# Battle Standard of Healing and Healer's Brooch: overpowered healing?



## Ferghis (Feb 9, 2010)

In a play by post arena that tries to play by the book, for the most part ( Sands of Valathorn (DnD 4e Arena) on RPoL ), my fifth level cleric has obtained the following two items:


> *Healer’s Brooch +1* level 4 neck item
> Property: When you use a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points, add the brooch’s enhancement bonus to the hit points gained.





> *Battle Standard of Healing* Level 3 Wondrous Item
> Power (Encounter; Healing, Zone): Standard Action. When you plant the battle standard in your space or an adjacent square, it creates a zone of healing energy in a close burst 5. Whenever you or an ally spends a healing surge while in the zone, you and all allies in the zone regain 1 hit point.
> This effect lasts until the end of the encounter or until the battle standard is removed from the ground. Any character in or adjacent to a battle standard’s square can remove it from the ground as a standard action.



My understanding of these items is that the effects stack as follows: each time the Battle Standard's healing is triggered, *the Healer's Brooch increases the healing to 2.* Some of the DMs have balked at the increased healing provided by the Battle Standard, and feel that allowing the Brooch to increase the healing provided is overpowered. What do you think? *Game-breakingly overpowered? Or within the confines of the playable?*

To fully disclose the houserules implemented so far, monsters have unified initiative to make a play by post 4e game practicable. Warforged do not automatically pass death saves, but merely have a bonus, to make sure that those characters have a good chance at dying as well. Expertise feats are implemented automatically at levels 5. And twin strike can be used to attack in melee with a sword in one hand and throw a javelin with the other (to make one iteration of a kobold ranger playable). Please note, I'm only providing these houserules to provide a background as to what modifications have been considered necessary so far. Another consideration that might affect your decision is that, at an approprate level, my character hopes to obtain the following items:







> *Healer's Gloves* level 12 hand item
> Property: When you use a power that has the healing keyword, one target regains an extra 1d6 hit points.


----------



## Ferghis (Feb 9, 2010)

I almost forgot another relevant detail: my character has taken the Channel Divinity: Healer's Mercy power, so she can trigger three healing surges per encounter. Plus, her medic's weapon allows her to use a daily item power to recover her Channel Divinity, which could allow for another heal.


----------



## Flipguarder (Feb 9, 2010)

Totally within the realm of "playable".


----------



## keterys (Feb 9, 2010)

It can be argued that Healer's Gloves (or Armor) wouldn't apply to the Healing Standard, as they apply to a target, and you can dispute whether the standard has targets at all.

That said, the Brooch works and frankly it's totally fine. It's not a lot of healing, it's mostly useful outside of combat for healing the party up just that tiny little bit more. Out of combat healing can use all the boosts it can get.


----------



## Mengu (Feb 9, 2010)

Optimized cleric healing can be a little over the top. But the battle standard in itself is not an issue.

Having said that, it's also not an item I would give out as treasure in my campaign because I don't like the idea of someone spending a standard action for a handful of hit points through the encounter so they can save a surge every 3-4 encounters. I'd rather they use that standard action to go hit someone on the head with a long stick.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 9, 2010)

keterys said:


> It can be argued that Healer's Gloves (or Armor) wouldn't apply to the Healing Standard, as they apply to a target, and you can dispute whether the standard has targets at all.
> 
> That said, the Brooch works and frankly it's totally fine. It's not a lot of healing, it's mostly useful outside of combat for healing the party up just that tiny little bit more. Out of combat healing can use all the boosts it can get.



This is how I'd argue it as well, honestly.  I don't know that a character's Healer's Brooch would alter an _item's_ ongoing power.

With that said, the Standard has a pretty substantial cost - a Standard Action - so I don't think it's unplayable.

-O


----------



## Jarrod (Feb 9, 2010)

Without regards to playability, I would conclude it did not work. The brooch's text specifically mentions a "power", and the battle standard creates a zone. I do not believe the effects of zones are classed as powers. Furthermore, the brooch only applies when _you_ use a power, and the standard is not you.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 9, 2010)

I have a strong opinion on this topic since Healer's Mercy was used in my PBP game to heal over 100 hit points on 4 4th level PCs with a single power with a single standard action. The PCs went from 4 bloodied out of 5 (the Cleric wasn't bloodied, but HM did not apply to the Cleric) with 1 of those unconscious and another almost unconscious to none bloodied and 2 full up or close to full up.

Healer's Mercy can be nearly the equivalent of up to 4 (or more party size depending) Healing Word spells. I think that spell is broken.


The issue comes in of tactics. Every player has his or her PC swing away for the fences and never bothers with tactics such as total defense or seeking cover and using ranged weapons, etc. cause they know that the Cleric will just make everything all better.

In fact with a dedicated healer in the group, the players rarely bother to even use Second Wind anymore.


It has gotten out of hand with Divine Power.

Having said that, the loss of a Standard Action for the Battle Standard balances that item. Plus, the enemies can always steal it if no PC is in the same square. DMs have to be aware of this and have an occassional NPC take the Standard. 

And, the Brooch is ok.

It really is the synergies of the heals that blow this out of the water, not any one giving item, feat, or power (with the exception of Healer's Mercy which does blow it out of the water on it's own).


----------



## keterys (Feb 9, 2010)

Yeah, Healer's Mercy is a whole different issue


----------



## renau1g (Feb 9, 2010)

I feel Healer's Mercy should be a Daily, like Life Transference now is.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 9, 2010)

renau1g said:


> I feel Healer's Mercy should be a Daily, like Life Transference now is.




I kind of think this as well, except that it is a Channel Divinity power.

If a Channel Divinity power is strong enough to be a daily, it should be a daily for the use of all Channel Divinity powers.

For other Dailies, they truly are Dailies. In the case of items, if you only get one Daily item at this point, it doesn't matter if you have 3 Daily items, you can only use one.

I don't really like the concept of a multiple Channel Divinity powers where some of them could be Dailies, but because of the ability to pick and choose, the player actually gets to still use Turn Undead or something once the Daily is used.

It then becomes you lose the Daily power, but you don't lose the power "slot".


----------



## Ferghis (Feb 9, 2010)

Firstly, thanks for everyone's responses and folks weighing in on this. It's easy for me to take my own opinion and assume it's reasonable, so the reality check is appreciated. Also, it's worth noting that the character isn't super-optimized in terms of cleric-ness. It's a ranged elf-bow cleric (with a serious drinking problem). This means that she privileges Dexterity over Charisma. So Astral Seal isn't as effective as in a better build's hands.



Mengu said:


> Having said that, it's also not an item I would give out as treasure in my campaign because I don't like the idea of someone spending a standard action for a handful of hit points through the encounter so they can save a surge every 3-4 encounters. I'd rather they use that standard action to go hit someone on the head with a long stick.



Setting aside the way in which you run your game (I'm a big fan of long sticks too, especially if they make neat _swish_ noises as they are swung), over the course of a fight while in a six character party, accounting for two healing words, healer's mercy, and, say, one other surge spent in the zone (for example, one second wind or a comeback strike), the battle standard heals 48 hp (4 surges x2 hp x6 characters in the zone). And that's my assessment for an average encounter. 

I'm putting this out there so that the issue is clear and you guys don't underestimate the item. I obviously have an opinion on the matter, but I'm not voting here. 



keterys said:


> It can be argued that Healer's Gloves (or Armor) wouldn't apply to the Healing Standard, as they apply to a target, and you can dispute whether the standard has targets at all.



I don't see anything about a target that would affect whether the gloves would be triggered or not. As I understand it, if one uses a power with the healing keyword, someone recovers d6 hp. I don't think the target needs to be the same as that of another power. If that were the case, wouldn't it say so? As in, "one of the targets of the triggering healing power..."

As far as the *Healer's Mercy* sidetrack is concerned, I'm not so concerned about it's power. Don't get me wrong, it certainly is powerful, but it's a rare situation where everyone really benefits from the power. There are usually characters either out of range, or not bloodied. Further, it's less healing than healing word, it also uses up any other Channel Divinity powers, and it leaves the cleric weakened. Again, I do agree that it's powerful, but less than many other powers that have come out recently that have folks clamoring about power creep. But I've dipped all too far into that sidetrack... Back to the issue at hand.


----------



## BobTheNob (Feb 9, 2010)

With regards healers mercy and regaining use via medics mace. We have always played that items that regain channel divinity means that you get the re-use of the channel divinity option, but that does NOT mean that you can re-use an expended power. i.e. it allows you to use a channel divinity power you had not previously used.

That wasnt a house rule, simply how we interpretted the rules. Does anyone know a specific reference that states the regaining of channel divinity means the reseting of an already used power?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Feb 9, 2010)

Ferghis said:


> ...over the course of a fight while in a six character party, accounting for two healing words, healer's mercy, and, say, one other surge spent in the zone (for example, one second wind or a comeback strike), the battle standard heals *0 hp* (48 surges x2 hp x6 characters in the zone). And that's my assessment for an average encounter.
> 
> I'm putting this out there so that the issue is clear and you guys don't *underestimate *the item.



 Impossible to underestimate 0 hp! 

Assuming your typo is fixed to some nonzero value, I don't understand the math.  48 surges sounds like a huge number for an average encounter.  My opinion would be more on the lines of (at most) 2 surges per ally, so it would be 2x6x2=24 hit points.  Spread this out of an encounter is not a big deal for the loss of a standard action and the potential loss of the item (flee much? bad guys steal it?).


----------



## keterys (Feb 9, 2010)

Ferghis said:


> I don't see anything about a target that would affect whether the gloves would be triggered or not. As I understand it, if one uses a power with the healing keyword, someone recovers d6 hp. I don't think the target needs to be the same as that of another power. If that were the case, wouldn't it say so? As in, "one of the targets of the triggering healing power..."



That is not what the Healer's Gloves or Healer's Armor do, which is why I singled out those. Instead, they increase the healing amount to a target of the healing. The healing standard has no targets, ergo there is no one to give the healing to - further, it gives the d6 when you use the power, which you do when you plant the banner, not when someone spends a healing surge in it. I'd let it work at my table to give a d6 out to one person healed per encounter probably cause sure whatever, but if I had to adhere to a strict RAW interpretation, I'd rule otherwise and it would do nothing in this instance.

I've seen the healer's standard used with bonuses of up to 6, and it's not broken even then. Out of combat it's a feature. In combat, it's a standard action that covers only one section of the battlefield, and standard actions are big deals. If you guys are spending 8 surges per battle... that's probably more than a little crazy, probably a lot of the standard's splash healing is going to waste _or_ the party is taking more damage in the first place so they can cluster near to it. But sure, in that case it heals twice as much. Given they needed 8 surges in the first place, apparently it was warranted


----------



## Mengu (Feb 9, 2010)

Ferghis said:


> over the course of a fight while in a six character party, accounting for two healing words, healer's mercy, and, say, one other surge spent in the zone (for example, one second wind or a comeback strike), the battle standard heals 0 hp (48 surges x2 hp x6 characters in the zone). And that's my assessment for an average encounter.




Number of characters in the zone is irrelevant. If 6 surges have been spent in an encounter, a character gets 12 HP. Depending on your level/role, that's about the value of a surge in mid-heroic. Adding in over healing, wasted healing, etc, this number can go down a lot. Some encounters we have almost all the damage focused on 2 characters or so, and everyone else goes without a scratch. Half the characters in the party typically end the day with 3-4 healing surges left, so saving a surge here and there is pretty meaningless for those characters. If your Ranger always ends the day with 0 surges, and this item prevents that, great, you've found a use for the item.

To me, it's a waste of a standard action, when you could be chucking a Lance of Faith to dish out some damage, and give your barbarian a bonus to hit with his charge (I consider this a much better use of a first round action than planting a standard). If combat lasts 6 rounds, do you really want to waste 1/6th of your actions on this?

This outlook changes a bit if you have a campaign where every fight is a level+4 encounter, and you're typically fighting 1 encounter a day, with each fight lasting 15-20 rounds. In that sort of game, 1 standard action to plant the standard is probably a lot more worthwhile.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 9, 2010)

Ferghis said:


> As far as the *Healer's Mercy* sidetrack is concerned, I'm not so concerned about it's power. Don't get me wrong, it certainly is powerful, but it's a rare situation where everyone really benefits from the power. There are usually characters either out of range, or not bloodied. Further, it's less healing than healing word, it also uses up any other Channel Divinity powers, and it leaves the cleric weakened.




Yeah, I don't see that at all.

A smart player will move his PC to where most other PCs are in range. Most encounters are not in massively large areas where the PCs spread all over the map and tactically, it is a bad idea to get too far from the Cleric, even if the map is large.

Other PCs might or might not be bloodied, but that is irrelevant. The power is best used when a majority of PCs are bloodied, so again, a smart player will wait to do Healing Words until after multilple PCs are bloodied and then do Healer's Mercy instead.

It's actually more healing than Healer's Word. It still gains the Cleric's Wisdom bonus and many other bonuses, it just does not gain the D6's for Healer's Word itself. So, healing 3 PCs for 5 + ~10 hit points (in the example above with Wis 18 and a Healer's Brooch) is much better than healing 1 PC of 8 + ~10 hit points with Healing Word. 2.5 times as much better. On the same round, the Cleric can then use a minor action to throw a Healing Word at any of the PCs that is still bloodied.

It gets even better with powers like Beacon of Hope, etc.

The Channel Divinity loss is mostly irrelevant. When PCs have an option or power 1 or power 2, it's not that they are giving up power 2 to use power 1, it's that they are MORE flexible than other PCs who do not have a choice of which of 2 powers to use. Channel Divinity is powerful because it gives more options. One cannot view it as Channel Divinity is weak because it gives more options.

The Cleric being Weakened is also a pretty minor limitation considering how much healing Healer's Word does. There are a lot of Cleric powers like Hymn of Resurgence or Astral Seal where Weakened does not really impact the Cleric on the next round that significantly.

All in all, people who downplay the usefulness and power of Healer's Mercy are not having their players use it effectively in the game. It can be absolutely overwhelming and I wouldn't be surprised if WotC does nerf it someday.


----------



## Ferghis (Feb 9, 2010)

Infiniti2000 said:


> Impossible to underestimate 0 hp!
> 
> Assuming your typo is fixed to some nonzero value, I don't understand the math.  48 surges sounds like a huge number for an average encounter.  My opinion would be more on the lines of (at most) 2 surges per ally, so it would be 2x6x2=24 hit points.  Spread this out of an encounter is not a big deal for the loss of a standard action and the potential loss of the item (flee much? bad guys steal it?).



Gah! I'm a mistyping fool. I meant to type that it heals 48 hp over the course of the encounter if one non-clerical surge (in addition to the three clerical ones) is triggered in a party of six characters. Read the property. It says "you and all allies.." Every ally in the zone gets one hp whenever _anyone_ spends a surge. With the Brooch, two hp. Therefore, each of six characters recovers two hp each time someone spends a healing surge in the zone. That's 12 total hp recovered per surge. Four surges, 48 hp. 

Which, at level 4-5, which is where we are, is not insignificant.



KarinsDad said:


> Yeah, I don't see that at all.



I'll agree to disagree. BTW, my point about healing word healing more was in reference to a single target. I should have been more specific. 

EDIT: And I totally forgot to mention that Healer's Mercy is a Standard Action. Healing Word is a minor.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Feb 9, 2010)

We've got a character who's built up so that each healing banner does 8 points of healing per healing surge used. (No I don't know what items he uses)

It's not uncommon for his initial round to be spent planting a banner and action pointing to plant another one.
On particularly tough fights he might put another couple out.
Last session we had 3 encounters merged into 1 and we ended up with 5 banners out and active, giving us 40 points of healing any time that a healing surge was used.
Given potions of resistance, potions of clarity and all the other ways of spending healing surges to power magic items it gets somewhat silly.

Not to mention that he carries 20 of them so after combat it's 1 healing surge to heal the entire party fullly. (Note that they are extremely cheap once you get up a few levels,petty cash levels really)

I personally don't think that the items like Healer's broach should apply to the standard because you aren't using a power to heal people, you're planting a banner which does the healing.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 9, 2010)

Ferghis said:


> I'll agree to disagree. BTW, my point about healing word healing more was in reference to a single target. I should have been more specific.
> 
> EDIT: And I totally forgot to mention that Healer's Mercy is a Standard Action. Healing Word is a minor.




Yup, Healer's Mercy is a Standard Action. So is the Battle Standard. Your point?


You seem to not see the forest for the trees here.

Yes, the Battle Standard combined with the Healer’s Brooch will double the healing of the Battle Standard.

And yes, the Battle Standard could do a lot of healing. Without other healing powers, that's a max 2 healing words + 5 Second Winds = 7 * 5 PCs = 35 extra points of healing by itself, 70 extra points with the Brooch. In a group of 5 4th level PCs, that's nearly half of their total hit points.

It can heal even more in a really nasty fight with other healing being thrown around. But typically, not everyone uses their Second Wind in a fight. For that to occur, it has to be the Fight of the Century. With that much healing in a group, most players do not use their Second Winds most encounters, they are too busy attacking. They only all use their Second Winds in really serious encounters where the Cleric cannot heal them for one reason or another.


You were claiming that a downside of Healer's Mercy was that everyone had to be within 5 of the Cleric. A greater downside applies to the Battle Standard since everyone has to be within 5 of the Standard for the ENTIRE encounter for all of that extra healing that you are concerned about.

That's much more unlikely than being within 5 for a single round, plus the Standard might not be standing upright in a square for an entire encounter (i.e. PCs might gain healing before the Standard is used, or a foe might take the Standard out of the ground, or the Cleric might not use the Standard at all since its healing is slow and gradual compared to many heal options that are faster, the DM dice could get hot and he has to heal and heal NOW).


You are concerned about these two items being used together. It is a valid concern. I think they are very potent together, but not necessarily broken. The healing is gradual and enemies can do something about it.

Healer's Mercy is a greater concern. I've seen it in my PBP game heal 104 points in a single round. That's a much bigger concern than healing 70 points over an entire encounter assuming everyone uses their Second Wind.

Both are out of wack, but the enemies can do something about the Battle Standard. They cannot do much of anything about Healer's Mercy except watch the Cleric push the reset button on the entire encounter.


----------



## Ferghis (Feb 10, 2010)

KarinsDad said:


> Yup, Healer's Mercy is a Standard Action. So is the Battle Standard. Your point?



Only to clarify: I was referring to the fact that, in my opinion, Healer's Mercy is not so overpowered as some here argue. But I'm done derailing my own thread, since evaluating Healer's Mercy's alleged overpowerdness is only remotely related to the item combo at issue.

Your on-topic point, KarinsDad, on the other hand, is well received. Thanks.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 10, 2010)

Mad Hamish said:


> We've got a character who's built up so that each healing banner does 8 points of healing per healing surge used. (No I don't know what items he uses)
> 
> It's not uncommon for his initial round to be spent planting a banner and action pointing to plant another one.
> On particularly tough fights he might put another couple out.
> ...






> If zones overlap and impose penalties to the same roll or score, creatures in the overlapping area are subject to the worst penalty; the penalties are not cumulative. Similarly, a target in the overlapping area takes damage from whichever zone deals the most damage, regardless of damage type.




Sorry, but your DM is a wuse. 

The intent of this rule was to prevent multiple zones of the same type stacking, it just was not clearly spelled out.



Mad Hamish said:


> I personally don't think that the items like Healer's broach should apply to the standard because you aren't using a power to heal people, you're planting a banner which does the healing.




Maybe it shouldn't, but by RAW it appears to do so:

"When you use a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points"

Using the Standard is using a power and it is a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points. This says nothing about the power having to enable hit points right away or the PC actively doing it.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Feb 10, 2010)

KarinsDad said:


> Sorry, but your DM is a wuse.




I'm not going to disagree there. 
There was an Iron Kingdom's campaign which had huge abuse of the alchemy rules and feats that allowed a character to make and sell several million gold pieces worth of acid....



KarinsDad said:


> The intent of this rule was to prevent multiple zones of the same type stacking, it just was not clearly spelled out.




Except that it's not multiple auras doing damage or imposing penalties. It's multiple banners so the rules as written don't cover it.

But I think I'll use that approach when I run a campaign to avoid the same problem happening.



KarinsDad said:


> Maybe it shouldn't, but by RAW it appears to do so:
> 
> "When you use a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points"
> 
> Using the Standard is using a power and it is a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points. This says nothing about the power having to enable hit points right away or the PC actively doing it.




I hadn't noticed the wording there.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 10, 2010)

Just to continue the _healer's mercy_ sidetrack for a little longer:

_Healer's mercy_ is one of those powers which gets better the worse the state the PCs are in. It is a tide-turning power which increases the PCs' ability to recover from setbacks and swing the advantage back to them. The power is balanced on the assumption that the full scale of its potential effect will only rarely be utilized. 

Hence, this power is more balanced in a campaign which features more scripted encounters because the DM is in more control of when the power's full effect will be realized. In such campaigns, it can even act as a "safety net" for the times that the DM misjudges the encounter difficulty, or the players have a run of bad luck.

This power would be less balanced in a "sandbox"-style campaign where the players are more in control of the encounters they engage in because they can deliberately choose to take on tougher encounters and earn greater rewards.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 10, 2010)

Mad Hamish said:


> Except that it's not multiple auras doing damage or imposing penalties. It's multiple banners so the rules as written don't cover it.




Yup, I agree.

However, if you look in the PHB, there are very few zones that heal. And even those that heal tend to harm as well.

I think the designers were mostly thinking that zones would create difficult terrain or harm when the PHB was written and just didn't realize that zones could be any effects, not just penalities and damage.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 10, 2010)

Incidentally the Battle Standard has been the first magic item my players found. The bard player seems to love it. It's also a big group (seven players) with three leaders.

I didn't feel it was overpowered but none of the leaders is really a dedicated healer (and of course no Healer's Brooch was involved yet). I think it's fine, nonetheless.


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 10, 2010)

I don't believe that the effects of the Healer's Brooch and the Battle Standard of Healing would stack.  The Healer's Brooch effect is triggered when you use a power, and using an item is not the same as using a power.   Even if I did allow item powers to count for that purpose, you only use the item on the round that the standard is planted.  The rest of the encounter, there is a zone effect around the standard, but no one is using a power.  So no, they don't stack.  

I agree that the guy allowing multiple Battle Standards of Healing to stack with each other is a wuss.     Zone effects of the same type don't stack, despite the poor wording of the rule.  So all you could do with multiple standards would be to increase the area covered by the effect; it wouldn't cause cumulative healing.  Each standard is still only triggered when someone in *its* zone heals, granting people within 5 squares of it a point of healing.

As for Healer's Mercy, it is a powerful effect, and could well change the encounter substantially.  It's stronger than most other Channel Divinities, many of which are extremely situational.  Had it been a daily power, it would have made a nice ace in the hole to pull out when things were looking tough.  As an encounter, it's more like a "Get Out of Death Free!" card that can be played every fight.  Healer's Mercy has the potential to provide a *lot* of healing once you've stacked your bonuses onto it, although some of it is likely to be wasted due to people being out of range, or not bloodied.  Smart players could get some serious mileage out of it. 

If you feel it's being overused, the ways to counter it are to try and spread people out, forcing them more than 5 squares away from the cleric if possible.  Have a character grabbed and pulled away while others are engaged with foes and can't follow easily.  Take advantage of the fact that there are likely to be several bloodied PC's while the cleric is waiting for an optimal time to use Healer's Mercy.  Target one of the bloodied PC's with some focus fire and take them out.  Hit them with a big area attack while they are all near the cleric and hurt, preferably one that targets enemies only, or to which the bad guys are mostly immune.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 10, 2010)

Zinovia said:


> I don't believe that the effects of the Healer's Brooch and the Battle Standard of Healing would stack.  The Healer's Brooch effect is triggered when you use a power, and using an item is not the same as using a power.






> Battle Standard of Healing Level 3 Wondrous Item
> *Power*






> When you *use* a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points




Emphasis mine. The fact that it is an item power instead of a class or racial or any other type of power doesn't matter.



Zinovia said:


> If you feel it's being overused, the ways to counter it are to try and spread people out, forcing them more than 5 squares away from the cleric if possible.  Have a character grabbed and pulled away while others are engaged with foes and can't follow easily.  Take advantage of the fact that there are likely to be several bloodied PC's while the cleric is waiting for an optimal time to use Healer's Mercy.  Target one of the bloodied PC's with some focus fire and take them out.  Hit them with a big area attack while they are all near the cleric and hurt, preferably one that targets enemies only, or to which the bad guys are mostly immune.




Although a DM could do this, I'm a firm believer that the DM shouldn't have to go out of his way with special tactics in order to dummy down powers, items, feats, or special PC abilities. When a too potent of a game element comes into play, WotC should hit it with the nerf bat (like they have been doing to some extent with the errata).


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 10, 2010)

I grant that item powers can be used by players, and thus could be considered to be using a power.  Still, the only time you use the power of the standard is when you plant it in the ground.  Using the item power "creates a zone of healing energy".  It is not a "power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points" as specified  by the Healer's Brooch, because creating the zone doesn't heal anyone directly.  

Even if you did interpret it as a healing power, it would only be relevant during the round you planted the standard, as that is the only time you are using the item power.  The zone just sits there for the rest of the fight, or until the standard is removed, doing its thing with no further action needed.  You aren't using the item power every time the standard is triggered. You could be dead, and it would still work when your buddy used his second wind.  

That's my take on it in any case. I voted "different rules interpretation".


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 10, 2010)

Zinovia said:


> I grant that item powers can be used by players, and thus could be considered to be using a power.  Still, the only time you use the power of the standard is when you plant it in the ground.  Using the item power "creates a zone of healing energy".  It is not a "power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points" as specified  by the Healer's Brooch, because creating the zone doesn't heal anyone directly.




The only thing the standard does IS to enable PCs to regain hit points. There is nothing else it does.

There are no direct vs. indirect rules here.



Zinovia said:


> Even if you did interpret it as a healing power,






> Power (Encounter • *Healing*, Zone):






Zinovia said:


> it would only be relevant during the round you planted the standard, as that is the only time you are using the item power.




Picking nits are we? 

Are sustainable powers able to get bonuses on sustain rounds?

Are until the end of the encounter powers able to get bonuses in later rounds?

Zones are continuous. They are constantly in use.

I think there is a reason WotC used the word "use" instead of "activate".



Zinovia said:


> The zone just sits there for the rest of the fight, or until the standard is removed, doing its thing with no further action needed.  You aren't using the item power every time the standard is triggered. You could be dead, and it would still work when your buddy used his second wind.




If a power gives a bonus to Defenses until the end of the encounter, would a feat or item that gives a bonus to that bonus not also be used until the end of the encounter?



Zinovia said:


> That's my take on it in any case. I voted "different rules interpretation".




That's cool. 

I don't think RAW agrees with you, but that's ok.

I think the rules are fine, but I do find the combo to be overly potent.


----------



## keterys (Feb 10, 2010)

Zinovia said:


> I grant that item powers can be used by players, and thus could be considered to be using a power.  Still, the only time you use the power of the standard is when you plant it in the ground.  Using the item power "creates a zone of healing energy".  It is not a "power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points" as specified  by the Healer's Brooch, because creating the zone doesn't heal anyone directly.




Nor does Vigorous Cadence or Stirring Shout - do you not have healing bonuses apply to those? How about Consecrated Ground or Spirit of Healing?



> Even if you did interpret it as a healing power



For reference, you have to - it has the 'Healing' tag right next to Power.



> You aren't using the item power every time the standard is triggered. You could be dead, and it would still work when your buddy used his second wind.



Yep - you just use it that once. And then you 'add the brooch’s enhancement bonus to the hit points gained.' from that power. Which is 1, every time someone spends a surge. Making it 2.

If it helps, and it never seems to, here's a CS response on how it does work.

Now, if you feel that this shouldn't work because it's bad design, that's totally cool - it's already been submitted for potential errata. Further, the entire topic of stacking healing bonuses has been submitted for errata, which I marked as high priority since it always creates arguments on forums, and cited battle standard as working oddly with, but you can chip in an additional reply of your opinion if those aren't sufficient.

Either way, I think I'm going to add on a bit to add language to make battle standards explicitly not stack.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 10, 2010)

keterys said:


> Either way, I think I'm going to add on a bit to add language to make battle standards explicitly not stack.




You should make that "zones don't stack". That would take care of both Battle Standards and the next abusable zone stack that isn't damage or penalties.


----------



## keterys (Feb 10, 2010)

Can you think of any others? Is the suggestion more accurately 'Identical zones do not stack' such that you don't have two Consecrated Grounds or whatever out at thet same time, or is there something wrong with different zones with similar purposes stacking in some fashion?

Like if someone had a daily zone that healed people for a few damage at the start of their turn, and someone else had a different daily zone that healed for a few damage at the start of their turn, are you arguing those shouldn't stack? Or that someone in a hunger of hadar and wall of flame shouldn't take both?


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 10, 2010)

keterys said:


> Can you think of any others? Is the suggestion more accurately 'Identical zones do not stack' such that you don't have two Consecrated Grounds or whatever out at thet same time, or is there something wrong with different zones with similar purposes stacking in some fashion?
> 
> Like if someone had a daily zone that healed people for a few damage at the start of their turn, and someone else had a different daily zone that healed for a few damage at the start of their turn, are you arguing those shouldn't stack? Or that someone in a hunger of hadar and wall of flame shouldn't take both?




Hunger of Hadar and Wall of Fire (I assume you meant that) stack according to the rules because Hunger of Hadar is a zone, and Wall of Fire is an area.



> If zones overlap and impose penalties to the same roll or score, creatures in the overlapping area are subject to the worst penalty; the penalties are not cumulative. Similarly, a target in the overlapping area takes damage from whichever zone deals the most damage, regardless of damage type.




Although this uses the word area, it is in the Zone section of the rules discussing zone "overlapping area", not Area effects.

The rules should, however, be consistent. Hunger of Hadar and Wall of Fire as two overlapping "areas" should not stack because two damaging overlapping zones do not stack. IMO.

The rules should also deal with time. Damage when entering the zone or starting in the zone like Hunger of Hadar is different than damage at other times, like Stinging Cloud at the end of the turn. There are, TMK, no explicit rules on this. One could use the rule above to only have the greater damage apply (which becomes a bookkeeping chore, was Johnny attacked earlier in the turn?), or one could say "the other damage is not occurring at this time, so only the one occurring is the one occurring now" and have both zones affect the creature.


Getting back to your other question, I think that the any healing zone effect should not stack. What is so special about healing compared to damage? If two powers heal (at the same time as per above), then only the greater healing should apply, just like the damage and penalty rules. The issue that comes up is powers that heal at the start/end of the caster's turn. I am not aware of any such powers, but I suspect that they might eventually exist. Most zones are "when a creature starts his turn, or ends his turn, or is hit", or some precise moment in time, not one dependent on the turn of the PC (which with two PCs, would have two different points in time).

The thing about healing in 4E is that it is now way out of control. The Cleric in our group increased her healing by about 50% once Divine Power came out (and she did not even take Astral Seal or Healer's Mercy). Items, Feats, and interacting Healing Powers are all over the place now.


Having said that, I think that there are too many different synergies (e.g. All Soul's Ball and Soulshock Field both allow a healing surge when an enemy goes to zero hit points, but one allows one surge and the other allows one surge per ally; "Hey, my zone didn't do anything") that can happen, so I do think that the easiest to adjudicate rule is to prevent two identical zones from stacking. Any rule more detailed than that might start getting more difficult to adjudicate consistently.

It would be nice to put the brakes on zone healing though.


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 10, 2010)

Identical zones don't stack.  Different ones do.  You could have a zone that slows, and drop a zone that does fire damage on top of it, and both effects would work.  Likewise with beneficial zones.  Two of the same don't add together, but different ones would each apply their effects.  

As for the Battle Standard, my group has one.  We don't have a cleric or any other character that adds bonuses to it, but it's proven useful when a couple characters were down - one heal to someone in range pops the other up to 1hp from negatives.

It's interesting that CS says they stack.  I can see interpreting RAW that way, but it is horribly broken - as is most surgeless healing if you allow bonuses to be added to the effects every time.  Why use surges at all when you can get 8 or more points of free healing from all these different effects?  It's unbalancing the core mechanics.  

So whatever the rules as written, my rule is they don't stack.  My current group has a taclord and a fighter/mc cleric for leader types, and we're not especially short on healing.  I can't imagine how crazy it would get with multiple leaders creating these kinds of surge-free heals.  Ugh.


----------



## keterys (Feb 10, 2010)

Zinovia said:


> It's interesting that CS says they stack.  I can see interpreting RAW that way, but it is horribly broken - as is most surgeless healing if you allow bonuses to be added to the effects every time.  Why use surges at all when you can get 8 or more points of free healing from all these different effects?  It's unbalancing the core mechanics.




In this particular case, the 'why' is easily answered: because you have to use surges in order to trigger the healing at all  

It's also worth note that it does take up valuable item slots with the healing bonuses, so there is a real cost, even if that cost might be considered to be insufficient. 

In the particular instance where someone could heal folks for 8 when a surge is spent, that implies a mid-Paragon or higher character, where surges are in the 20-40 ballpark. So you do gain the ability for one character to burn 20-40 hp worth of 'healing' to heal... 20-40 hp. Having actually burned some of my own surges in order to heal someone who was out of surges (or very low), I've done things like burned 4 surges to save them from 1 (at healing 6 per surge). This isn't exactly game breaking.

Stacking twenty of them so you heal 120 to everyone with one surge? Okay, sure, that's more problematic and way beyond the pale of what I'd allow or encourage as a DM. I'm not sure it's game breaking, since frankly it just extends the adventuring day - which means less dailies per combat, more combats per day, less action points per combat average, more different daily magic item uses and less nova-ing... all of which sound like good things.


----------



## Wonderland666 (Feb 13, 2010)

I don't understand your Problem with the Healing Banner:
Okay it can only be removed by a CHARAKTER and has a high damage Res, so it stands where it has been plugged.
I think no party will waste 20 Standardaktions to get 20 HB in Combat. This would be a funny mission, but it sucks. 

No DM should have a Problem if the Party gets cheep healing during a Short rest. Because, all they can do with that are more Encounters per day. 
Problems is only continous cheap healing in Combat.
Compare that with making an Extended rest, an you see:
- You gain 1 Aktion point after an E.R and after a Milestone. So you could get more Aktionpoints total with more encounters, but you are still limited to spend only one Action Point per Encounter (=No effekt)
- You regain the use of the Daily item powers after a Milestone. But only 1/2/3 times a day and no use of your class Daily powers or already used-Daily-item powers (like you did after en Extended rest)
- and finaly after an E.R. you can identify 1 Item.

And in Combat?:
You normaly will only have 1 Banner. That cost a Standard-Aktion. Thats not overpowered by the costs and the Restrictions:
You can prevent a Char from dying, but without any additional healing he is in fact a minion with (1-3 Hps). As a DM the best encounter you can give to your PCs is: The last PC standing kills the Monsterking an the other heros survive very close to death. (A TPK nomaly stopps your campaign :-( ) . Okay, this is true for all countrys but Japan, where the last PC has to do a suicide attack......


----------



## Turtlejay (Feb 13, 2010)

Um, I'm not Japanese, but I could see that being a little offensive. . .

The Banner requires a Standard action to plant, but afterwards the healing done happens with *no* action.  That one standard action can, with the right cheese applied, be the best spent action of the game.  I think that is the problem some folks have with this item.

I had one.  I used it a couple times.  It is mostly useful for keeping dying allies up.  Especially if they are taking ongoing damage, this could be a lifesaver.

Jay


----------



## Wonderland666 (Feb 14, 2010)

well the question is if i use healing word with banner and Healers brooch. does the target benefit twice from the brooch? ( 1 from the healing word, 1 from the healing surge spent, that the rest of the party in the zone gets?)


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 14, 2010)

Wonderland666 said:


> well the question is if i use healing word with banner and Healers brooch. does the target benefit twice from the brooch? ( 1 from the healing word, 1 from the healing surge spent, that the rest of the party in the zone gets?)




Yes the target does.

The Standard does not add healing to other healing. It adds it's own healing. So the target of Healing Word gets two healings: one for Healing Word with the Brooch bonus and one for the Standard with the Brooch bonus. Two sources of healing, not one.


----------



## Ferghis (Feb 14, 2010)

keterys said:


> ...



I wanted to thank you for some particularly edifying posts: Thanks.


----------



## Colmarr (Feb 16, 2010)

KarinsDad said:


> Using the Standard is using a power and it is a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points. This says nothing about the power having to enable hit points right away or the PC actively doing it.




The power does nothing but create a zone. It's the zone that is the enabler, not "a power".

This combo does not work IMO.

Edit: I see that you and Zinovia somewhat touched on this issue. To clarify, I believe it does not work at all, not even in the first round.

Let me offer a comparison by analogy. If there were an item that said "When you use a power that enables you to damage an enemy... [the rest is irrelevant]", would it be triggered by having a summoned Jade Macetail attack an enemy?

In both cases, the "X" is "enabled" by something other than a power, so the criteria are not met.


----------



## keterys (Feb 16, 2010)

Colmarr, are you also arguing that Flaming Sphere and Stinking Cloud don't count as the caster using a power that damages? How about all those summons they added? Summon Blade Angel, frex.

And how about whether Vigorous Cadence or Consecrated Ground heal?

It's very important in debates like this, if you're trying to argue RAW, to realize there's a line between RAI and Rules-as-it-should-be. The gut instinct is usually to say 'Of course that doesn't work, that's ludicrous'.

In this particular instance, there are well established arguments and threads on it, weighing in by customer service, a clear 'Healing' power as noted by its keyword, no restriction on item powers on the brooch, etc. It's definitely possible to argue it's bad for it to work that way. Hence when I linked the errata boards... but not RAW?


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 16, 2010)

Colmarr said:


> If there were an item that said "When you use a power that enables you to damage an enemy... [the rest is irrelevant]", would it be triggered by having a summoned Jade Macetail attack an enemy?




Yup.

I think there is a reason WotC used the word "use" instead of "activate" in the terminology.

Unless of course your point is "you" vs. the Macetail. Even so, doesn't the caster still control the power? Can he not dismiss it? Can he not choose which foe the Macetail attacks?

Isn't he using the power when he has the Macetail attack?


----------



## keterys (Feb 16, 2010)

And using his own actions to do it.

It's a step removed from, say, "I fire this bow. So the arrow hit you for damage, but I guess I didn't?" but not even all that distant a step with the way the item works in 4e.


----------



## Colmarr (Feb 16, 2010)

keterys said:


> Colmarr, are you also arguing that Flaming Sphere and Stinking Cloud don't count as the caster using a power that damages? How about all those summons they added? Summon Blade Angel, frex.




I can't comment on Stinking Cloud because I'm AFB and am not familiar with the power. For Flaming Sphere, the attack version is IIRC a standard action (both initially and in later rounds) so obviously the caster is 'using' the power to damage an enemy.

If you're talking about the auto damage simply for standing next to the sphere, then yes, I argue that that isn't 'using' the power to cause damage. The sphere is simply there. You aren't using it for anything at the time.


keterys said:


> And how about whether Vigorous Cadence or Consecrated Ground heal?




Not familiar with Vigorous Cadence, but my position with Consecrated Ground is the same. The caster doesn't 'use' the power to heal hp, the caster uses the power to create a zone and the zone does the healing.*



keterys said:


> It's very important in debates like this, if you're trying to argue RAW, to realize there's a line between RAI and Rules-as-it-should-be. The gut instinct is usually to say 'Of course that doesn't work, that's ludicrous'.




In ths case, I'm suggesting that the rules don't support the OP's interpretation and that some posters seem to assume that "enable" implies elasticity in causation. I disagree.

So that we're clear, I believe that per RAW drinking a healing potion would trigger the healer's brooch. Drinking the potion is using a power that enables you to heal.* 

Triggering the effect of a planted banner is not "using a power".

*I'm aware that the character builder disagrees with me on this.


----------



## Colmarr (Feb 16, 2010)

KarinsDad said:


> Yup.
> 
> I think there is a reason WotC used the word "use" instead of "activate" in the terminology.




But ultimately there is no evidence you can present which you can assert what those two terms mean in the context of the game rules, and what thought was given to which of them (or others) was chosen.

Ultimately, I believe that when a RAW debate reaches the point at which arguments revolve around what a certain non-defined term means, then the argument has gone as far as it reasonably can.



KarinsDad said:


> Isn't he using the power when he has the Macetail attack?




Aye, there's the rub. I say no. He's using a minor action to give another combatant a command.

I suspect I won't be able to convince you (plural) that I am "right" and I suspect you won't be able to convince me. I hope that the three of us have better things to do.

Personally, I just wanted to present the competing argument in this thread because it doesn't really seem to have been presented by anyone else.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 17, 2010)

Colmarr said:


> But ultimately there is no evidence you can present which you can assert what those two terms mean in the context of the game rules, and what thought was given to which of them (or others) was chosen.
> 
> Ultimately, I believe that when a RAW debate reaches the point at which arguments revolve around what a certain non-defined term means, then the argument has gone as far as it reasonably can.




That might be true except that you are the only one with the unique interpretation that the creature is not using the power.

PHB page 55



> Zone: *Powers* that create lingering effects that extend over an area.




This is in the Effect Type section. Still a power. Still a healing power. Still a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points. The term zone merely states that it is an area effect that that it is lingering. It states nothing about how effects stack.



Colmarr said:


> Personally, I just wanted to present the competing argument in this thread because it doesn't really seem to have been presented by anyone else.




That's because it is pretty far out there. One has to use an interpretation that is not anywhere else in the rules to arrive at it.


The user of the power creates the zone. For powers with zones that can be moved, the user of the power moves the zone.

I find it made up (i.e. not anywhere in RAW) to say: "The zone is doing it, not the creature that originated it".

Effects come from powers.


A zone is merely a definition of area and duration. It doesn't control or do anything, the effect of the power is what is done.


----------



## Mika (Feb 17, 2010)

Ferghis said:


> I almost forgot another relevant detail: my character has taken the Channel Divinity: Healer's Mercy power, so she can trigger three healing surges per encounter. Plus, her medic's weapon allows her to use a daily item power to recover her Channel Divinity, which could allow for another heal.




I don't think that particular combination works.  The daily power of Medic's Weapon gives you an additional use of Channel Divinity during an encounter, but not an additional use of a particular Channel Divinity power.  For most divine characters, that would let you use your other Channel Divinity power.


----------



## Colmarr (Feb 17, 2010)

KarinsDad, I'm not going to reply to all of your points. I acknowledge them and disagree with them, but consider some of them irrelevant to the very finite issues I have raised.

I will respond to these:



KarinsDad said:


> That might be true except that you are the only one with the unique interpretation that the creature is not using the power.




Seriously? "Me and my friends say you're wrong" That's you're argument? 



KarinsDad said:


> That's because it is pretty far out there.




I disagree.



KarinsDad said:


> I find it made up (i.e. not anywhere in RAW) to say: "The zone is doing it, not the creature that originated it".




I find it "made up" to assume that:

(1) automatic effects from zones constitute "using" the power that created the zone;

(2) an item power "enables" something in circumstances where at least one other event (an ally spending a healing surge) and possibly two or more (whatever it was that triggered the surge) have to happen first; and 

(3) a character can be said to "use" an item power if the item is no longer in the possession of the character.

Ultimately now, you are falling back on the same sort of arguments that Keterys suggested I was using. "That can't be right. It's silly!" RAW is RAW, and I think it's fair to say that there have always been some clear examples of silly RAW that were nevertheless RAW.

But like I said, I doubt one of us can convince the other.

You can walk away thinking I'm silly. I can walk away knowing you disagree with me. And everyone else in the thread can form their own opinion.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 18, 2010)

Colmarr said:


> Seriously? "Me and my friends say you're wrong" That's you're argument?




Nope. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you are the only person making the claim, then you at least have to bring *some* rules evidence to the table to support it.

So far, you have merely brought a unique interpretation of a single word to the table without any rules evidence to support that interpretation.

Throw us a bone here. Give us some rule to work with.



Colmarr said:


> I find it "made up" to assume that:
> 
> (1) automatic effects from zones constitute "using" the power that created the zone;




Except that every instance of power use we have in the game system are controlled by the user of that power. To claim that zones are controlled and used by the zone itself is a new concept that requires rules support.

Where are your rules for this? We are discussing this in a rules forum. You can disagree with most of the rest of us all you like, but to convince anyone that your interpretation is RAW requires rules support. You have yet to provide any. Just a specific interpretation of the word "use".



Colmarr said:


> (2) an item power "enables" something in circumstances where at least one other event (an ally spending a healing surge) and possibly two or more (whatever it was that triggered the surge) have to happen first; and




How is this any different than any other zone power? If a class Utility power stated "the effect is a zone of difficult terrain" and the caster had an item or feat that stated "when you use a power that creates difficult terrain, that terrain adds an additional +1 movement to get through", are you claiming that the user of the power is not really using the power because it's a zone and that the zone is using the power and the item or feat does not add to the difficult terrain?



Colmarr said:


> (3) a character can be said to "use" an item power if the item is no longer in the possession of the character.




Again, quote a rule. You'll find most people here more responsive to your interpretation if you could quote a rule that states that an item out of the possession of a character is no longer under control or in use by that character.



Colmarr said:


> Ultimately now, you are falling back on the same sort of arguments that Keterys suggested I was using. "That can't be right. It's silly!" RAW is RAW, and I think it's fair to say that there have always been some clear examples of silly RAW that were nevertheless RAW.
> 
> But like I said, I doubt one of us can convince the other.
> 
> You can walk away thinking I'm silly. I can walk away knowing you disagree with me. And everyone else in the thread can form their own opinion.




I don't think you are silly. I do think that you are ignoring what you want to ignore in order to get the interpretation you want. For example:



> When you use a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points, add the brooch’s enhancement bonus to the hit points gained.
> 
> ...
> 
> Power (Encounter; Healing, Zone): Standard Action. When you plant the battle standard in your space or an adjacent square, it creates a zone of healing energy in a close burst 5. Whenever you or an ally spends a healing surge while in the zone, you and all allies in the zone regain 1 hit point.




Is the Battle Standard a power? yes
Does the Battle Standard enable you or an ally to regain hit points? yes
Is the user of the Battle Standard using it? yes

Sorry, but your unique claim that the user of the standard is not really using it seems pretty darn weak.


----------



## Colmarr (Feb 18, 2010)

KarinsDad said:


> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.




Your value judgement on my position does not make it so.



KarinsDad said:


> If you are the only person making the claim, then you at least have to bring *some* rules evidence to the table to support it.




And what exactly is evidence of the meaning of the words "use" and "enable"? It's disingenuous to suggest that anything you've provided is _evidence_.

You're suggesting that because a PC used a power at some point, then they are continuously using it until it ceases to be in existence or operation, even where they are interracting with it it no way whatsoever.



KarinsDad said:


> If a class Utility power stated "the effect is a zone of difficult terrain" and the caster had an item or feat that stated "when you use a power that creates difficult terrain, that terrain adds an additional +1 movement to get through", are you claiming that the user of the power is not really using the power because it's a zone and that the zone is using the power and the item or feat does not add to the difficult terrain?




That's disingenous. The power is used when the zone is created. The zone is therefore "more difficult". End of story. The zone has no "cause" and no individual "effect". It's difficult terrain (of whatever difficulty) regardless of whether someone tries to move across it or not.

A better analogy would be a power that says "when you use a power that creates difficult terrain, the terrain makes a Int v Ref attack against any creature moving into it. Enemies hit by the attack take 1d6 + Int damage" and then suggesting that the attack gets your implement bonus to damage.



KarinsDad said:


> Again, quote a rule. You'll find most people here more responsive to your interpretation if you could quote a rule that states that an item out of the possession of a character is no longer under control or in use by that character.




Seriously? In reply to this, I can only quote from A Few Good Men:




> Kaffee: Corporal would you open this book up to the part that says that where the mess hall is.






> Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt Kaffee, that's not in the book either, sir.
> Kaffee: You mean to say the entire time you've been at Gitmo you've never had a meal?
> Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
> Kaffee: Well, I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it wasn't in this book?
> ...




Some things are just common sense. 

But how about this? Ongoing damage is not affected by buffs or items. 5 ongoing damage is 5 ongoing damage. That's a pretty clear example of a rule that states that "fire and forget" powers are fire and forget.

On what basis do you suggest that a PC is "using" an item/power when the item/power is not in their posession and (whether by spending actions or otherwise) the only way they can interract with it is to turn it off? 

If I put my car in drive, hop out and let it roll down the hill, am I using it _at the point in time when it hits a tree_?



KarinsDad said:


> Is the Battle Standard a power? yes
> Does the Battle Standard enable you or an ally to regain hit points? yes
> Is the user of the Battle Standard using it? yes




Let me rephrase your questions and my answers, so that we're clear:



> Is the Battle Standard a power? yes
> Does the Battle Standard enable you or an ally to regain hit points? Maybe, but lets assume for the sake of argument that the answer is yes
> Is _the person who planted _the Battle Standard _still_ using it _at the time the standard triggers_? No




Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, are you saying that if the standard is planted by someone wearing a healer's brooch, it heals 2 hp, but if that person is subsequently killed or knocked unconscious, or takes the brooch off, then the standard on the other side of the battlefield is suddenly less effective?

But now I'm getting sucked into the very argument I said wasn't worth having. I'll let you have the last word(s) but I've got no more to say on the subject


----------



## eamon (Feb 18, 2010)

The way I see it, activating the healing standard represents using a power.  Similarly, casting Flaming sphere is using a power.  Using a flaming sphere to attack is... using a power.  These are active uses; you must be conscious and perform an action to do the,

On the other hand, using a flaming sphere to block a hallway isn't "using a power" in this context (other than at the moment you place the sphere there).  If you think that any and all eventual consequences of a power are considered using a power in this context - well, where do you draw the line?  I saved my friend over there with a healing power, and now he hit you - _just as intended_ - am I "using a power to damage an enemy"?  *Considering indirect effects to be "using a power" is a can of worms.*

Clearly, there mere fact that a Healing standard's power _eventually_, _indirectly_ causes healing doesn't automatically mean that you're using a power at the moment that the healing happens to occur.

Sure, there are mitigating circumstances here - the healing standard's power is obviously intended to heal, so while indirect, the healing isn't merely incidental; and the healing is directly mentioned in the power, so cause and effect are more clear-cut.

But still, Colmarr's stance is hardly an "Extraordinary claim".  It looks quite reasonable to me.


----------



## keterys (Feb 19, 2010)

"If you wield a magic implement, you can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of implement powers you use through it"

So - does that mean that you guys aren't adding implement damage to the zone damage for Stinking Cloud, or the 'starting your turn next to' damage for Flaming Sphere? 

Not that it would be bad if certain powers did work like that...


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 19, 2010)

Colmarr said:


> Seriously? In reply to this, I can only quote from A Few Good Men:




In reply to this, I can only quote some rules. I looked up the word "use" and you are correct. It does effectively mean activate. I stand corrected.



> You can use a power whenever you are able to take the action the power requires.




However, your interpretation is still incorrect.



> In general, magic item powers follow the *same rules* as other powers (in that they have ranges, shapes, and so forth). See “How to Read a Power,” page 54, for details.




There is nothing special about an item unless the item states so or some other rules states so. So, let's look at these items:



> When you plant the battle standard in your space or an adjacent square, it creates a zone of healing energy in a close burst 5. Whenever you or an ally spends a healing surge while in the zone, you and all allies in the zone regain 1 hit point.






> Property: When you use a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points, add the brooch’s enhancement bonus to the hit points gained.




The brooch explicitly modifies the actual power of the battle standard when the battle standard power is used.

Is the battle standard a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points? Yes. You said so yourself (begrudgingly).

Hence by definition, the bonus is added to ANY hit points gained. It bumps up the zone to 2 hit points WHEN the power is used. It changes the effect of the zone because the owner of the standard is USING the standard power as per the requirement of the brooch.



Colmarr said:


> Is the Battle Standard a power? yes
> Does the Battle Standard enable you or an ally to regain hit points? Maybe, but lets assume for the sake of argument that the answer is yes
> Is the person who planted the Battle Standard still using it at the time the standard triggers? No




The answer to #3 is no and it doesn't matter. The brooch modifies the zone effect at the point in time that the power is used.

You can disagree with this (obviously), but it is no different than anything else and follows the same power rules.

A Wizard with the Furnace of Sand power modifies the power when he uses the power with his Astral Fire feat:



> You gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls *when you use* a power that has the fire or the radiant keyword.




Note the word use.



> The burst creates a zone of red-hot swirling sand that lasts until the end of your next turn. All creatures are blinded while they are within the zone, and the area is lightly obscured. Each creature that enters the zone takes 1d10 + your Intelligence modifier fire damage.




Is it your claim that since the zone does damage later on when a creature enters the square, the Wizard does not get his Astral Fire feat damage? Is it your claim that the feat only adds the damage during the split instant that the Wizard uses the power and not later on by the zone damage?

How about Wall of Fire? The Wizard doesn't modify the damage of Wall of Fire for when creatures start their turns next to the wall with his Astral Fire feat at the point in time that the power is used?

There is no difference here. For your interpretation to be correct, thousands of people are playing the game incorrectly (which is possible, but unlikely) when they use the Astral Fire feat to modify all damage rolls done by fire powers.

Or any other feat to increase damage with a power when the power does damage in the future. Or any other item to increase damage with a power when the power does damage in the future.


If you can find a rules difference between these examples here that I missed, please post it.


----------



## Colmarr (Feb 19, 2010)

Colmarr said:


> But now I'm getting sucked into the very argument I said wasn't worth having. I'll let you have the last word(s) but I've got no more to say on the subject




Damn rule stating you need to add text to make a valid post!


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 19, 2010)

I won't argue that the combination is against RAW, because it seems futile to do so.  However I find it distateful to combine an item power with another item in that way.  It's *different* than a wizard creating a flaming sphere, because it's an item making the zone.  You use the item power of the banner to make the zone.  You are *not* using the item power when it heals someone.  You may not be actively using your spell when it burns someone, but it's *your* spell, not an item.  It's not the same thing.  

So I am using my innate sense of "This feels wrong" to make a decision.  Blame it on me being a woman.  Meh.


----------



## keterys (Feb 19, 2010)

Zinovia said:


> So I am using my innate sense of "This feels wrong" to make a decision.




Which is totally a good thing to do! My only objection was with someone arguing it was RAW. I'm a big fan of running it however you want at the table, but also figuring out what's actually wrong with the rules and letting WotC know so they fix them and/or don't do it again. 

The funny thing is that I actually had thought in the past about using two healing standards together, because two people showed up for LFR with them, so it made sense... and I joked about what happens if 5-6 people all showed up with 1. But I never ever considered one person carrying 20+ of them. That opened my eyes a bit.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 19, 2010)

keterys said:


> Which is totally a good thing to do! My only objection was with someone arguing it was RAW. I'm a big fan of running it however you want at the table, but also figuring out what's actually wrong with the rules and letting WotC know so they fix them and/or don't do it again.




Ditto.


----------



## lucek (Feb 2, 2012)

Heal bot clerics are hardly ever game breaking. I had a LVL 2 Cleric that regularly healed over 30 points of damage with a singe healing word or healing strike(surge+wis+D6 for target and wis+str for me). No healing magic items either all feats and class features.

That and the fact the battle standard is a big target for smart enemies. If the best case scenario the battle standard is dishing out 10 HP/surge it becomes a target, changing the dynamics of the fight.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 2, 2012)

Nice necromancy - I couldn't even remember this therad ever existed!


Jhaelen said:


> Incidentally the Battle Standard has been the first magic item my players found. The bard player seems to love it. It's also a big group (seven players) with three leaders.
> 
> I didn't feel it was overpowered but none of the leaders is really a dedicated healer (and of course no Healer's Brooch was involved yet). I think it's fine, nonetheless.



Well, about one year later we all realized that the Battle Standard is indeed completely broken.

We now have a running gag: "Our most important party member? Why, it's the Battle Standard!"

This item single-handedly avoided two TPKs and turned them into a victory for the pcs. The party was encountering first a level + 3 encounter then a level +4 encounter (both using adjusted post-MM3 damage) and wouldn't have stood a chance if it wasn't for the Standard. This thing is insane!


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Feb 2, 2012)

That doesn't seem right.  As mentioned earlier by [MENTION=65726]Mengu[/MENTION], I just don't see it add up. Even if all PCs use a healing surge in one round, that's only +10hp per PC.  That's not really that much extra and it has several caveats.  What part of your math am I not following here?


----------



## the Jester (Feb 2, 2012)

keterys said:


> "If you wield a magic implement, you can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of implement powers you use through it"
> 
> So - does that mean that you guys aren't adding implement damage to the zone damage for Stinking Cloud, or the 'starting your turn next to' damage for Flaming Sphere?




The key phrase in answering this is "Damage *rolls*".


----------



## keterys (Feb 2, 2012)

the Jester said:


> The key phrase in answering this is "Damage *rolls*".



Yep - in the intervening year, the damage roll was _just_ removed from stinking cloud's zone. Though flaming sphere still has it.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 2, 2012)

Re: the Op

I don't think it's game breaking.  I'd actually say it's less powerful than many other combos.


----------



## Ferghis (Feb 2, 2012)

Infiniti2000 said:


> That doesn't seem right.  As mentioned earlier by [MENTION=65726]Mengu[/MENTION], I just don't see it add up. Even if all PCs use a healing surge in one round, that's only +10hp per PC.  That's not really that much extra and it has several caveats.  What part of your math am I not following here?



Here's the math as I figure it.

In a five-PC heroic level party, the cleric can use two healing words to trigger surges and a Healer's Mercy to trigger, on average, say, three surges. Throw in three surges used with second winds or healing potions per encounter, and assume that the whole encounter occurs within the banner's zone. If each surge used by Healer's Mercy triggers the banner once (a notion I disagree with, since they are contemporaneous, and the wording on the banner, as far as I recall, is "when a surge is spent..."), that's a total of 8 times the banner is triggered, and 8 extra HP healed for each character over the course of the encounter. If the banner is augmented by a +2 Healer's Brooch, that triples each heal for a total of 24 HP healed for each character by the banner over the course of the encounter. If every character of the party benefits from every HP of healing, that's a total 120 HP healed by the banner. Not trivial at all.

If Healer's Mercy only triggers the banner once, the above healing is reduced to 6 hp healed to each character by the banner, which can be boosted to 18 HP with a +2 Brooch. That would heal a total of 90 HP healed by the banner. Still very impressive for a standard action.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 2, 2012)

Ferghis said:


> Here's the math as I figure it.



And don't forget healing potions!

Also, in our group we have seven pcs, three of them leaders (bard, cleric, warlord) and the barbarian pc wears a Bloodcut Armor which allows spending a healing surge as a minor action to trigger its power!

You can easily see how that quickly spirals out of control. Basically, unless monsters are able to one-hit-kill a pc, there'll never be a dead pc.

(Well, actually the group _did_ experience one pc death: the pc had two ongoing damage effects on him, was in the range of a damaging aura and the elite monster besides him hit him twice in a round).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Feb 3, 2012)

Your math has too many caveats to be believable, but at least thanks for reminding me about the specific part that causes this to be considered broken.  It's certainly not the healing word, it's the powers that grant a surge to multiple party members at once.  Healer's Mercy is irrelevant to the discussion, however.  I reject out of hand the notion that one item/power is broken due to the influence of another.  If Healer's Mercy is broken, then it must be removed from the equation and not used in a transitive closure sort-of method.

Still, all of the caveats, no matter how much of a stretch, can be discarded after one significant use of the healing power.  Once the bad guys see this, they rip out the standard.  Sure, this takes a standard action, but that's no less a waste of time than it was for the PC to put it up in the first place.


----------



## Ferghis (Feb 3, 2012)

Infiniti2000 said:


> It's certainly not the healing word, it's the powers that grant a surge to multiple party members at once.  Healer's Mercy is irrelevant to the discussion, however.  I reject out of hand the notion that one item/power is broken due to the influence of another.  If Healer's Mercy is broken, then it must be removed from the equation and not used in a transitive closure sort-of method.




I mildly disagree. Healer's Mercy only heals bloodied allies within range. It's powerful, but not broken. But if it were to trigger the banner multiple times, I can see how that would become an overwhelming heal. This is, in small part, the reason why I consider Healer's Mercy (and other similar powers) to trigger the banner at once, as would Cloak of the Walking Dead, and any other multiple-surges-at-once power. If a power triggers a surge-fueled-heal, it triggers the banner once. 



Infiniti2000 said:


> Still, all of the caveats, no matter how much of a stretch, can be discarded after one significant use of the healing power.  Once the bad guys see this, they rip out the standard.  Sure, this takes a standard action, but that's no less a waste of time than it was for the PC to put it up in the first place.




I wholly agree that this is the real balancing factor. It also adds an interesting factor to the the tactics of used in encounters.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Feb 4, 2012)

Ferghis said:


> I mildly disagree. Healer's Mercy only heals bloodied allies within range. It's powerful, but not broken.



  I agree with you.  I didn't try to corroborate that Healer's Mercy is broken.  I also don't think it is, having seen it in practice only just last night.  It's very situational.  Anyway, I was simply responding to it as an argument from someone else, trying to point out that BSoH is broken.


----------



## lucek (Feb 4, 2012)

Infiniti2000 said:


> I agree with you.  I didn't try to corroborate that Healer's Mercy is broken.  I also don't think it is, having seen it in practice only just last night.  It's very situational.  Anyway, I was simply responding to it as an argument from someone else, trying to point out that BSoH is broken.




Just playing devils advocate.

Situation means useless 90% of the time and broken the rest. The unnerfed Turn Undead was situation but if you walked into a tomb it was broken. Same way if you are in a party with glass jaws BSOH can be broken.


----------

