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

[Gadget]

I don't think it is primarily a "Staying out of melee" feature either. It is more of a "Just because you chose cleric doesn't mean you should be expected to spend most of your actions in combat running around healing people" feature.

 

[MoonSong]

Not to be a fifth wheel here, but: "Staying out of melee" is not the only purpose of ranged healing. Framing this issue as "do the clerics have to enter melee or not?" is an oversimplification: it doesn't cover all the possibilities.

What if the fighter misses a perception check or a Wisdom check to notice a pit trap and falls in, taking enough damage from spikes or rats or snakes (or whatever) to fall unconscious? Is the cleric going to have to climb down into the pit to heal the fighter back to consciousness so the fighter can climb out? Right now, the "Cure Minor Wounds" cantrip in 5E Next allows enough ranged healing to avoid that; but if all healing is made touch range, the cleric is going to have to drop into the pit to get the fighter out.

That's merely one scenario where there are more considerations beyond "enter melee" or "don't enter melee." Further scenarios could be imagined. It isn't entirely that simple.

Yes, yes one thousand and one times yes. That kind of situations are the ones a dedicate healer lives for, those are the time to shine. Those situations enable heroic acts for support classes. Ranged healing takes that away. What is more heroic? I climbed down risking my life to bring you up (alternatively the whole party teamed up to bring you up in order to heal you) or I sneezed and brought you back to consciousness? (I know it looks like I'm missing the point, but the picture you painted was far from being an unpleasant and undesirable situation)

 

[I'm A Banana]

What if the fighter misses a perception check or a Wisdom check to notice a pit trap and falls in, taking enough damage from spikes or rats or snakes (or whatever) to fall unconscious? Is the cleric going to have to climb down into the pit to heal the fighter back to consciousness so the fighter can climb out? Right now, the "Cure Minor Wounds" cantrip in 5E Next allows enough ranged healing to avoid that; but if all healing is made touch range, the cleric is going to have to drop into the pit to get the fighter out.

Sure, but there's not One Right Answer to that.

For some folks, ranged healing means that fighter doesn't die and thus yay.

For other folks, melee healing means you have to go down into the pit to help, giving an interesting strategic choice and factoring a risk into the healing.

Ranged healing as a spell option sounds cool, but I'm not so sure about it being the default. I have no problems with a Healing Word spell that heals some HP at range. I'm a little iffy on making the Cure Wounds spells ranged automatically. Bleh.

I don't think it is primarily a "Staying out of melee" feature either. It is more of a "Just because you chose cleric doesn't mean you should be expected to spend most of your actions in combat running around healing people" feature.

Nah, but neither should they be expected to spend most of their actions in combat standing at a distance and healing people. Or healing people at all, really, if they don't want to.

 

[Minigiant]

With D&D Next using "spontaneous casting" and "scale to slot" magic, I can really seeing there being multiple types of healing. Why should there be so few healing spells with limited variables before high levels? I liked the Cure Wounds/Healing Word split of the first playtest.

A touch healing spell, a ranged healing spell, and an item healing spell (like goodberry) could all be included and find their mechanical and narrative niches.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip >
(I know it looks like I'm missing the point, but . . . < snip >

The "pit" wasn't the point -- so, yes, you're actually right about not missing the point.

The point was that these situations are not dichotomous. That is to say, it's not a case of "one or the other" -- it's not "either in melee or out of it."

cognate
pbs

 

[steeldragons]

What if the fighter misses a perception check or a Wisdom check to notice a pit trap and falls in, taking enough damage from spikes or rats or snakes (or whatever) to fall unconscious? Is the cleric going to have to climb down into the pit to heal the fighter back to consciousness so the fighter can climb out?

Yes. Yes they should.

Right now, the "Cure Minor Wounds" cantrip in 5E Next allows enough ranged healing to avoid that; but if all healing is made touch range, the cleric is going to have to drop into the pit to get the fighter out.

Well, if the cantrip lets them avoid it, then bully. If they need a Cure Wounds (non-cantrip) then, yes, they need to go down.

That's merely one scenario where there are more considerations beyond "enter melee" or "don't enter melee." Further scenarios could be imagined. It isn't entirely that simple.

I'm not overly concerned with whether they enter melee of not. It creates a dramatic situation if they have to. But it's not lik 'because I have access to healing spells, I am automatically "forced" [BY THE GAME] to have to go into melee." That's just nonsense. Rushing to the aid of an ally, in combat, out of combat, climbing own into the pit...these are the meat and potatoes of being a "healer cleric"....if you're and "arcanist cleric" or a "battle/war cleric" or a dozen other kinds of clerics...that's not your concern. But if you're a "healer" cleric then, yes, you rush into danger, heroically, to do what it is your deity called you to do.

 

[Li Shenron]

It is more of a "Just because you chose cleric doesn't mean you should be expected to spend most of your actions in combat running around healing people" feature.

Honestly this is quite much what I expect if play a Cleric in a game of D&D.

D&D Clerics have always been melee types, that's why they always got more HP and better armor profs than thief-types and mage-types, and why their best or most useful spells (at least at low-mid levels) have been touch spells. And this despite the fact that both IRL and in fantasy literature priests, shamans and religious figures are not usually combat characters, but D&D Clerics have always been fair melee combatants with buffing & healing powers.

 

[Gargoyle]

Most clerics have proficiency with heavy armor. They should not fear wading into melee. The ones that do not have such proficiency are compensated with other abilities...the player can decide whether those compensations are worth it to them.

So since clerics are primarily a melee class and I like the idea of a combat medic fearlessly wading into danger, I voted touch.

 

[Kobold Stew]

You are a cleric, and healing spells have range: touch. Your deity grants you either proficiency in armour or the Distant Spell feat. Which do you choose?

This cuts through all the ambiguity for me, and everyone plays the cleric they want.

With the current deities, I'd suggest Trickster, Reaper, Lightbringer, and Arcanist get the feat. The others could have either proficiency in all armours or light and medium armour and shields. Variations, and a recognition of different play styles, while still maintaining the diversity of the DDN Cleric.

 

[Gadget]

Nah, but neither should they be expected to spend most of their actions in combat standing at a distance and healing people. Or healing people at all, really, if they don't want to.

The point is that they don't have to spend actions, it is a swift action spell. All you give up is the opportunity to cast another spell or activate a magic item. You can still be 'layin down the smack' while keeping Mr. wounded up and going. If you have to stop, move to wherever the wounded person is, then touch them while casting the spell, that's pretty much all you're doing. It is a direct response to the 'Well, somebody's got to play the cleric' syndrome that people have complained about for quite a while. Just like Codzilla was. Now I don't think that it is the ideal solution myself, I would prefer that in combat healing was much more rare and less necessary, but that's not going to happen. I think there may be some emergent game play problems with this version that I haven't seen yet, but to discuss the issue without acknowledging the, IMHO, primary motivation for the change is not overly productive.