMO.

I vote NO. Wotc changed this for a very good reason and I don't think we should encourage power gaming to this level.

I also don't think we should be voting in a changes here at LEB unless something is way off kilter. This is a player entitlement suggestion, not a "WotC screwed up" suggestion. WotC screwed up at first. They then fixed it. Pacifist Healer is still an extremely powerful feat, just not the mega-powerful it was before.


Note: Clerics are also getting powers like Healer's Mercy and Word of Vigor that Pacifist Healer does affect. I've been in a game where the PCs go from the edge of defeat to being nearly totally healed due to Healer's Mercy combined with Pacifist Healer (here on these boards). That's the province of a Daily power, not the province of an Encounter power. But, that's what Pacifist Healer does. It changes the Encounter heal powers into Daily heal power levels of healing, but they can still be used every single encounter.

I think Pacifist Healer makes it extremely difficult for the DM to set up an encounter here that the Cleric just waves away as "it was a challenging encounter, now it's a walk in the park, just because of one feat".
 

KarinsDad

Villager
If you want to do the math, have you consider too that a death enemy doesn't deal damage? That's a good way to prevent damage by killing an enemy and the Pacifist cannot do a lot of damage, and only to non bloodied enemy unless he want to be stunned. So he is very unlikely help on that side.
Yup. That's the balance factor for getting 30 or 40 extra points of healing per encounter out of a single feat. And, it's hardly game breaking that the Cleric focuses on non-bloodied enemies or does Astra Seal on a bloodied one. That's not THAT limiting.
 

renau1g

Villager
How many feats out there give an extra 30+ points of healing?

How many feats out there give an extra 30+ points of temporary hit points for that matter?

I look at the other leaders where they don't add a d6+4 at first level, instead they add either the d6 or the 4 or neither. Clerics are already the mega-healers. Do we want to encourage everyone to always play a Cleric because the other healers suck even more?
Elemental Empowerment probably is around the same level of damage output.

Sure, cleric's are the best healers. Been that way since day 1. Warlords are the best damage output/action granters... bard's are good at everything (like always). The spirit companion of the shaman is really cool, an awesome way to help out the front line without exposing yourself.

Really, healing is all the Pacifist is used for. He doesn't attack so yes Paficist Healer is a "required" feat for a fully dedicated healer, but really we have what? 2 in LEB? If it was the penultimate power that brought DM's to their knees I'd expect every Leader to be a Kalashter cleric, 18's in both Wis/Cha...and yet Bard is the most popular leader IIRC.... weird...:-S
 

KarinsDad

Villager
I pretty much factor River's damage at 0 when I look at a fight before springing it on you. MM3 has been a huge help. Look at the last fight. n+1 encounter that dropped 2 of you and had Rumbum pretty beat up. If the ballista's had been a bit more accurate at first it would've been far worse (shooting 2/10 on their first few attacks). You also used 2 daily's and 3 AP's, which was probably a pretty good job actually, many groups hoard resources for some reason, and yet you used 4 of River's Surges, 4 of Rumbum's, and what 3 of Pok's? So 25% of Rumbum's about 40% of River's and 50% of Pok's... despite River...
I'm not sure it is accurate to label that as an N+1 encounter just because of monster XP. The narrow terrain prevented the PCs from spreading out. The ballistas appeared to be doing enemy only area attacks. The stairs limited movement. The encounter started out with the PCs spread all over the place and they could not counterattack without multiple PCs being within an area of effect. And, you specifically targeted River. There are many reasons that this was a more difficult encounter, none of them had to do with whether River can heal an extra 15 points of healing per encounter. You put the PCs behind the eight ball before the encounter even started.

One thing that some DMs fail to notice is that terrain makes or breaks an encounter. The current encounter in Murder Most Foul has increased the difficulty of it from N-1 for creatures and traps to N+2. So, I will be handing out a terrain XP modifier. The same thing happened in the Paper Chase. The DM created narrow terrain that forced every PC to take 12 or so points of extra damage (and more for some PCs) and prevented the PCs from using several of their abilities to their advantage.

Your encounter here was increased by at least 1 due to terrain. Stuff happens in an N+2 encounter. It doesn't mean that River needs more healing. We saw from round one that it was going to be difficult due to the terrain and the area effects, so Sheeva started whipping out a Daily and an Action Point. Note: And, RumBum didn't need to use his Daily.

We still have 15 or so Dailies in the group. Faell wasn't touched and didn't use a healing surge. He's in front. :lol:
 

KarinsDad

Villager
Elemental Empowerment probably is around the same level of damage output.
Err, no. An extra 4 points of damage per hit is nowhere near 52 points of damage per encounter since that would require 13 hits. Even with area effect powers (all of the same elemental type), very few PCs hit 13 times per encounter.

And Durable at these levels is 30 extra hit points per day, not 37 (or 52) extra hit points per encounter.
 

Velmont

Villager
Yup. That's the balance factor for getting 30 or 40 extra points of healing per encounter out of a single feat. And, it's hardly game breaking that the Cleric focuses on non-bloodied enemies or does Astra Seal on a bloodied one. That's not THAT limiting.
If you compare feat for feat, sure, Pacifist Healer is powerful, but a Pacifist Healer is more than feat, it is a whole way to build and play a character. I have used Sacred Flames 3 times in this whole campaign, and I would haven't used that much if it was from that latest errata.

Personally, if would have stun a Pacifist if he deals damage, either the enemy is bloodied or not. You are either a Pacifist or not, I can't see a Half-Pacifist... River is slowly moving toward a non-Pacifist because of all the kick in the groin from WotC, but I haven't made my mind yet.

So for me, Pacifist healer, how I play it, I gained an extra 52 extra hp, but I reduce my damage to 0 and I raise the damage output from the enemy as they died more slowly. Also, some healing go to waste as you cannot heals over your maximum hp, which happen a lot more often to Pacifist Healers as they heal a lot. So the math should not be seen as a simple 52 hp, but as: (Extra healing (52) - Extra damage from enemies as they live more rounds - Wasted healing). If we do the math, I think it would be much more less than 52.

For example, in the last fight in Moonwatch, this proposal would have changed nothing to the end stats. I would have heal 10 more hp in combat for rumbum, but he would have spent anyway 4 HS at the end to be full. And he got both Healing Word. There have been a lot of healing wasted too with the last Healing Word.

If I compare it to, let's say the Strengthen Spirit of the Shaman, who gives extra Wis THP to any ally standing next to his spirit while he use his Spirit Healing feature, that could be easily a 16 or 20 extra THP, which might end as 20 HP not taken in damage, but doesn't affect anyhow his damage output or the enemy length of life.
 

renau1g

Villager
Well if we're comparing River (a level 10 cleric) with X (a level 1 genasi blaster) then sure ;)

PbP tend to have larger encounters, therefore the encounter healing powers are expected to stretch longer than normal. So, if we were in a tabletop game, sure it might be a big difference, but in a PbP, I really don't think it's a big deal. It's fine though, we all have different opinions. Although your math doesn't account for the enemy's DPR reduction from say a Taclord "wielding" a striker as the enemy dies much faster (as well as the Taclord greatly increasing his allies DPR with his AP mechanic)
 

KarinsDad

Villager
If you compare feat for feat, sure, Pacifist Healer is powerful, but a Pacifist Healer is more than feat, it is a whole way to build and play a character. I have used Sacred Flames 3 times in this whole campaign, and I would haven't used that much if it was from that latest errata.

Personally, if would have stun a Pacifist if he deals damage, either the enemy is bloodied or not. You are either a Pacifist or not, I can't see a Half-Pacifist... River is slowly moving toward a non-Pacifist because of all the kick in the groin from WotC, but I haven't made my mind yet.

So for me, Pacifist healer, how I play it, I gained an extra 52 extra hp, but I reduce my damage to 0 and I raise the damage output from the enemy as they died more slowly. Also, some healing go to waste as you cannot heals over your maximum hp, which happen a lot more often to Pacifist Healers as they heal a lot. So the math should not be seen as a simple 52 hp, but as: (Extra healing (52) - Extra damage from enemies as they live more rounds - Wasted healing). If we do the math, I think it would be much more less than 52.
Sorry, but I see a lot of your counterargument here to be inaccurate and a bit self serving.

1) If so much healing is wasted as you claim, why do you need to add more healing which will just often be wasted?

2) It's a personal choice to lower River's damage to 0. You choose to often do this, but that doesn't mean that this is a limitation of the feat. The feat is not limited in this way, your interpretation of the PC is. That doesn't mean that the feat is not still broken as originally written and isn't broken for other PCs like Knoepf.

3) How many encounters has River been in? How many times has he been stunned? How much has the minor limitation of Pacifist Healer actually limited River?


Everyone wants to take the cool feats. But sometimes, the cool feats are broken. I personally think that you are not being objective about balance here, but rather subjective.


And to me, the important thing about proposals on LEB which deal with PC power level is that the proposal be balanced. I do not think this one is. I think this is an attempt for "bigger, badder, better".

The argument that MM3 has monsters that do more damage is also not an issue here. That's a factor for every PC and every party here, not just healers. And most parties do not have Leaders that can do anything about it anyway. Why should Clerics be unique in this respect?

The game was already too easy, especially for the min maxed PCs found here at LEB. We shouldn't have an arms race of damage vs. healing here at LEB.

The next proposal will be to improve healing of Bards. Then of Warlords. Where does it end?

If WotC would have balanced Pacifist Healer in the first place, you wouldn't be making this proposal since you wouldn't have had that "taste of extra healing power" to begin with. You would have been content with the status quo of Cleric healing balance with other Leader balance, but now you claim that WotC kicked your PC in the groin.

Every PC I ever ran took a nerf from WotC updates. I'm not here trying to undo that. I just accept it and move on, especially when I realize how the update actually balances the game.

You see this as a kick in the groin. I see it as the appropriate steps taken because the feat was WAY overly broken in the first place. It's all based on POV.
 

KarinsDad

Villager
Well if we're comparing River (a level 10 cleric) with X (a level 1 genasi blaster) then sure ;)

PbP tend to have larger encounters, therefore the encounter healing powers are expected to stretch longer than normal. So, if we were in a tabletop game, sure it might be a big difference, but in a PbP, I really don't think it's a big deal. It's fine though, we all have different opinions. Although your math doesn't account for the enemy's DPR reduction from say a Taclord "wielding" a striker as the enemy dies much faster (as well as the Taclord greatly increasing his allies DPR with his AP mechanic)
No doubt. Ruinpriests suck at healing, but give extra damage and defense to allies that Clerics typically do not.

It cannot be compared in a bubble which is why I mostly focused on River with the original feat, with the updated feat, and without the feat.

But are you claiming that the feat at an extra 37 points of healing for an encounter is underpowered?

Does it need a boost?

Does it need 52 extra points of healing per encounter for it to be a decent feat?

Or is it at 37 extra points of healing, already a very good feat?

I'm not quite sure I understand why you support the proposal. You seem to be arguing that 37 extra points of healing (more at higher levels) per encounter isn't enough.

I'd like your explanation as to why you think that this isn't enough extra healing for a single feat.
 

KarinsDad

Villager
By the way, I would be ok with this proposal as:

Add Divine back to Healing Word plus remove Charisma from Pacifist Healer.

OR

Add Divine back to Healing Word plus remove the D6s of healing from Pacifist Healer.


Either of these would be balanced.

Removing Charisma from Pacifist Healer is the fix that WotC should have put in to balance the feat. They shouldn't have touched Healing Word.
 

Velmont

Villager
1) If so much healing is wasted as you claim, why do you need to add more healing which will just often be wasted?
Half of teh time, that healing can go to waste, but half of the time, it might come handy. Just like a feat that give extra damage might do useless damage. Will it prevent you to take it? Some other time, it is useful. It's just how you make your math sounds, it is like if 52hp is the norm. What I tell you, 52hp is way above the average.

2) It's a personal choice to lower River's damage to 0. You choose to often do this, but that doesn't mean that this is a limitation of the feat. The feat is not limited in this way, your interpretation of the PC is. That doesn't mean that the feat is not still broken as originally written and isn't broken for other PCs like Knoepf.
Sure, anyone can abuse of any loophole. But what I have seen from RIver, Knoepf and Minarath, the three together have done a very lot less less damage than Hadrak, a none Pacifist healer. I think that player are making there Pacifist true Pacifist and not Half-Pacifist.

3) How many encounters has River been in? How many times has he been stunned? How much has the minor limitation of Pacifist Healer actually limited River?
The whole time... I never been stunned because I build my character around that feat, but there is some power I find much more interesting than the few that doesn't deal damage, but I don't take them because they deal damage and that is against the spirit of River. I would rather take Divine Glow as my 1st level encounter power over any of the no damage dealing ones. So you might not see it, but each time I look at River stats, I see the sacrifice I must do. I even didn't took at first Consecrated Ground daily the first time because it was dealing damage. But as WotC are slowly killing my whole concept, I have started to take more aggresive power.
 

KarinsDad

Villager
I think that player are making there Pacifist true Pacifist and not Half-Pacifist.
From a roleplaying perspective, this argument doesn't even make sense.

A true pacifist wouldn't head out with a bunch of adventurers and say "Hey. It's ok if YOU kill enemies right and left, just as long as I don't get my hands bloody.". Such a PC concept is irrational. A true pacifist would try to convince adventures to not go out and fight/kill foes at all. If he couldn't, he wouldn't associate with them. You are running your PC like someone opposed to the Japanese Whaling, but goes on board the ship with them and helps them haul in the carcasses.

Helping others to kill is nowhere near the definition of a pacifist. River isn't a "true pacifist". He's a killer. He just happens to help others do it for him.

You choose to roleplay your PC the way you do. But the feat isn't designed to enforce that on any given PC. That's your choice.

PS. All PCs are killers. Their entire careers are spent "breaking and entering", "murdering", and "stealing". Yes, the players and PCs justify it a lot of different ways, but for all intents and purposes, PCs have a huge body count and end up robbing and killing all types of foes, and often end up getting into battles with very little provocation.

A pacifist player character is an oxymoron. No different than deafening silence or military intelligence.

The whole time... I never been stunned because I build my character around that feat, but there is some power I find much more interesting than the few that doesn't deal damage, but I don't take them because they deal damage and that is against the spirit of River. I would rather take Divine Glow as my 1st level encounter power over any of the no damage dealing ones. So you might not see it, but each time I look at River stats, I see the sacrifice I must do. I even didn't took at first Consecrated Ground daily the first time because it was dealing damage. But as WotC are slowly killing my whole concept, I have started to take more aggresive power.
Again, choice.

That is a roleplaying choice.

I don't see why every Pacifist Healer PC at LEB should get a boost in healing because you decided to run your PC the way you do.


I don't see the need to change the rules to satisfy the way you want to roleplay your PC.

I had a Pacifist Healer Dwarf with Divine Glow and Light of Arvandor. I roleplayed him that he had no problem doing damage to foes. He only had a problem with risking killing them himself. He wasn't a pacifist, he was just adverse to killing foes himself. Just because the word pacifist is (misleadingly) in the name of the feat doesn't mean that anyone should play their PC that way (and by that way, I mean a PC that refuses to damage foes).

And even then, the Dwarf would have been stunned if he used either of these powers against a bloodied foe. So, he didn't. I still roleplayed him (in combat) to choose to not attack and potentially kill bloodied foes.

So just like River, this Dwarf was never stunned. It has nothing to do with not taking powers that do damage. It has to do with target and power selection at certain points in the encounter.


You have yet to specify a reason why the extra healing should be allowed.

You have yet to specify a reason why WotC has unbalanced the feat and destoyed the entire concept of pacifist clerics.


If you really want Healing Word to be Divine, why don't you change the proposal to drop Charisma out of the Pacifist Healer feat as well? That way, River can use it with Healing Word and he also won't unbalance the feat.
 

renau1g

Villager
So we have two judges weighed in. [MENTION=36973]stonegod[/MENTION] and [MENTION=9789]evilbob[/MENTION] to vote. If either vote no the proposal is defeated. If both vote yes it will pass.
 

KarinsDad

Villager
So we have two judges weighed in. [MENTION=36973]stonegod[/MENTION] and [MENTION=9789]evilbob[/MENTION] to vote. If either vote no the proposal is defeated. If both vote yes it will pass.
Yes, we've probably beat this horse to death.


One other math point though. River is level 10. He will probably be level 11 within the next two or three months.

At level 10, the feat is approximately 37 extra points of healing as is and approximately 52 extra points of healing if the proposal passes for River.

At level 11, the feat is approximately 55 extra points of healing as is and approximately 77 extra points of healing if the proposal passes for River.

The feat as written with appropriate powers is 2 to 3 free healing surges worth of healing at heroic and 3 to 4 free healing surges at paragon per encounter (depending on which PC gets the healing). Velmont's proposal makes this 3 to 5 free healing surges worth of healing at heroic and 4 to 6 free healing surges at paragon per encounter.

Compared to Durable which is 2 free healing surges per day, Pacifist Healer is already a huge amount of free healing (easily 10 or more surges) per day.
 

Advertisement

Top