Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6110314" data-attributes="member: 6689464">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,&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 6110314, member: 6689464"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification