D&D 5E Should Cure and Inflict Wounds should be touch spells?

[Ainamacar]

The current version of Cure Wounds already embraces the notion of casting in higher level slots for more healing. Would giving the spell touch range and building "distance spell" right into the spell for +1 or +2 levels be an acceptable compromise? Or perhaps it is the one that leaves neither of you particularly happy, especially since it means there is more than one possible use for casting a spell in a higher-level slot.

My own preference is that the more-or-less minimally useful version of the spell to be the base one (perhaps even a cantrip) and then give each one a balanced (i.e. neither too deep nor too broad) tree that the character can choose to expand upon in some way with training. "Universal" improvements like range, casting time, intensity, number of targets etc. can be baked into the spell itself, while those that depend more on the nature of the caster (domain, shared faith, special training, etc.) and don't really affect the fundamental utility of the spell can be done as feats. I like the idea that some casters learn a dozen unique spells, while others might learn only 5 but really flesh out what is possible with those 5. (This sort of thing is more common in systems with point-based character advancement, but often that is in an attempt to be a universal mix-and-match system, while here they can be a bit more tailored to individual spells or themes. Plus, it greatly reduces the need to design entire new spells from scratch every time a designer thinks of an interesting wrinkle.)

In my homebrew Heal scales from a standard action touch-based spell to a high-level minor/reaction/quickened/whatever ranged spell that affects multiple targets. A cantrip like Light starts as a minor action short-range spell that lasts for 10 minutes, but improvements include longer duration, multiple sources, light cast over greater areas, overcoming magical darkness from weaker sources, visible only within the light itself, and even cast shadows from invisible objects. Even a simple non-combat cantrip like Rapid Reading (cf. Scholar's Touch) which counts as a "single solid reading" of a few pages as a standard action scales up to a high-level version that grants perfect recall and understanding befitting "significant study" of up to many thousands of pages. In all cases the caster specifically opts-in to those extra abilities, and the basic version of each spell tends to be very simple, so I feel the increased complexity enters very gracefully.

 

[steeldragons]

The current version of Cure Wounds already embraces the notion of casting in higher level slots for more healing. Would giving the spell touch range and building "distance spell" right into the spell for +1 or +2 levels be an acceptable compromise? Or perhaps it is the one that leaves neither of you particularly happy, especially since it means there is more than one possible use for casting a spell in a higher-level slot.

Sure. I've said, multiple times now, the ranged and area versions at higher levels works fine for me. The default of the spell should be touch.

So, taking the "spell slot level" into account, something like:
Cure Wounds
1st level Healing domain. Range: Touch. Restores d8 +level hp [or whatever the increments Cure Wounds is using]
Cast in a 2nd level slot: Range Touch or can be cast up to a range of 10' + 5' per additional slot level above 2nd/heals 2d8.
Cast in a 3rd level slot: Range extends to 15'/heals 3d8/can opt to effect multiple targets within range.
Cast in a 4th level slot: Range = 20'/heals 4d8/etc...etc..."

Yeah. That works.

But for the 1st level caster (and I'd possibly argue pro any level for/in the "Basic game"), as the thread asked, "should be touch."

 

[tuxgeo]

Another option not yet mentioned in this thread: a spell similar to 3.5E's "Spectral Hand" spell.

If that were made available to clerics, they could get the benefit of casting a touch-range healing spell at longer range, but at the cost of a spell slot instead of a feat. I mention this because feats are expensive in 5E, so far in the playtest: PCs get only 4 of them in the first 10 levels (at levels 1, 3, 6, and 9), whereas in 4E PCs got 6 of them in the first 10 levels (at levels 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10). For that reason, some people might prefer to achieve ranged healing by using a spell instead of a feat. (Of course, others might not.)

The Mage Hand cantrip is already similar to Spectral Hand, so some adjustments might have to be made to keep those spells distinct.

 

[tuxgeo]

If the spells were range: touch, then there would (even should) be a feat that lets you cast them with a range (and let's say 25').

The question then becomes: "should a cleric need a feat to cast Cure Wounds with a range?"

Honestly? I'd be fine with it either way, but it wouldn't be long before people start crying "feat tax".

Tried to give XP for psychic powers; failed. (Kobold Stew makes sense too often. . . .)

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think cure and inflict spells should be touch range and not swift spells, though I would increase the amount of healing that cure spells do. It's odd to me that Inflict spells are 4 times as powerful as cure spells. I would, however, give clerics a healing word class feature, that is a swift action, heals at range, and doesn't cost daily spell slots.

 

[Li Shenron]

One reason why I prefer touch range, is because if cure spells are too easy then everybody else is going to pretend that the Cleric or Druid heals them all the time in combat, possibly leading to a more reckless way of playing combats ("we just bash because anyway someone is going to heal us").

I understand where ranged healing comes from: to lift the burdens of tactical choice and personal risk for the Cleric, as in "no more choosing between healing and doing something more interesting". But personally I say, if you think healing is boring then don't play a healer. If you play a Cleric but only want to bash, why aren't you playing a Fighter? If you play a Cleric just for the "concept", take the Priest background. If you play a Cleric because it's the most powerful class (3e) then it actually shouldn't be, if they make it the most powerful class "because otherwise nobody plays the healing" that's twice as stupid. OTOH... if someone really wanted to play a Cleric but not healing, the solution would be to get rid once and for all of that idea that all Clerics know all clerical spells: make each Cleric pick her known spells like a Wizard, and you can make a non-healing Cleric.

How about then those who want to play a healer, how is it interesting then to play a healer who heals automatically? What is the point if the choice of healing is so easy that there actually is no choice? This is not really the case of course, there still is a choice because a swift spell still uses up a valuable slot and cannot be done at the same time as another spell better than a cantrip, but there are people who basically are looking for this to come true.

All in all, beside the image (I prefer the one where the mystical healing lays her hands on you, rather than the one when it shouts something from afar), the reason why I prefer touch spells for healing is that it makes healing a more tactical choice... do you give up your position in order to help a friend in danger? You can't actually always afford to do that, and this is what makes things more interesting to me, because it makes battles more diverse. BTW if the problem is that "it's not worth" then we could always compensate by making the effects of cure wounds bigger.

 

[Sage Genesis]

One reason why I prefer touch range, is because if cure spells are too easy then everybody else is going to pretend that the Cleric or Druid heals them all the time in combat, possibly leading to a more reckless way of playing combats ("we just bash because anyway someone is going to heal us").

If there's people who suddenly become reckless in the presence of healing spells, then they are not the sort of people who will carefully take into account the exact range of the spell. "The cleric can heal us" is enough knowledge to make such people reckless, regardless of the spell's actual range.

I understand where ranged healing comes from: to lift the burdens of tactical choice and personal risk for the Cleric, as in "no more choosing between healing and doing something more interesting". But personally I say, if you think healing is boring then don't play a healer. If you play a Cleric but only want to bash, why aren't you playing a Fighter?

You're excluding a huge middle here. I wager that the typical cleric player is fine with bashing, healing, and being utility, all at different times according to the game's needs and his own moods. The problem sets in when other people's actions start to step on your toes. Imagine if the barbarian gets told that he can't rage right now because of something the wizard did. That would be unreasonable. And yet we expect cleric players not only to mop up after others, but apparently we also want it to be as difficult and unforgiving a job as it can be.

How about then those who want to play a healer, how is it interesting then to play a healer who heals automatically? What is the point if the choice of healing is so easy that there actually is no choice? This is not really the case of course, there still is a choice because a swift spell still uses up a valuable slot and cannot be done at the same time as another spell better than a cantrip, but there are people who basically are looking for this to come true.

As you said, in a system where healing has a daily limit, there are always choices to be made. I'm not sure what this paragraph is supposed to accomplish, other than rallying against some hypothetical people who don't seem to participate in this discussion.

All in all, beside the image (I prefer the one where the mystical healing lays her hands on you, rather than the one when it shouts something from afar), the reason why I prefer touch spells for healing is that it makes healing a more tactical choice... do you give up your position in order to help a friend in danger? You can't actually always afford to do that, and this is what makes things more interesting to me, because it makes battles more diverse. BTW if the problem is that "it's not worth" then we could always compensate by making the effects of cure wounds bigger.

Making cure spells heal more rewards the out-of-combat heals disproportionally though.

Anyway, healing is already a tactical choice, as we touched upon earlier. Especially since you can't combine healing with other spellcasting. There comes a point where "more interesting" becomes "too interesting", as in the ancient Chinese curse.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How about then those who want to play a healer, how is it interesting then to play a healer who heals automatically? What is the point if the choice of healing is so easy that there actually is no choice?

I suppose the question is answered as this: if you want to play a "healer" that only does so via touch attack, why do you need the rules to force you to do it (as well as force every other player of D&D to do so as well?) You could just as easily choose to voluntarily (because of how you flavor your character and his story) only cast at touch range. Why don't you do it?

I believe it's because we all have egos, and we're afraid of looking stupid in front of our fellow players by taking "unoptimal" choices.

It's the same mistaken idea that had "forced" so many players of 4E to do nothing but spend their initial feats on Weapon Expertise. That feat was "so much better" than all the others, so players felt like they had to take it, otherwise they were stupid. Their egos would not let them NOT optimize.

Having Cure spells be Range 25 feet and thus asking those Cleric players who want to heal only via touch attack to subsume their ego to make a character choice to only cast that way... is something most players I suspect will be unwilling to do. Their egos can't handle it (even under the umbrella of "character choice") As a result... they want the game to FORCE everyone to cast just like they do and make the spell Range: Touch. That way, they can play the way THEY want, without needing to take the ego hit that comes with "playing unoptimally". But when you do that... you exclude hundreds of thousands of players who don't want to play like you do. Hell... it's already hard enough to get players to play the Cleric as is... forcing them now to do so with even a smaller amount of options is not solving the problem.

I do think the spells should be Range: 25 feet because both sides can "play within the rules". Those who want to cast at range are allowed to. Those who want to cast via Touch also are allowed to (because Range: Touch is an allowable distance under Range" 25 feet). Whereas Range: Touch doesn't allow both sides to "play within the rules" and instead you are asking DMs to houserule the spells in order to give players who want ranged Cures to have them. Range: 25 feet is inclusive of playstyles without asking them to houserule-- Range: Touch is exclusive.

But now here's the rub: I actually have no problems with the spells actually giving a bonus to those who voluntarily choose to cast via Touch. And unlike some other ideas that have come up... I wouldn't put a cost onto this bonus. No needing to spend a feat to get it... no needing to use a higher level spell, or any of that stuff. Instead, something as simple in the description as "If the Cleric chooses to cast this spell via Touch rather than at range, they gain a +1 bonus to AC until the end of their next turn and their movement in this round does not provoke Opportunity Attacks." Voila! The player can voluntarily "nerf" themselves by only casting via Touch (if that's how they see their Cleric PC behaving) and getting something a little extra for doing so. And you still have the ranged option for all the other players out there at no cost either.

That to me is the best of both worlds, and is the most inclusive option available.

 

[Li Shenron]

If there have to be both versions of the spell, +1 to AC doesn't balance the touch version at all, it feels like a joke.

One way to handle this problem is a nice sidebar telling that the DM will choose which is the version to use, or both, but if both can be used (meaning that the DM decides that it's up to each player) then they need a balancing factor.

Perhaps they would be fairly balanced together if the touch version and the ranged version had roughly a 2/1 ratio of HP healed. For example someone suggested that the touch version maximizes the roll automatically. I would prefer just that it healed twice as many HD worth of HP or alternatively a twice as large HD.

A feat tax is not a nice way to handle this, and a feat tax to gain the more difficult version of the spell is just stupid. Since a feat is a cost, it should open up the more convenient, more powerful, or more versatile version of something.

In any case, if only one version can be in the game, I think tradition should always take precedence.

 

[tuxgeo]

If there have to be both versions of the spell, +1 to AC doesn't balance the touch version at all, it feels like a joke.

One way to handle this problem is a nice sidebar telling that the DM will choose which is the version to use, or both, but if both can be used (meaning that the DM decides that it's up to each player) then they need a balancing factor.

Perhaps they would be fairly balanced together if the touch version and the ranged version had roughly a 2/1 ratio of HP healed. For example someone suggested that the touch version maximizes the roll automatically. I would prefer just that it healed twice as many HD worth of HP or alternatively a twice as large HD.

A feat tax is not a nice way to handle this, and a feat tax to gain the more difficult version of the spell is just stupid. Since a feat is a cost, it should open up the more convenient, more powerful, or more versatile version of something.

In any case, if only one version can be in the game, I think tradition should always take precedence.

One compromise has already been tried: in the May packet, there were both Cure Light Wounds and Healing Word as 1st-level spells; HW only healed 1d6 HP at range up to 50 feet, while CLW healed 1d8+(modifier) HP at touch range. Would something of that sort appeal to you, if both spells scaled by level? (It wouldn't require any feat tax. . . .)