[3.5] Healing Hands. Why touch based healing?

[Starsinger]

The majority of core healing spells in 3.5 are touch based, why? Is it because Clerics are fullplate d8 HD? Or is it a side affect of the Cleric's sizable defensive qualities?

In short: Why is healing limited to touch?

[Morty]

Probably because otherwise in-combat healing would be too easy.

[Epinephrine]

I don't think that there is an in-game reason given. Presumably, it has to do with the feel of the game, a desire for the healer to have to put him/herself at risk, and perhaps to imitate life, in that to tend to our wounded we need to be close to them.

Mechanically, there is no reason that it need be the case. One could simply houserule that cure spells are close range, and I doubt it would make much difference to the average game (though invisible, flying healers might be a real pain).

[Fax Celestis]

It's to make a cleric have to make a choice about being safe and being helpful. Ranged touch spells would allow clerics to stand safely out of range and still tag the meleers with healing powers.

This is also why they have heavy armor proficiency.

[starwoof]

Its a lot more dramatic when a holy man/woman places their hands over a wound than pointing a ray at it from across the room.

[Pie Guy]

Its a lot more dramatic when a holy man/woman places their hands over a wound than pointing a ray at it from across the room.

Are you sure? You could make millions off selling a healing laser!

[Greg]

Are you sure? You could make millions off selling a healing laser!

He said dramatic, rather than useful.

[starwoof]

Are you sure? You could make millions off selling a healing laser!

You mean like this one?

[Rebonack]

Medic's healing laser is pretty awesome if you ask me.

That said, I favor giving healing spells a range of Close and allowing them to be cast as a swift action. That way the cleric can properly take part in combat and heal the party without feeling like a side-liner.

Also helps justify nerfing them into bard spell progression.

[UserClone]

Once you give a healing spell range, it qualifies for some pretty wonky stuff, like chaining and the War Weaver's class abilities. Makes healing too freaking easy.

[Telonius]

I'll go with "tradition" over mechanics being the primary reason the game designers made it a touch spell. I'm only aware of a couple real-world stories (either fictional, legendary, or "official religious") that involved divine healing at range. Either the deity heals you directly, or somebody touches you.

[Starbuck_II]

I think the designers just want the Cleric to be touching people.
Because they liked Clerics and they drool over their Clerics "touching" females to heal them.

Maybe I'm just cynical.

[Zeful]

The majority of core healing spells in 3.5 are touch based, why? Is it because Clerics are fullplate d8 HD? Or is it a side affect of the Cleric's sizable defensive qualities?

In short: Why is healing limited to touch?

Most healing abilities in the fiction and myths that D&D is based have no ranged healing.

[theterran]

If you want ranged healing, take the PrC Eldritch Disciple

[Starsinger]

If you want ranged healing, take the PrC Eldritch Disciple

Yes it's a lovely class, but not exactly in the spirit of the question. I was more asking a "Why?" and less of a "How come?"

[ForzaFiori]

In most stories, healers heal by placing their hands on a wound. That's how the paladin got "Lay on Hands" very few stories have ranged healing. DnD just went with the norm.

[Tacoma]

It's tradition. It's been like that from the start, when there were just "Fighting-Man", Cleric, and Magic-User. And Hobbits were called Hobbits.

But we've seen the Cleric go from mainly a support and healing class to a Powered Medkit Tank of Destruction. It's really quite striking how the class has evolved. Fighters, Rogues, and Wizards fill pretty much the same roles they always did and don't step on each others' toes. But Clerics have become this thing.

I blame the Rambo Medic movement in FPS games. Doesn't the thought of a medic with a minigun make you all salivate?

Anyway. You get some non-touch healing, like Healing Circle and Mass Cure X Wounds. But I don't recall at the moment whether those are self-range and large area of effect, or actually have a range value and an area of effect.

And I'm surprised there aren't more Regeneration or Fast Healing spells for Clerics. Makes sense to buff one guy to take care of his incidental healing needs throughout the fight so you can focus on other people.

I think an answer might be to get a magic item that does that Hand spell where you can deliver touch attacks through the Hand, and cast healing spells through it. Or get a feat so you can deliver touch attacks with a held item like a weapon or wand or shield, but then buy a telescoping rope that flies out and whaps the target and retracts, to a range of up to 300 feet or so. Instant range added to touch attacks.

EDIT: Typos

[SurlySeraph]

Are you sure? You could make millions off selling a healing laser!

Awesomely, healing lasers already exist IRL.

[holywhippet]

I think an answer might be to get a magic item that does that Hand spell where you can deliver touch attacks through the Hand, and cast healing spells through it.

Spectral hand - yes, it would be very nice for a healer.

I think the touch mechanic is to persuade players not to charge off blindly, or allow the players/DM to isolate a character and beat the heck out of them.

[Kurald Galain]

It's really quite striking how the class has evolved. Fighters, Rogues, and Wizards fill pretty much the same roles they always did and don't step on each others' toes.

No they don't. Rogues went from being, well, Bilbo Baggins to being the most hard-hitting "DPS" unit in the game, all in order to give them something better to do in combat.

[Keld Denar]

From modern Christianity, Jesus and Co often were described as "placing hands" on the sick to heal them. The Bible is probably one of those ancient sources that D&D drew from during its inception, much the way they drew on legends of dragons and minotaurs and all that jazz.

[Epinephrine]

Once you give a healing spell range, it qualifies for some pretty wonky stuff, like chaining and the War Weaver's class abilities. Makes healing too freaking easy.

Cure spells already qualify for the War Weaver's Eldritch Tapestry and Quiescent Weavings.

[Tacoma]

No they don't. Rogues went from being, well, Bilbo Baggins to being the most hard-hitting "DPS" unit in the game, all in order to give them something better to do in combat.

A Thief used to be able to backstab for x2 damage at first level, up to x5 at high level. Fighters couldn't get 5 attacks per round unless hasted, but then the Thief would be doing two x5 attacks if hasted and the Fighter would be getting 4 standard ones.

When they introduced weapon specialization in Unearthed Arcana, Fighters and Rangers suddenly became awesome. They still didn't get 5 attacks per round but each attack became much better.

Add in all the handbooks and such, and a starting Fighter became much better at damage than a starting Thief. Thief just didn't evolve as fast.

Then 3E came out and they got to Sneak Attack with a flank or when someone was flat-footed instead of anytime from behind and hidden or the enemy was surprised. And the Sneak Attack started causing a ton of damage. So you're right that Rogues are more combat oriented in 3E.

But then again they still fulfill their traditional Thief roles. They just step on the Fighter's toes too much. Good point.

[Fax Celestis]

A Thief used to be able to backstab for x2 damage at first level, up to x5 at high level. Fighters couldn't get 5 attacks per round unless hasted, but then the Thief would be doing two x5 attacks if hasted and the Fighter would be getting 4 standard ones.

Backstab was an incredibly poorly worded ability. For one, it didn't work on creatures who didn't have backs.

But then again they still fulfill their traditional Thief roles. They just step on the Fighter's toes too much. Good point.

Being Useful In Combat != Stepping On The Fighter's Toes.

[Rebonack]

Most healing abilities in the fiction and myths that D&D is based have no ranged healing.

Eh. Not always.

Off the top of my head I can think of examples of healing via:

Looking at a sanctified object.

Multiple examples of the healer simply speaking the word and the fellow within ear-shot being healed.

The healer speaking the word and a person miles away being healed.

The second one is actually the most common, really. At least as common as healing via laying on of hands. So no, there really isn't any reason for healing to be touch only from a mechanical or a source material basis.

[Tacoma]

Backstab was an incredibly poorly worded ability. For one, it didn't work on creatures who didn't have backs.


Being Useful In Combat != Stepping On The Fighter's Toes.

I'm just saying that the original conception of the classes was:

Fighter: causes reliable damage round to round and can take a lot of hits
Cleric: heals damage and buffs the party
Thief: sneaks, opens locks and traps, picks pockets, does an occasional big hit
Magic-User: causes large damage or combat effect a few times a day, utility spells, but mostly throws darts

So if Cleric becomes a melee smasher, if the Rogue becomes a Sexy Shoeless God of War, they are retaining all their old abilities and roles but also entering into the Fighter's domain.

Magic-User went the way of the Blaster and the Batman instead. And now since he gets so many spells every day he can reliably do damage every round like the Fighter used to.

I'm not saying a Rogue fights as well as a Fighter. I'm just saying it's like giving Fighters the ability to max out one traditional Thief skill, letting them turn undead once a day, and giving them weak Arcane spell progression. Cleric and Rogue have bled into Fighter but Fighter hasn't bled into them.

[Tacoma]

Eh. Not always.

Off the top of my head I can think of examples of healing via:

Looking at a sanctified object.

Multiple examples of the healer simply speaking the word and the fellow within ear-shot being healed.

The healer speaking the word and a person miles away being healed.

The second one is actually the most common, really. At least as common as healing via laying on of hands. So no, there really isn't any reason for healing to be touch only from a mechanical or a source material basis.

We get a stronger feeling of happiness from charity when we directly observe the gratitude of the receiver and there is some chance of repayment of the kindness. Take these examples in descending order of charitable happiness:

1: You give money for college to your sister in person and talk over lunch about her plans.
2: You work at a soup kitchen on Thanksgiving.
3: You load money into a vending machine so the next person gets a free drink.
4: You give some sandwiches to some bums in the park. For whatever reason they become aggressive and chase you away with vulgar comments and death threats.

Simply put, even if Clerics could heal from afar they would probably only heal by touch in person just because the recipient is most able to express gratitude and the Cleric most able to extract the greatest happiness from it.

Also note how difficult it is to get people to pay for car repairs once they've gotten their car back. You need them to pay before they get the car back, or else the power of payment is given to them instead of retained by you. In the same way, a Cleric should be present to offer the healing and stand there expecting payment. If the man miraculously recovers and the Cleric comes forth the next day at his door requesting payment, do you think the dude is going to want to pay? Will he pay it all? Right then? Maybe, but it's much less likely.

[Eldariel]

To the OP: The hands of a king are the hands of a healer.

[Kurald Galain]

But then again they still fulfill their traditional Thief roles. They just step on the Fighter's toes too much. Good point.

I think fighters lost their role in 3E. In earlier editions, their role was essentially "doing melee damage in combat". This role was superseded by the rogue, who could also be useful in non-combat situations, and fighters notoriously had little backup role. The role of "defending the caster" was surprisingly infeasible by the design of 3E (in part because of turn-based grid-based movement, and also not in the least because casters were more than capable of defending themselves). There's a clear line of inadvertent evolution here.

Even in 4E I'm not convinced there's much point to the four roles, other than what people assign to them. This is a bit circular reasoning, but it seems that the primary reason why "parties need a tank" is that everybody (including the DMs) assume that they do.

[Bonecrusher Doc]

Basically any health care profession teaches that physical contact is important for a patient's sense of well-being, from traditional Western medicine to alternative therapies like reiki. Doing ranged healing instead of laying on hands would be like having a gourmet 5-star chef's meal, but instead of being served at a nice restaurant, you're pulling it out of the freezer and nuking it in the microwave. It might still taste great, but it's just the wrong... presentation? Hmm, that's not quite the word I'm looking for.

But speaking of healing lasers, here's some more! (warning: slightly graphic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faYpG...eature=related