|
Cure Minor requires a "willing", touched target, while Crusaders can heal at a distance, and doesn't require that the Innitiater use their turn just to heal and move to touch.
The Crusaders laughable healing which should be expected to heal enough to matter, and the clerics healings, which may matter should be what is looked at. Saying two people/characters/etc can do the same thing, when they are not even in the same league is not a good argument.
A match can shine, and so can the sun.
That is how valid your comparison is.It is not even worth discussing because it(crusader's healing) is basically useless, and if someone tried to get the crusader's healing to replace a cleric's in a party that needed healing, the party will be dead. A cleric can still fight well enough to matter in addition to heal. So what we have is one class that fights well, and is terrible for healing, and a second class that fights well enough, and can heal enough to matter if it has to. Which one do you want in your party?
Yes a crusader can heal and fight, but if the amount of healing is not enough to matter then it has no merit.
So to sum it all up, all your saying is yes, I am right and they are different. Minus all the missing the forest from the trees and jumping to conclusions that are not even intended, of course.
I think ysgard is correct. Your three 20s and three 1s stories are all much better then the times I have seen them. They were all against low level stuff where it made no real difference except for an extra dead minion or a slightly pincushioned PC from what I can remember. So all in all rather disappointing.I've seen both ends... I've done the infamous three 20s and three 1s. The three 20s was when I was DMing though. Player was sparring with the avatar of Corellon(sp), and the player unloaded with a ton of damage on him as the avatar let him strike. Then I was going to have the Avatar unleash a fury of hits. First strike was a natural 20. Alright, no problem. Rolled to confirm. Another 20. I stare at my friend, and he gets the look in his eye of a deer in the headlights. I take my dice out, and lean over the table. And I roll again. Another natural 20. He had never seen three of those before rolled by anyone.
Fortunately, after the Avatar utterly destroyed him.... The fight was lucky enough to take place on the Fields of Ysgard was it? I'm sure I have that name wrong.. But every day, everyone gets hit with mass heal and true ressurection. So, the player was lucky as well as ecstatic to be hit by the legendary three 20s.
Also seen a player make a spit attack. No, not with a special ability. He wanted to spit on a prone guy. And roll an attack roll.
Alright. A...
Also had a horrible two 1s incident... you know how wooden weapons sorta break on a one or a two?
Friend of mind, particularly daft mind you.
Decided to melee with a staff of fireball, and rolled two ones.
The DMs eyes went wide and the next ten minutes involved:
1 minute of stunned silence
1 minute of DM stuttering.
8 minutes of cursing at my friend. As he not only screwed us all over, but he sorta screwed over the campaign.
Now we know. Don't melee with a staff of fireball. OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT..
So to sum it all up, all your saying is yes, I am right and they are different. Minus all the missing the forest from the trees and jumping to conclusions that are not even intended, of course.
Cure Minor requires a "willing", touched target, while Crusaders can heal at a distance, and doesn't require that the Innitiater use their turn just to heal and move to touch.
The Crusaders laughable healing which should be expected to heal enough to matter, and the clerics healings, which may matter should be what is looked at. Saying two people/characters/etc can do the same thing, when they are not even in the same league is not a good argument.
A match can shine, and so can the sun.
That is how valid your comparison is.It is not even worth discussing because it(crusader's healing) is basically useless, and if someone tried to get the crusader's healing to replace a cleric's in a party that needed healing, the party will be dead. A cleric can still fight well enough to matter in addition to heal. So what we have is one class that fights well, and is terrible for healing, and a second class that fights well enough, and can heal enough to matter if it has to. Which one do you want in your party?
Yes a crusader can heal and fight, but if the amount of healing is not enough to matter then it has no merit.
What?
The guy arguing about the healing stance is being selectively blind.
It says there right in the stance that you have to hit an opponent with a melee attack roll to trigger the healing effects.
A rock is not an opponent.
Your friend you are sparring with is not an opponent. You're pulling your punches.
A zombie in a cell is not an opponent...it can't strike back. It's a victim.
There is no unlimited out of combat healing using that stance. The whole thing about stances applying outside of combat is situational if the stance CAN apply out of combat...like the blindsense, or walk on air, or fire resistance. Having to be in combat with an opponent and HIT him is not out of combat.
Ergo, his concerns are nameless. The only way that stance could possibly be abused is with zillions of attacks/rd that all hit, providing a constant spread of effective 'fast healing'. And at the level you can get all those attacks, a Heal or Mass Heal is still going to be way more effective. At low level, it's just something to help you stay in the fight a bit longer. I can see it being really nice for a high level fighter against mooks...he'll never need a heal even against the nat 20's.
The bloodstorm blade vorpal/prismatic attack sounds like a case of spectactular dice rolling. It's more a case of an awesome weapon then an awesome ability. You could do the same thing hopping into the middle of a bunch of mooks with 3.5 Great Cleave or Whirlwind.
===Aelryinth
The guy arguing about the healing stance is being selectively blind.
It says there right in the stance that you have to hit an opponent with a melee attack roll to trigger the healing effects.
A rock is not an opponent.
Your friend you are sparring with is not an opponent. You're pulling your punches.
A zombie in a cell is not an opponent...it can't strike back. It's a victim.There is no unlimited out of combat healing using that stance. The whole thing about stances applying outside of combat is situational if the stance CAN apply out of combat...like the blindsense, or walk on air, or fire resistance. Having to be in combat with an opponent and HIT him is not out of combat.
Ergo, his concerns are nameless. The only way that stance could possibly be abused is with zillions of attacks/rd that all hit, providing a constant spread of effective 'fast healing'. And at the level you can get all those attacks, a Heal or Mass Heal is still going to be way more effective. At low level, it's just something to help you stay in the fight a bit longer. I can see it being really nice for a high level fighter against mooks...he'll never need a heal even against the nat 20's.
The bloodstorm blade vorpal/prismatic attack sounds like a case of spectactular dice rolling. It's more a case of an awesome weapon then an awesome ability. You could do the same thing hopping into the middle of a bunch of mooks with 3.5 Great Cleave or Whirlwind.
===Aelryinth
I would like to see him try to practice that theory of using a crusader to heal, against a savvy DM. I think after I run my session of AoW this week I will post it here so he can tell me how the crusader would have been more useful with healing.
Actually, I don't. Never heard of that rule.
Also had a horrible two 1s incident... you know how wooden weapons sorta break on a one or a two?
Believe the DM took the rule from the spell Transmute Metal to wood.
Though, two ones while striking with a staff of fireball with about 49 charges in it is still most likely a horrific idea. And that transmute metal to wood spell also resulted in a VERY bad disjunction sort of issue once. Never seen anything disjunctured. But I've seen something transferred and have a player roll a 2, and watch as their +3 Flaming greataxe turned into splinters.
Now, of the issue at hand. Anyone that finds Crusader > Cleric in any healing avenue has a nicer DM than I. Or is a nicer DM than I...
Sure.. Use that rock as an enemy. What level are you again? Was it two? LETS SEE! HOW DOES A LARGE EARTH ELEMENTAL SOUND!?
Striking freaking rocks sounds like a DM mistake to me.
A crusader versus a regular, non-dedicated healer would have severe issues out healing.
And so help you, if its that Radiant Servent of Pelor class. I remember getting pigeon holed on playing a healer. That the dm was going to screw us... First time DM. So, I decided to welcome them to D&D, and play a severely dedicated healer/buffer/battlefield controller. Basically turning every challenging fight into a cake walk.
Though eventually it did turn into a cupcake and cookies affair with dragons who masquerade as children that demand we eat more pastries...
Don't ask. Its... rather traumatizing..
|
|
I was actually referring to the idea of a Crusader doing the "wind down" healing after combat, not attacking a rock. I have never known a DM that allows either to work, but I do think that the "wind down" is easily within the intenet of the rules, and that the Sages Advice only suggested not to allow any out of combat stuff to avoid cheeseyness.
Personally.
Bottom Line.
Having a crusader in the party is nice.
Having a cleric in the party is nice.
Having neither in the party could be a problem.
There. >.>
Personally.
Bottom Line.
Having a crusader in the party is nice.
Having a cleric in the party is nice.
Having neither in the party could be a problem.
There. >.>
Having a Cleric/Crusader/Ruby Knight Vindicator?...Priceless!
Having a Cleric/Crusader/Ruby Knight Vindicator?...Priceless!Personally.
Bottom Line.
Having a crusader in the party is nice.
Having a cleric in the party is nice.
Having neither in the party could be a problem.
There. >.>
I think you should win the thread. Completely.
Someone give this guy the thread. Now. Please?
I had a character like that once. Cleric 1/Crusader 2 with aims of hitting RKV eventually. Only Eberron character I ever got to play, and she was a cleric of the Blood of Vol jokingly described as "too hardcore for Karrnath." I relied on a couple of good Divine feats to make my limited Rebuke Undead uses go further (mmm... Profane Lifeleech...). She was the party healer, but I relied a lot on spells like Lesser Vigor to bolster it heavily, especially since I was also the party's primary beater. At third level, I found that the limitations I had with regards to maneuvers - standard actions prohibiting charges, which was often necessary due to my heavy armor and limited maneuverability - more than made up for whatever advantage I might have had. And in a lot of fights, I was pretty close to useless. I liked the character a lot, but I didn't get to do nearly as much as I'd have liked.