# Touch of Healing [Reserve] feat from Complete Champion Excerpt



## Pyrex (May 7, 2007)

Touch of Healing 
[Reserve]
Heal 3 points of damage per level of the highest-level healing spell you have available to cast

Wow.  

There's *got* to be a mitigating factor in the full-text of the feat, right?


----------



## ehren37 (May 7, 2007)

Goodbye D&D day.

The only "mitigating" thing I see is that you might have to actually devote a slot to a cure spell if you're a good cleric. 

Out of combat healing is largely a non-issue for mid to high level play anyways. you get 50d8+50 HP healed for a 750 gold (375 if you make it yourself). A wand of lesser vigor is even cheaper.


----------



## IanB (May 7, 2007)

Nifty, but I'm not thinking broken necessarily. Sure you can heal 18 hp on a touch if you've got heal memorized - but only until you actually need to cast that heal.


----------



## Pyrex (May 7, 2007)

IIRC, reserve feats work for spontaneous spell slots, so the Cleric doesn't even need to have a Cure spell prepared.

And with higher-level healing spells available, this reserve feat basically means the Cleric can heal CasterLevel*1.5 HP/round all day.


----------



## frankthedm (May 7, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> There's *got* to be a mitigating factor in the full-text of the feat, right?



 The mitigating facter is some DMs won't allow it. If wands and such take enough rare material to make that a party cannot expect to always be able to make or buy a specific one, this feat should not be allowed.

I understand why is is balanced in a way, see the CLW wand example. A binder can do a similar trick.

Maybe if it "converted" 3/level lethal damge to non lethal damage, It would be ok with more folks.


----------



## Shadeydm (May 7, 2007)

On the surface this would seem to be an attempt to distance the cleric from the 4 encounters per day parameters of the game. You have changed him from a finite amount of healing per day to infinite healing per day. The argument that a wand can accomplish the same thing doesn't really work because a wand is also a finite resource which can be depleted.


----------



## IanB (May 7, 2007)

I think there's very clearly a design philosophy change to scale back on the 'out of spells so we have to stop' problem. You still run out eventually, but between reserve feats and the warlock, you can see the change in action pretty clearly.

4E experimentation, maybe. I'm fine with it, personally. I like the idea of a party being able to fight a really long running battle, or assault an evil temple complex in one go.


----------



## blargney the second (May 7, 2007)

Yay!


----------



## Wish (May 7, 2007)

Looks good to me.  3/highest spell level isn't fast enough to matter in combat most of the time beyond about 2nd level, and it has a 2nd level spell prerequisite.  It is handy for not blowing all of the cleric's spells on healing, which has been a goal of the game designers since the advent of 3.0.


----------



## Darklone (May 7, 2007)

First the dragon shamans Fast Healing aura, now this.


----------



## Erywin (May 7, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Yay!




QFT, bout darn time they made this available   As a DM and player I would rather be beating the crap out of stuff rather than waiting around to heal up cause one or two people are out of spells.  I like fairly fast paced campaign with small amounts of downtime, I honestly like where Wizards is going with the reserve type feats and the ToB classes.

Cheers,
E


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2007)

Not broken, but distasteful. I just can't fathom the logic of a fantasy world where everyone can get healed up willy nilly by the village cleric.


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2007)

I have just anticipated a new archetype: the grappling cleric. Since a supernatural ability requires no concentration, you can grapple an undead creature, then burn them for 9 or so points of damage a round.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

I think it's fair to wait and see what the text of the feat actually says before jumping to conclusions.


----------



## frankthedm (May 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Not broken, but distasteful. I just can't fathom the logic of a fantasy world where everyone can get healed up willy nilly by the village cleric.



No cleric of St. cuthbert will be healing "willy nilly".

Considering how well even normal folks heal in a D&D world, a few days and any injury is healed, it is not that major for a town priest to be able to do this. The D&D system is not designed for mass combat with troops, so while this feat efects that GREATLY, they never mattered in the first place unless artificial focus was placed on them.


----------



## frankthedm (May 7, 2007)

Wish said:
			
		

> It is handy for not blowing all of the cleric's spells on healing, which has been a goal of the game designers since the advent of 3.0.



I'd love a quote on that! The only way to keep the cleric balanced is to rip though the party's HP so fast the ceric has to spend his combat actions casting his best healing spells.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I think it's fair to wait and see what the text of the feat actually says before jumping to conclusions.



But lets say there are no caveats and the feat works like it is worded in the preview.  What would your thoughts be on that ability?


----------



## brehobit (May 7, 2007)

At a guess, there will be a limit.  Perhaps one use per target/day or something...

Even then it changes the game.  It will be interesting to see what they're thinking.

Mark


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> But lets say there are no caveats and the feat works like it is worded in the preview.  What would your thoughts be on that ability?




I'd rather debate which came first, the chicken or the egg.  At least that debate would have some interesting ramifications for life, the universe, and everything.

Why debate a new rule for a game that might or might not happen, and that nobody is currently using.


----------



## jcfiala (May 7, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Touch of Healing
> [Reserve]
> Heal 3 points of damage per level of the highest-level healing spell you have available to cast
> 
> ...




I think the mitigating factors are these:
The highest-level healing spell you can possibly have is half your casting class level
and
Using it is probably a standard action.

So, you've got access to heal - 6th level spell, so you're what, an 11th level caser at the least?  So, your wizard just got knifed by the evil rogue twice for 7d6 damage plus god knows what damage for a total of about 50-70 hp of damage... and you can either use a standard action to heal him for only 18 points, or you can rip out a big healing spell to actually heal him properly.

It will be helpful healing up between battles, but that's not too bad - After the first or second encounter of the day, you can use the reserve effect to heal everyone up to full... but eventually you're going to hit that point when you're going to need to use your serious healing spells to prevent people from dying during a fight, and after that your reserve effect is going to be almost nothing.


Also, all we have here is the feat list - it's possible that there are restrictions to using it that we don't know about until the book is released, such as only being able to use the reserve effect on someone a limited number of times a day.


----------



## AllisterH (May 7, 2007)

Maybe I'm missing something but this feat seems pointless....

Er, doesn't the wand of lesser vigor and the dragon shaman do the "out of combat" healing better than this feat?

The actual cure spells are still needed for in-combat use since this reserve feat seems to be useless after level 5.

So what niche is it trying to fill?


----------



## Pyrex (May 7, 2007)

What it does is make sure the entire party is fully healed between battles with zero expenditure of consumable resources.


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> No cleric of St. cuthbert will be healing "willy nilly".
> 
> Considering how well even normal folks heal in a D&D world, a few days and any injury is healed, it is not that major for a town priest to be able to do this. The D&D system is not designed for mass combat with troops, so while this feat efects that GREATLY, they never mattered in the first place unless artificial focus was placed on them.




My suspension of disbelief is somewhere in a corner, crying.


----------



## Deset Gled (May 7, 2007)

I'm starting to wonder if WotC will eventually just edit the cleric out of the core books.

The original concept of cleric was a healer.  But WotC realized that not many people want to be healers, so they decided to give the cleric a notable power boost above other classes to make it attractive.  Medium BAB, full casting, two good saves, etc.  Then, with general power creep going on in the Complete Divine and Spell Compendium, clerics got buffed up even more.  Now, it's to the point that cleric spells and rounds are so valuable that clerics never want to waste them on something as trivial as healing, so we now have the infinite healing items in the MIC (and Eberron, IIRC), and apparently an infinite healing feat as well.

With all of these infinite healing methods, it seems that constant healing is pretty much expected to be the norm, now.  To cut down on the paperwork, lets just rule that all characters are healed back up to full HP at the end of an encounter.  Then we can just rename the Cleric the Divine Powergamer and be done with all of this healing nonsense altogether.

/sarcasm


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2007)

In the future, everyone will be a cleric for fifteen minutes.


----------



## frankthedm (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Why debate a new rule for a game that might or might not happen, and that nobody is currently using.



Because it cuts to the heart of the issue of how much should out of combat healings cost? IanB, blargney the second, Wish, Erywin and jcfiala all sound like they would give the feat a go right now. Pawsplay saying "Not broken, but distasteful." Hell even I am thinking If CLW wands are _always_ availave for sale, the feat might as well be allowed since 750 gets to be real cheap real fast in D&D economics.


----------



## Technik4 (May 7, 2007)

Sounds balanced in combat, unbalanced (and goodbye fantasy belief suspension) out of combat. It's probably just a patch for what will eventually be:

Lay on Hands at will for low points of healing from a cleric


----------



## Erywin (May 7, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I'd love a quote on that! The only way to keep the cleric balanced is to rip though the party's HP so fast the ceric has to spend his combat actions casting his best healing spells.




I would have to disagree with you on this, even if the cleric in the gestalt game I run had this feat he would still be stretched in combat.  In combat this feat won't help much against hard hitting foes, it will help a little but then the cleric/fighter is better off just beating the foe into submission before it manages to do too much damage.  Where this feat shines is out of combat.  But for a major battle where the cleric has to use up most if not all of his healing spells to keep the party alive, he is very likely to be out of spells to fuel this feat   Just my 2cp.

Cheers,
E


----------



## James McMurray (May 7, 2007)

The only thing I mind about the feat is how it devalues other classes, especially the Dragon Shaman. The fast healing aura and healing touch of the DS was one of its biggest selling points, and this feat takes their place in between most fights.


----------



## Alzrius (May 7, 2007)

I think it's too early to say anything about this. The descriptive text in a feat table is never as much as in the full text of the feat itself. I'll reserve judgment on this reserve feat.


----------



## Twowolves (May 7, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> What it does is make sure the entire party is fully healed between battles with zero expenditure of consumable resources.




Bingo. 

If this is the direction 4th ed is heading, I don't want to go. Farewell lifetime hobby, it was nice knowing ya. Cancel Dragon, cancel Dungeon, then finish off the mortally wounded beast with some Reserve feats. 

R.I.P.


----------



## IanB (May 8, 2007)

That seems a little extreme. The resource management game is that much fun for you?


----------



## Pyrex (May 8, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Hell even I am thinking If CLW wands are _always_ availave for sale, the feat might as well be allowed since 750 gets to be real cheap real fast in D&D economics.




I'm of two minds about it myself.

On the one hand infinite out-of-combat healing for the cost of a single feat just seems way to good and is a strong boost for both of the two most powerful base classes in the PHB (Clerics & Druids).

On the other hand, anything that allows/encourages the party to tackle more encounters between resting is almost an implicit power-_down_; and I'm all for options that reduce the 10-minute adventuring day followed by 23.8 hrs of rest adventuring model...


----------



## Deset Gled (May 8, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> That seems a little extreme. The resource management game is that much fun for you?




Sometimes, yes.

Also, controlling resources is an important part of world creation, and can be a powerful balancing factor.


----------



## SlagMortar (May 8, 2007)

I do like the idea of having to continue on fighting skirmishes after being wounded.  It's a pretty typical fantasy problem.  I like the idea of reserve hit points much better than infinite healing.  Something like you have BAB * Hit dice hit points of free healing used out of combat and remove all magical healing altogether.  At least then you have some limit and can start to feel it after enough nights without rest.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 8, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> That seems a little extreme. The resource management game is that much fun for you?




Shhh, don't tell him that Dragon and Dungeon mag isn't going to be produced anymore so he thinks he's the one cancelling the subscription.


----------



## rgard (May 8, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Touch of Healing
> [Reserve]
> Heal 3 points of damage per level of the highest-level healing spell you have available to cast
> 
> ...




I know what feat my BBEG (Cleric) will take next!  So, one mitigating factor will be that the NPCs will have access to this feat as well.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Michael Silverbane (May 8, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Why debate a new rule for a game that might or might not happen, and that nobody is currently using.




I've actually been using a feat very like this (only heals 1 hp per level of the healing spell you have available) since just a short while after the Complete Mage came out.

I like, very much, the reduction in the wake up - fight - rest cycle that this (and the other reserve feats) has precipitated.  One thing that I find particularly amusing is when the party buffs up, and then tries to burn through a dungeon as fast as they can, so that their buffs don't run out.  You get the funniest complaints, like the cleric's player saying to the barbarian, "Will you stop letting every single monster in the dungeon hit you!?"

I also allow the barbarian to rage any time he wants, so long as he's not fatigued (fatigue lasts for as many rounds as the rage did, unless the rage's duration expires, then it lasts ten times that long), and the paladin to smite evil every d4 rounds (we call that smite breath), and other non-per day things...

Later
silver


----------



## Twowolves (May 8, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> That seems a little extreme. The resource management game is that much fun for you?




If resource management is so meaningless to you, maybe you should go play a superhero game. Or XboX.


----------



## Twowolves (May 8, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Shhh, don't tell him that Dragon and Dungeon mag isn't going to be produced anymore so he thinks he's the one cancelling the subscription.




Or maybe you could, you know, just read my post, wherein I specifically mention the cancellation of said magazines.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Or XboX.




Ha! I'm buying Command & Conquer 3 for the 360 this week.


----------



## hong (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> If resource management is so meaningless to you, maybe you should go play a superhero game. Or XboX.



 You say this like it's a negative thing.

... So! Who's up for some Soul Calibur 2 Tome of Battle buttkicking goodness?


----------



## IanB (May 8, 2007)

I wouldn't call it meaningless, and it will still exist even with this feat (and the other similar mechanics) in the game. Regardless of how many hit points the cleric can heal between fights, it will still run out of *other* spells eventually, and will still have to burn those higher level healing effects during fights. This just extends the party's adventuring endurance by a few fights at low levels, and at high levels it isn't like out of combat healing has much of a cost. 

As a DM I get really tired of the 4-rooms-and-rest syndrome, and I think this will enable a lot more interesting play of things like the Paizo APs and other published modules as entire coherent sections rather than "ok, time to start our 4th incursion into Bhal-Hamataugn" or whatever.

It takes the game closer to a normal fantasy sort of storytelling model, I think. Conan didn't stop halfway through the Tower of the Elephant to rest; I'm not sure I want my players to do so either.


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 8, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> I wouldn't call it meaningless, and it will still exist even with this feat (and the other similar mechanics) in the game. Regardless of how many hit points the cleric can heal between fights, it will still run out of *other* spells eventually, and will still have to burn those higher level healing effects during fights. This just extends the party's adventuring endurance by a few fights at low levels, and at high levels it isn't like out of combat healing has much of a cost.
> 
> As a DM I get really tired of the 4-rooms-and-rest syndrome, and I think this will enable a lot more interesting play of things like the Paizo APs and other published modules as entire coherent sections rather than "ok, time to start our 4th incursion into Bhal-Hamataugn" or whatever.
> 
> It takes the game closer to a normal fantasy sort of storytelling model, I think. Conan didn't stop halfway through the Tower of the Elephant to rest; I'm not sure I want my players to do so either.



 I'm playing through Shackled City, and we made it through the Malachite Hold without resting, the Drakthar's Way dungeon without resting, and each of the two Flood Season dungeons with resting (there were days of travel in between, so of course we rested in between).  All of them were exciting close calls that would have been boring and yawn-inducing instead if we had included that feat and had infinite healing.


----------



## Kurotowa (May 8, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I think it's too early to say anything about this. The descriptive text in a feat table is never as much as in the full text of the feat itself. I'll reserve judgment on this reserve feat.




Absolutely.  My bet is either a limit on how often you can use it on the same target, or a limit on total activations per hour (or other chunk of time).


----------



## Twowolves (May 8, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I'm playing through Shackled City, and we made it through the Malachite Hold without resting, the Drakthar's Way dungeon without resting, and each of the two Flood Season dungeons with resting (there were days of travel in between, so of course we rested in between).  All of them were exciting close calls that would have been boring and yawn-inducing instead if we had included that feat and had infinite healing.





Indeed. Some of the most exciting times I've ever had playind D&D was when we were low on spells and hp, and gave in to the temptation of "just one more room"....

Part of the balance of the game is finite resources. Wizards and clerics have spells, fighters and rogues have hit points. With this feat, the latter won't have to worry about running out between fights. Sure one big fight can do them in, but the cleric can still cast a healing spell in combat to save them like always. Now, however, so long as they have one cure left, the cleric can completely heal the party between fights. Add in the Complete Mage reserve feats, and you might as well get rid of ammunition for bows as well, since everyone else can go all day without running out of ammo, why not the archer too?

Reserve feats are a massive shift to the fundimental premise of the game and of the campaign world. There is nothing wrong with superhero roleplaying, mind you, it's one of my personal favorites, but if I wanted to play in that genre, even mixed with fantasy, I'd play Mutants and Masterminds, or Savage Worlds, not D&D-bastardized-into-superhero-lite.


----------



## hong (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Add in the Complete Mage reserve feats, and you might as well get rid of ammunition for bows as well




I did that 5 years ago. BUT NOBODY EVER LISTENS TO ME


----------



## Stalker0 (May 8, 2007)

I don't mind this feat at 10th level or so, but you can get this feat at 3rd level. At that level, healing is still pretty darn scarce, and 750 gp wands are also still expensive. Further, not everyone allows lesser vigor wands.


----------



## IanB (May 8, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I'm playing through Shackled City, and we made it through the Malachite Hold without resting, the Drakthar's Way dungeon without resting, and each of the two Flood Season dungeons with resting (there were days of travel in between, so of course we rested in between).  All of them were exciting close calls that would have been boring and yawn-inducing instead if we had included that feat and had infinite healing.




Well, all I can say to that, is your game is extremely different than mine.


----------



## AllisterH (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Indeed. Some of the most exciting times I've ever had playind D&D was when we were low on spells and hp, and gave in to the temptation of "just one more room"....




Ah, but you don't have to succumb to the "just one more room" and tactically it didn't make much sense. Unless there was a time constraint ("we got to defeat the villain before he completes the ritual"), few parties IME would be willing to go adventuring at less than 50% of resources as this was asking for a TPK. Even in the above scenario, this feat doesn't get rid of that type of adventure.

Basic tactic I've seen is: at low levels, wizard casts rope trick and people rest until replenished and at high levels it was MMM time.

What this feat seems to do (assuming we are right and we don't have anymore restrictions) is actually encourage longer forays into the dungeon, however if you're a cleric/druid you still going to have to worry about limited resources since in combat, reserve healing doesn't pack enough of a punch meaning you're still going to need to have to worry about how many casting slots you have left.


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 8, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Well, all I can say to that, is your game is extremely different than mine.



 Interesting.  Did you guys play through Shackled City too?  

Our party did have both a Cleric of Lathander and an Archivist (me), and we had a decent number of healing potions that came for standard on one of the standard SCAP mooks (I can't remember if the Rogue mooks or the Fighter mooks who always had the potion), but it was still a nailbiter thanks to the difficulty of the adventure path.  I think if our group wasn't so haphazard and poorly-optimised for synergy, it might have not been as close.  We have no real tank--we force the TWF ranger with 12 Con to pretend he can tank because he and the Cleric have the most HP, and we need the Cleric to not be dead straight away like when Triel would have killed him if not for the Rejuvenation domain.  Our only Wizard is nearly barred from everything that can attack except for Illusions thanks to some racial substitution levels (but his Illusions are spiffy!).  Our Cleric has taken Skill Focus: Diplomacy and Negotiator feats and spends all of his money on a huge selection of wine and trying to get into the Cusp of Sunrise.  Our Mountebank is a...well...a Mountebank.

Our GM also has a habit of combining several rooms of encounters into one if he thinks the enemies would have no reason not to congregate or he thinks they would have heard us.  The worst was the Malachite Hold--we fought the BBEG and his pet and bodyguards, + about 16 additional hobgoblins (thank Lathander for Colour Spray!).

Anyway, that tangent aside, the lack of infinite healing is what makes the game fun, tense, and exciting for our group (since we don't really have any big guns other than our Ranger, and with infinite HP, he can keep it up all day).


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 8, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Ah, but you don't have to succumb to the "just one more room" and tactically it didn't make much sense. Unless there was a time constraint ("we got to defeat the villain before he completes the ritual"), few parties IME would be willing to go adventuring at less than 50% of resources as this was asking for a TPK. Even in the above scenario, this feat doesn't get rid of that type of adventure.
> 
> Basic tactic I've seen is: at low levels, wizard casts rope trick and people rest until replenished and at high levels it was MMM time.
> 
> What this feat seems to do (assuming we are right and we don't have anymore restrictions) is actually encourage longer forays into the dungeon, however if you're a cleric/druid you still going to have to worry about limited resources since in combat, reserve healing doesn't pack enough of a punch meaning you're still going to need to have to worry about how many casting slots you have left.



 What about--"If we don't kill them all this time while they are confused by the blitzkrieg attack tactics, next time they'll have recovered and regrouped, and they'll have a plan to kick our asses as a group" ?  Our party's main strategy in a dungeon that is run by allied groups of enemies (as opposed to some random dungeon full of oozes and solitary critters, I guess) is to rush in and kill them all before they are even sure we're there.


----------



## IanB (May 8, 2007)

I'm running it right now. I'm not sure how far in you are, so I will avoid spoilers, but suffice to say there are some significantly challenging encounters strung together in close proximity in certain parts of the AP, such that I know that my group will not currently be able to handle them in one go. There are also some difficult set piece encounters where OOC healing is irrelevant, and even some time sensitive stuff - sometimes you just can't take 20 rounds to heal everyone up.

Out of curiosity, how many characters in the group in your game?


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 8, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> I'm running it right now. I'm not sure how far in you are, so I will avoid spoilers, but suffice to say there are some significantly challenging encounters strung together in close proximity in certain parts of the AP, such that I know that my group will not currently be able to handle them in one go. There are also some difficult set piece encounters where OOC healing is irrelevant, and even some time sensitive stuff - sometimes you just can't take 20 rounds to heal everyone up.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how many characters in the group in your game?



 We only did the first three adventures.  We have me, the cleric, the ranger, the wizard, and the mountebank.  So 5--that's less than the playtest group for Shackled City, I believe.


----------



## IanB (May 8, 2007)

We have a mountebank too! Man, that class is weak.   

We've got 6, so that's not the difference. I suspect my group must be significantly less optimized than yours. So far we've had one death per adventure (skipped Drakthar's Way, and are about halfway through Zenith Trajectory.) In the first adventure, I had to nerf an encounter on the fly to avoid a TPK (the hammerer/illusionary wall room - it seemed reasonable the collaborator prisoner guy would have known about what the guards did to get through there.)


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 8, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> We have a mountebank too! Man, that class is weak.
> 
> We've got 6, so that's not the difference. I suspect my group must be significantly less optimized than yours. So far we've had one death per adventure (skipped Drakthar's Way, and are about halfway through Zenith Trajectory.) In the first adventure, I had to nerf an encounter on the fly to avoid a TPK (the hammerer/illusionary wall room - it seemed reasonable the collaborator prisoner guy would have known about what the guards did to get through there.)



 We have had no deaths so far, and I can assure you that we aren't optimised (the Cleric has Negotiator and Skill Focus (Diplomacy) for pete's sake   And we have a Mountebank.  Our main tank is a Ranger and our mage is a one-trick-pony Illusionist).  What we have going for us is that my character has high Int and my strategy is fairly good when I play up the Int--that can be a big difference (For instance, I hear the Worldwide D&D Gameday was often a TPK and almost-always had several deaths, but I led the group to a victory with no deaths, even the god-awful Paladin with the 10 Cha).  

For Life's Bazaar, we didn't go the way with the hammerer/illusionary wall, I think--wait, is the Hammerer like the Pulveriser construct?  My character thinks those are cute--our gnome commanded them to stop and then my Archivist brought them up to fix them.  The way we went was from the room with the haunted statue where you use Sovereign Glue up to the barracks of the hobbos and then sideways into the room with the BBEG and his pet.


----------



## IanB (May 8, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> We have had no deaths so far, and I can assure you that we aren't optimised (the Cleric has Negotiator and Skill Focus (Diplomacy) for pete's sake   And we have a Mountebank.  Our main tank is a Ranger and our mage is a one-trick-pony Illusionist).  What we have going for us is that my character has high Int and my strategy is fairly good when I play up the Int--that can be a big difference (For instance, I hear the Worldwide D&D Gameday was often a TPK and almost-always had several deaths, but I led the group to a victory with no deaths, even the god-awful Paladin with the 10 Cha).
> 
> For Life's Bazaar, we didn't go the way with the hammerer/illusionary wall, I think--wait, is the Hammerer like the Pulveriser construct?  My character thinks those are cute--our gnome commanded them to stop and then my Archivist brought them up to fix them.  The way we went was from the room with the haunted statue where you use Sovereign Glue up to the barracks of the hobbos and then sideways into the room with the BBEG and his pet.




In our case, the group decided to head into the prison (which is what that hammerer room is guarding) to look for more prisoners after going through the Big Final Fight, losing the archivist (the only healer at the time) and suffering heavy wounds on most everyone else. The hammerer, with its 2d8+10 damage attack, would have brutalized them even with its 50% instability.

Current composition is knight, wizard, mountebank/fighter, cleric, bard, scout/ranger. I'm hopeful they'll handle the next bit a little more easily than the things so far, but I have a feeling they're really about to go into the grinder.

The sonic cone pulveriser almost did them in as well (it had a lucky string of activations.)


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 8, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> In our case, the group decided to head into the prison (which is what that hammerer room is guarding) to look for more prisoners after going through the Big Final Fight, losing the archivist (the only healer at the time) and suffering heavy wounds on most everyone else. The hammerer, with its 2d8+10 damage attack, would have brutalized them even with its 50% instability.
> 
> Current composition is knight, wizard, mountebank/fighter, cleric, bard, scout/ranger. I'm hopeful they'll handle the next bit a little more easily than the things so far, but I have a feeling they're really about to go into the grinder.
> 
> The sonic cone pulveriser almost did them in as well (it had a lucky string of activations.)



 Oh, we did do that one.  The way we didn't go was the heavily trapped hallway--the GM mentioned that we were lucky not to go that way.

That party sounds better optimised than ours, and with more characters (though if we pretend that the Bard or Knight is gone and the other is replaced by the Archivist you mentioned died, it is _eerily_ similar to ours--it would nearly identical class set-up).  My Archivist took the Draconic Archivist feat, I thought just for fun and with little use, but it turned out there were more constructs than I expected.  Also, we were very gentle with the constructs--my Archivist would not have us hurting the poor things, so we had our Gnome command them to stop.  The only encounter we actually had to deal with after killing the BBEG was the Mimic, but our Ranger keeps the heads of the BBEGs we kill, so the clear death of its employer combined with threats and Intimidate scared the Mimic into submission.

So was it the first three adventures where the PCs would have needed this infinite healing to do the dungeons in one sitting, or is this just Zenith Trajectory (we haven't started that one, so maybe that one is different from the others).


----------



## IanB (May 8, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Oh, we did do that one.  The way we didn't go was the heavily trapped hallway--the GM mentioned that we were lucky not to go that way.
> 
> That party sounds better optimised than ours, and with more characters (though if we pretend that the Bard or Knight is gone and the other is replaced by the Archivist you mentioned died, it is _eerily_ similar to ours--it would nearly identical class set-up).  My Archivist took the Draconic Archivist feat, I thought just for fun and with little use, but it turned out there were more constructs than I expected.  Also, we were very gentle with the constructs--my Archivist would not have us hurting the poor things, so we had our Gnome command them to stop.  The only encounter we actually had to deal with after killing the BBEG was the Mimic, but our Ranger keeps the heads of the BBEGs we kill, so the clear death of its employer combined with threats and Intimidate scared the Mimic into submission.
> 
> So was it the first three adventures where the PCs would have needed this infinite healing to do the dungeons in one sitting, or is this just Zenith Trajectory (we haven't started that one, so maybe that one is different from the others).




They couldn't have had it in the first adventure anyway, thinking about it - 3rd level character minimum!

It would have helped a lot in the kopru ruins in the 2nd half of Flood Season - they were down a player that day and ended up losing the fighter to the ogre zombies and having to rest a day (fighter came back as a wizard; the knight's player was a barbarian at the time, who later died to a potential-TPK encounter in Z.T.)

As it was they hit the later encounters at full strength anyway, so if anything the reserve feat might have made them attempt those encounters with *fewer* in-combat resources to spend, not more.

The real test will be the next session. The cleric won't be able to get the feat until he can retrain, and that won't be until after what I think may be a mighty bloodletting.


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 8, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> They couldn't have had it in the first adventure anyway, thinking about it - 3rd level character minimum!
> 
> It would have helped a lot in the kopru ruins in the 2nd half of Flood Season - they were down a player that day and ended up losing the fighter to the ogre zombies and having to rest a day (fighter came back as a wizard; the knight's player was a barbarian at the time, who later died to a potential-TPK encounter in Z.T.)
> 
> ...



 The ogre zombies?  Wow, for us those were a completely laughable pushover.  That darned T-Rex was much more troublesome.  If not for quick-thinking and an incredibly inefficient kiting, it could have gone much worse.  Our biggest trouble came in two fights--Triel (almost killed a PC until quick thinking of an illusion of the trapdoor opening, our guy leaving, and the door closing again tricked Triel into opening the door again so our guy could get out, then almost killed the Cleric with a Smite Power Attack) and the Halfling dude (he was combined with so many encounters that there were over 20 things in the room where we fought him--we would have certainly failed if my Enlarged Archivist hadn't ridden through the room, overrunning everything until she reached the Ranger to heal him with her best shot so he could survive long enough to leap up and grapple the Wizard before the Wizard could Spider Climb out of reach and do more harm than his icky lead-in Lightning Bolt).


----------



## IanB (May 8, 2007)

Yeah, just goes to show you never know what the problem encounter is going to be. I never thought there'd be any problems with the ogre zombies either, but the fighter went down fast, while the t-rex earlier was relatively easy.


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 8, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Yeah, just goes to show you never know what the problem encounter is going to be. I never thought there'd be any problems with the ogre zombies either, but the fighter went down fast, while the t-rex earlier was relatively easy.



 Wow, I'm impressed.  I don't know if we could have killed that thing with the entire team at full health and spells if we hadn't just kited it from a place where it couldn't hit us because it was too big.  This is probably because our team was an Illusionist (mindless==immune), a Mountebank (Mindless==Immune to most) with no bludgeoning weapon, a Ranger with no bludgeoning weapon who specialises in many minor attacks (that wouldn't usually penetrate the skeleton's DR), a melee-incompetent 10 Str Cleric (admittedly, he had that Mace of St. Cuthbert because we used illusions to scam it out of Jenya), and me, a buff-focused Archivist.  There's not enough in there to kill the thing before we would have all died :\

Weird, though--any group that killed the T-Rex with its 127 HP and +18 to hit (for 3d6+13--Owwww!) should have been able to stomp all over the Ogres with their 55 HP and +9 to Hit, and inability to attack you if you stay at least 50 feet from them at all times--plus those Ogres were turnable on a modified 16 for our Charisma-loving cleric and his Improved Turning.


----------



## satori01 (May 8, 2007)

Resource management is still inherent to the feat, the question becomes when will you cast the big spell and take the hit to Infinite healing.  In my campaigns the story often revolves around quickly resolving something, or trying to stop X from doing Y at Z hour.

If you have 10 minutes to storm the BBEG fortress and stop the ceremony releasing Barfufla the Duck of Death unto the world, then you really do not have the time to spend siting around for 3 minutes healing people up.

I like Max Q D&D, I hate big expansive, industrial style complexes with lots of filler combats.  Sunless Citadel was full of those, kick open door, shot bugbear w/ bows, rinse repeat.  I would much rather have fewer, bigger, badder, better combats then lots of smaller ones.  Ironically these reserve feats encourage this.  You can reduce the amount of resources you expend fighting the mooks, and feel confident to laying down the bomb for the BBEG.


----------



## Piratecat (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> If this is the direction 4th ed is heading, I don't want to go. Farewell lifetime hobby, it was nice knowing ya. Cancel Dragon, cancel Dungeon, then finish off the mortally wounded beast with some Reserve feats.



Holy cow, I just had a flashback to seven years ago. 

I understand your displeasure, but I'm a big fan of not making snap judgments on a rules system until I can actually see, hold and read it. In my experience, taking things in isolation usually results in inaccurate conclusions.


----------



## Drowbane (May 8, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> First the dragon shamans Fast Healing aura, now this.




Yea...

Awesome, no?


----------



## Jer (May 8, 2007)

Hrm.  Doesn't seem that bad to me, really.  But then, I'm all for changing the focus from a "per day" resource management task to a "per encounter" resource management task anyway.  This feat basically gives the cleric the ability to cast unlimited less-powerful-than-average Cure spells for his level that can't be affected by meta-magic feats, require touch delivery, and only affect one character at a time.  At the lowest levels it will impact the game a lot, but the mid and higher levels (where everyone seems to get healed up completely between encounters anyway), not so much.  And since the cleric can't get it until 3rd level minimum, it's only going to really be helpful for a few levels before you get to those higher levels.

I can kind of see the "suspension of disbelief" arguments, as the village cleric providing unlimited healing to his village seems like a stretch at first.  But then again, a village cleric of 3rd level probably could be providing the equivalent of "unlimited healing" to his village in the current D&D system anyway, since these are Cure Wounds spells for dealing with damage, and not Cure Disease spells, and that type of thing isn't going to come up all that often.  I don't have a problem with the village cleric always having a "lay on hands" ability handy for when Timmy falls out of a tree and cracks his skull open or when Farmer Brown gets kicked in the gut by his horse.  That seems like exactly what divine magic would be used for in a high-magic D&D world to me.  OTOH, that same cleric is going to be just as taxed dealing with a plague sweeping through the streets as he is without the feat, so the major medical threats to the village are still there.

I'm somewhat more interested in the Domain Reserve Feats like Protective Ward and Fragile Construct.  Those seem to be available to 1st level clerics, which breaks one of the assumptions that I had about Reserve Feats (that they wouldn't be available to starting characters).  Providing even a +1 bonus to AC for a 1st level character that can be "always on" and can be granted to another character is a nice effect.  Not necessarily overpowering, but a nice thing to have.

(I like the idea of Fragile Construct too, not to use against constructs, but for 1st level PCs to use against doors...)


----------



## kayn99 (May 8, 2007)

The group I play in, we use the Grim and gritty system.  We usually have a lot of role playing and less fights since they are so deadly.  This feat in the GnG system would be extremely powerful.  As with all new things published, you need to look at the feat/class/race and decide does it fit in to my world and how does it balence with everything else.  The game is about having fun and if adventuring made easy is fun for the group of players; wonderful.  If harder tougher adventures is what you seek do not add some of the stuff.  It is all about what yoru group enjoys.  I am sure we do way too much role player for some players on this board while others would enjoy it.  

In addition I am sure that they are testing out new items for the 4th edition.  Heck if you a company and could have people pay to play test items, then give feed back; you would do it.  I like the concept of reserve feats, but they need to be handled carefully in a game.  

Kayn


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> If resource management is so meaningless to you, maybe you should go play a superhero game. Or XboX.



Ah, the "if its not D&D exactly as I like it, it's a video game / superhero game" line... Does that one ever get old? [sblock]Yes.[/sblock]

The joy of day long resource management has never overcome my dislike for the feel of x/day abilities. If you can do something, you can do it. Maybe it has some effect on you (fatigue, damage, a skill check to activate that gets harder each time you do it) that effectively limits the number of times per day it can happen in practice, but just "you only have this much rage in you today" doesn't work for me. 

This isn't a videogame or superhero feel to me, its a fantasy feel. And sicne I see D&D as a tool for playing out fantasy adventures rather than a genre unto itself, however you can change D&D to get a better fantasy feel works for me.


----------



## jcfiala (May 8, 2007)

Reserve feats are an interesting idea.

For some, they allow the party to adventure more between rests.  (And if a party is able to figure out a way to rest securely or semi-securely every 4-5 encounters, then what's the difference between "Day 1: encounter 1, encounter 2, encounter 3, encounter 4, <rest and nothing happens>, encounter 5, encounter 6..." and "Day 1: encounter 1, encounter 2, encounter 3, encounter 4, encounter 5, encounter 6..."?  After all, if anything the second block removes a chance for the wizard/cleric to choose spells that better fit the dungeon.)

For others, they allow a mixture of non-vancian magic with the vancian.

And for people who don't like it?  Just ban Reserve feats, or to be more drastic, ban the books that contain them.  There's folks who play with the basic three books still who won't encounter them, or folks can play with 3+4 (basic three and the first four Complete books) and still not have to deal with them.  There's no base classes that depend on them, there's no prestige classes that rely on them, and so it's easy as anything to simply exclude them if you don't want them in your game.


----------



## Henry (May 8, 2007)

It's funny - while I wouldn't terribly mind losing "X per day", I don't want to lose it to "always on, all the time" which is the direction that Tome of Battle, Complete Mage Reserve Feats, Factotum Inspirations, and Star Wars Jedi Force powers seem to be going. I've played plenty of games where you refresh after each battle -- Feng Shui is one, Mutants and Masterminds is (more or less) another -- and while they're great games, they don't have the kind of feel D&D has to me. Resource management has always until now been a big part of the game, and it's one that, to me, the game will be worth playing without.

We've had many discussions in this vein ever since Tome of Battle came out, and as it creeps forward with every new release, it's not one that I can support; it's no fun to me, as DM or player, if the only way an enemy can defeat me is to crush me flat RIGHT NOW.


----------



## backbeat (May 8, 2007)

I am ok with the idea of the feat.  I think as written it is too powerful.  I hate the idea of always having to stock up on wands of CLW, but I think the Cleric can heal too much too fast with this feat.  

As is, if a Lvl 7 cleric can use a 4th lvl spell and heal 12 hp/round.  Assuming an average of 8 HP per level, that heals a party of 5 from 0 HP to full in 3 minutes.   

As a DM there will be no wearing down your PCs.  Fighters will always be at 100% when they role initiative.  I would be happier with the feat if it let you heal 1 Hp/round.


----------



## Erywin (May 8, 2007)

backbeat said:
			
		

> As a DM there will be no wearing down your PCs.  Fighters will always be at 100% when they role initiative.  I would be happier with the feat if it let you heal 1 Hp/round.




*evil laugh* oh so you want a bet on that?  I am still pretty sure I can wear you guys down even if Mace ends up taking this feat, which I don't think he will.

edit: fyi I am th evil DM that runs campaigns for this poor bloke   Just finished running thier 8-11th lvl gestalt party thru a dungeon where at the end boss they had about 2-3 spells left and most were pretty injured   Was one of the greatest sessions I have DMed


----------



## Elemental (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> If resource management is so meaningless to you, maybe you should go play a superhero game. Or XboX.




I love the "video game" argument, where the plaintiff equates his least favourite style of roleplaying with a video game and heavily implies that's a bad thing because video games never have decent plots. It's so provably false, that they can't have played a decent video game in the last 12+ years.


----------



## shilsen (May 8, 2007)

Not a problem for me at all, for multiple reasons. In my Eberron game, the PCs usually have only a single fight on a given day, and more rarely two, with three having happened about thrice in nearly 60 sessions. So PCs running out of resources isn't something that ever happens and not something that I need to challenge them. I actually ruled that I will not track out-of-combat healing in the game, PCs don't have to tell me they're spending money on healing wands, and if there are a couple of minutes between fights, I assume they're at full hp. 

So the reason this wouldn't show up in my game is because it's not necessary. We're there already


----------



## Corsair (May 8, 2007)

Also the "video game" argument ignores that fact that many video games DO have resource management in some form or another, especially computer/console RPGs.

Back on topic, regarding reserve feats in general:  

I don't see a problem with allowing casters to have some tricks that they can do at will, while their "big tricks" can only be used a few times per day.  I think Monte Cook even talked about tinkering with a variant magic system which would basically combine the concepts of warlocks for the lower level spells, but keep a vancian set up for the more powerful iconic spells.  Since I'm not in the mood to revamp the entire magic system, I have no problem with just using the reserve feats.

In one game I'm in, we have an acid specialist wizard who keeps one energy substituted acid ball prepared (he is level 5) and then spends most combats against weaker foes using his "Acid Splort" (TM) Reserve Feat from just behind the front lines, and it seems to be working for him.

Now as for this feat in particular:

Assuming this feat works with no limitations, I'd actually expect it to see a lot more use by multiclassed clerics (or druids), paladins, and the like, even bards.  This way they could parlay their lesser spell-casting into more healing.  For example, I'm considering making a new 6th level shapeshift druid and this would be an excellent feat choice for her to make up for the delayed Cure _______ progression and lack of spontaneous healing.  I could also see Favored Souls taking it so they won't need to bother with Cure Light Wounds.

As for general balance, I suppose it is a question of play style.  If you prefer long, grueling, grinding dungeons, or long lasting mass combat against weaker foes, yes this will clearly come out ahead (as would other reserve feats, warlocks, sorcerers over wizards, fighters over Barbarians/paladins, etc).  This won't be useful at all in the fight with the BBEG or any remotely dangerous foes though.


All in all, I like it.


----------



## Twowolves (May 8, 2007)

Elemental said:
			
		

> I love the "video game" argument, where the plaintiff equates his least favourite style of roleplaying with a video game and heavily implies that's a bad thing because video games never have decent plots. It's so provably false, that they can't have played a decent video game in the last 12+ years.




I don't dislike that style of gaming. I love superhero gaming, and I enjoy video games. I enjoy both for different reasons than I enjoy D&D. But it is a radical departure from the game I've been playing for over 20 years. It's not "I hate video games, bah!", it's "this is a vastly different game than I have been, or want to continue playing". Just because I like ice cream doesn't mean I want it on my pizza, or that I can't like both.

It's sad to say, but I think there is MORE resource management in video games now than there will be in the future of D&D. But to equate the direction D&D is headed to "video gamey" is NOT equivalent to Godwin's Law. It is a legitimate concern, and it should not be handwaved away or dismissed quite so easily.


----------



## Corsair (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> But to equate the direction D&D is headed to "video gamey" is NOT equivalent to Godwin's Law. It is a legitimate concern....





No, it isn't a legitimate concern.  

Unless you're saying Super Mario Brothers, Dance Dance Revolution, Final Fantasy, Morrowind, Streetfighter, Warcraft: Orcs versus Humans, and Tetris are all the same, and share features which Dungeons and Dragons also shares.

So saying "video gamey" means absolutely nothing, and will cause your argument to be ignored unless you are a bit more specific.


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 8, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Not a problem for me at all, for multiple reasons. In my Eberron game, the PCs usually have only a single fight on a given day, and more rarely two, with three having happened about thrice in nearly 60 sessions. So PCs running out of resources isn't something that ever happens and not something that I need to challenge them. I actually ruled that I will not track out-of-combat healing in the game, PCs don't have to tell me they're spending money on healing wands, and if there are a couple of minutes between fights, I assume they're at full hp.
> 
> So the reason this wouldn't show up in my game is because it's not necessary. We're there already



 This is a good point--this reserve feat is unnecessary for games with that style of low battles per day, and games with that style can actually be completely awesome.  Of course, no one would take this reserve feat in shil's game, and even if they did, it would never even possibly be a problem.  

The problem is that there are many games, and in particular most published adventures, that do have these vast complexes with loads and loads of encounters, and I can speak for Shackled City when I say that those games would be cheapened and the fun lessened with the infinite healing Reserve Feat.  And of course, players in this sort of game would be the first to line up to take the feat.

That's the trouble with things that are either harmless/useless or potentially game-changing/game-breaking depending on playstyle--players likely just won't take it if the style makes it useless, but they will when it is of massive utility.


----------



## jcfiala (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> It's sad to say, but I think there is MORE resource management in video games now than there will be in the future of D&D. But to equate the direction D&D is headed to "video gamey" is NOT equivalent to Godwin's Law. It is a legitimate concern, and it should not be handwaved away or dismissed quite so easily.




The problem is that it gets repeated a lot, without backing evidence.  I've played Neverwinter Nights, and now World of Warcraft, and both of them contain a fair amount of resource management - as a warrior, I need to keep track of my equipment and upgrade it.  I need to keep track of my food supplies and healing potions and other buffs, and earn enough to buy more.  I need to keep track of my Rage and Hit points - do I let my hit points regenerate, but go into the next battle with no rage to fight with, or do I rush into the next battle with lower hit points but being able to use my powerful abilities from the beginning?

Of course, to a certain degree, it's a matter of taste - some folks on this thread like the new taste, some folks don't.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> If resource management is so meaningless to you, maybe you should go play a superhero game. Or XboX.




If resource management is so important to you, go become an accountant.


----------



## Voadam (May 8, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Not a problem for me at all, for multiple reasons. In my Eberron game, the PCs usually have only a single fight on a given day, and more rarely two, with three having happened about thrice in nearly 60 sessions. So PCs running out of resources isn't something that ever happens and not something that I need to challenge them. I actually ruled that I will not track out-of-combat healing in the game, PCs don't have to tell me they're spending money on healing wands, and if there are a couple of minutes between fights, I assume they're at full hp.
> 
> So the reason this wouldn't show up in my game is because it's not necessary. We're there already




For one of my games it is because we use a modified version of the spell recharge magic variant in Unearthed Arcana. All healing spells can be cast infinitely, you just have to wait for a few rounds in between casting.


----------



## IanB (May 8, 2007)

backbeat said:
			
		

> I am ok with the idea of the feat.  I think as written it is too powerful.  I hate the idea of always having to stock up on wands of CLW, but I think the Cleric can heal too much too fast with this feat.
> 
> As is, if a Lvl 7 cleric can use a 4th lvl spell and heal 12 hp/round.  Assuming an average of 8 HP per level, that heals a party of 5 from 0 HP to full in 3 minutes.
> 
> As a DM there will be no wearing down your PCs.  Fighters will always be at 100% when they role initiative.  I would be happier with the feat if it let you heal 1 Hp/round.




3 minutes between fights is a lot of time for buffs to run down or for the guards in the next room to burst in. Site-based adventures often tend to lead to chained encounters anyway, as the PCs set off the alarms and the occupants of the place they're attacking head their way. Where the real difference will be seen is in event-based adventures I think.

And as always, "cheapened" and "less fun" are anything but objective measures.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 8, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> This is a good point--this reserve feat is unnecessary for games with that style of low battles per day, and games with that style can actually be completely awesome.  Of course, no one would take this reserve feat in shil's game, and even if they did, it would never even possibly be a problem.
> 
> The problem is that there are many games, and in particular most published adventures, that do have these vast complexes with loads and loads of encounters, and I can speak for Shackled City when I say that those games would be cheapened and the fun lessened with the infinite healing Reserve Feat.  And of course, players in this sort of game would be the first to line up to take the feat.
> 
> That's the trouble with things that are either harmless/useless or potentially game-changing/game-breaking depending on playstyle--players likely just won't take it if the style makes it useless, but they will when it is of massive utility.




Okay, my group is probably a bunch of powergamers (okay, not probably. We all are.)

We played through Shackled City, and I remember the big dungeons and dangerous encounters we faced there. We didn't have a Cleric at the beginning (we only got one because we got a new player, too). But we still ensured that we always rested once our spell and hit point resources where done. 

Even the campaigns before, we made it a habit to buy several wands of cure light wounds and later Wands of Lesser Restoration and Cure Moderate Wounds, and now, high level clerics even buy Staffs of Healing once they can afford it. At early levels, the first magic item the group buys is usually a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, and only then we begin to distribute the treasure to buy other magical or mundane equipment.
We always ensure that we are at full hit points after each encounter (unless it is impossible due to time constraints), and rest time is not determined by the amount of hit points left in the characters, but the amount of useful spells we have. If we're out of cure wands, we will usually leave the area entirely and try to buy new ones. (Otherwise, 3 guard shifts and a Leomunds Secure Shelter, Mordekainens Magnificent Mansion or the classical tent will provide for our safe rest)

So, what would really change with this feat for us is that we don't have to waste time thinking about buying dozens of Wand of Cure Light wounds in our adventuring career. Counting wand charges isn't a particularly interesting part of resource management. (I'd prefer counting tokens to fuel my new "special move" or determining whether I cast my last Empowered Fireball on this tight formation of hobgoblins or leave the task to our meelee warriors and just interfer with some Magic Missiles, hoping the FIreball will really count at a later time...)

I know other play styles will be different (again, we're power gaming a lot), but for us, the feat would be nice.


----------



## blargney the second (May 8, 2007)

backbeat said:
			
		

> [..] heals a party of 5 from 0 HP to full in 3 minutes.
> 
> As a DM there will be no wearing down your PCs.  Fighters will always be at 100% when they role initiative.



1) We already have the former the wands of CLW/CMW.  The difference is that with the wands you have to roll the dice bajillions of times to figure out how much you get healed in a given time frame.  With the feat, it requires much less makework arithmetic to patch up, and it's easier to figure out how long it takes (for those encounters where time is a factor).

2) You can still wear down your PCs in the usual ways: make them cast spells, use their daily abilities, cause ability damage, inflict harmful conditions, etc.  If the cleric gets KO'd, the party's still in trouble.  Heck, if the cleric loses his holy symbol he might not even be able to use this feat!

Nothing changes except the fact that you're using a feat instead of gold to heal you.  It still costs someone a resource to get the effect, it's just a different cost.
-blarg


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 8, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> 1) We already have the former the wands of CLW/CMW.  The difference is that with the wands you have to roll the dice bajillions of times to figure out how much you get healed in a given time frame.  With the feat, it requires much less makework arithmetic to patch up, and it's easier to figure out how long it takes (for those encounters where time is a factor).



Reading this: We only roll the dice of our CLW wands during combat, outside, we assume the average (rounded up => 6 hit points for a Wand of Cure Light Wounds). (We usually don't tell the hitpoints we need to heal up, but the # charges we need to get to full hitpoints  )


----------



## Twowolves (May 8, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> If resource management is so important to you, go become an accountant.




If resource management is so horrible, why have hit points at all? That's the logical next step in making the game "more fun", isn't it? 

Mutants and Masterminds doesn't have hp, and it's a fun game. So is Savage Worlds (ok, technically, they have 3 hit points. but everyone has the same). These are fun games, but they aren't D&D. And D&D shouldn't try to become them, at least in my opinion. 


"Video gamey" to me at least means "Pac-Man" or "Super Mario Brothers" or other twitchy games. One hit and Mario is dead. Better jump that barrel in time! Lord knows Starcraft and other RTS games have lots of resource management in them, but having clerics heal an infinate ammount of damage, wizards dish out an infinate ammount of damage, and fighters take an infinate number of hits just seems to me to be a lot more like Gauntlet and less like D&D. 

If you don't agree, and the rest of the people here don't either, that's fine too. You guys enjoy your game, but I don't think I'll be playing it along with you. I'll be playing D&D, and I won't pretend otherwise. Or consider my hobby "accountant training", thanks.


----------



## Henry (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> If resource management is so meaningless to you, maybe you should go play a superhero game. Or XboX.






			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> If resource management is so important to you, go become an accountant.




So in that case, none of us should be playing D&D? 

From my standpoint, allowing "reserve healing" is the last thing that takes D&D squarely into "refresh after each fight" and out of territory that has been important to it for 30 years. Everybody's got their point past which a game is no longer _"their game"_ - and for me, that's going to be _"refresh all your abilities in 1 minute's time."_


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> If resource management is so horrible, why have hit points at all? That's the logical next step in making the game "more fun", isn't it?




I don't know I was just being snarky.


----------



## Twowolves (May 8, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> From my standpoint, allowing "reserve healing" is the last thing that takes D&D squarely into "refresh after each fight" and out of territory that has been important to it for 30 years. Everybody's got their point past which a game is no longer _"their game"_ - and for me, that's going to be _"refresh all your abilities in 1 minute's time."_




I kind of agree. Instead of the "4 fights per day" paradigm, it's "one fight at a time". It's a huge shift, and not one I'm keen on making. Unfortunately, I see the writing on the wall, and this is how things will be come the next edition. When that day comes, I don't think I want to play anymore. 

I intend to pick up the Saga Edition of d20 Star Wars and read over it, even if the group I'm in won't use it. I have a funny feeling that a lot of what they have in mind for 4th ed D&D will be "playtested" in there.


----------



## Alpha Polaris (May 8, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> So in that case, none of us should be playing D&D?
> 
> From my standpoint, allowing "reserve healing" is the last thing that takes D&D squarely into "refresh after each fight" and out of territory that has been important to it for 30 years. Everybody's got their point past which a game is no longer _"their game"_ - and for me, that's going to be _"refresh all your abilities in 1 minute's time."_



I see your point, but honestly I don't agree. Reserve healing does not equate to full refresh after each fight, because lost spells are still lost, ability damage is still a factor, and so on. The only meaningful difference is that the cleric will use a feat rather then burning through countless C(L/M/S/C)W wands. In the meantime, he had to make a choice between this feat and divine spell power, so as a DM I do not feel cheated. I've never played a game in which the party keeps going when out of combat healing is depleted. In the grand scheme of things, this feat doesn't change a lot, and I don't think it will be as widely used as some reactions here seem to imply. Shuffling through the aforementioned excerpt, i found the divine feats much more interesting than the reserve ones. Countering or retrieving spells with turn attempts, that seems to pack some punch.


----------



## Henry (May 8, 2007)

Alpha Polaris said:
			
		

> I see your point, but honestly I don't agree. Reserve healing does not equate to full refresh after each fight, because lost spells are still lost, ability damage is still a factor, and so on.




Well, consider the following: As is, any Martial Adepts in the group (Swordsages, etc.) retrieve all of their abilities within 1 minute of combat ending. Mages with reserve feats can generate small fireballs, lightning bolts, ranged damage, etc. on the fly, and never use a single spell with the exception of maybe flinging their largest spells for the climactic encounters. The Factotums can do almost all of their abilities at will, and regain them within 1 minute of use (only two exceptions are their healing/turning, and their spells). Now, the cleric can heal an entire group back to full by taking about 30 rounds or less out of combat; there will before long, I do not doubt, a feat that allows a cleric to cure 1 point of ability damage per round to fix any and all damage there.

Over in the new Star Wars game, all force-users will regain their powers in 1 minute's rest. This is another example of the "per-encounter" design noted above.

There may be indeed 1 or 2 instances, given current rules now, where a party will have to dip into its daily resources. However, all of it is evidence of a path toward the very popular option of simply having all resources renew at the end of a combat or non-combat encounter, and not have to worry about the next encounter, whether it be combat or not. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, you're looking at characters whose only worry is if the villain is overpowering enough to smash them outright, rather than worrying if the villain will wear them down - because he can't. (Given current D&D spells, it's pretty easy to hide from your enemies for 1 minute's time, long enough to come back at full strength and kick butt. Heck, a forcecube spell would do it in most cases.) Hide out, heal up with your 30 to 270 points of reserve healing per minute, come back almost before the enemy knows you're gone.

If we were looking at 3 points per minute, or "regains 20% of abilities per hour of rest", or similar, it would be a different situation; but all you do is stop for a breather, and you can emerge completely or almost completely restored? For me, that's too much.


----------



## Corsair (May 8, 2007)

Soo... don't use it?


----------



## Stalker0 (May 8, 2007)

I think Henry is right that the trend is definitely evolving towards per encounter resource management instead of per day. However, I'm not going to call end of the world yet.

If we are talking new edition for a second (which I normally hate to do) I could see a general balance with a per encounter notion in mind but still have a few long term resources like action points. If spells are a wizard's meat and potatoes, I don't have a problem with them getting to cast spells in every combat. However, I think it would still be good to have action points and things that do run out, so once in a while you can really cut loose. I also like the BO9S approach to fighters. After a while swinging a sword just starts to look boring compared to classes that can alter reality, so its nice to add a little flair to fighting.

However, what I am worried about is "patching" 3x into a per encounter model, because its not designed for it. I think BO9S is imbalanced with regard to regular melee classes. I think that allowing clerics to cast infinite healing is too good in many games.

I think the take home message is that reserve feats are something a dm has to consider carefully, as they take 3x in a completely new direction. But thank god its still dnd, because DND means its still your game, and its still your choice!!


----------



## Corsair (May 8, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think the take home message is that reserve feats are something a dm has to consider carefully, as they take 3x in a completely new direction. But thank god its still dnd, because DND means its still your game, and its still your choice!!




This is really the moral of the story.

Warlocks (and their ilk such as the Dragonfire Adepy), Tome of Battle, and Reserve feats are specifically aimed at a certain style of play.  They are a crutch for players (meaning all people playing the game, including the DM) to make the system more friendly to longer excursions with less worrying about saving your cool abilities for later.  The theory being that barbarians want to rage, wizards want to cast spells, etc, and by forcing them to sit and hoard their powers isn't the fun part of the game for them.

Clearly the opposite is true for some people, which is why these things are presented in optional books.


Now the whammy:  Would anyone buy a book of variant rules, from WotC or another publisher, which redesigned/tweaked the core classes, feats, and spells to make them fit into the "per encounter" or "at will" style?  Rather than just tacking on feats, actually revamp them completely as an alternate set of rules?


----------



## fafhrd (May 8, 2007)

It is a fortunate congruence that Paizo's critical hit deck is coming out right around the same time as this feat.  Low hitpoints are kind of a boring consequence of "the long slog" anyways.  Some of the critical hit effects make for more interesting resource management decisions.


----------



## AllisterH (May 8, 2007)

Um, you still have resource management with the reserve feats in complete mage (I'm not going to mention the reserve healing until I see it in print) since they only work as long as you don't use a spell.

What the reserve feats do is increase the effectiveness of arcane casters at low levels but pretty much are non-even worthy mentioning at mid levels or higher.

Ex: a 5th level  mage has the fiery burst reserve feat. Means he can throw around 3d6 fireballs (assuming he has fireball prepared/known) all day long and when compared to his single 5d6 fireball, that's pretty impressive. 

Change it to a 10th level mage and unless he has a higher fire spell (which is not a certainity), he's still stuck at the 3d6 point whereas his regular fireball has now jumped up to 10d6. Even if he did have a 5th level fire spell, he's only doing 5d6. 

For a 10th level party, even the mooks/grunts are going to laugh off a 5d6 fireburst since they're expected to be able to handle the 10th level mage using his 3rd level spells. In fact, this is equivalent to what a first level spell can do thanks to the cap.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 8, 2007)

I read this feat and i don't understand how it works. Its not a complete write up. We don't know if their is a limit or not, or what kind of action it is, or anything. So why argue about it? we do know its a Reserve feat. We don't know how reserve feats work. I my bet is that the key to how this feat works will be revealed when we learn more about reserve feats.

edit*

others seem to know more about reserve feats. What are they?


----------



## Stalker0 (May 8, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I read this feat and i don't understand how it works. Its not a complete write up. We don't know if their is a limit or not, or what kind of action it is, or anything. So why argue about it? we do know its a Reserve feat. We don't know how reserve feats work. I my bet is that the key to how this feat works will be revealed when we learn more about reserve feats.
> 
> edit*
> 
> others seem to know more about reserve feats. What are they?




Reserve Feats were introduced in the complete mage. They allow a mage to use a certain kind of effect as supernatural ability without limit, as long as they have a certain kind of spell prepared (or spell slot for sorcs). The strength of the effect usually depends on the level of the spell prepared.

Now while we don't know how this reserve feats works exactly, considering there are many examples of reserve feats to fall back on right now, you can make some decent assumptions.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 9, 2007)

Wait wait wait...

PCs in other games start any battles with less than full hp?


----------



## Voadam (May 9, 2007)

Corsair said:
			
		

> Now the whammy:  Would anyone buy a book of variant rules, from WotC or another publisher, which redesigned/tweaked the core classes, feats, and spells to make them fit into the "per encounter" or "at will" style?  Rather than just tacking on feats, actually revamp them completely as an alternate set of rules?




You mean like Unearthed Arcana's Recharge Magic variant does for spells?  

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm

Or perharps like Iron Heroes

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=21717&

For me the answer is yes, I've bought both of these and would be interested in a recharge psionics, paladin smite, monk stunning blow, cleric turning, and barbarian rage type of variant rules supplement.


----------



## Technik4 (May 9, 2007)

> Change it to a 10th level mage and unless he has a higher fire spell (which is not a certainity), he's still stuck at the 3d6 point whereas his regular fireball has now jumped up to 10d6. Even if he did have a 5th level fire spell, he's only doing 5d6.




"Unless he has a higher fire spell (which is not a certainty"

Huh? The mage that took the Reserve Feat which grants him unlimited fireballs and you think somehow he'll forget to prepare that? I mean, maybe if they are battling inside a volcano or on the Elemental Plane of Fire, but short of that, expect the characters to use their feats.

And some people do have a problem with the concept of a Wizard able to chuck 5d6 'firebursts' all day long (until he actually has to use his Wall of Fire, or whatever higher level fire spell he memorized).


----------



## Twowolves (May 9, 2007)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> "Unless he has a higher fire spell (which is not a certainty"
> 
> Huh? The mage that took the Reserve Feat which grants him unlimited fireballs and you think somehow he'll forget to prepare that? I mean, maybe if they are battling inside a volcano or on the Elemental Plane of Fire, but short of that, expect the characters to use their feats.
> 
> And some people do have a problem with the concept of a Wizard able to chuck 5d6 'firebursts' all day long (until he actually has to use his Wall of Fire, or whatever higher level fire spell he memorized).




Or a Heightened Burning Hands. Or a Fire Substituted Cone of Cold. Or is a sorcerer and has a 5th level fire spell known and slots remaining. 

These reserve feats may do the same thing as cheap wands, but even cheap wands cost _something_. Every gold piece spent on a wand or scroll is a gold piece that isn't going into some other magic item. And never mind the whole "pop off to the corner Wizards 'R' Us store for some magic toys" standard that 3rd ed has become. 

Seriously, why have gold pieces at all, or even hit points? If resource management is such a drag and unfun, why not get rid of all of it? No more gold, no more arrows, no more hit points, it's just too much to keep up with after all...


----------



## blargney the second (May 9, 2007)

And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.


----------



## Nyeshet (May 9, 2007)

*I've been expecting something like this . . .*

The design philosophy at WotC has changed over the last few years. It used to be that the group adventured from X number of encounters to X number of encounters. Casters had to pace themselves to make it through X number of encounters before having a chance to re-charge. 

Now, however, the philosophy is to balance against one encounter. Recharging totally between encounters seems almost expected. In the midst of a combat, healing a few points is useful, but it is not game breaking, as a typical attack will often take off more than is healed. It basically allows the healed character another round or two before they are back where they were before, at the cost of the cleric (or caster, as bards, druids, etc can probably also use this) not attacking, etc for that one round. Between encounters, this more or less means that the entire party can be healed up before the next encounter. With other reserve feats allowing near infinite minor to moderate magic and (semi) new classes like the warlock having infinite casting, this means that the party is fully re-charged between every encounter - instead of between every few encounters. 

Its part of a paradigm shift. 

I'm most surprised, I think, not by the reserve feat that allows for infinite (albeit in small increments) healing, but instead by the surprise some people are having over this. 

As I said above, I've been expecting something like this . . .


----------



## Egres (May 9, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> PCs in other games start any battles with less than full hp?



Yes, of course.

1) They often don't have enough time to restore their resources.

2) They often don't have enough resources.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 9, 2007)

Unfortunately, this is a feat without any real "they can do it too" mitigating power. Bad guys typically live four one to ten rounds after opening hostilities with the PCs. On the few occasions where bad guys do escape, they typically use some of the PCs treasure (potions, scrolls, etc) before joining the next group of monsters. Reserve healing would only mean that the BBEG can heal all of his minions who live through combats without expending resources (so the bad guys still have their potions when the PCs encounter them again--and the PCs then loot said potions from the bad guys' corpses).

In short, unless you are playing a VERY unusual game where the bad guys' expendable healing resources are insufficient to allow the few who escape to recover fully AND the bad guys frequently are able to withdraw and heal up, the PCs will experience more pain from a BBEG taking Weapon Focus or Spell Focus than Healing Reserve.

For PCs, on the other hand, it's another story entirely. Since the PCs' normal mode is to be injured but not defeated, the near elimination of resource cost for out of combat healing is a dramatic power increase for them. If your parties devote resources to be able to push on when they need to, the feat could be approximately priced by estimating the value in wands of cure light wounds (or lesser vigor) that would otherwise be expended. It's possible that some parties at least would find it a relatively mild savings (I think my Living Greyhawk characters have averaged about two wands of cure light wounds between levels one and 15 so for a party that was like them, it would work out to only about 6000-9000 gp of savings for the feat; that said, I think my Living Greyhawk characters' usage is abnormally low and is probably influenced by the fact that my highest level character was a defensively oriented fighter/mage, my next highest level character is a cleric (who figured on using his spells instead of wands) and my next highest level character also uses saving throws, armor class, and a deceptively harmless appearance as defenses rather than hit points). It is also possible that parties who only rarely face endurance tests where they have multiple battles without a chance to recover their spells would not find it a useful feat at all. On the other hand, parties of damage trading barbarians will find the feat extraordinarily powerful. Even so, I think the wand of cure light wounds analysis misses some of the power of the feat. My characters have frequently spent spells on healing when they thought they could afford to do so in order to avoid expending wand charges. Sometimes my characters were wrong in their estimations of when they could afford to do so. This feat would remove the guesswork from that equation as well as the opportunity cost or the worry that expendible resources could give out. That in itself is a dramatic change in the game since there would be much less worry about getting in over our heads while running on reserves.



			
				rgard said:
			
		

> I know what feat my BBEG (Cleric) will take next!  So, one mitigating factor will be that the NPCs will have access to this feat as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 9, 2007)

The big difference between what the reserve healing reportedly enables characters to do and the existing reserve feats is that the existing reserve feats are mostly useful during combat. Unlimited 5d6 firebursts are combat actions and, as such are less effective than 10d6 fireballs or 10d6 firebrands. Sure, you can do them as often as you want, but the cost is being less effective per action with the limited number of actions allotted to the character during combat. Reserve healing, on the other hand, fills a non-combat function and thus most likely does not have the same balance by available actions factor that existing reserve feats have. Outside of combat, it will only occasionally be significant whether you cast a heal spell and are ready to go right away or if you use reserve healing ten times and are ready to go one minute later.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Um, you still have resource management with the reserve feats in complete mage (I'm not going to mention the reserve healing until I see it in print) since they only work as long as you don't use a spell.
> 
> What the reserve feats do is increase the effectiveness of arcane casters at low levels but pretty much are non-even worthy mentioning at mid levels or higher.
> 
> ...


----------



## yipwyg42 (May 9, 2007)

I don't really have that much of a problem with this feat.

My players spend a lot of time buffing themselves up before battles.  How I look at it is if the party wants the cleric to spend minutes healing everyone up to full hit points, while their buff spells are wearing down that is fine with me.

I would have a bigger problem with this if buff spells went back to the hours per level they used to be.

I also see this system as being more in line with how current fantasy books are, magic users tend to cast spells as needed.  

So maybe there can be some middle ground, healing spells maybe are on a per day basis, and others are on a per encounter basis.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 9, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Reserve Feats were introduced in the complete mage. They allow a mage to use a certain kind of effect as supernatural ability without limit, as long as they have a certain kind of spell prepared (or spell slot for sorcs). The strength of the effect usually depends on the level of the spell prepared.
> 
> Now while we don't know how this reserve feats works exactly, considering there are many examples of reserve feats to fall back on right now, you can make some decent assumptions.




i see now why people were chiming in before actually read the feat as printed.  It seems broken but not game breaking. Just way too strong for a feat. It would seem that power creep is very much alive. With damage spells is balanced because those are only useful in combat and actions are valuable. healing out side of combat has no down fall. I can only hope  that the full feat accounts for use outside combat with a limitation of some sort.


----------



## shilsen (May 9, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Seriously, why have gold pieces at all, or even hit points? If resource management is such a drag and unfun, why not get rid of all of it? No more gold, no more arrows, no more hit points, it's just too much to keep up with after all...




You do realize that there may be different levels and forms of resource management, right? It's not a case of all or nothing. 

Even assuming this feat works with no restrictions (which we can't know for sure till someone gets the book and posts about it), it doesn't remove all the other forms of resource management. It doesn't change the fact that the cleric will have a limited number of spell slots, and will have to use them for in-combat healing just as much as he did before the creation of the feat, since it's almost useless in a fight. There's an element of resource management in taking the feat itself, since that means one less feat that one can spend on something else.

People play the game differently and appreciate different parts of it. I, for example, am not a big fan of resource management and generally try to minimize it in my game. Doing so doesn't affect my ability to challenge the PCs or create interesting and varied encounters (which may, sometimes, have some emphasis on resource management for a change) or run a successful long-term campaign. But if resource management is important to your game and helps it, I'm not the least bit surprised, say more power to you and heartily recommend that you don't use the feat. Is it that difficult for you to understand that some people might not play the way you do?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 9, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Instead of the "4 fights per day" paradigm, it's "one fight at a time".



Four fights per day never worked. There was no reasonable way to enforce it. PCs are almost always the attackers. They can decide when to retreat (or use Rope Trick) and rest up. Wandering monsters are boring and implausible, a relic of earlier editions.


----------



## AllisterH (May 9, 2007)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> "Unless he has a higher fire spell (which is not a certainty"
> 
> Huh? The mage that took the Reserve Feat which grants him unlimited fireballs and you think somehow he'll forget to prepare that? I mean, maybe if they are battling inside a volcano or on the Elemental Plane of Fire, but short of that, expect the characters to use their feats.
> 
> And some people do have a problem with the concept of a Wizard able to chuck 5d6 'firebursts' all day long (until he actually has to use his Wall of Fire, or whatever higher level fire spell he memorized).




Ah but you didn't read the rest of my post.

Why would people have problems with a 10th level mage casting 5d6 firebursts all day long since, quite frankly in combat they won't do ANYTHNG useful.  Using this reserve feat at levels 1-5 is a huge step up for the wizard but at 10th level, what type of mook gets taken down by a 1st level damage spell?

Hell, would the mage even get XP on such a scenario given that if the mooks can be blown away by a 1st level spell, they have to be seriously below the CR and thus aren't likely to have XP by RAW?

Personally, I like the current reserve feats (except of course for the alter self one---damn, polymorph magic is simply broken....) since they allow me to scale back the power of the arcane classes at high levels but not screw them unintentionally at lower levels.

As for the balancing by encounter vs encoutners per day, I tend to prefer the former as I find the only scenario the latter excels at is the "BBEG is about to complete the ritual, we don't have time to rest". which can still work in the former paradigm.


----------



## Technik4 (May 9, 2007)

> Why would people have problems with a 10th level mage casting 5d6 firebursts all day long since, quite frankly in combat they won't do ANYTHNG useful. Using this reserve feat at levels 1-5 is a huge step up for the wizard but at 10th level, what type of mook gets taken down by a 1st level damage spell?




I refuse to believe that a 5d6 fireball (with a 5' radius and 30 ft range) is useless at 10th level. Now, it certainly isn't great - I'm not arguing that the wizard will single-handedly take down whole encounters through use of the feat, but considering that it is really good when you acquire it at lower levels (and basically works like "sacrifice a spell slot of X level to throw Xd6 firebursts at will") I would not want to play with it in a game. Additionally, giving you another die of fire dice (10d6 fireballs at level 9) is just gravy for an already-awesome feat.

Honestly, with things like reserve feats I don't see how anyone can argue against power creep in the game. Compare a 3.0 wizard with feats selected from supplements before 3.5 to one afterwards. The potential power is noticably higher.


----------



## AllisterH (May 9, 2007)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> I refuse to believe that a 5d6 fireball (with a 5' radius and 30 ft range) is useless at 10th level. Now, it certainly isn't great - I'm not arguing that the wizard will single-handedly take down whole encounters through use of the feat, but considering that it is really good when you acquire it at lower levels (and basically works like "sacrifice a spell slot of X level to throw Xd6 firebursts at will") I would not want to play with it in a game. Additionally, giving you another die of fire dice (10d6 fireballs at level 9) is just gravy for an already-awesome feat.
> 
> Honestly, with things like reserve feats I don't see how anyone can argue against power creep in the game. Compare a 3.0 wizard with feats selected from supplements before 3.5 to one afterwards. The potential power is noticably higher.




Hmm?

Not sure how you figure this though? I mean at level 10, the situations where a 5d6 fireball would win are also situations where you wouldn't get any XP. What it does do is ust give a mage more fluff at the high ends and more power at the low ends. I do agree that it is an increase in power of mages but only at a pt in the game where they actually need it and yes, I do think mages need to be scaled back at the lower ends.

As for power creep, that's not really happening since people tend to focus on ONLY the options that increase power. Take the PHB II for example. An increase in power for fighters certainly since they get a lot of new tasty high level fighter feats but look at the new druid variant. 

That's a siginifcant decrease versus the core-druid yet no-one mentions this. How about the new classes introduced in the PHB II? Not one of them even matches the original big 4 from the original PHB yet again, no one mentions this as a decrease in power?

There are simply more options which of course means more potential abuses. If 3.5 has 100 feats but only 5 of them are uber whereas in 3.0 only has 10 feats but 1 of them is uber, it looks like 3.5 is more powerful since players don't like playing with weaker options (and I can't see how WOTC is to blame for this).

As for the specific power increase in wizards, might I remind you about the spell DC shenanigans that a 3.0 wizard had? Even at this point in 3.5, a wizard isn't going to have his spell DCs jacked up as much as his 3.0 counterpart and again, this seems to get ignored.


----------



## Technik4 (May 9, 2007)

> There are simply more options which of course means more potential abuses. If 3.5 has 100 feats but only 5 of them are uber whereas in 3.0 only has 10 feats but 1 of them is uber, it looks like 3.5 is more powerful since players don't like playing with weaker options (and I can't see how WOTC is to blame for this).




That's the whole point really. It wouldn't matter if every feat in the Complete Champion was weaker than the average feat in the PHB (which is high doubtful) - the fact is there is this one feat that will definitely change how many groups play and if you come back to the game in 2 years (assuming that 4e hasn't come and changed things) you'll find things are pretty different than they were before things like Book of 9 Swords has come out.

I still have friends that lament that the intricacies of THAC0 are gone - they liked the complexity of earlier editions and think that 3rd edition is too lax in some areas. I'm not trying to convince anyone this is true, but it is true the game is being changed in favor of more flexibility, more gas for spellcasters (which seems ironic given the huge buff decreasing from 3.0-3.5, reducing the durations of bull's strength et al), and classes that can be 'fully prepared' for each encounter.

And Spell Foci feats, Spell Power, and spell DC inflation was nerfed before 3.5 came out (though haste was a real powerhouse until the revision and there were many houseruled variants).


----------



## Blue (May 9, 2007)

Nyeshet said:
			
		

> The design philosophy at WotC has changed over the last few years. It used to be that the group adventured from X number of encounters to X number of encounters. Casters had to pace themselves to make it through X number of encounters before having a chance to re-charge.
> 
> Now, however, the philosophy is to balance against one encounter. Recharging totally between encounters seems almost expected. In the midst of a combat, healing a few points is useful, but it is not game breaking, as a typical attack will often take off more than is healed.




I think I agree that the philosophy is shifting, but I also see that as a good thing.  For instance, as a DM who runs exceedingly few classic dungeons, most usual is only 1-2 encounters per day (if there are any encounters on a specific day).  This allows casters to "go nova" and blow through resources.  A friend of mine had a nice balance - sometimes 1 encounter, sometimes 5 or 6, and you never really knew which.

I think allowing things on a per encounter allow the DM the flexibility to run the type of campaign they want.  The only thing I'm not so happy about is the definition of encounter.  Everything seems focused on encounter = combat.  An encounter could be an RP encounter with repercussions, it could be a trap, etc.  

I do find one thing different in my games then you experience - healing in combat is crucial.  We've had a number of character deaths recently in one game I'm in because we couldn't get healing to the right place at the right time.  In the game I'm in good healing has prevented deaths.  So my experience is that in-combat healing is crucial.  So you still need healers capable of appropriately large healing spells that they are useful in combat, this feat just moves the out-of-combat reliance from items back to character abilities, which I like.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)


----------



## Patlin (May 9, 2007)

I'm hoping for a limited number of heals per recipient per day (or hour.)  The devil is usually in the details, and without reading the whole thing I'm not at all certain we know enough to comment.

Tons of possibilities exist.  The feat might heal the recipient but fatigue them, for example.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 9, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Hmm?
> 
> Not sure how you figure this though? I mean at level 10, the situations where a 5d6 fireball would win are also situations where you wouldn't get any XP.



This seems like you are saying an ability is only useful as an instakill. The point is not for the 5d6 fireball to "win" the encounter, anymore than the point of improved disarm is to "win" the encounter. The point is to contribute, and a 5d6 fireball can certainly contribute to a XP worthy encounter.

The whole point of the reserve feats, IMO is to move *away* from the mindset where the spellcaster is either dominating an encounter or useless and towards a middle ground of consistent contribution with the occasional moments to shine.


----------



## Twowolves (May 9, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> You do realize that there may be different levels and forms of resource management, right? It's not a case of all or nothing.
> 
> People play the game differently and appreciate different parts of it. I, for example, am not a big fan of resource management and generally try to minimize it in my game. Doing so doesn't affect my ability to challenge the PCs or create interesting and varied encounters (which may, sometimes, have some emphasis on resource management for a change) or run a successful long-term campaign. But if resource management is important to your game and helps it, I'm not the least bit surprised, say more power to you and heartily recommend that you don't use the feat. Is it that difficult for you to understand that some people might not play the way you do?





Nowhere did I say I begrudged anyone for how they choose to play. In fact, if you read my earlier posts, I specifically state that what works for you is great for you, BUT it doesn't work for me. My problem is that with this second round of Complete books, these feats are moving the entire game towards a direction that is massively different that what I'm comfortable with, and both Henry and I see it as being the way things will probably be in the next edition of the game. At that point, I'll no longer be playing "D&D", as it will be understood, but instead playing with "the old rules", and will be getting just as much support from the industry as, say, someone playing Star Frontiers or Twilight 2000.

I don't really care if someone runs a game in which they don't keep up with food, or arrows, or hit points. That's fantastic, but I don't care for it. I have very little difficulty understanding, but thanks for assuming otherwise. Is it so hard for YOU to understand that the underlying assumptions about the limiting resources available to PCs is disaapearing with these new feats, and that it is a huge power-boost to PCs that isn't easily matched by just giving NPCs the same feats? As esplained in the sidebar about critical hits, because PCs are in more fights than any given NPC foe, anything that increases randomness hurts the PCs, but anything that lets the PCs go all day without stopping is a huge swing the other way. 

Why not give the PC's magic machine guns that never run out of ammo. Because this is basically what the wizard reserve feats do. Sure, some action movies are just fine, even though the hero has just fired 24 rounds from a 6 shot revolver without reloading, but that just doesn't sit well with me, nor a lot of others.

Yeah, I can make a challenging encounter for PCs with this feat, but it gets a lot harder when they never have to rest between fights or can fire away all day long. Essentially, the foes must be capable of taking out a party at full strength, or not at all. No more the idea of mooks wearing them down as they get closer and closer to the BBEG. If PCs enter every fight at full hp every time, why have hp at all? If the foes have to drop the PCs in one fell swoop, why not use the Damage Save from Mutants and Masterminds or True 20? Both are good systems, neither are D&D. If parties are already healing to full via wands, why bother having gold pieces? I'm not advocating massive ammounts of resource management, just... the same as it's been.


----------



## Twowolves (May 9, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> The whole point of the reserve feats, IMO is to move *away* from the mindset where the spellcaster is either dominating an encounter or useless and towards a middle ground of consistent contribution with the occasional moments to shine.




I thought that's what wands were for, after all. A wizard with a reserve feat doing 5d6 every round all day long has little use for a wand of magic missiles even at CL9. So, one of these reserve feats just eliminated the need for a nearly 5000gp item. Hmmmm.... nah, not a problem, right?


----------



## satori01 (May 9, 2007)

One can make an argument that per encounter powers is more consistent with the storyline driven nature of the game today.
When you just fought through the evil princes elite body guards, that last thing you want to do for continuity is have to cast the Rope Trick or Mord Mag Mansion to rest up.

We all have done it, and we all have excised those incongruousness memories from the narrative fabric.  Per day powers works better, when the pace of the game is assumed to be languorous exploration of a Dungeon.

That said I have some fond memories of trying to find a place to rest in hostile territory, and as a DM I love the thrill of when you shut off the supply of healing potions, and leave the players stranded in a hostile land.

Reserve feats are an interesting way to have at will powers, and resource management.  I think the vast majority of players feel that spell casters should have some powers they can either use at will or always have on, and major effects should have a more limited usage per day.

The question with a reserve healing feat is healing treated w/in the system more as a combat related aspect, or utility.  Monte Cook once famously said that the Sorcerer class was balanced in regards to being a "Magic Missile" machine, the system can handle the "loaded for bear" character.  People had a harder time handling the utility mage, the one that had the party always buffed w/ 3.0 Haste and Improved Invisibility.

My own personal opinion, is that healing falls more under the loaded for bear category.  Players & DMs alike have always  never looked to hard at when a Healing wand or Potion appears just at the right time in the horde of slain monsters.  A good portion of treasure resources, whether by DM placement or player creation or purchase always goes to supplying healing.  To put that more firmly into the control of players, I think is essentially not that great of a change.  

Moreover, more self reliant characters means equipment matters less, which is not a bad think imho.  As a DM creating treasure troves and monitoring player wealth is the biggest balance factor.

Ultimately @ high levels, it is all about the heal spell anyways.


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 9, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Nowhere did I say I begrudged anyone for how they choose to play. In fact, if you read my earlier posts, I specifically state that what works for you is great for you, BUT it doesn't work for me.



Yes, but then you also say...



> If you don't agree, and the rest of the people here don't either, that's fine too. You guys enjoy your game, but I don't think I'll be playing it along with you. I'll be playing D&D, and I won't pretend otherwise.



Which is implying that we're NOT playing DND, unless we're playing it exactly like you're playing it.  So, we can play how we want to, but it's not DND unless it matches your expectations? Come on.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 9, 2007)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Moreover, more self reliant characters means equipment matters less, which is not a bad think imho.  As a DM creating treasure troves and monitoring player wealth is the biggest balance factor.



I definitly agree. The more a group's capabilities come from themselves and the less from their equipment lists the better, AFAIC. Reserve feats are a great way of replacing an equipment based capability with a player based one and I like them for that reason if no other.

That said, I do agree that reserve feats change the power balance somewhat, and DMs have to think about their effects when including them. But thats not a reason to avoid it entirely.


----------



## Corsair (May 9, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> I thought that's what wands were for, after all. A wizard with a reserve feat doing 5d6 every round all day long has little use for a wand of magic missiles even at CL9. So, one of these reserve feats just eliminated the need for a nearly 5000gp item. Hmmmm.... nah, not a problem, right?




How much would you charge for an item, perhaps a set of gloves, that gives a fighter power attack?

One feat being equivalent to a 4500 gp item?  Seems fair enough to me.


----------



## Henry (May 9, 2007)

Corsair said:
			
		

> How much would you charge for an item, perhaps a set of gloves, that gives a fighter power attack?
> 
> One feat being equivalent to a 4500 gp item?  Seems fair enough to me.




Of course, by that analogy, the fighter would be paying that 4500 gp about every 10 encounters; OR, the feat would become useless every 10 encounters and he'd need to take it again. I know not all feats have the same worth, but some feats would be too good to put into a magic item, and vice versa. Example: would it be OK to give someone the Vorpal ability at the cost of a single feat? Over the lifetime of a character, they might pay that 4500 gp several times for that wand, so it would be more than just one cost of 4500 that would have to be paid.


----------



## Syltorian (May 9, 2007)

Patlin said:
			
		

> I'm hoping for a limited number of heals per recipient per day (or hour.)  The devil is usually in the details, and without reading the whole thing I'm not at all certain we know enough to comment.
> 
> Tons of possibilities exist.  The feat might heal the recipient but fatigue them, for example.




Or, given that many of the other feats in the same category work only for those with access to a certain domain, maybe it will work only for clerics with access to the Healing Domain. That's my suspicion (or rather, the hope I cling to). 

My problem with this (should there be no more limits than what the preview say) is not so much rules but flavour. I like the more gritty and dangerous side of things, where wounds and injuries do not get healed as easily. It adds more to the athmosphere of things; it is already difficult enough, at times, to get people to take death seriously with the resurrection spells out there. 

As someone mentioned, this means that every town with a good cleric can live on without fearing injuries anymore. Unless they take you straight down to -10. The good cleric does not have the excuse 'I have to save my power just in case I really need it' anymore, if this is, like other reserve feats, is unlimited and unrestricted. In Eberron, for instance, this would make it really difficult for Jorasco - the clergy would heal without asking money, without spending any resources themselves, without having to manage their resources. 

I also see this as stepping on the paladin's toes, and anyone else with lay on hands. Okay, so they can heal more hitpoints at one go, and use it to damage undead in combat. But, again, flavourwise this ability seems laughable. The cleric now can lay on hands better, and in the situation most people will be familiar with - few commoners run around needing to be healed 40 hp in one go - they'll just have less respect for the pally, by comparison. 

Thus, if there is no further limit to the feat - and I suspect there must be - I will either limit it to those with access to the Healing Domain (their domain has never been very attractive, imho, anyway), or else to members of House Jorasco with the dragonmark as a requirement. 

Also, someone pointed out on the WotC boards that clerics do not even have to prepare a cure spell to be able to use this field (again, assuming the text does not impose any limits; something which, again, I do not believe or want to believe). They can cast cure spell spontaneously, which is enough to satisfy the requirements for reserve feats so far. Thus, as long as a cleric has a single spell available to cast, he'll be able to heal people.


----------



## Corsair (May 9, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Of course, by that analogy, the fighter would be paying that 4500 gp about every 10 encounters; OR, the feat would become useless every 10 encounters and he'd need to take it again.




You didn't answer my question.  How much would you charge for a magic item that would grant a fighter power attack?  (a ring of evasion for comparison sake is 20k)

My point is that in general, feats are "worth" more than 4500 gold.  So having a feat that emulates an unlimited wand of magic missile doesn't strike me as terribly overpowered considering the extreme restrictions on it (notably the 30 foot range)

This is less about the wear down between encounters and more about general wealth and availability of magic items.  In every game I've been in where magic items could be purchased or commissioned, the party has had at least two CLW wands by level 3.  We never went into a new area hurt if it could be avoided.  If you run a game where the default assumptions are not held in regard to wealth and availability of magic in one form or another (or the wizard and cleric can't collaborate to craft wands) then the feat will have a bigger effect.  But frankly I suspect that isn't the case in most people's games.


----------



## rgard (May 9, 2007)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this is a feat without any real "they can do it too" mitigating power. Bad guys typically live four one to ten rounds after opening hostilities with the PCs. On the few occasions where bad guys do escape, they typically use some of the PCs treasure (potions, scrolls, etc) before joining the next group of monsters. Reserve healing would only mean that the BBEG can heal all of his minions who live through combats without expending resources (so the bad guys still have their potions when the PCs encounter them again--and the PCs then loot said potions from the bad guys' corpses).
> 
> In short, unless you are playing a VERY unusual game where the bad guys' expendable healing resources are insufficient to allow the few who escape to recover fully AND the bad guys frequently are able to withdraw and heal up, the PCs will experience more pain from a BBEG taking Weapon Focus or Spell Focus than Healing Reserve.
> 
> <SNIP>




Maybe mine are unusual games, but I play the BBEGs tougher than what you describe.  Sometimes it's the PCs who drop 1 to 10 rounds into the combat.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 9, 2007)

Corsair said:
			
		

> How much would you charge for an item, perhaps a set of gloves, that gives a fighter power attack?
> 
> One feat being equivalent to a 4500 gp item?  Seems fair enough to me.



By way of comparison, a 10,000 gp item effectivly replaces a feat (glove of storing, not as good for throwing on iterative attacks, but better than the feat in giving "quicksheath" as well, and an excellent hiding place for your weapon). And a 13,000 gp item gives you better than dodge and better than improved unarmed strike (monk's belt). So there are already situations where the same or very similar benifits can be gained through either character planning or finacial planning.


----------



## Someone (May 9, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> I know what feat my BBEG (Cleric) will take next!  So, one mitigating factor will be that the NPCs will have access to this feat as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich




Before doing that, have a look at he other feats in the preview list. At least 90% of them sound worthy of a feat slot!


----------



## chitzk0i (May 9, 2007)

Syltorian said:
			
		

> In Eberron, for instance, this would make it really difficult for Jorasco - the clergy would heal without asking money, without spending any resources themselves, without having to manage their resources.




Look at the flip side: whatever they charge for hit point healing will be 100% profit.  Unless there are more altruistic clerics using the feat to provide free healing, then people will be willing to pay money for healing.


----------



## Syltorian (May 9, 2007)

chitzk0i said:
			
		

> Look at the flip side: whatever they charge for hit point healing will be 100% profit.  Unless there are more altruistic clerics using the feat to provide free healing, then people will be willing to pay money for healing.




I admit I had overlooked that side. Still, I find that it imbalances the campaign world, because healing comes much more easy. Too easy. A spellcaster could still require money for the use of this feat, but it becomes difficult to put a price to it. And I certainly believe that adepts and clerics of most good gods will be altruistic enough to offer that healing free, or for a few coppers. Or simply attendence to their church. 

As there is no greater effort involved, no expense of spell slots, it is considerably cheaper than a spell for the caster, which means that you can under-cut your rival's prices without suffering yourself. The lower limit, 'at cost', is offering it more or less gratis (a copper, perhaps, for the time and displacement, and even that is overpaid).  

Of course, from a real-world point of view, that would be ideal. Free or cheap healing for everyone. An NHS that actually works! Nobody on the battlefield dying from wounds! But for flavour reasons, I don't like that in my pseudo-medieval or pseudo-early renaissance world, which I don't want to be as perfect as I might want my own world to be. Except perhaps as an exception to show, by contrast, how great the rulers of this particular place are. Naturally, opinions on flavour diverge, and I assume we also have different opinions on whether and how much money would be asked for using such a feat. 

The question why good, and supposedly altruistic clerics and adepts would not heal people has come up a few times at the Eberron WotC boards. The answers provided, unless I am mistaken, were that clerics a) do not sell their spells (or should not; they are divine blessings, not crass commercial goods) and b) keep them back just in case there is a real need (someone at -8 hp and failing to stabilise). 

This I believe would apply to most good-aligned clerics, regardless of setting. But both reasons are invalidated by this feat, if it is what the preview makes it out to be. They would not have to sell it (it doesn't cost them anything), and they do not risk standing there with no magic left when they really, really need it to save someone's life. 

This also removes the need to actually focus on healing (which, in Eberron, removes the need for Jorasco, who would be easily put out of business by people offering healing free of for a few coppers). Provided you are a cleric and can cast healing spells spontaneously, you never need to prepare a healing spell at all, unless you are out adventuring and need to cure more than 6 hp at a go... which is all the vast majority of the world's inhabitants will need (beyond that, they need resurection).


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 9, 2007)

I definitly don't consider my settings to be psuedo medieval in anything but superficial lavor, and if it is changed socially by magic that, to me, is a good thing for believability of a fantasy world. That's jsut me...


			
				Syltorian said:
			
		

> The question why good, and supposedly altruistic clerics and adepts would not heal people has come up a few times at the Eberron WotC boards. The answers provided, unless I am mistaken, were that clerics a) do not sell their spells (or should not; they are divine blessings, not crass commercial goods) and b) keep them back just in case there is a real need (someone at -8 hp and failing to stabilise).
> 
> This I believe would apply to most good-aligned clerics, regardless of setting. But both reasons are invalidated by this feat, if it is what the preview makes it out to be. They would not have to sell it (it doesn't cost them anything), and they do not risk standing there with no magic left when they really, really need it to save someone's life.



IMO, both of the reasons just constitute excuses. You have people capable of healing, some of them will heal for free (because they can aford to and want to help), some of them will heal for enough to live on (because they have to live too but want to help), some will heal only for money or a special duty to those they value, others will charge high prices to those they don't like so much and give charity on the side. An individual leric or adept might not heal for the reasons given but trying to justify no charity healing in the world... lame...


----------



## rgard (May 9, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> Before doing that, have a look at he other feats in the preview list. At least 90% of them sound worthy of a feat slot!




Will do, thanks!


----------



## Twowolves (May 9, 2007)

Corsair said:
			
		

> How much would you charge for an item, perhaps a set of gloves, that gives a fighter power attack?
> 
> One feat being equivalent to a 4500 gp item?  Seems fair enough to me.




Except the feat doesn't negate ONE 4500gp item, it negates several. How many depends on the individual campaign, but it's a lot more than just 750gp for one cure lt wounds wand as others have suggested. Might as well have a feat called Infinite Arrows, and then try to estimate the value of that feat, when it is entirely dependent on how many arrows you shoot over a lifetime.

Even if we did say Power Attack gloves were worth, say, 13000 gp, taking the feat saves that money and lets it go towards other items. And pricing theoretical items and trying to equate the gp value of a given feat is an exercise in futility.


----------



## blargney the second (May 9, 2007)

Fear leads to anxiety. Anxiety leads to despair. Despair leads to overwrought generalizations.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 9, 2007)

Endless healing outside of combat is only a problem because aside from hit point damage, the only other possible lasting effect of a combat is usually death.

Maybe the combat system would just have to be adjusted a little bit here. You regain full hit points after combat, but even normal meelee combat without using poisons, diseases or magical effects, can cause some lasting effects, Injuries that need to be healed over time or with using  non-replenishing resources. 
The effects should be noticeable, but nots serious. They shouldn't lessen the offensive capabilities too much (because that's deadly in D&D), so penalties to attacks or spell casting should be avoided.
Maybe effects like a general -2 penalty to saves or skill checks or a 10 ft movement penalty.


----------



## blargney the second (May 9, 2007)

Man, I can't wait for this book to come out!  I've been hoping for them to make an ability like this for a looong time.  When I get my hands on it, it'll be time for a little celebration.  We might even break out the Complete Champagne.
-blarg


----------



## James McMurray (May 9, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Endless healing outside of combat is only a problem because aside from hit point damage, the only other possible lasting effect of a combat is usually death.




I take it negative levels, ability damage, ability drain, and the many other negative effects don't exist or play a small role in your games?


----------



## Felon (May 9, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Endless healing outside of combat is only a problem because aside from hit point damage, the only other possible lasting effect of a combat is usually death.



Or more specifically, the only effect of hit point depletion will be death.

Currently, getting those hit points back requires something to be consumed--usually, charges from a wand. That 750 gp cost does add up, even at higher levels, because characters have more hit points. 

Hopefully, the touch will have some restriction on it like it only restores hit points up to half their total. If not, I may house-rule it as such.


----------



## blargney the second (May 9, 2007)

Huh.  I know every group has a different play style, but I'm starting to get the impression that our group might use special effects more than some people here.  We frequently leave a combat suffering from long-lasting effects other than just hp loss: diseases, poison, negative levels, broken/stolen gear, used items, curses, etc.  Not to mention used spells, daily special abilities, and lost time (when inconvenient).

Hps are just one resource of many.
-blarg


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 9, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> 1) They often don't have enough time to restore their resources.
> 
> 2) They often don't have enough resources.




Resources never an issue past about level 4. A wand of cure light wounds is cheap cheap cheap. And, if you have no wands and no cure spells left, you're probably going to die in the next battle anyway. What are you doing going into battle with no way to heal? And, time isn't that much of an issue, because you'll want to use real spells for healing at that point. If the fighter is at half HP, and you don't have time to stop and give him 20 taps of the wand, cast a few _cure serious wounds_ and go on, but for goodness sakes, don't let him start the next battle at half life! That's just asking to die.



			
				Syltorian said:
			
		

> Or, given that many of the other feats in the same category work only for those with access to a certain domain, maybe it will work only for clerics with access to the Healing Domain. That's my suspicion (or rather, the hope I cling to).




I thought that was a given...


----------



## Erywin (May 9, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Huh.  I know every group has a different play style, but I'm starting to get the impression that our group might use special effects more than some people here.  We frequently leave a combat suffering from long-lasting effects other than just hp loss: diseases, poison, negative levels, broken/stolen gear, used items, curses, etc.  Not to mention used spells, daily special abilities, and lost time (when inconvenient).
> 
> Hps are just one resource of many.
> -blarg




And more yet to come   I really did enjoy getting that mummy rot off on Rhomian   Had to get somebody with it.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 9, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Or maybe you could, you know, just read my post, wherein I specifically mention the cancellation of said magazines.




I did, you said you were going to cancel dungeon and cancel dragon (I assume the magazines, no?).  I was being silly stating that if you wait long enough, you won't have to cancel them yourself, because they are going to stop producing those magazines.


----------



## James McMurray (May 9, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I did, you said you were going to cancel dungeon and cancel dragon (I assume the magazines, no?).  I was being silly stating that if you wait long enough, you won't have to cancel them yourself, because they are going to stop producing those magazines.




He wasn't stating his plans, he was giving a list of the things WotC is doing that tick him off. They're cancelling dungeon, cancelling dragon, and then "finishing off the mortally wounded beast with some Reserve feats."


----------



## Egres (May 9, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Resources never an issue past about level 4.



Uhm?



> A wand of cure light wounds is cheap cheap cheap.



If you have:

1) the Create Wand feat _and_ the time _and_ the place to use it

or

2) silly magic items shops (something you'll not find in any of my group's campaigns)



> And, if you have no wands and no cure spells left, you're probably going to die in the next battle anyway.



Did I say no cure left?

My groups use a fantastic resource: their cleric.


> What are you doing going into battle with no way to heal?



Do you always have the opportunity to _choose_ to engage a battle?



> And, time isn't that much of an issue, because you'll want to use real spells for healing at that point.



This means you have never been chased in your games.



> If the fighter is at half HP, and you don't have time to stop and give him 20 taps of the wand, cast a few _cure serious wounds_ and go on, but for goodness sakes, don't let him start the next battle at half life! That's just asking to die.



Do your players die in your game?

In mine they do.


----------



## DM_Matt (May 10, 2007)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Ha! I'm buying Command & Conquer 3 for the 360 this week.




Don't waste your time.  Big disapointment unless you want to play all rush all the time.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (May 10, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> If you have:
> 
> 1) the Create Wand feat _and_ the time _and_ the place to use it
> 
> ...




Or... some other way to prcure wands of _cure light wounds_.  Such as having performed some service for a good aligned church that can produce them.  Or having made friends with a merchant cleric with craft wands.  Or having raided a militant churches wand repository.  Or know an artificer...  Or any number of other things.

Later
silver


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 10, 2007)

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> Or... some other way to prcure wands of _cure light wounds_.  Such as having performed some service for a good aligned church that can produce them.  Or having made friends with a merchant cleric with craft wands.  Or having raided a militant churches wand repository.  Or know an artificer...  Or any number of other things.



Yeah, my characters always purchase wands of cure light (and other divine spell trigger or spell activation items) from the church they are associated with, or one that shares the adventuring party's overall goals. The idea that it takes a "silly magic item shop" (as opposed to a logically consistent and serious magic item shop I can only assume) to be able to reliably get that sort of item is, imo, silly in itself.


----------



## Twowolves (May 10, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I did, you said you were going to cancel dungeon and cancel dragon (I assume the magazines, no?).  I was being silly stating that if you wait long enough, you won't have to cancel them yourself, because they are going to stop producing those magazines.




I didn't say I was going to cancel my subscription, I was referring to the fact that first WotC cancels both mags, now they put out this feat to finish off the wounded critter that has been my hobby for over 20 years. In fact, I don't have a subscription, because I make the effort and pay the extra price to support my FLGS and pay cover to help both the store and the publisher. And for my effort, I got LESS content, back when they were putting "extra" material in subscriber only issues of the mags.

I wasn't terribly clear, but that happens when I post before my first cup of coffee.


----------



## Syltorian (May 10, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I thought that was a given...




I truly hope so. But so far, all the table says it that you need access to 2nd level spells. Unlike Charnel Miasma, Fragile Construct, Protective Ward, Holy Warrior (filling the lacuna after "access..."), it does not mention any domains...

Neither do Mitigate Suffering and Umbral Shroud, incidentally.


----------



## James McMurray (May 10, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> Do your players die in your game?
> 
> In mine they do.




Mental not, do not be a player in Egres's game. While my life might enjoy the sudden influx of life insurance money, I'd miss out on many future gaming sessions.


----------



## jcfiala (May 10, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> Do your players die in your game?
> 
> In mine they do.




Hum.  Where do you bury them?  How do you keep the police or loved ones from tracking them to your door?  I ask.. oh, for no particularly special reason... *whistles innocently*


----------



## Nail (May 10, 2007)

No worries.  I already called the cops (to get the reward money, of course!).


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 10, 2007)

jcfiala said:
			
		

> Hum.  Where do you bury them?  How do you keep the police or loved ones from tracking them to your door?  I ask.. oh, for no particularly special reason... *whistles innocently*




"Blackmail is *such* an ugly word."

"I didn't say blackmail."

"No, but I did."

Ah, paraphrasing Buffy quotes.

Brad


----------



## rgard (May 10, 2007)

jcfiala said:
			
		

> Hum.  Where do you bury them?  How do you keep the police or loved ones from tracking them to your door?  I ask.. oh, for no particularly special reason... *whistles innocently*




I recruit the homeless for my games.  Game sessions are played in a trailer down by the river.


----------



## Egres (May 11, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Mental not, do not be a player in Egres's game. While my life might enjoy the sudden influx of life insurance money, I'd miss out on many future gaming sessions.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 11, 2007)

I think you misunderstand. It doesn't matter if the BBEG kills one or even 3/5 PCs or even TPKs the group. He will still have very little use for the reserve healing feat in most campaigns because he will either not need healing enough for his action to be profitably spent on healing a little bit instead of killing PCs a lot OR he will need a lot of healing in which case the reserve healing feat won't cut it and he needs whatever the highest level healing spell he can cast is. The feat solves a resource management problem that bad guys simply do not have vis a vis the PCs.



			
				rgard said:
			
		

> Maybe mine are unusual games, but I play the BBEGs tougher than what you describe.  Sometimes it's the PCs who drop 1 to 10 rounds into the combat.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich


----------



## evilbob (May 11, 2007)

I haven't read this thread all the way through because it seemed to be mostly people arguing, but in case this hasn't been said:

This feat seems to be the new "required level 3 feat" for clerics, just like Natural Spell is the "required level 6 feat" for druids.  The only difference is that while a viable druid build can include feats other than Natural Spell, I'm guessing once this book comes out there will be no viable (good or positive-channeling neutral) cleric builds that do not include this feat.  It is just _too_ good not to take.

And in my mind, if something is so good that it's basically required, it should just be a class feature.  Looking ahead to future versions of D&D (as others have certainly mentioned), this seems to be the direction they're going...


P.S.  I feel extra bad for dragon shamans.    They have one trick - and this is a better one that they can't even qualify to take.


----------



## rgard (May 11, 2007)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstand. It doesn't matter if the BBEG kills one or even 3/5 PCs or even TPKs the group. He will still have very little use for the reserve healing feat in most campaigns because he will either not need healing enough for his action to be profitably spent on healing a little bit instead of killing PCs a lot OR he will need a lot of healing in which case the reserve healing feat won't cut it and he needs whatever the highest level healing spell he can cast is. The feat solves a resource management problem that bad guys simply do not have vis a vis the PCs.




Hi Elder-Basilisk, I understand your premise; it's just not the way I play the NPCs.  I run the NPCs just like the players run their party.  Granted, 'most campaigns' may be just as you describe.  So I may be in the minority.  

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## James McMurray (May 11, 2007)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstand. It doesn't matter if the BBEG kills one or even 3/5 PCs or even TPKs the group. He will still have very little use for the reserve healing feat in most campaigns because he will either not need healing enough for his action to be profitably spent on healing a little bit instead of killing PCs a lot OR he will need a lot of healing in which case the reserve healing feat won't cut it and he needs whatever the highest level healing spell he can cast is. The feat solves a resource management problem that bad guys simply do not have vis a vis the PCs.




It matters if the BBEG bases his tactics around having small bursts of infinite healing, and instead of standing in a room waiting for his climactic fight scene he harries the party with hit and run attrition tactics designed to hurt them and him a little before breaking off and fully healing.


----------



## Mort (May 11, 2007)

According to this quote, the feat can only heal to 1/2 hit points - in other words extremely useful, but not the be all end all that everyone here is making it out to be. Assuming the post linked to is correct, perhaps people need to rethink their opinions. 



			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> I haven't read this thread all the way through because it seemed to be mostly people arguing, but in case this hasn't been said:
> 
> This feat seems to be the new "required level 3 feat" for clerics, just like Natural Spell is the "required level 6 feat" for druids.  The only difference is that while a viable druid build can include feats other than Natural Spell, I'm guessing once this book comes out there will be no viable (good or positive-channeling neutral) cleric builds that do not include this feat.  It is just _too_ good not to take.
> 
> ...


----------



## James McMurray (May 11, 2007)

That's cool. It means it overlaps with the Dragon Shaman instead of overwhelming him.


----------



## Henry (May 11, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> That's cool. It means it overlaps with the Dragon Shaman instead of overwhelming him.




Agreed. All my potential problems pretty much just vanished. I still have my own beef with the whole "per encounter" thing, but that's grist for another mill.


----------



## evilbob (May 11, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> That's cool. It means it overlaps with the Dragon Shaman instead of overwhelming him.



I completely agree.  That would certainly make more sense and avoid stepping on other classes' toes - and avoid it being a "required" feat for a viable build as well.


----------



## jcfiala (May 11, 2007)

Mort said:
			
		

> According to this quote, the feat can only heal to 1/2 hit points - in other words extremely useful, but not the be all end all that everyone here is making it out to be. Assuming the post linked to is correct, perhaps people need to rethink their opinions.




And once again, a lot of people get *really upset* over incomplete information. 

Still a strong feat, but not a truely game-changing one.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2007)

jcfiala said:
			
		

> And once again, a lot of people get *really upset* over incomplete information.
> 
> Still a strong feat, but not a truely game-changing one.




Actually, I'm not sure whose actually going to take it....

Think about it. If it costs one of your precious feat slots and all it does is recover you to 1/2 max, aren't yuo still going to have to blow a spell slot to get the person back closer to max?

I think the difference is that instead of requiring two spells of level X to get someone back to max, it will require one spell of level X.


----------



## James McMurray (May 11, 2007)

I'd take it with my cleric except we have a dragon shaman already and it would be redundant. If we didn't have one I'd be all over it.


----------



## Nail (May 11, 2007)

jcfiala said:
			
		

> Still a strong feat, but not a truely game-changing one.



Speak for yourself.    It would change our game for sure.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 11, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Think about it. If it costs one of your precious feat slots and all it does is recover you to 1/2 max, aren't yuo still going to have to blow a spell slot to get the person back closer to max?




Or wands.  But it means you use less charges.  The dragon shaman's still more efficient in the long run (as they can do something else like count loot while healing people to 1/2 hp).

It's still a very handy feat, potentially, but it's not a must-have.

Brad


----------



## jcfiala (May 11, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Speak for yourself.    It would change our game for sure.




Really?
Bob the Fighter is down 20 points out of 30 after an encounter - the feat only heals 5 points, and then you need to whip out a spell to heal him 15 more.

Bob the fighter is down 15 points out of 30 after an encounter - the feat is useless.

Bob the fighter is down 50 points out of 60 after an encounter - the feat only heals 20 points, after which you still need to come up with 30 more points of healing.

It allows a group to last longer before stopping to rest, but it doesn't remove the need for major cure spells or wands.


----------



## Nail (May 11, 2007)

jcfiala said:
			
		

> Really?



Yep.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Or wands.  But it means you use less charges.  The dragon shaman's still more efficient in the long run (as they can do something else like count loot while healing people to 1/2 hp).
> 
> It's still a very handy feat, potentially, but it's not a must-have.
> 
> Brad




Er, that kind actually makes my point.

Pre-Touch of Healing - Buy a wand of lesser vigor. Use a charge. Result, Max Hp.
Post-Touch of Healing - Use "The Touch". Still need a charge from wand of lesser vigor.

It doesn't save you any money or am I totally wrong here?...


----------



## blargney the second (May 11, 2007)

If you've got a barbarian in the party, this feat is likely to save your group some money on wands over the long haul.


----------



## AuraSeer (May 11, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, that kind actually makes my point.
> 
> Pre-Touch of Healing - Buy a wand of lesser vigor. Use a charge. Result, Max Hp.
> Post-Touch of Healing - Use "The Touch". Still need a charge from wand of lesser vigor.
> ...



You're totally wrong.  With this feat, you'll use fewer charges.

Say your max hp is 40, and you've been beaten down to 0. Normally it'd take 4 charges from a wand of _lesser vigor_ (and four minutes of time) to bring you to max. But using this feat can heal you up to 20, so you only have to use up 2 charges from the wand. Over a few adventures you'll spend a lot less money on wands.


----------



## Henry (May 11, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I think the difference is that instead of requiring two spells of level X to get someone back to max, it will require one spell of level X.




Looking at it another way, would you take a feat that doubled the hit points cured from every curing spell you had at twice the casting time? It's a good feat, at that rate, and saves you somewhere around 750 gp per week in expenses.


----------



## DungeonMaester (May 11, 2007)

My guess is that it will be usable=caster level/a day.

---Rusty


----------



## James McMurray (May 11, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> The dragon shaman's still more efficient in the long run (as they can do something else like count loot while healing people to 1/2 hp).




The cleric is still a lot faster at getting one person up at a time. If everyone needs 30 points of healing to be at half, it'll take a 2 point aura 15 rounds to do it. If the fighter alone needs 60 points to be at half it'll take a 5th level reserved spell 4 rounds to do it.

Of course, having both in the party would speed things up even more, but is probably overkill unless the campaign involves a lot of time sensitive strings of encounters.


----------



## Particle_Man (May 12, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> My guess is that it will be usable=caster level/a day.
> 
> ---Rusty




Nope, I got the book.  You can use it as long as you have a 2nd level conjuration (healing) spell available to cast.  You heal one touched creature (3 x level of highest conjuration (healing) spell) damage but only up to 1/2 max hp, at a standard action a pop.  Doesn't say whether you can hurt undead with it.

Another perk is that your caster level is considered +1 for all conjuration (healing) spells.


----------



## Egres (May 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Yeah, my characters always purchase wands of cure light (and other divine spell trigger or spell activation items) from the church they are associated with



Because all PCs around the world are associated with a church, right?



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> or one that shares the adventuring party's overall goals.



Because there's always a near church that shares "the adventuring party's overall goals", right?


----------



## fafhrd (May 12, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> If you've got a barbarian in the party, this feat is likely to save your group some money on wands over the long haul.




In the future everyone will have one level of barbarian, and the amulet of health will become a group item.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 12, 2007)

Pretty good, but the sacred healing feat is probably better in a lot of cases, a decent cha cleric can turn out some good group healing with that feat. But of course, that requires cha.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 12, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> Because all PCs around the world are associated with a church, right?



My PCs that have uses for wands have been clerics and a religious bard so yes "my characters*" have been.

*note the difference between the language in my post and yours.



> Because there's always a near church that shares "the adventuring party's overall goals", right?



I play heroes in non-Midnight style campaign settings, so yes for "my characters" there generally is.

This is of course just flavor, as the DMs I have played with have generally adhered to the base guidelines for item availability and a low cost magic item like a CLW wand is "most likely available" in any small town. I don't need to justify gaining access to rules standard equipment, but I do like to describe its aquisition in character apprpriate ways. Your house rules in your campaign are of course your own - and luckily have no impact on my gameplay.


----------



## Nifft (May 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> saves you somewhere around 750 gp per week in expenses.




Holy cow! You guys go through a wand each week? Depends on the PCs level, I guess -- what level are we talking?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## AllisterH (May 12, 2007)

I wonder how much of a paradigm shift this Feat really is or is like Power Attack, a.k.a. not as good as it actually is.

Let me explain my thinking:

The iconic party with a healer without this feat is expected to retreat/rest after the 4th encounter of the day. Now with this feat, the self same party will at least always be at half-strength. However, this is only in terms of HP though.

If a 10th level cleric has used up his 5th and 4th level slots in those 4 encounters (healing in battle, spells in battle), he still can easily heal the party to 1/2 strength with this feat due to his lower slots, but the fact that he doesn't HAVE any 5th or 4th level spells available greatly lowers his effectiveness should another encounter occur.

So he's going to have to retreat/rest ANYWAY? Am I correct in my thinking?


----------



## Patlin (May 12, 2007)

Mort said:
			
		

> According to this quote, the feat can only heal to 1/2 hit points - in other words extremely useful, but not the be all end all that everyone here is making it out to be. Assuming the post linked to is correct, perhaps people need to rethink their opinions.




And since our group allready has a Dragon Shaman... as I said, the devil is in the details for feats!


----------



## Egres (May 13, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Your house rules in your campaign are of course your own - and luckily have no impact on my gameplay.



My "house rules" are what we call "we don't play a videogame where you can always buy what you need".


----------



## Nifft (May 13, 2007)

Mort said:
			
		

> According to this quote, the feat can only heal to 1/2 hit points - in other words extremely useful, but not the be all end all that everyone here is making it out to be. Assuming the post linked to is correct, perhaps people need to rethink their opinions.




Check that out! Thanks for the info. Now I'm thinking it looks pretty good, particularly if it requires a spell and NOT just the ability to spontaneously convert a spell.

Cheers, -- N

EDIT: PS - IMHO, this is NOT a must-have for Clerics. It's a must-have for Druids! Now the Druid can be a half-reasonable replacement for a Cleric.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 13, 2007)

Here's a more interesting question. Given what we now know about the feat, who benefits the most from it:

Paladin
Bard
Cleric
Favored Soul
Healer
Shugenja
Archivist
Druid
Sorcerer/Wizard/Warmage with Arcane Disciple: Healing

My guess is as follows:
1. Favored souls and clerics benefit from it the least. Healers probably don't benefit from it a lot either. All of those classes have large reserves of healing. This feat extends those reserves by allowing curing with fewer wand charges or spells, but it is a somewhat more incremental change.
2. Characters who are sometimes pushed into the role of primary healers--druids, bards, Shugenjas, and archivists gain a lot from it. They now have a renewable way to contribute out of combat healing without losing nearly as much of their offensive capabilities.
3. Characters who have healing abilities but are generally focused in other areas--the arcane casters with arcane disciple for healing spells and the paladin will find the feat to be a very significant sacrifice since it strengthens one of their weaker areas rather than focuses on their strong areas, but the feat might well bring such characters to a point where they might actually be able to fill the function of party healer in a pinch.


----------



## Nifft (May 13, 2007)

Ranger benefits greatly. Paladin benefits massively -- he can heal up to half with his feat, and then fill in the rest with his Lay on Hands ability.

Super-cool. 

 -- N


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 13, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> My "house rules" are what we call "we don't play a videogame where you can always buy what you need".



You might find that "low magic item availability" rolls off the tongue a bit easier, and actually describes what you want, rather than misassigning a feel to other campaigns.


----------



## DungeonMaester (May 13, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Nope, I got the book.  You can use it as long as you have a 2nd level conjuration (healing) spell available to cast.  You heal one touched creature (3 x level of highest conjuration (healing) spell) damage but only up to 1/2 max hp, at a standard action a pop.  Doesn't say whether you can hurt undead with it.
> 
> Another perk is that your caster level is considered +1 for all conjuration (healing) spells.




Feat baned.   

---Rusty


----------



## Nifft (May 13, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> You might find that "low magic item availability" rolls off the tongue a bit easier, and actually describes what you want, rather than misassigning a feel to other campaigns.




Can't a guy use his metamagic feat Flavor Substitution (Vitriol) around here? 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 13, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> Do your players die in your game?
> 
> In mine they do.




I'm going to avoid the tried and true joke here and just go with what you meant. 

All. The. Time.

I hate to think how often they'd die if they didn't heal up when they were injured. A fighter at full hp can die in a single round to some unlucky (or lucky depending on your P.O.V) rolls IMC. At 60%? He's a goner.


But, now that actual information is known about the feat, I consider it a waste of a feat slot for primary healers. I was hoping it would be something to make the Healing Doman worth taking. I'll just continue with my house rule of making Augment Healing the Healing Domain granted ability.


----------



## Destil (May 14, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Looking at it another way, would you take a feat that doubled the hit points cured from every curing spell you had at twice the casting time? It's a good feat, at that rate, and saves you somewhere around 750 gp per week in expenses.



Interestingly enough the feat is pretty close to my own house rule if you put it like that (Maximized healing if you spend 10 rounds casting, and can be distributed across any number of party members)...


----------



## Egres (May 14, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> You might find that "low magic item availability" rolls off the tongue a bit easier.



Easier than "videogame-like players"?

Sure.


----------



## jcfiala (May 14, 2007)

Eh.

Some people are going around saying it's too powerful and should be banned.

Some people are going around saying it's disappointing and not worth a feat choice.

Sounds balanced to me.


----------



## thalmin (May 14, 2007)

It seems this feat cannot be used against undead.


> This ability has no effect on creatures that can't be healed by _cure _ spells.


----------



## Fieari (May 14, 2007)

So, what is a "Reserve Feat" anyway?


----------



## James McMurray (May 14, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> Easier than "videogame-like players"?
> 
> Sure.




Why the need to be an ass? Can't you just hold a different opinion than someone?


----------



## Crothian (May 14, 2007)

Fieari said:
			
		

> So, what is a "Reserve Feat" anyway?




Basically it only works if you have a certain kind of spell prepared or the ability to spontaneously cast it for sorcerers.  And the high the level of the spell the better the ability the feat gives is.


----------



## thalmin (May 14, 2007)

Fieari said:
			
		

> So, what is a "Reserve Feat" anyway?



Reserve feats were introduced in _Complete Mage._ It is a supernatural ability usable at will, drawing on but not consuming prepared or known spells of the appropriate variety (school, descriptor, whatever). It also provides a caster level bonus to a certain category of spells.


----------



## Remathilis (May 14, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> My "house rules" are what we call "we don't play a videogame where you can always buy what you need".




Kahuna Burger Wins the thread. Thanks for playing.

|
|
|
V


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 14, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> Easier than "videogame-like players"?
> 
> Sure.




*Egres, you've outstayed your welcome in this thread. Don't participate in it any more.

Thanks*


----------



## Crothian (May 14, 2007)

It is going to make a very interesting feat.  I'm not sure how it will be seen a year from now but now I see it as a nice feat that should keep characters alive.  I imagine it will help use up more resources faster since it will allow characters to not have to rest so much for healing recharge.


----------



## Pazu (May 14, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Nope, I got the book.  You can use it as long as you have a 2nd level conjuration (healing) spell available to cast.  You heal one touched creature (3 x level of highest conjuration (healing) spell) damage but only up to 1/2 max hp, at a standard action a pop.  Doesn't say whether you can hurt undead with it.
> 
> Another perk is that your caster level is considered +1 for all conjuration (healing) spells.




The text doesn't happen to mention whether being able to spontaneously convert prepared spells to cure spells counts as having the spell available to cast, does it?  I was hoping this particular argument could be averted before it starts.


----------



## Particle_Man (May 14, 2007)

Not that I know of directly, but based upon the argument that an 18th level sorceror with Heighten Spell, and fireball, and a 9th level slot free, does not get to use a "fire" reserve feat as if he had a 9th level fire spell, I would assume that the good cleric is in the same boat, and would actually have to prepare a conjuration (healing) spell, rather than merely have the ability to convert a spell into a conjuration (healing) spell, for a "healing" reserve feat.

But I preemptively yield to Hypersmurf, Crothian, and other Rules Gods.


----------



## Crothian (May 14, 2007)

I am no rules god.  I've been corrected more then a few times by the Smurf.


----------



## Naidim (May 14, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Not that I know of directly, but based upon the argument that an 18th level sorceror with Heighten Spell, and fireball, and a 9th level slot free, does not get to use a "fire" reserve feat as if he had a 9th level fire spell, I would assume that the good cleric is in the same boat, and would actually have to prepare a conjuration (healing) spell, rather than merely have the ability to convert a spell into a conjuration (healing) spell, for a "healing" reserve feat.




"Available to cast" being the keywords IMNSHO, and do not mean the same as "memorized." If "memorized" was the requirement, it would have said so (with exceptions for the spontaneous casters, as is typical). Therefor I would rule that a cleric also always has a conjuration (healing) spell "available to cast" as long as they have any appropriate level spell still available to cast.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 14, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Not that I know of directly, but based upon the argument that an 18th level sorceror with Heighten Spell, and fireball, and a 9th level slot free, does not get to use a "fire" reserve feat as if he had a 9th level fire spell, I would assume that the good cleric is in the same boat, and would actually have to prepare a conjuration (healing) spell, rather than merely have the ability to convert a spell into a conjuration (healing) spell, for a "healing" reserve feat.



I'm not sure your above argument (is this a ruling for WotC?) says anything about spontaneous healing. It seems more to be saying that the potential for metamagicing a spell into a higher level one doesn't count as the higher level...


----------



## Michael Silverbane (May 14, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I'm not sure your above argument (is this a ruling for WotC?) says anything about spontaneous healing. It seems more to be saying that the potential for metamagicing a spell into a higher level one doesn't count as the higher level...




Here's the relevant text from Complete Mage (where Reserve Feats were introduced)...



> A spellcaster who does not need to prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) must know an appropriate spell and must have at least one unused spell slot of that spell's level or higher.




Since a cleric does not need to prepare Cure spells (i.e. he can cast them spontaneously), he falls into this category with respect to the Touch of Healing reserve feat.  The FAQ entry was meant to keep lower level spells + heighten spell from being counted as a higher level spell...  Since spontaneous casters only apply the metamagic when the actually cast the spell.

Later
silver


----------



## Crothian (May 14, 2007)

Clerics though do need to prepare spells.  I get your point but I wouldn't call it clear for this issue.


----------



## Pazu (May 15, 2007)

And that's why I was hoping they'd addressed it in the book!  

Anyone could have seen this argument coming from a mile away.


----------



## James McMurray (May 15, 2007)

It seems to me that a spell slot which currently holds a spell is not an unused spell slot.


----------



## Particle_Man (May 15, 2007)

The reasoning behind the sorceror rule seems to be:

Before casting the heightened fireball in the 9th level slot, there is no 9th level fireball, so you can't get the 9th level "fire" bonus for your "fire" reserve feat.

After casting the heightened fireball in the 9th level slot, that fireball is gone, so you can't get the 9th level "fire" bonus for your "fire" reserve feat.

I would see a parallel with the cleric.  If they don't have conjuration (healing) spells prepared, then:

Before dropping a different 4th level spell to cast a "cure critical wounds", they have no conjuration (healing) spell prepare, so cannot use the benefit of the "healing" reserve feat.

After dropping a different 4th level spell to cast a "cure critical wounds", that spell is gone, so they cannot use the benefit of the "healing" reserve feat.

The parallel seems pretty strong to me.


----------



## Pazu (May 15, 2007)

Actually, now that I reread the rules for reserve feats in _Complete Mage_, I think the matter is resolved.

Relevant text from _Complete Mage_, p. 37:



> ...The definition of "available to cast" depends on whether a character prepares spells or casts spontaneously from a list of spells known.
> 
> A spellcaster who prepares spells each day (such as a wizard) must have an appropriate spell prepared and not yet cast that day...
> 
> A spellcaster who does not need to prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) must know an appropriate spell and must have at least one unused spell slot of that spell's level or higher...




1.  In general, clerics fall into the first category, spellcasters who prepare spells each day.  Thus, they need to have prepared a healing spell of at least 2nd level in order to use the feat.

2.  If you argue that the spontaneous conversion ability allows clerics to function as spellcasters who do not need to prepare spells, they would then need to have an "unused spell slot" of the appropriate level--i.e. a slot that they haven't filled with a prepared spell, since there isn't another definition of an unused spell slot for characters who otherwise need to prepare spells.

Either way, at least one spell slot needs to be devoted to powering this feat.


----------



## hong (May 15, 2007)

The feat is very useful, but not every cleric will necessarily take it. There's two types of cleric characters, basically: those who are there to buff/heal the group, and those who are there to tank. The first group will be all over this. The second won't.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 15, 2007)

I also think the prepared issue will weaken it further. If a cleric is in fact forced to have a healing slot ready, that's may make a difference, especially at low levels.


----------



## airwalkrr (May 15, 2007)

I'm tired of this thread already. I wish it would die. I think I've seen the same comments on both sides like 50 times apiece now.


----------



## hong (May 15, 2007)

The feat is very useful, but not every cleric will necessarily take it. There's two types of cleric characters, basically: those who are there to buff/heal the group, and those who are there to tank. The first group will be all over this. The second won't.

... what?


----------



## Pielorinho (May 15, 2007)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> I'm tired of this thread already. I wish it would die. I think I've seen the same comments on both sides like 50 times apiece now.



Moderator's Notes:

Well okay then, *airwalkrr*.  I cannot prevent you from opening this thread again, but I will ask you not to post in it again.  Your post was not helpful or necessary.

Daniel


----------



## Corsair (May 15, 2007)

I thought there was a FAQ question which addressed the issue for druids who took the elemental summoning feat, and wondering if being able to spontaneously cast SNA would qualify for it?

Maybe it wasn't a FAQ question, but a CustServ response.  Either way, I'm fairly certain that they specifically said that a prepared caster being able to replace spells did not count for the reserve feats.

I should really double check though.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 15, 2007)

Corsair said:
			
		

> I thought there was a FAQ question which addressed the issue for druids who took the elemental summoning feat, and wondering if being able to spontaneously cast SNA would qualify for it?
> 
> Maybe it wasn't a FAQ question, but a CustServ response.  Either way, I'm fairly certain that they specifically said that a prepared caster being able to replace spells did not count for the reserve feats.
> 
> I should really double check though.



Leaves a very strange feel though, to me.... A good cleric naturally channels positive energy so  easily they can use it to replace the energy invested in any prepared spell, but even with this feat added they can't channel lower amounts without preparing the spell. If that's the way its designed to work, and spelled out somewhere then that's the way it is, but by both the wording of "available to cast" and the feel of a postitive energy channeling cleric I'm inclined to let it be.

(one thing that could be weird is if the same cleric has another reserve feat. Would be illogical or overpowered to let him use the prepared Flame Strike to power a mini fireball or a mini healing on different rounds? Could a sorcerer with only one spell slot of a certain level alternate between two known reserve feats?)


----------



## grrtigger (May 15, 2007)

One way to tone down reserve feats if you think they're overpowered might be to limit them to a number of uses per day equal to the ability score bonus for the character's ability tied to his or her spellcasting (WIS for clerics, CHA for sorcs, etc.).  Although that's extra book-keeping, so you could probably rein it in to a lesser degree by imposing 1 pt of non-lethal damage per level of spell slot used to power a specific ability - then it becomes a choice between which resource the character wants to expend.

I haven't read enough about reserve feats to have a good feel for how balanced they are, but based on the comments in this thread I'm at least curious to try them.  I am not a big fan of the party "resting" every couple of hours due to poor resource management (or lack of resources) and it seems reserve feats, if balanced, could help keep things rolling along.


----------



## Corsair (May 15, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> (one thing that could be weird is if the same cleric has another reserve feat. Would be illogical or overpowered to let him use the prepared Flame Strike to power a mini fireball or a mini healing on different rounds? Could a sorcerer with only one spell slot of a certain level alternate between two known reserve feats?)




I can't think of two reserve feats that would work off flame strike, but yes the sorcerer example works just fine.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 15, 2007)

Corsair said:
			
		

> I can't think of two reserve feats that would work off flame strike, but yes the sorcerer example works just fine.



The fire feat off the fact that flame strike is available to cast (prepared) and the healing feat off the fact that mass cure light is available to cast (able to be cast out of that spot).


----------



## hong (May 15, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> The fire feat off the fact that flame strike is available to cast (prepared) and the healing feat off the fact that mass cure light is available to cast (able to be cast out of that spot).



 Sounds fine to me.


----------



## Corsair (May 15, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> The fire feat off the fact that flame strike is available to cast (prepared) and the healing feat off the fact that mass cure light is available to cast (able to be cast out of that spot).





In that case, I would say no.  I personally don't count spontaneous conversion as the same as having the spell prepared.  Based on the previous poster:



> A spellcaster who prepares spells each day (such as a wizard) must have an appropriate spell prepared and not yet cast that day...
> 
> A spellcaster who does not need to prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) must know an appropriate spell and must have at least one unused spell slot of that spell's level or higher...




A cleric is a prepared caster, so would fall under point 1.  He needs to actually prepare the spell.  Even if you considered him spontaneous, by RAW he doesn't have an 'unused spell slot'.

Obviously this is assuming that Healing Touch doesn't have specific language which exempts it from the above.  But in general, I wouldn't allow a cleric or druid to count their conversion ability as qualifying for this feat, otherwise it defeats the whole restriction on reserve feats in the first place.


----------



## karash (May 15, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Leaves a very strange feel though, to me.... A good cleric naturally channels positive energy so  easily they can use it to replace the energy invested in any prepared spell, but even with this feat added they can't channel lower amounts without preparing the spell. If that's the way its designed to work, and spelled out somewhere then that's the way it is, but by both the wording of "available to cast" and the feel of a postitive energy channeling cleric I'm inclined to let it be.
> 
> (one thing that could be weird is if the same cleric has another reserve feat. Would be illogical or overpowered to let him use the prepared Flame Strike to power a mini fireball or a mini healing on different rounds? Could a sorcerer with only one spell slot of a certain level alternate between two known reserve feats?)




Actually, there is wording in the book that says you CAN use a single spell to trigger two reserve feats.  I just got the book and briefly skimmed it, so I don't have the exact words, but I do remember it addressing this.


----------



## karash (May 15, 2007)

I also think they addressed the spontaneous conversion as well - not in the feat description but in the Reserve Feat description at the beginning.  At least, I understood it to mean it was okay.  Again, I don't have the book in front of me though.


----------



## James McMurray (May 16, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The feat is very useful, but not every cleric will necessarily take it. There's two types of cleric characters, basically: those who are there to buff/heal the group, and those who are there to tank. The first group will be all over this. The second won't.




It seems to me that a tanking cleric might want this feat as well, based on the assumption that while tanking you tend to get hurt, and this spell lets you heal more efficiently. Fewer spell slots burned on healing means more spell slots available for buffing. They may not tak it as early on in their career though.


----------



## hong (May 16, 2007)

Well, once you get to 11th level, heal should be able to handle any damage you take. At higher levels, just use multiple heals. IME high-level clerics are far more lacking feat slots than they are spells.


----------



## James McMurray (May 16, 2007)

Heal is definitely useful, but not until at least 11th level. And once you're at higher levels why waste two heals when you can use a single heal and save that other one for use inside combat? This feat is useful (between combat) at all levels.


----------



## glass (May 16, 2007)

Corsair said:
			
		

> In that case, I would say no.  I personally don't count spontaneous conversion as the same as having the spell prepared.  Based on the previous poster:



We get that, but Kahuna Burger was talking about* _if_ she decided to allow it (as she is inclined to do).

I am similarly inclined to allow it, even if it isn't RAW, for similar reasons. And I would have no problems counting both the prepared and the potential spell as available for different feats.


glass.

(* I assume. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, KB)


----------



## Corsair (May 16, 2007)

Well in that case, then yes it would work fine.  As it is, a sorcerer who only has one spell slot open of his highest level and nothing else and had a number of different reserve feats could use any of them.

Or if say you had a spell that was a summoning [Fire] spell it would qualify both for the elemental summoning feat and for Firey Burst if you had it prepared.


----------



## jodyjohnson (May 16, 2007)

Pretty sure that the generic Summoning spells don't count as a energy type until you actually cast them (or they would count as all potentials).

Although there are specific summoning spells that would.


----------



## Pyrex (May 16, 2007)

jodyjohnson said:
			
		

> Pretty sure that the generic Summoning spells don't count as a energy type until you actually cast them (or they would count as all potentials).
> 
> Although there are specific summoning spells that would.




Right.  Per _Complete Mage_, _Summon Monster V_ has no energy or alignment descriptors until used to summon an appropriate creature, nor does _Resist Energy_; hence modal spells can't be used to amp Reserve feats.

OTOH, a Sorcerer with one 3rd level slot left who knows both _Fireball_ and _Summon Monster III_ can activate both the _Firey Burst_ and _Elemental Summoning_ Reserve feats because spells of the appropriate descriptors are available to cast.


----------

