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

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I think this is the easiest/best compromise myself. Each Cleric deity gets either Armor Proficiency or the Distant Spell feat. Solves all the problems for everyone except for the few players who have an entirely myopic view of what a Cleric should be and is unwilling to compromise. Thankfully... the game tends to just tell them to get used to disappointment.

 

[tuxgeo]

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.

That would leave open the possibility of taking the armor (through choice of deity), but then also taking the Distant Spell feat at 1st level (as the PC's 1st-level feat) -- thus avoiding "the ambiguity" entirely. (I'm sure that you had already considered that, and had simply neglected to mention it explicitly.)

Tell me again: what perceived problem was that supposed to resolve?

 

[Minigiant]

Why not just have the 2 spells?

Cure Wounds: Touch, Heal 1d8+X
Healing Word: 25ft, Heal 1d6

Heavy clerics would choose Cure Wounds as they can afford to get in the fray. Light clerics would sacrifice total healing for range. And a nonLifegiver cleric can prepare both if they want to waste 2 preparations.


But it's Inflict Wounds that I do not like as ranged. And I want Cure Wounds and Inflict Wounds being living/undead flips of each other.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Um.

Well, I was addressing the ranged/touch issue, not the action/no action issue.

But I think they can be solved the same way. Heal at touch with an action? Big HP. Heal at range without an action? A bit of HP. Heck, a Healing Word spell could be not-an-action, just like it kinda-sorta was in 4e. Maybe even have proportional healing (25% of your maximum HP! hahahahaha).

Why ISN'T that an awesome solution, I wonder...

 

[Rhenny]

I prefer touch for all inflict and the better cure spells, but I wouldn't mind if there were less effective spells that cured and inflicted wounds at a distance. It could become another choice for a cleric.

 

[gyor]

I'm okay with how they did it and see absolutely no reason to make it touch. I don't want a nerf distance verison.

If some of you prefer it be touch just decide not to use it unless your with in touch range. Problem solved.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm okay with how they did it and see absolutely no reason to make it touch. I don't want a nerf distance verison.

If some of you prefer it be touch just decide not to use it unless your with in touch range. Problem solved.

It just isn't that simple, having only a strong ranged version completely kills the melee healer, just ignoring it could work at range doesn't solve anything, actually the opossite, without an additional benefit to touch healing, such kind of character becomes a highly disruptive one.

The following situation has come up often on different editions:

My character (the healer) is separated from an ally by a decent amount of hostile creatures, said ally is practically surrounded by enemies and has suffered a very strong attack last round. I need to heal him, so:

Case 1. Only touch healing exists.
The only way to heal my ally is by getting to him, so it means I have to move towards him and risk getting hurt from one or more enemy attacks, however said ally sure will be gratefull to be healed.

Case 2. Ranged and touch healing coexist, touch healing is stronger
I have to make a decision, want to remain safe even if it helps my ally only a little? or am I willing to take a risk and give my ally a stronger push? in this case goig there and risking damage is still worth it.

Case 3. Only ranged healing, or ranged and touch but both heal the same amount for the same cost.
Yeah, no matter how much you risk it to get there and use the healing with a touch, the effect is the same regardless, so what used to be an heroic act has now become a foolish waste of resources, you are risking your life over nothing.

There is also the unconscious fighter on a pit from before, with ranged healing there is zero reason to risk a climb down, if you want to do that anyway, you are just wasting table time and taking an unnecessary risk.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm okay with how they did it and see absolutely no reason to make it touch. I don't want a nerf distance verison.

If some of you prefer it be touch just decide not to use it unless your with in touch range. Problem solved.

Um.

Why not have it be touch range by default and if some of you prefer it to be ranged just give it a 25-ft range. Problem solved?

The reason you wouldn't be happy with that solution is probably the same reason most who prefer touch wouldn't be happy with your solution.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Um.

Why not have it be touch range by default and if some of you prefer it to be ranged just give it a 25-ft range. Problem solved?

The reason you wouldn't be happy with that solution is probably the same reason most who prefer touch wouldn't be happy with your solution.

Well, to be fair... only one of those versions has range and touch both be legal at the same time via the rules. The other way means a DM has to actually break the rules to allow it. So the only way to have both methods be done and by the rules is to default to Range 25 (as Range Touch falls within it).

But truth be told... so long as the rules give some methodology for both versions to exist without needing to spend something to do so (like a feat), then that's really all that needs to happen. Default it to Touch and then give a couple deities an allowable Range: 25, and we're good.

 

[airwalkrr]

I think I am okay with a range somewhere between touch and 25 feet, with the difference being based on your level. Start with a range of touch and gain 5 feet for every 5 levels or something like that.