Vampiric Healing Followup

[Killer Shrike]

Ok, so basically to accomplish the desired effect of Vampiric Healing would require something like this then?


<table><tr><td align="right" valign="top">15&#160;&#160;</td><td><b><i>Vampiric Healing Power: </i></b>(Total: 25 Active Cost, 15 Real Cost) <i>Vampiric Healing I:</i> Drain 1d6: BODY (10 Active Points); Linked to Vampiric Healing II (-1/2) (Real Cost: 7) <b>plus</b> <i>Vampiric Healing II:</i> Healing BODY 1d6 (max. Healed Points: 6) (Can Heal Limbs), Only up to Amount Rolled on Drain (+0) (15 Active Points); Self Only (-1/2), Linked to Vampiric Healing I (-1/4) (Real Cost: 8)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">2</td></tr></table>

I realize that in 5th Ed, Healing is supposed to be the only way to restore/heal, but considering the similarity in cost it seems like it might be equally valid to say that Transfer is based on Drain and Heal rather than Drain and Aid, the trade off being that a Drain and Heal based Transfer can only raise to starting value.

I'm not challenging or questioning your design decision, Im simply curious if for simplicity purposes if it would be possible as an optional rule to choose whether a Transfer is Heal or Aid based when the power is bought rather than having to build a compound power to do the same basic thing?

This would also ease the porting of 4e characters into 5e that relied on a Transfer to heal themselves

I know 'common sense, dramatic sense, and GMs discretion' apply within the confines of my own game; Im asking whether it might be a possible 'Rules FAQ' type option.

Thanx!

[Steve Long]

No, I'm not going to do that. The existing rule is simple and clear; I see no need to muddy the waters.