|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 3:30PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Also am I missing something. Doesn't Cure Minor Wounds already require an entire actions. There are no minor actions or anything of the sort. Casting a typical spell requires a single actions, about 6 seconds of reciting a magical formula and completing a set of hand motions. A few spells can be cast as reactions.
Cure Minor Wounds (actually, the entire Cure line of spells) is a word of power. This means the cleric can cast that spell - essentially as a minor action - and still make a melee attack.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 3:45PM
#12
|
|
|
Also am I missing something. Doesn't Cure Minor Wounds already require an entire actions. There are no minor actions or anything of the sort. Casting a typical spell requires a single actions, about 6 seconds of reciting a magical formula and completing a set of hand motions. A few spells can be cast as reactions.
Cure Minor Wounds (actually, the entire Cure line of spells) is a word of power. This means the cleric can cast that spell - essentially as a minor action - and still make a melee attack.
That's carried over from another play test though right? I havne't seen it mentioned in this playtest. Why not try to play with only content listed in this playtest.
Regarless if it only allows you to make melee attacks while using a word of power that doesn't too powerful. Gives the clerics more to do. Played lots of healers in my time and doing nothing but healing all the time gets dull. If your casting Cure Minor wounds every round your party is in serious trouble.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 3:53PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
That's carried over from another play test though right? I havne't seen it mentioned in this playtest. Why not try to play with only content listed in this playtest.
They're still listed that way, even in the current packet. The only thing "missing" is that they forgot to write down the definition; it is still very much a part of this playtest packet.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 3:57PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2011
|
Also, it's extremely unclear how many Spells a first level Cleric is supposed to have, and how many they're supposed to gain per level.
If it says that explicitly anywhere in the playtest documents, I haven't been able to find it.
1. Spell slots, (chart on pg2 of Classes Packet 4) This tells you what you can cast a day. Level 1 can cast 2 1st level spells.
2. Prepared Spells, (2nd paragraph under Level 1: Spellcasting) you can prepare a number of spells equal to your level +1 (i.e. you will eventually prepare less spells then you have slots for, but you can cast spells you have prepared multiple times.)
3. Clerics can prepare any spell available to a cleric that they can cast (unlike a wizard who has a spell book with specific spells), a cleric can choose to prepare any spell that is in the cleric list that he has spell slots avaiable for.
Make sense?
It sort of makes sense that Clerics would have access to all of those spells, but it also makes no sense at all. I can see valid arguments for both sides. Until there's something that says "Clerics can prepare any of the spells on their list as long as they can prepare spells of that level" then it seems far too powerful.
Toronto Dungeon Master
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 4:25PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I hate heal from zero.
Ditto. As I mention in the other thread:
"After player 4e constantly for years (literally hundreds of games), I still have to remind some players that they heal up from zero (rather than from their current negative HP value). Every session! That seems to confirm my opinion that the rule is not intuitive. And it's been happening in 5e now too."
and
"as a former military Medical platoon leader: negative HP is absolutely realistic to me", but heal from zero is not.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 9:57AM
#16
|
|
|
I'm not having this problem with the cleric in my group. She rolled up a Stormbringer cleric and we started at 6th level. The playstyle was fantastic. Having the ability to thematically cast a bolt of lightning, or thunderwave added a lot of flavor. Being able to heal downed PC's with a WoP was effective and didn't slow the game at all. She had a bunch of fun with it.
As for the other points listed here: Heal from 0 seems unrealistic to me as well... but then I can see that magic can work differently from a healing kit, so whatever. Personally, I like the idea of healing from whatever point you're currently at, because it can add drama to a die role in combat, and I really like that.
I would not be for having a penalty when you've been smashed in combat and re-healed (as Ogreface suggested). If there is a penalty, it is the lost resource that the cleric has to spend to get you back on your feet. Or the lost action and potion that someone else has to provide. Also, tying that into *not* healing from zero makes even more sense, because the resource you use is that much more precious.
For instance, my party is fighting hill giants and their "allies" at the moment to help reclaim the town of Preston in the Dragon mag backdrop that just posted. The rogue drops from a club hit to -2hp, and the cleric has a choice. Does she cast cure light and let the guy stand back up to help out, knowing that there is a chance that the next hit might outright kill him (Con 14)? Or does she cast Cure Serious and waste a chance to hit the giant with a maximized lightning bolt, and just heal up the rogue after the fight is over?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 12:36PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
The issue I don't have with "heal from 0" is that, unless things have gone pear shaped, the fighter and other front line combatants are likely the ones who benefit from it the most. If your fighter(s) drop on the monsters overrun your position then the odds of TPK go up dramatically.
It's not about what is "realistic" it's about what makes the game fun for the players. I've found that healing from 0 and being able to get back into a fight quickly tends to be far more fun then "I cast Cure Srious...oh I botched the roll, guess you're only up to -3 and still out".
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 2:16PM
#18
|
|
|
with Lance of Faith dealing 2d6 + WIS damage on a hit, as well as throwing Cure Minor Wounds around every turn.
Lance of Faith just deals 2d6 straight, but I think that's been pointed out already.
You are aware that Cure Minor Wounds only works on creatures with less than 3 health, right? And it cures 1 point of damage? So if you have a Cleric who is healing someone that is that low every single turn, what kind of campaign are you running?
Also while you can cast Cure Minor Wounds and still swing a mace, you most certainly cannot cast a spell the same turn. So you can't really ever be tossing out Cure Minor Wounds and still casting Lance of Faith as well.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 8:38AM
#19
|
|
|
I have a Lifegiver Cleric in my game and have found no real problem with Lance of Faith and CMW. I read Lance of Faith as 2D6 and there hasn't been any problems with that. Where as Cure Minor is a good emergency bandaid spell. We don't use the heal from zero as it makes no sense really.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 12:09PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
You are aware that Cure Minor Wounds only works on creatures with less than 3 health, right? And it cures 1 point of damage? So if you have a Cleric who is healing someone that is that low every single turn, what kind of campaign are you running?
That sounds pretty normal: the opposition would definitely want to down an easily downable PC (especially if the PC is a surrounded front-line fighter). So once a PC is first downed, it becomes a game of whack-a-mole.
|
|
|
