Words of Power

Well, I saw no discussions about words of power, and yet I think they are a big deal! For those who don't know what I'm talking about, words of power are a new mechanic attached to the cleric class. They allow them to cast some spells as part of another action. Several spells can be casted as words of power, but most notably, cure spells can be casted like this!

To me, this is an enormous step in the right direction for the cleric class. Clerics no longer need to spend their entire turn healing, they can attack at the same time (4e style), which is fun! The fact that cure spells are now ranged makes this even better. 

What do you think about words of power?
Check out my Castlevania monsters for D&D 4e!
I really like this new mechanic and think its a huge step in the right direction. Allowing Cleric to cast supportive spells and attack or do some other non-verbal acrtion that isn't a Spell is one of the best thing that happened to the Cleric IMO.

Its definitly one of the best improvements of Packet 102912 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Yes they've got that aspect of the cleric right, it should make the class more appealing in general.
Epic fantasy action adventure! - free ebook
Very nice mechanic... most importantly it makes perfect sense that non-somatic spells require no action.

+1 for this new rule.
I agree with all of the above.   I love this alteration.   Like some have mentioned in other threads, it also paves the way for Bard Songs or Warlord spells.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

When I read this I said "Thank you ToB and 4e" I see the "Word of Power" as a change on some Crusader manuevers and Cleric prayers started. :D
The mechanic existed, in part, in the previous packet. It was in the wording "When casting this spell, the character can also make a weapon attack as part of the same action."

Now, just attaching the keyword "Word of Power" to a spell, you describe that rule. And the new rule is expanded to allow almost any action that doesn't require you to speak. Pretty clever.

My only concern is that the tiny keyword is going to be overlooked on many spells....and 3 rounds later a cleric PC will say "Oh! That cure spell was a Word of Power spell and I didn't take my extra action!" I know the burden is on the player to be aware of his own spells, but it's not incredibly obvious either. The whole rule is just 4 sentences long and hidden inside the Cleric's Divine Magic feature description. I think it needs to be displayed more prominently.

Otherwise, it's a really awesome new mechanic!

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

I loved this mechanic in iterations before this one. I loved the Healing Word spell the cleric of Moradin had in the first playtest iteration. I loved the mechanic being shoved on to Channel Divinity for a War Domain cleric in the one after.
It was pretty big, flavourful, and it allowed people who felt their party needs a healer to still fulfill that role somewhat. Without being overly specialised in it, and while still playing a character that loves to kick ass and is good at it.

I hate the mechanic now.

On pretty much every spell that works like this, it's just fine, except for the largest category of all: healing spells.

Where is that most excelent distinction previous iterations made between clerics of differing philosophies, domains, deities, you name it? Just in domain spells? So clerics who choose to focus on healing get a free healing spell to toss around while, well, kicking ass regardless? Without ever having to make that choice between getting more damage out, or keeping their party on their feet?

Of course, there's also just the matter of the flavour of the spell itself. Healing people should be a physical thing. It's a matter of life and death, after all. Something that has a huge implication on both the game world and the person being healed. Before the paladins got their grubby gauntlets on the term, this is what laying on hands meant. Forgive me, but someone saying a few words from 50 feet away doesn't carry that image for me, doesn't carry the same gravitas.

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely fine with the mechanic existing for clerics who specialise in kicking ass first, and healing as a kind of second thought. It shouldn't exist -in my opinion- for just any cleric though. It just doesn't sit right.


 
I'm a big fan of requiring cure spells to actually take your turn.  I like spending my turn on doing something to help everyone else, without also needing to make an attack.

This implementation makes it feel as though the only way to contribute to the fight is to hurt people.  It really increases the level of homogeneity among all classes.

The metagame is not the game.

I like it the way has also been added to cleric buff spells such as divine power and divine favour. Decent spells to use, buff and attack but concentration required which rules out stacking them with other buff spells.

 Cleric is probably the best class ATM not in terms of poer but how it feels. Its almost a complete class IMHO.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

One of the things I liked most about 4e was Healing Word.  I played a cleric at the 4e debut at DDXP and fell in love with it instantly.  I don't think too many people will forget that they can still attack, as it's just like having a minor action heal.  Being able to heal without having to be a walking band-aid was great.  Smacking an enemy and being able to grant a buff to an ally as a result of that attack was amazing.  4e clerics are still among my favorite classes to play of any edition; in no other edition do I find them at all compelling.

Now, what really bites, is that you can't cast a Cure spell and Lance of Faith in the same round.   Which kind of defeats the purpose unless you're a melee cleric.  So, ironically, laser clerics are actually worse at healing than melee clerics, because melee clerics don't have to feel bad about giving up an action to heal.

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book  
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

One of the improvements of this packet indeed.
Bless
Cure * Wounds
Divine Favor
Divine Power
Prayer
Sanctuary
Shield of Faith
So, ironically, laser clerics are actually worse at healing than melee clerics, because melee clerics don't have to feel bad about giving up an action to heal.


For that matter, I hate "laser clerics." I can get down with clerics varying between being walking utility/compulsion/buff/bandaidbots and walking, ironclad cudgels intent on skullbashing. I can totally get down with clerics calling down the wrath of whatever god they adhere in the form of whatever punishment said god might unleash from the heavens. (or hells as may be)
I can not for the life of me get down with clerics taking pot shots at their foes with "faithbeams" until they keel over at some point. (or more likely, until the fighter or rogue gets there)

And MindWandererB, I really understand your point. I completely understand how people like this. It's a mechanic that gets clerics approval from the group of people who really just want to cave in skulls. However, as Saelorn said, there's a group of people who like healing things as well. Or buffing. Hells, I played a completely pacifistic cleric before Exalted Deeds gave us Vow of Peace. And that character was a lot more fun than some of the more martially focussed characters I've played.

In the end though, I really believe that what a cleric should do most is espouse the creed of his chosen deity. For a cleric of Moradin, that should be walking around in full plate, for a cleric of Tempus that should be running around with the biggest weapon you might find and caving skulls in wherever you may go. But the moment I see a cleric of Ilmater, Lathander, Pelor, even Olidammara running around in full plate, smashing skulls, my suspension of disbelief breaks.
So, ironically, laser clerics are actually worse at healing than melee clerics, because melee clerics don't have to feel bad about giving up an action to heal.


For that matter, I hate "laser clerics." I can get down with clerics varying between being walking utility/compulsion/buff/bandaidbots and walking, ironclad cudgels intent on skullbashing. I can totally get down with clerics calling down the wrath of whatever god they adhere in the form of whatever punishment said god might unleash from the heavens. (or hells as may be)
I can not for the life of me get down with clerics taking pot shots at their foes with "faithbeams" until they keel over at some point. (or more likely, until the fighter or rogue gets there)

And MindWandererB, I really understand your point. I completely understand how people like this. It's a mechanic that gets clerics approval from the group of people who really just want to cave in skulls. However, as Saelorn said, there's a group of people who like healing things as well. Or buffing. Hells, I played a completely pacifistic cleric before Exalted Deeds gave us Vow of Peace. And that character was a lot more fun than some of the more martially focussed characters I've played.

In the end though, I really believe that what a cleric should do most is espouse the creed of his chosen deity. For a cleric of Moradin, that should be walking around in full plate, for a cleric of Tempus that should be running around with the biggest weapon you might find and caving skulls in wherever you may go. But the moment I see a cleric of Ilmater, Lathander, Pelor, even Olidammara running around in full plate, smashing skulls, my suspension of disbelief breaks.



Being an old hat of D&D, it is actually hard for me to get over the fact clerics are using things beyond blunt weapons, though this statement is a bit of an exaggeration.  In an attempt to make more classes appealing in 4e, WotC removed the decision between giving HP or taking HP.  And while I for one do not completely oppose the school fo thought, I would say that it removes a level of tactical thinking that I personally enjoyed.  To some, less support minded indivuals, it seems like you are sacrificing you turn for nothing, especially if you did not heal for a large amount.

Perhaps, weaker, touch or ranged heals, should allow a cleric to be able to attack, or a spell that both damages and heals would also not be bad (especially for evil clerics), but to make it so that all heals allow for a cleric to smash with his mace or shoot with his crossbow, are emulating a play style that did not mesh well with many 'loyal' cleric players from pervious editions.  And while I will admit, you have to find ways to draw in new players for a hobby to survive, you can not do that without keeping the old ones around to spread the word.
Perhaps, weaker, touch or ranged heals, should allow a cleric to be able to attack, or a spell that both damages and heals would also not be bad (especially for evil clerics), but to make it so that all heals allow for a cleric to smash with his mace or shoot with his crossbow, are emulating a play style that did not mesh well with many 'loyal' cleric players from pervious editions.



Hence my saying in my initial post that I loved how this mechanic was used in previous playtest iterations. The War Domain cleric from those got well into the mindset this mechanic stems from. Into treating damage dealing, and perhaps tanking as a prima motivator, and healing as a secondary issue that never gets in the way of dishing it out. And all this in a way that didn't step on the toes of the holy man, walking around in cloth, and most of the time just making sure his allies staid on their feet, who would out-support the ironclad any day.

The only thing that got in his way was At Will d8+4 Radiant Lance.

Oh, also: Amen brother.

To all the people who like the concept of a pacifist cleric, I think you're missing something. You're not required to use the extra action from words of power to attack, you can use it to do ANY kind of action, except casting. You can Dodge, Disengage, Disarm, Grab, Help, Hide, Hustle, Knock Down, Push...or just improvise! Plenty of stuff to do!
To all the people who like the concept of a pacifist cleric, I think you're missing something. You're not required to use the extra action from words of power to attack, you can use it to do ANY kind of action, except casting. You can Dodge, Disengage, Disarm, Grab, Help, Hide, Hustle, Knock Down, Push...or just improvise! Plenty of stuff to do!



+10!

I was just about to point this out. I think sometimes people ONLY think in terms of combat and forget that other scenarioes actually exist.

Interesting question though: Can you drink a healing potion with your extra action from Word of Power?

The rules say that drawing a potion is a free action. Word of Power specifically says you can't "activate a magic item, or do anything that requires you to speak." And technically you are neither activating the potion, nor are you required to speak while drinking it.... Cool

I guess I'd rule that you CAN'T drink the potion because you can't drink and speak simultaneously. But you COULD administer that potion to someone else though.

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

To all the people who like the concept of a pacifist cleric, I think you're missing something. You're not required to use the extra action from words of power to attack, you can use it to do ANY kind of action, except casting. You can Dodge, Disengage, Disarm, Grab, Help, Hide, Hustle, Knock Down, Push...or just improvise! Plenty of stuff to do!



That's not the point we're talking about. Or not the point I'm talking about, at least.

There's plenty of stuff to be done with that action, surely. In fact, there's almost exactly as much to be done with it as with any regular action. (barring the strange disconnect where you suddenly can't speak in a round where you cast a spell with just a verbal component, while speaking after any other spell is fine)
But that's just the point. A mechanic such as this, in my eyes, devalues the percieved value of healing. Both in the eyes of the player, and for the perspective of the character's involved. It's both relegating the entire act of healing to a thing of secondary importance - as the action is more of a second thought, on top of a main action in a round - and negating the intimacy evoked in thought and deed. - as it's now a cleric saying a few words from 50 feet away, while engaged in some other, evidently more important activity, instead of the cleric standing next to his wounded comrade, laying his hands on his injured frame and having the wounds close under them -

Also, all issues of feeling and roleplay aside, there is also the tactical aspect Ogrenomnom mentioned: healing taking no time or effort removes a very important tactical decision from the game. Do you take a round or two to heal your injured partymembers before you start running from the mob you know is coming, or do you take the head start, knowing you'll be hurting a lot if they catch up to you? Do you take another whack at the troll in hopes of bringing him down before he gets the chance to club your party's wizard again, who is standing before him looks quite staggered, as the last blow left him at 5 hp?
There is no question. You do both. You charge ahead, replacing your battlecry with a word or two in prayer so people around you magically start being revitalised while you run for your life, charge at the troll, or play a game of chess with the wizard's familiar.

What you do with the actual action is of no concern whatsoever to me. It's just the implications of having it, and of how it is achieved that irk me to no end.

Oh, and by RAW, you can drink that potion just fine. RAI, I see the spirit of your ruling, but given the disconnect I mentioned at the start, I wouldn't have an issue with someone downing a shot after casting. 
Absolutely love the mechanic, and it's one of the hold over design ideas from 4th edition that I absolutely adore.
To all the people who like the concept of a pacifist cleric, I think you're missing something. You're not required to use the extra action from words of power to attack, you can use it to do ANY kind of action, except casting. You can Dodge, Disengage, Disarm, Grab, Help, Hide, Hustle, Knock Down, Push...or just improvise! Plenty of stuff to do!



That's not the point we're talking about. Or not the point I'm talking about, at least.

There's plenty of stuff to be done with that action, surely. In fact, there's almost exactly as much to be done with it as with any regular action. (barring the strange disconnect where you suddenly can't speak in a round where you cast a spell with just a verbal component, while speaking after any other spell is fine)
But that's just the point. A mechanic such as this, in my eyes, devalues the percieved value of healing. Both in the eyes of the player, and for the perspective of the character's involved. It's both relegating the entire act of healing to a thing of secondary importance - as the action is more of a second thought, on top of a main action in a round - and negating the intimacy evoked in thought and deed. - as it's now a cleric saying a few words from 50 feet away, while engaged in some other, evidently more important activity, instead of the cleric standing next to his wounded comrade, laying his hands on his injured frame and having the wounds close under them -

Also, all issues of feeling and roleplay aside, there is also the tactical aspect Ogrenomnom mentioned: healing taking no time or effort removes a very important tactical decision from the game. Do you take a round or two to heal your injured partymembers before you start running from the mob you know is coming, or do you take the head start, knowing you'll be hurting a lot if they catch up to you? Do you take another whack at the troll in hopes of bringing him down before he gets the chance to club your party's wizard again, who is standing before him looks quite staggered, as the last blow left him at 5 hp?
There is no question. You do both. You charge ahead, replacing your battlecry with a word or two in prayer so people around you magically start being revitalised while you run for your life, charge at the troll, or play a game of chess with the wizard's familiar.

What you do with the actual action is of no concern whatsoever to me. It's just the implications of having it, and of how it is achieved that irk me to no end.

Oh, and by RAW, you can drink that potion just fine. RAI, I see the spirit of your ruling, but given the disconnect I mentioned at the start, I wouldn't have an issue with someone downing a shot after casting. 



I see where you are coming from, and I can appreciate your logic.

However, in earlier editions many clerics felt that having to choose between healing or attacking or ect. put them in a confrontation with their allies. That's why there are blog posts in the vein of "I'm the cleric not your #$%!#" Other players demanded healing and the cleric ended up spending most of the exciting encounter "watching the green bars" to use another phrase I've heard tossed around. I'm more than willing to have healing feel like less of an issue if that means it is less divisive between players.

If we could find a way to allow the cleric the decision making you want, without opening the door to players putting pressure on them to only heal, then I'm all for it. But I doubt it is possible to do this and I'd prefer to err on this side than back to the other.
To all the people who like the concept of a pacifist cleric, I think you're missing something. You're not required to use the extra action from words of power to attack, you can use it to do ANY kind of action, except casting. You can Dodge, Disengage, Disarm, Grab, Help, Hide, Hustle, Knock Down, Push...or just improvise! Plenty of stuff to do!



That's not the point we're talking about. Or not the point I'm talking about, at least.

There's plenty of stuff to be done with that action, surely. In fact, there's almost exactly as much to be done with it as with any regular action. (barring the strange disconnect where you suddenly can't speak in a round where you cast a spell with just a verbal component, while speaking after any other spell is fine)
But that's just the point. A mechanic such as this, in my eyes, devalues the percieved value of healing. Both in the eyes of the player, and for the perspective of the character's involved. It's both relegating the entire act of healing to a thing of secondary importance - as the action is more of a second thought, on top of a main action in a round - and negating the intimacy evoked in thought and deed. - as it's now a cleric saying a few words from 50 feet away, while engaged in some other, evidently more important activity, instead of the cleric standing next to his wounded comrade, laying his hands on his injured frame and having the wounds close under them -

Also, all issues of feeling and roleplay aside, there is also the tactical aspect Ogrenomnom mentioned: healing taking no time or effort removes a very important tactical decision from the game. Do you take a round or two to heal your injured partymembers before you start running from the mob you know is coming, or do you take the head start, knowing you'll be hurting a lot if they catch up to you? Do you take another whack at the troll in hopes of bringing him down before he gets the chance to club your party's wizard again, who is standing before him looks quite staggered, as the last blow left him at 5 hp?
There is no question. You do both. You charge ahead, replacing your battlecry with a word or two in prayer so people around you magically start being revitalised while you run for your life, charge at the troll, or play a game of chess with the wizard's familiar.

What you do with the actual action is of no concern whatsoever to me. It's just the implications of having it, and of how it is achieved that irk me to no end.

Oh, and by RAW, you can drink that potion just fine. RAI, I see the spirit of your ruling, but given the disconnect I mentioned at the start, I wouldn't have an issue with someone downing a shot after casting. 


Eh, I understand your point of view. I guess it's just a matter of taste and preference . I played a 3rd edition cleric, and it bored me to tears, having to give up my entire turn running from one ally to the next just healing them. I much preferred 4e clerics, who could heal a lot and do other stuff at the same time.
Absolutely love the mechanic, and it's one of the hold over design ideas from 4th edition that I absolutely adore.

I think that the cleric of previsioly package is more interesting than it is now. I'd like to see more domains distinctions than simple prepared spell lists.
Turn undead as habilit is nice, but the current version is too complicated and weak.
Words of power is another nice mechanic if you add it to right spells.
I like if heal spells has 2 types: one  touch spell that heal much hp and another word of power that heal few hp, because this promote tactical and roleplay.
If we could find a way to allow the cleric the decision making you want, without opening the door to players putting pressure on them to only heal, then I'm all for it. But I doubt it is possible to do this and I'd prefer to err on this side than back to the other.



And that is exactly why I said in my initial post how I loved how this was worked out in the first public playtest iteration. It's not that I mind the concept existing for players who want it, because I do see the call for it. And have seen a few people utter that call for decades. I just think it should be a special feature, for clerics worshipping the gods that thematically fit the picture. That's why I liked the War Domain cleric having the option to heal while fighting, while the Sun domain one had to use his entire turn, but got a whole lot more healing done.
We actually had both of them active in the same party, and neither felt any more or less useful than the other, nor did they have less fun doing what they chose to do. In fact, it made it all the more enjoyable, because the difference in mechanics underlined the very different themes both had.

It could even just be as simple as different lines of spells for the two options. Say Minor Word of Healing, and Cure Minor Wounds, etc. I would vastly prefer the difference being inherent in the choice of deity/domain though.
If we could find a way to allow the cleric the decision making you want, without opening the door to players putting pressure on them to only heal, then I'm all for it. But I doubt it is possible to do this and I'd prefer to err on this side than back to the other.



And that is exactly why I said in my initial post how I loved how this was worked out in the first public playtest iteration. It's not that I mind the concept existing for players who want it, because I do see the call for it. And have seen a few people utter that call for decades. I just think it should be a special feature, for clerics worshipping the gods that thematically fit the picture. That's why I liked the War Domain cleric having the option to heal while fighting, while the Sun domain one had to use his entire turn, but got a whole lot more healing done.
We actually had both of them active in the same party, and neither felt any more or less useful than the other, nor did they have less fun doing what they chose to do. In fact, it made it all the more enjoyable, because the difference in mechanics underlined the very different themes both had.

It could even just be as simple as different lines of spells for the two options. Say Minor Word of Healing, and Cure Minor Wounds, etc. I would vastly prefer the difference being inherent in the choice of deity/domain though.



This is also what I did to my current group.  We have a total of 6 players, 2 fighters, 2 clerics, 1 rogue and 1 wizard.  Overall, its a good sampling for the playtest in diversity.  For the clerics, one is the Lifegiver cleric, the other is warbringer.  I had to make some changes, because I wanted their decisions for their deity to matter.  I would also like to point out, that up until this point, I had not recieved a complaint on having to touch to heal.  Granted, I do think there should be more options, but I don't think the word of power route was the best.

I handled it quite simply:

Show
Cure Wounds Effect: Choose to heal an ally up to 50 feet away, or an adjacent one. The target is healed for 1d8+4. Adjacent targets heal for an additional 2d8. Special: Can be prepared in a higher level spell slot to gain the following benefits. +1d8/+2d8 +4 per level raised. Then I changed the benefit of the warbringer, since I think the martial weapon option is just lazy. Disciple of the Warbringer You can cast Cure Wounds as a word of power, but in doing so, do not gain the adjacent bonus.
I'm with Mardrax on this one.  The distance spell healing less than than the touch version was very nice and meaty.  Good tactical options.  However, I also like like the idea of weaker buffs, like Bless, being a Power Word followed by a charge into combat.

and the current Turning is junk.  Who came up with all these spells and effects based on Hit Points?  So my wizard based (and therefore lower HP) Lich is now easier to turn the the melee based Wight?  Ridiculous.   All spells should be hit dice based AND that includes Healing.
While I like the intent behind of having different style of healing spells, I usually find out that it's very difficult to balance to two approaches with each other.

For instance, in the first packet, we had healing word (ranged, "words of power style" heal, that only cured 1d6) vs CLW (melee, action consuming heal, cured 1d8 +4). CLW was clearly the superior choice, and no savvy cleric would really waste a slot on healing word (1-6 hp regained vs 5-12 is WAY too much of a difference).

On the other hand, having a level 1 words of power heal cure only a little less than CLW would make CLW a trap choice. It's tricky. I honestly prefer the current, more streamlined, approach.
I have seen some arguments about the thematics of this mechanic and I think that there has been something very important overlooked in that area. I believe that the Word of Power mechanic is meant to be a word in Supernal, the language of creation. These words supposedly are capable of making changes in reality when spoken. So the idea that you can't thematically speak a word and heal someone at 50' is a false assumption I believe. This mechanic works very well with the thematic idea behind the supernal language. Perhaps when you prepare these spells your god whispers the words into your mind and when you shout them on the field you can feel the hand of god shaping reality to your will. Feels pretty thematic to me

My 2 copper pieces.
I have seen some arguments about the thematics of this mechanic and I think that there has been something very important overlooked in that area. I believe that the Word of Power mechanic is meant to be a word in Supernal, the language of creation. These words supposedly are capable of making changes in reality when spoken. So the idea that you can't thematically speak a word and heal someone at 50' is a false assumption I believe. This mechanic works very well with the thematic idea behind the supernal language. Perhaps when you prepare these spells your god whispers the words into your mind and when you shout them on the field you can feel the hand of god shaping reality to your will. Feels pretty thematic to me

My 2 copper pieces.


That's a pretty cool and flavorful intepretation of the mechanic! I like it. Kinda reminds me of the Silmarillion.
It also explains why you can't speak for a couple of seconds, these words were never meant for mortals and so after speaking them it takes a second for your voice to return (I keep seeing it like the Skyrim shouts in my head).
My favorite part about it: it's a divine thing, not a magic thing. Thumbs up to any separation between magic and prayers. (Or separation to the feel of all power sources in general.)
It also explains why you can't speak for a couple of seconds, these words were never meant for mortals and so after speaking them it takes a second for your voice to return (I keep seeing it like the Skyrim shouts in my head).

Very flavorful interpretation, but personally I don't think you need to go that far...    Simply, the Word of Power is something you say while you're doing something else.  I say "Be healed!" to my fighter as I smack the orc with my mace.  Or shout "By the power of Pelor, on your feet!" to my wizard as I grapple the guy who was shooting arrows at him.

That's the basic intention of the mechanic - you are simply speaking magic while physically doing something else.  That's why you can WoP while attacking, or even WoP while casting a different somantic but non-verbal spell.
In the same vein though, one could postulate that a cleric can work a greater miracle if he focusses on it, devotes his full attention, perhaps speaking   more words of power, than he could if he speaks a couple of words while also keeping his attention on that guy he's grappling. In other words, one could postulate that if the cleric would spend his action on working the miracle of healing, he heals more.

And that could be inluded with words of power in general, that each has a quick version and a more powerful version, each effect to be distinguished in the spell, just like some spells have a ritual variation. Of course balance would be precarious, but that's what we have playtesting for.
I may understand mechanically why Command is not a Word of Power (unlike the Words, it directly affects an opponent), but, in 3e at least, Command was described as using Words of Power, and flavor-wise it works the same: you say a word, they obey. Does Command do too much to be a Word of Power? Will Power Word: Kill, if it appears at all, be a Word of Power? Should we change the term "Word of Power"?
I don't want to derail this thread, but I wanted your opinions on this.

Cure Minor Wounds is a word of power that heals 1hp.  So basically with a cleric that can cast this at-will- no one is ever knocked out of a combat.  Okay so the wizard takes a hit which brings him to -4hp.  One the cleric's turn he can pop a heal to give him back 1hp.  As much as I like the mechanic, I would prefer it if Cure Minor was a standard action to avoid bouncing the party members up with a single hit point during a small melee.  

To me it isn't a huge deal, but it was something I stumbled across in my head when looking at the spells.