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

[Black Knight Irios]

[...] 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).

And by placing importance and challenge on healing we're back at square-zero the healbot problem. I mean it will probably result in over 50% of the healer's actions being consumed by moving to targets and healing them. There are people who would like to play that way but there are people who like to play a more offensive (Tempus-) cleric/healer.

I had no problem playing a 4E Taclord because even though I had to heal I was able to do other things at the same time, like attacking or make my group attack.

Therefore, I argue again it would be better to allow healing to not consume your main action and not be range: touch only. I suggest to design healing spells that provide benefits when being used as your main action and by touch as a tactical option. It should be a real choice and not that one of the two uses becomes the default because it is always superior.

 

[sheadunne]

And by placing importance and challenge on healing we're back at square-zero the healbot problem. I mean it will probably result in over 50% of the healer's actions being consumed by moving to targets and healing them. There are people who would like to play that way but there are people who like to play a more offensive (Tempus-) cleric/healer.

I had no problem playing a 4E Taclord because even though I had to heal I was able to do other things at the same time, like attacking or make my group attack.

Therefore, I argue again it would be better to allow healing to not consume your main action and not be range: touch only. I suggest to design healing spells that provide benefits when being used as your main action and by touch as a tactical option. It should be a real choice and not that one of the two uses becomes the default because it is always superior.

There's no reason they can't use actions to increase or decrease spell functionality. They played around with it near the end of 3.5 with mixed success, but I like the idea for healing (and this from someone who enjoys playing a healbot).

Using 3.5 actions to present healing amounts using cure light wounds at first level. This would allow you to cast more than one cure spell in a round, but it will have less effect than casting multiple spells over several rounds.

Swift 1d4
Move 1d6 or 1d4 with range
Standard 1d8 or 1d6 with range
Full Round 1d10 or 1d8 with range

Maths can we worked out by someone else to balance.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

And by placing importance and challenge on healing we're back at square-zero the healbot problem. I mean it will probably result in over 50% of the healer's actions being consumed by moving to targets and healing them. There are people who would like to play that way but there are people who like to play a more offensive (Tempus-) cleric/healer.

I had no problem playing a 4E Taclord because even though I had to heal I was able to do other things at the same time, like attacking or make my group attack.

Therefore, I argue again it would be better to allow healing to not consume your main action and not be range: touch only. I suggest to design healing spells that provide benefits when being used as your main action and by touch as a tactical option. It should be a real choice and not that one of the two uses becomes the default because it is always superior.

I envisage the offensive cleric not healing in combat at all - it is indeed a waste of their actions, they should be doing enough damage that enemies die quickly and nobody goes down, then they get to patch up wounds after the fight.

 

[CAFRedblade]

hrmm. I liked the suggestion of the basic version being range:touch, while prepping at a higher slot adds either additional healing, or range increments, or combo of both.
lvl 1 cure is 2d6 with range touch (example, not real heal values)
lvl 2 version is either 3d6 R: Touch or 2d6 R: 5' + 5'/lvl
lvl 3 is 4d6 R: Touch, or 2d6 w/ Range 15', or 3d6 w/Range 10'
a bit more bookkeeping to initially sort out, but most people will pick certain options and go with them.

 

[Starfox]

I would rather them not be combat spells. but if they have to, being touch range maximizes the amount of danger needed to heal someone.

I feel this is how I want it too. A party should be able to do without a healer in most cases,but when it is needed, it should be heroic. Having healing ranged or as a minor action cheapens the healer role, making it a "party tax" (someone must make the sacrifice of playing the "leader") rather than a distinct role in itself.

 

[Ellington]

I want ranged healing, but maybe there could be spells that heal more that require touch for dramatic moments.

 

[darjr]

I like the bonus to touching when it can also be a ranged spell. Neat.

I worry a bit that if it's touch then the Cleric will need to be beefed up to be even more of a melee class.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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?

If a DM restricts any game system, it has the potential to get him labeled as a "jerk". But if his ego is so fragile that he can't stand the thought of standing up to his players and saying "This is how I prefer to run my campaign"... then it's a problem he needs to deal with and not something the designers of the game needs to accommodate.

My reasoning is simple-- Range: 25 feet means BOTH groups get to play within the rules with no house-ruling necessary. For a game with a strong drop-in, convention and tournament component... more allowances for different playstyles is a good thing in my opinion.

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).

But that is asking all Cleric players to play their Clerics the exact same way-- needing to get into melee range and possibly take on attacks from creatures that they themselves (especially depending on the deity they serve) are not equipped to handle. Why are we requiring the Arcanist and the Lightbringer... two classes that receive no armor or weapon proficiencies... to have to get into melee range to heal? It goes completely against who they are.

***

Now that being said... I'm always willing to look for compromise. As I've said previously, I'd have no problems if within the Cure spells it gave a normal effect when cast at Range and a bonus effect to the cleric when cast via Touch. I'd also have no problem in fact, if the Cure spells were normally listed as Range: Touch in their descriptions, but certain deities (like Arcanist or Lightbringer) granted an ability that allowed those spells to be cast at Range: 25 feet. So most Clerics would cast via touch, but a select few (the ones designed to be primarily casters and not melee combatants) could cast at range. I'd be fine with that option too. Then it'd just be up to individual DMs to not allow those deities in their campaign, or just remove those particular abilities from those deities.

 

[Tuft]

I feel this is how I want it too. A party should be able to do without a healer in most cases,but when it is needed, it should be heroic. Having healing ranged or as a minor action cheapens the healer role, making it a "party tax" (someone must make the sacrifice of playing the "leader") rather than a distinct role in itself.

This.

In 3.5 i played a sorceress pixie who had gained a bunch of touch healing through feats and Use Magic Device on cleric items. It was quite a thrill to tumble straight across the battlefield, across enemies lines, to deliver a much needed Panacea or Heal. I still remember how heroic I felt after barely making it across to touch the Fear-stricken swashbuckler with a Panacea, stopping him from running into the next room - something that would have brought down most of the high-level monsters in the dungeon on our heads... Yay!

Loving that kind of heroic healing was one of the reasons to play a leader (a bard) in our try-out 4E campaign.. and then side-effect ranged healing turned it into a snooze fest - you just topped up anyone that was 1/4-damaged to full again. It was in fact so that since people were able to trigger surges themselves (through items or what not) they even refused healing; I assume since accepting aid from someone else would make them less cool.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I worry a bit that if it's touch then the Cleric will need to be beefed up to be even more of a melee class.

Personally, I think that tethers the cleric a little too tightly to one family of spells.

A cleric can be played to be a good healer.

But not every cleric needs to prepare healing spells. A cleric should be a viable character if they cannot or do not learn, prepare, or cast any healing spells at all. "We need a healer!" needs to not be something any group ever says ever again in D&D, IMO.

The best cleric-healers may very well also be melee machines, but since not every cleric needs to be a healer, even if they were to, for some reason, make all healing touch-range only, not every cleric would need to be a melee machine.

Though I'm with you in thinking that there need to be ranged heals for those that don't want to mix it up in the melee.