[Proposal] - Healing's Word back as Divine Power

[stonegod]

It Pacifist Healing too powerful?
- It adds Cha (a Cleric secondary, and thus scaling) and scaling dice
- In trade, it encourages not to attack enemies (roughly) half the time.

The question is if this is a balanced trade off? I'm not so sure. The healing on average is:
- Pacifist @ 5th: 1d6+3 x 2 = 2d6+6 = <13> (assume Cha 16 @ 1st, so Cha 17 @ 5th)
- Monster @ 5th: 2d6+6 = <13>*0.5 (assume hits 50%) = <6.5>

- Pacifist @ 11th: 2d6+4 x 2 = 4d6+8 <22>
- Monster @ 11th: 2d8+9 @ 50% = <9>

- Pacifist @ 16: 2d6 + 5 x 3 = 6d6+15 = <36>
- Monster @ 16: 3d8 + 11 @ 50% = <11.5>

So, the question is, does not attacking after bloodied mean the monster takes twice as long to kill? Lets say it does, meaning the average damage from that monster done before it dies is twice the number above. Well, after 5th level, Pacifist Healing is always a win: At 11th, you gain 4hp; at 16, 13; etc. And note, this is just from Pacifist, not from any of the other Healing Buffs (Healer's Implement, Healer's Lore which is already based off the key stat). From this stand-point, I don't see balance: I see a definite edge to the PC. And note, my assumption that one person not attacking a bloodied enemy double's its lifetime is very optimistic (really, it should just have its lifetime increased by at most 4/5 if you assume everyone contributes damage evenly in a 5 person party, which itself is a stretch). Nor does this factor in other healing powers the PC has, which will make the healing:hurt ratio even more one sided.

A feat should give an advantage, but not such an overwhelming one. I agree with Velmont and KD that the problem is with the feat, not with Healing Word. However, putting Healing Word back the way it was w/ no change does not address the problem. [It also opens up the weird interaction between Primal powersource/Druids and Divine/Healing Word which hasn't been discussed]

At this juncture, I am going to vote No. I am open to ideas to balance the feat, but putting things back they way they were is not a fix.

 

[KarinsDad]

At this juncture, I am going to vote No. I am open to ideas to balance the feat, but putting things back they way they were is not a fix.

One possibility is to remove a D6 from the feat and put Healing Word back to a Divinity power.

Pacifist Healer in that model would still be VERY potent.

For example, Cure Critical Wounds is a 16th level Daily power that gives the PCs 3+ extra healing surges of healing per day. This is a feat that even with WotC nerf, can give the equivalent of 2+ extra healing surges of healing per encounter.

When a nerfed heroic feat is still more potent than a 16th level power, then something is wrong.

If we drop a D6 from the feat, it would still be CHA extra healing per healing surge. In a party of 5 with 45+ total healing surges where most heals are used with powers from the healing Cleric (and not Second Winds), we're easily talking CHA * 35 hit points per day. With a CHA mod of 4 like River, that's up to 140 hit points (8+ healing surges) per day. Still powerful, but not as powerful as the original unnerfed feat.


But the easiest solution is to just use WotC's solution and not change it at all. That way, we don't have an LEB house rule.

 

[KarinsDad]

Late last night, I realized the reason why WotC fixed this the way they did.

With the original Pacifist Healer feat, the healing was:

Healing Word: surge + items + other feats + yD6 + Cha + xD6 + Wis
Other Powers: surge + items + other feats + yD6 + Cha

From WotC's perspective, it is only Healing Word that has the problem (although other powers do area effect healing). And the problem is the extra normal healing that Clerics automatically get with Healing Word (i.e. xD6 + Wis). The amount of healing for Healing Word becomes very large with the original rule.

So, they wanted it to be:

Healing Word: surge + items + other feats + xD6 + Wis
Other Powers: surge + items + other feats + yD6 + Cha

They wanted all of the heal powers to have similar maximums.

 

[renau1g]

*phew* good thing they realized their mistake after selling pretty much all of the Divine Power books they'll sell I mean, imagine if shortly after release they realized it and then people might not buy splat books...and they wonder why I refuse to buy any of their new player material.

 

[KarinsDad]

*phew* good thing they realized their mistake after selling pretty much all of the Divine Power books they'll sell I mean, imagine if shortly after release they realized it and then people might not buy splat books...and they wonder why I refuse to buy any of their new player material.

Yeah. Heaven forbid that they actually carefullly examine any new feat, power, or item BEFORE printing it.

Have you seen the Essentials PCs?

The Thief almost always has combat advantage, regardless of circumstances. He does more DPR than a Ranger (the previous typical king with Twin Strike).

With the proper build, a Slayer can be +13 to hit for a charge and +10 to hit with normal attacks at first level.

Power creep just keeps on coming and WotC still doesn't sit down and do the math.

 

[renau1g]

I think they lack anyone there who makes competent PC's ... They should bring in some of the CharOp'ers to help playtest under an NDA and that would really help them out I think...

 

[Velmont]

I find it personally very hard to see the true impact of that feat because it change the strategy and the roleplay. The reason I made this proposal is because I see many different opinions on the subject and I even see some house ruling in a game to keep the Pacifist benefit on the Healing Word power of the cleric.

Whatever the judges choose, at least things will be clear for everyone.

 

[renau1g]

Unless Evo & Kal comes back from their breaks it's not going to pass Vel. Even if evilbob voted yes, it would still be 2-2...On the plus side, Moonwatch doesn't have too much left so you can decide what to do following this last leg.

 

[evilbob]

Sorry I'm late to the party, and I don't care what this does or does not mean to the proposal, but I do vote YES. Seems reasonable, and I don't think it's overpowered (r1's point about longer PbP encounters is a good one).

Seeing as how we're at a bit of an impasse, it may also be wise (in another thread) to come up with a way to break 2-2 ties. At this point we have 4 judges and at least 3 have to agree for something to pass, which honestly makes it a bit difficult. The best solution is probably to get (or reactivate) at least one more judge - odd numbers are always best in voting - but maybe there's another way? I am not sure.

 

[Velmont]

Why I made this proposal is because I have seen a DM house ruling that he will keep the bonus for the adventure and the judge would have approved such homemade rule (this was in L4W).

If some people agree and other doesn't agree, I think it is a good thing to discuss it and make it clear for everyone. Worst thing is to have go on two different adventure, with two DM and one character and have the surprise that you character work differently.

Houseruling is for making things simpler and help the game flow, not to boost a character power.

If the vote say no, well, it say no and I'll live with it (or without the feat, I didn't made my mind yet).