Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6656836" data-attributes="member: 82106">It wasn't really saying you had to hit in order to heal, it was just saying you would always have a chance to make attacks instead of being stuck doing nothing BUT heal. The problem being that healing is so overwhelmingly useful that if it exists at all it will displace any other function. The 4e designers believed (and probably verified in play test) that providing an at-will healing option would instantly relegate all clerics to being nothing but hit point batteries. They certainly moderated that stance over time, so DP allows for a purely non-combat healer (though you may still have to make some attack roles to achieve every bit of healing you could possibly get). They added a number of disadvantages to this build (in fact almost the only time 4e ever put an explicit disadvantage on any mechanic) to try to prevent it from becoming so good that became factored into the game as a necessary resource. Even so they failed on the first cut, they had to issue errata to very significantly cut the healing power of Pacifist clerics later on because they were literally becoming a required element, they were just so potent. You could still focus really heavily on healing type stuff (take CLW as a daily, take the right domain, get one of several feats that improved healing, etc) and build a non-melee cleric that did attack foes but did it using divine magic instead of beating them with a mace. 5e seems to have somewhat the same pitfall going on. You now have paladins who's save granting is so vital that they are scary close to mandatory, as well as apparently the super healy bard, which sounds like you REALLY wouldn't want to do with out it either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6656836, member: 82106"] It wasn't really saying you had to hit in order to heal, it was just saying you would always have a chance to make attacks instead of being stuck doing nothing BUT heal. The problem being that healing is so overwhelmingly useful that if it exists at all it will displace any other function. The 4e designers believed (and probably verified in play test) that providing an at-will healing option would instantly relegate all clerics to being nothing but hit point batteries. They certainly moderated that stance over time, so DP allows for a purely non-combat healer (though you may still have to make some attack roles to achieve every bit of healing you could possibly get). They added a number of disadvantages to this build (in fact almost the only time 4e ever put an explicit disadvantage on any mechanic) to try to prevent it from becoming so good that became factored into the game as a necessary resource. Even so they failed on the first cut, they had to issue errata to very significantly cut the healing power of Pacifist clerics later on because they were literally becoming a required element, they were just so potent. You could still focus really heavily on healing type stuff (take CLW as a daily, take the right domain, get one of several feats that improved healing, etc) and build a non-melee cleric that did attack foes but did it using divine magic instead of beating them with a mace. 5e seems to have somewhat the same pitfall going on. You now have paladins who's save granting is so vital that they are scary close to mandatory, as well as apparently the super healy bard, which sounds like you REALLY wouldn't want to do with out it either. [/QUOTE]

Verification