Reap

I've always thought reap should be 1 HP per man in the unit. So early game reap gives you 3 hp, if nearly everyone is up, and late game it can give you up to 6. Seems like it would make it more useful and keep it more in line with how the + damage abilities work.

I've never ever leveled it, since it is so far in the back of the tree.

Is it generally worth it?

a percentage of max health would also work (for example, 5-10% of the unit's health per attack)

I would like it changed from a flat amount to a percentage, perhaps with a cap (to prevent obscene life steal from high HP enemy stacks).

To answer your question, Nighthawk, it is *very* worth it. Many many battles have been decided for me because my Warrior had Reap 3, counter-attack-with-anything, and a sword/dagger.

Just like everything else.

Always disliked reap, never made much sense to me and was one of those traits that seemed just to exist to force me too waste 3 levels  to get something else much better.

it shoud give fraction of damage dealt, not static value.

if you scored 100 damage, 10-20 hp will be nice reward. 

It's also silly to get +6 HP when you dealt 1 damage - which was all the enemy had left = P

Even sillier to get 6 for 1 when you're too weak to do more than 1!

I like the percentage of damage done idea.

@nighthavvk  Yes, reap, as it is currently implemented (+1 per unit on successful melee hit) in the early game, when +1 is a significant percentage of a troops health, is worthwhile.  By mid game, reaps utility drops when compared to other training choices.  Making it +1 per figure (as suggested above) is one option to keep reap more competitive as the game advances. 

+1 hp, as is, even on brand new units, doesn't really help much - even early game.  Most anything can do more than 1 HP of damage to a unit.  1 HP/figure would be worth taking it.

I just imagine the AI fighting another AI with this skill, and they both do 1 hit damage, healing 6hp every time.  Infinite loop.