PDA

View Full Version : Mass cure light wounds



Iliad
2009-04-18, 05:09 AM
I just want to make sure. Our cleric cast mass cure light wounds so he could cast it on 10 targets, however he wants to target the same people several times.

I allowed it on the day, simply because I wasn't sure and I wanted to err on the side of the pc's but my question is -can he?

I'm thinking most probably no as that seems extremely cheese and the rules don't even show how they can do that. I just want to make sure I'm not accidentally denying my cleric something.

gibbo88
2009-04-18, 05:17 AM
As the spell is written, it doesn't look like it. It says "each selected creature" and "one creature per level" which would suggest to me its a one per person thing.

BlueWizard
2009-04-18, 05:21 AM
I just want to make sure. Our cleric cast mass cure light wounds so he could cast it on 10 targets, however he wants to target the same people several times.

I allowed it on the day, simply because I wasn't sure and I wanted to err on the side of the pc's but my question is -can he?

I'm thinking most probably no as that seems extremely cheese and the rules don't even show how they can do that. I just want to make sure I'm not accidentally denying my cleric something.

Don't allow that. Too much room for abuse.

mostlyharmful
2009-04-18, 05:34 AM
That would make it exptremely powerful, stacking all of them on one or two recipiants would make it almost a heal effect.

Saph
2009-04-18, 06:08 AM
That would make it exptremely powerful, stacking all of them on one or two recipiants would make it almost a heal effect.

Pretty nasty against undead, too.

"OK, the Lich needs to make 15 Will saves. Half damage each."

Of course, the Lich could then cast Mass Inflict Light Wounds, effectively killing a character with almost no chance of survival . . . yeah, bad idea.

- Saph

PS - no, just to make it clear, this isn't legal.

Mastikator
2009-04-18, 06:47 AM
Kind of defeats the purpose of having a mass cure/inflict x wounds.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-18, 07:10 AM
How can this even be a confusing issue? Obviously you can't target the same creature multiple times.

Philistine
2009-04-18, 08:15 AM
Well, clearly someone has found something to question about it.

Maybe it's because the spell as written really sucks. The earliest you can get access to it is level 9, at which time it cures 1d8+9 HP to 9 creatures. What's the frakkin' point? It's both too much (Party of nine? Really?) and too little (Thirteen measly HP! At ninth level!) at the same time.

So here's a possible thought process: Cleric looks around at the party after a fight, sees everybody's down a few HP and wants to get them all back up and running. Goes into the spell list and sees an AoE heal - sounds like just what the doctor ordered, right? Well, no. The party's only 4 or 5 strong, plus maybe an animal companion and/or a familiar, so anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the spell is going to be "wasted." Worse, the amount healed is going to fall well short of topping off the frontliners. So why not ask the DM if you can take the "wasted" energy (from the 3-5 additional targets that could have been healed) and use it to double up on those who need it most? It isn't RAW, but it's not necessarily a totally unreasonable request. Personally, I'd be inclined to try and work with the player on it - try to find a compromise somewhere in between the useless "four allies each regain thirteen HP" and the broken "one target makes 9 Will saves for half damage." Because as written, Mass CLW is a joke.

Xuincherguixe
2009-04-18, 09:52 AM
Seems like this is probably one of those spells that's better used on things other than the party.

Though to be fair, might work well on a horde of weak undead...


I suppose that the value of cure light wounds is that it lets you do a lot of patching in one action. Probably not enough patching, but I suspect the design intent was that the cleric is expected to spam this in combat.


But from what it sounds, it's actual usefulness is pretty situational.


Letting one target a person more than once with it seems like a bad idea.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-18, 09:52 AM
Maybe make it that the Cleric can choose not to discharge some of the healing, and can use those heals again the next round. Meaning it now can't be used to smite some poor Lich, but it has actual usefulness despit the sucky numbers.

rampaging-poet
2009-04-18, 11:15 AM
Perhaps allow it to double up, but it has to be spread evenly over everyone in range. Of course, that could lead to everybody running away from the Cleric and the injured fighter so that he can plunk all the healing on one guy...

Who_Da_Halfling
2009-04-18, 11:19 AM
Well, it's the same level as Heal, so there's certainly no reason to prepare MCLW when you could have Heal, which at lvl 9 is a full restore, pretty much.

If you play with PHB2, you could do the Spontaneous Domain Casting + Healing domain so you wouldn't even have to spont-cast MCLW and could spontaneous cast Heal instead.

Also in PHB2, the feat Sacred Purification gives you effectively a MCLW effect, using a turn undead to heal everyone within 60 feet of 1d8 + Cha HP. Less useful in combat since you can't choose to avoid the enemy and you have to be within 60 feet, but much more useful as the top-off healing after combat. Plus, how often do you run out of turn undeads (unless you're using them for something like this)?

-JM

Chronos
2009-04-18, 11:33 AM
Actually, Mass Cure Light is a 5th-level spell, and Heal is a 6th-level spell. And if you allow it to multi-target creatures, Mass Cure Light actually heals more damage (or hurts undead more) than Heal: At 9th level, the lowest level where you get MCLW, it heals a total of 9d8+81 damage (average 121.5), while at 11th level, the lowest level you get Heal, it heals 110 (and at that level MCLW heals 11d8+121, average 170.5, more than Heal can ever do). Now, it doesn't fix status afflictions like Heal does, but it also doesn't have the "can't kill" restriction that Heal does when used against undead, and clerics can spontaneously cast it without needing any feats or the like.

Who_Da_Halfling
2009-04-18, 12:16 PM
Actually, Mass Cure Light is a 5th-level spell, and Heal is a 6th-level spell. And if you allow it to multi-target creatures, Mass Cure Light actually heals more damage (or hurts undead more) than Heal: At 9th level, the lowest level where you get MCLW, it heals a total of 9d8+81 damage (average 121.5), while at 11th level, the lowest level you get Heal, it heals 110 (and at that level MCLW heals 11d8+121, average 170.5, more than Heal can ever do). Now, it doesn't fix status afflictions like Heal does, but it also doesn't have the "can't kill" restriction that Heal does when used against undead, and clerics can spontaneously cast it without needing any feats or the like.

Forgot that Heal is a 6th and Mass Cure Light is a 5th. Makes my point less good. Also forgot that Mass Cure Light actually has a decent caster level increase unlike regular Cure Light.

You actually don't need any feats to do Spontaneous Domain casting. Also, getting to spontaneous cast Heal is completely within RAW and RAI, without requiring any kind of DM allowance (other than letting you use official supplements). If your DM allows the MCLW stacking, you can do that AND do the Spont Domain casting of Heal.

-JM

Signmaker
2009-04-18, 12:35 PM
How does Augment Healing tack on to Mass Cure spells, if it does?

mikethepoor
2009-04-18, 12:59 PM
It says +2 points of healing per spell level; I'd imagine that much like the warmage edge ability, you have to choose which target gets the extra healing. If the DM rules otherwise, it can be awesome.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-04-18, 01:10 PM
I like the "able to hold back" rule that someone else mentioned. That allows it to actually heal a large amount, but over a longer period of time. I think that I will use this next time someone trys a MCLW.

And Augment Healing applies to all of the seperate targets. Im almost certain.

Philistine
2009-04-18, 01:55 PM
Actually, Mass Cure Light is a 5th-level spell, and Heal is a 6th-level spell. And if you allow it to multi-target creatures, Mass Cure Light actually heals more damage (or hurts undead more) than Heal: At 9th level, the lowest level where you get MCLW, it heals a total of 9d8+81 damage (average 121.5), while at 11th level, the lowest level you get Heal, it heals 110 (and at that level MCLW heals 11d8+121, average 170.5, more than Heal can ever do). Now, it doesn't fix status afflictions like Heal does, but it also doesn't have the "can't kill" restriction that Heal does when used against undead, and clerics can spontaneously cast it without needing any feats or the like.

But if you don't allow MCLW to multi-target individual creatures, the amount of healing per target is trivial. As for the problems you bring up - yes, of course MCLW is broken if you allow its full effect to apply to a single target. Did someone claim otherwise? I'm really not sure who you're arguing against here.

Rampaging-poet's idea is very close to what I had in mind, but with the per-target effect capped in order to minimize abuse. Say, "no one target can receive more than 1/3* of the total healing delivered by the spell;" the same limit would apply to using the spell to attack undead, plus the target would only have to make one save to halve all of the damage done.


* At level nine, MCLW would then heal three targets for about 40 HP each; at level twenty-five, it would heal those each of three targets for 236 HP on average. Per target, that's almost as good as the ninth-level Mass Heal - but Mass Heal can affect more targets, and also clears a whole raft of nasty status effects.

Kantolin
2009-04-18, 03:18 PM
If you take a couple of the healing-focused feats, mass cure actually starts healing for a somewhat relevant number. It'll never be all that much (as it mostly involves you playing catchup with enemy damage), but since it simultaneously heals everyone for your caster level, that's alright enough. And of course, it's better in larger parties, but everyone kinda knew that already.

[This, of course, depends on your optimization level. I don't tend to play in particularly optimized games, and the more optimized your games are, the less effective any sort of healing becomes, so your mileage may vary].

Zaq
2009-04-18, 03:41 PM
It's a fifth-level spell. What other spells are there on that level? To name a few from the Cleric list, there's also True Seeing, Plane Shift, Break Enchantment, Slay Living, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, Greater Vigor, Raise Dead, and Revivify. Mass CLW should be about the same power level as spells like that. As written, the spell frankly sucks. I'm having a very hard time thinking of when you would need to give such a tiny amount of HP to such a large number of creatures at 9th level. Maybe for stabilizing a whole bunch of commoners/civilians who just got hit with something really nasty and won't last another turn on their own, but that's about it. I think it's the first common healing spell that works at range greater than touch, but whoop-de-doo, that alone does not justify its level. Also, compare it to Greater Vigor, also a 5th-level Cleric spell... GVig can heal a single target for, at level 9, 76 damage (4*19). Slower, yes, but that's nothing to sneeze at.

Personally I like the suggestion that you can double up, as long as you spread it out evenly. It's like playing Monopoly... once you've bought New York Avenue, Tennessee Avenue, and St. James Place, you can't simply load up a hotel on St. James Place while ignoring New York and Tennessee. You have to distribute them evenly: a house on each, then two houses, and so on. Spreading out Mass CLW like that would be fair, I think. As mentioned, I suppose a party could spread way out of range and thus use it as a single spike heal, but if the party's willing to do weird tactics and burn a 5th level spell, I say let 'em.

Talic
2009-04-18, 03:43 PM
I'd go with No target may be targeted with more than 20% of the targeting. Level 10? That's 2. Level 20? 4.

Handles a party of 4 + one more thing.

lsfreak
2009-04-18, 04:21 PM
Here's what I'd allow:
Cure/inflict mass, rather than 1 target/CL, has one "charge" per CL, and each charge must go to a different target. Every 3 caster levels, you can assign another charge to a person. However, any charge beyond the second on a single target is halved in effect. So, when you first get it, you could do things like the following:
9 people for 1d8+9 (1 charge each)
4 people for 2d8+18 and 1 for 1d8+9 (2 charges each, plus 1 left over)
3 people for 2d8+18 + half of 1d8+9 (3 charges each)
The halving of the effect keeps it from getting too ridiculously out of hand; at level 20 mass inflict critical becomes slightly stronger than a 3-target harm, which isn't out of line for 3 spell levels and 5 caster levels higher.

d13
2009-04-18, 05:30 PM
Didn't read any post xD

It says "One Creature/level", so I'd bet that you can't target a creature more than once...

VirOath
2009-04-19, 02:27 AM
And people are forgetting the point and actual usefulness of the spell. It's not meant to be used on the party in most situations.

One of the better uses for it his healing up bystanders caught in some of the cross fire. Much of the AoE damage peasants and non adventures wouldn't survive, but those spells also do damage to the surroundings, and that may give a much lighter scale on damage.

I mean it's more often used to fix a problem swiftly than actually save the party. I've used it pretty often on the clerics that could cast it, funny enough those have been characters that have healed others more often than the party (Have never been the primary heal bot)

Keld Denar
2009-04-19, 02:39 AM
What happens if you were to apply metamagic to Chain MCLW? Would each person healed then chain out to each other person as secondary targets, effectively healing X people X times each? Granted, now we are talking about an 8th level spell, unless you are a DMM cleric, but that would be some massive burst healage going on!

arguskos
2009-04-19, 02:58 AM
What happens if you were to apply metamagic to Chain MCLW? Would each person healed then chain out to each other person as secondary targets, effectively healing X people X times each? Granted, now we are talking about an 8th level spell, unless you are a DMM cleric, but that would be some massive burst healage going on!
You can't Chain a multi-target spell, as Chain Spell specifies that it can only be applied to a single target spell.

Also, Kensai isn't full BAB, unless they errata'd it. It goes from +0 to +7, for some totally unknown reason. o.O?!

Fizban
2009-04-19, 03:24 AM
Here's my suggestion: each target heals the normal amount, and if you have a higher CL than the number of targets you can spread the rest around as extra unmodified d8's. The brokenness comes in when you're squaring your caster level (1d8+CL)*CL, so let them double up targets but only apply the CL bonus once.

VirOath
2009-04-19, 03:25 AM
Also, Kensai isn't full BAB, unless they errata'd it. It goes from +0 to +7, for some totally unknown reason. o.O?!

Woah, cool! Thanks for the correction on that. Don't have the book infront of my, but it's from Complete Warrior and it's a Front Line class, so I assumed. :/

Riffington
2009-04-19, 02:14 PM
It's a little better than what you guys are describing.
First, some clerics optimize for healing rather than melee; augment healing increases the healing for each target.
Second, a lot of DM's will help out the party by having enemies refrain from coup-de-grace (or attacking dropped party members). This isn't horribly unrealistic because healing is typically a lame in-combat move. But healing typically requires touch; mass cure light wounds does not; standing between a cleric and his dropped allies is a good idea. So you can often use it to bring a dropped ally back into the fight (at range), and give a little benefit to everyone else at the same time.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-19, 03:17 PM
RAW:
The spell is separated into targeting, and effect.
Each target gets X.
No matter how many times you select a creature, it's still only one target, ergo, it only gets X.

Real Life:
Point gun at dude. Put gun down. Point gun at dude. Put gun down. Point gun at dude. Put gun down. Point gun at guy. Shoot!

You don't do quadruple damage because you aim at a guy 4 times before shooting once. Similarly with this.

DMing:
You could certainly house rule it the way you did in this game, at the end of the day however, it is not what the spell describes.

If they say it sucks, tell them (truthfully) they're not using it properly. You cast it early to offset an ambush attack. You cast it into a brawl between player characters and undead, healing all your party members and hurting all the undead. You use it on low level allies or bolster tower defenses.You use it on masses of low level undead.

In either case, if they try to force the issue, remind them that as a DM you are quite capable of filling the world with clerics with mass inflict spells. Lets say you're doing level appropriate clerics.

10D8+100 damage on the mage. You don't need to aim. He'll probably make his save. You're both level 10. He's dead, guaranteed, no need to roll, even assuming a Con of 16 and rolling max on his hit dice every level.

After that, it's simply a matter of taking out the people likely to fail their will saves. A fighter is more liable to take the full damage. Assuming level 10,with 18 con and max rolls on HD: Dead if he fails his will save vs DC 19 min and you roll moderately high on damage.

Also keep in mind the damage equation for this spell is (nD8)+n^2. Notice there is a square in that equation. It goes D8+1. 2D8+4. 3D8+9 ... 25D8+625.
So yeah, no, it isn't stackable, and for good reason.

Thrawn183
2009-04-19, 04:43 PM
We always rule that augment healing works on each target. When you have a character who is a dedicated healer (one of which I currently DM for) you would be amazed at the amount of healing a MCLW will do. It makes it pretty awesome, because I can drop half the party in a round and then they're all right back up on their feet.

holywhippet
2009-04-19, 07:04 PM
And people are forgetting the point and actual usefulness of the spell. It's not meant to be used on the party in most situations.

One of the better uses for it his healing up bystanders caught in some of the cross fire. Much of the AoE damage peasants and non adventures wouldn't survive, but those spells also do damage to the surroundings, and that may give a much lighter scale on damage.

I mean it's more often used to fix a problem swiftly than actually save the party. I've used it pretty often on the clerics that could cast it, funny enough those have been characters that have healed others more often than the party (Have never been the primary heal bot)

That's a slightly dubious use. Lets say a town is under attack and you have a heap of wounded NPCs on your hand. Use Mass CLW you say? But the injured aren't all piled up within the casting area. You'd have to spend time gathering them all up. It also chews up a spell that you could have used to kill whoever is attacking the town.

If you came across injured NPCs hiding out in a building or in some kind of medical facility it might make more sense.

The main use I can think of is if you've been given command of a bunch of low levels fighter types in order to complete an assault/defense mission. A level 12 cleric might be a lot more powerful than 20 level 2 warriors. But those warriors can keep you from getting swarmed over and if they are better suited to handle a large number of weak enemies who aren't bunched up.

Draz74
2009-04-19, 07:10 PM
Heh. If MCLW could stack more than once on the same target, then Mass Heal could do so as well.

Do I really need to go further with this line of reasoning?

lsfreak
2009-04-19, 08:17 PM
Heh. If MCLW could stack more than once on the same target, then Mass Heal could do so as well.

Do I really need to go further with this line of reasoning?

One heals a random amount of health to many people. Another heals a very fixed amount to many people. So, I say they work fundamentally differently and therefore mass cure can target one person multiple times and and mass heal can't. :p


Point gun at dude. Put gun down. Point gun at dude. Put gun down. Point gun at dude. Put gun down. Point gun at guy. Shoot!

You don't do quadruple damage because you aim at a guy 4 times before shooting once. Similarly with this.
I see it more like this. You have nine buckets of water, and you can dump them on nine different people to get them all wet. Or you could dump a few buckets on the same person, getting that person wetter. There won't be as drastic a change in wetness from one buckets to two or two to three, but there is still a change.

Godskook
2009-04-19, 08:38 PM
One heals a random amount of health to many people. Another heals a very fixed amount to many people. So, I say they work fundamentally differently and therefore mass cure can target one person multiple times and and mass heal can't. :p

So, whats the difference? If casting 2 CLWs on one target in one round gives the target twice the benefit(either by Mass CLWs or quicken spell), why would it matter which method is used when Heal is the spell in question? Using your bucket analogy, the difference between Mass CLWs and Mass heal is about the same as filling buckets(variable) for getting people wet or using water gallons from walmart(which would be precision filled) to do it.

And just in case:
And no, Mass Animal's Benefit wouldn't help, since there is no current method for making it stack by RAW(casting quickened bull's strength and bull's strength in the same round on the same target won't stack, so mass bull's strength won't either).

Baalthazaq
2009-04-19, 11:44 PM
One heals a random amount of health to many people. Another heals a very fixed amount to many people. So, I say they work fundamentally differently and therefore mass cure can target one person multiple times and and mass heal can't. :p


I see it more like this. You have nine buckets of water, and you can dump them on nine different people to get them all wet. Or you could dump a few buckets on the same person, getting that person wetter. There won't be as drastic a change in wetness from one buckets to two or two to three, but there is still a change.

1) Fireball deals a random amount of damage. That doesn't mean you can hit the same person multiple times with it. Random vs Static has nothing to do with anything.

2) Why would CLW be any different? Look at the damage it's doing. It *very* quickly becomes more and more static as you level. At level 10, it is already doing more than heal in static damage alone.

3) I was explaining the logic of the wording. It doesn't matter how you see it. I don't "see it as aiming a gun 3 times", it is worded where the aim is a seperate phase to the implementation.
"Choose targets" "Anything you have targeted gets X".

4) You're still not addressing how at level 20 you're doing more damage even if they save, with a level 5 spell you don't even have to aim, than a maximized disintegrate they failed their save on.

Where is the justification for a spell you can spontaneously convert doing more as a level 5 spell than the highest damage spells in a mage's arsenal? Why are we even discussing buckets of water vs guns? What possible rationale is being used here? This is clearly overpowered, it is not RAW, it is not RAI.

5) As I said earlier, if my players argued for that, I'd simply use 2 evil clerics to TPK them all as a demonstration of why it's silly, and it is. It is instant no save death (because making the save doesn't give you enough HP to survive anyway).

Philistine
2009-04-19, 11:44 PM
RAW:
The spell is separated into targeting, and effect.
Each target gets X.
No matter how many times you select a creature, it's still only one target, ergo, it only gets X.

Real Life:
Point gun at dude. Put gun down. Point gun at dude. Put gun down. Point gun at dude. Put gun down. Point gun at guy. Shoot!

You don't do quadruple damage because you aim at a guy 4 times before shooting once. Similarly with this.

DMing:
You could certainly house rule it the way you did in this game, at the end of the day however, it is not what the spell describes.

If they say it sucks, tell them (truthfully) they're not using it properly. You cast it early to offset an ambush attack. You cast it into a brawl between player characters and undead, healing all your party members and hurting all the undead. You use it on low level allies or bolster tower defenses.You use it on masses of low level undead.

In either case, if they try to force the issue, remind them that as a DM you are quite capable of filling the world with clerics with mass inflict spells. Lets say you're doing level appropriate clerics.

10D8+100 damage on the mage. You don't need to aim. He'll probably make his save. You're both level 10. He's dead, guaranteed, no need to roll, even assuming a Con of 16 and rolling max on his hit dice every level.

After that, it's simply a matter of taking out the people likely to fail their will saves. A fighter is more liable to take the full damage. Assuming level 10,with 18 con and max rolls on HD: Dead if he fails his will save vs DC 19 min and you roll moderately high on damage.

Also keep in mind the damage equation for this spell is (nD8)+n^2. Notice there is a square in that equation. It goes D8+1. 2D8+4. 3D8+9 ... 25D8+625.
So yeah, no, it isn't stackable, and for good reason.

Can you point out one single post in this thread in which it is so much as suggested that allowing MCLW to function as you describe even might be a good or desirable thing? I don't see any. What I do see is poster after poster saying that even if a DM chose to houserule the spell effect in some way, allowing it go to that extreme would be bad and undesirable. You're arguing against something that nobody is arguing for, and representing that as the entirety of the opposing position: a textbook strawman attack.
___________________________

Heh. If MCLW could stack more than once on the same target, then Mass Heal could do so as well.

Do I really need to go further with this line of reasoning?

Big deal. MH already gives a hefty enough per-target benefit that you should rarely need more. If you do need more, then apparently at least one member of your party is taking 200+ HP damage per turn. And in that case, standing and fighting is probably a bad idea.
___________________________

So, whats the difference? If casting 2 CLWs on one target in one round gives the target twice the benefit(either by Mass CLWs or quicken spell), why would it matter which method is used when Heal is the spell in question? Using your bucket analogy, the difference between Mass CLWs and Mass heal is about the same as filling buckets(variable) for getting people wet or using water gallons from walmart(which would be precision filled) to do it.

And just in case:
And no, Mass Animal's Benefit wouldn't help, since there is no current method for making it stack by RAW(casting quickened bull's strength and bull's strength in the same round on the same target won't stack, so mass bull's strength won't either).

You know, there's a key difference between the stat-boosting spells (Bull's Strength etc) and spells which restore lost HP: Additional castings of stat boosters on the same target have no effect. Additional castings of Cure Wounds spells on the same target do continue to have an effect, until the target reaches max HP. So for example, casting a Quickened CLW and a CLW on the same target in the same round would stack, as long as the first one didn't restore the target to max HP. Your analogy fails.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-21, 03:47 AM
Can you point out one single post in this thread in which it is so much as suggested that allowing MCLW to function as you describe even might be a good or desirable thing? I don't see any. What I do see is poster after poster saying that even if a DM chose to houserule the spell effect in some way, allowing it go to that extreme would be bad and undesirable. You're arguing against something that nobody is arguing for, and representing that as the entirety of the opposing position: a textbook strawman attack.

Chillax anklebiter.

For starters: The original poster's friend seemed to suggest it "worked that way", and I was offering the OP the reasoning for why it doesn't. Isfreak seems to agree with the OP's friend.

I didn't come here looking to pick a fight, so I tell you what. Reread my post, evaluate why you might be mistaken as to it being a strawman attack.

Here's a clue:
John: "I like pie."
Sarah: "Me too."
Bob: "I like pie too. It goes good with coke."

Is Bob launching a scathing strawman attack against fictional opponents? Is he poisoning the well? Is this heated debate being unfairly misguided by Bob's obvious evil intent? Is he unfairly painting John in the 'Pie sucks' crowd? Is he suggesting Sarah and John are utterly against the Pie+coke combo?

Or is it, as I'd suggest, just a goddamn conversation? It remains a conversation even if Bob adds "I hear it's pretty healthy too", or "Meat pies are the best". It doesn't even matter that someone sitting behind them on the bus happens to think they're merely averagely healthy and takes some form of frothing at the mouth offense at the suggestion.

I was merely giving a more in depth response to the initial question.
"Is this how it works?". It is not, I gave the reasons why. In a spell where you can choose targets, you can obviously choose to ignore targets. If it worked the way it is described in the first post all the things mentioned in my post are also possible. That is why those rules are obviously not RAI, and that is why he is reasonable/sensible to block that interpretation of the rules.

Does it suck? A little, yes. Sure it only does 13 HP, but it's closest rival up until that point only does 27 HP on average and only to one person.
Could you make it better, or more level appropriate? I'm sure you could. Go for it.

I was never standing in your way on the matter. Feel free to post a thousand suggestions, all of which I'm sure will be acceptable/reasonable alternatives to the current spell. House rules can be awesome. None of that will ever change what the current spell describes/is or how it works however.

If however you would like a pointless debate on a matter I wasn't even aware I was debating, feel free to pretend I am your nemesis existing for the sole purpose of belittling your ideas, but don't impose those delusions on others by hijacking a thread to make ad hominems and finally make use of the italics function you've evidently been itching to use for quite some time now.

Talic
2009-04-21, 04:37 AM
Well, the "same target a bunch of times" has other applications.

Much easier to metamagic things up...

I mean, a Chained Enervation becomes MUCH nastier. Same with Chain Lightning, or any of any number of effects that offer multi-targeted effects.

Triaxx
2009-04-21, 07:53 AM
Two potential solutions:

Take a page from Magic Missile. One ray per level, and you can either target on multiple creatures or a single creature. If it feels over powered, drop it to d6 or lower.

Take a page from Produce Flame, and have one ray per level, but you can only fire once per round, but can do other things if it's not necessary to use it, or something more pressing comes up. (Like an enemy in your face.)

ericgrau
2009-04-21, 09:11 AM
When you think there are multiple interpretations, try the common sense unbroken one rather than the anti-common sense broken one. A lot of "RAW" claims come from people who just want to break something to their advantage, and it makes so little sense that "RAW" is all they have to stand on. And it's really just a bad interpretation of RAW, when you could just as easily use the unbroken interpretation.

As for the usefullness of the spell, it's a mass spell. Use it when you have lots of targets, which does more healing than single spells as pointed out. If you don't have that many targets, then pick another spell. Can't you cast MCLW spontaneously anyway? So you don't even have to worry about preparing a spell you might not use; just cast it when it finally does come up. Try NPCs, followers from leadership, army fights, etc. If they know you they should bunch up on their own. Against armies of undead, OTOH, it's half as strong as a fireball and 1/3 as strong as an empowered fireball (level 5), so I dunno how much it's worth it.

Come to think of it, I wonder why Durkon wasn't the one buffing the level 5 guys in the defense of Azure city. He could have actually kept them alive, while still fighting himself. With the buffs some 5th level fighters probably had as much HP as V, so I don't see how the skelli-knight thingy could have great cleaved them at full health without also killing V in one round. Ya, he doesn't get enlarge person which was supposed to be a big deal in the comic strip. It does fill the hole better but in terms of combat stats it hurts almost as much as it helps.

Chronos
2009-04-21, 08:41 PM
Come to think of it, I wonder why Durkon wasn't the one buffing the level 5 guys in the defense of Azure city. He could have actually kept them alive, while still fighting himself.The plan didn't call for any of the characters to be down there buffing-- They were all supposed to stay on the top of the wall. But V found emself down at the breach after Feather Falling, and decided e couldn't make it back to es planned station in a timely manner, so contributed as best e could where e was.

Khanderas
2009-04-22, 01:57 AM
Chillax anklebiter.

For starters: The original poster's friend seemed to suggest it "worked that way", and I was offering the OP the reasoning for why it doesn't. Isfreak seems to agree with the OP's friend.

I didn't come here looking to pick a fight, so I tell you what. Reread my post, evaluate why you might be mistaken as to it being a strawman attack.

Here's a clue:
John: "I like pie."
Sarah: "Me too."
Bob: "I like pie too. It goes good with coke."

Is Bob launching a scathing strawman attack against fictional opponents? Is he poisoning the well? Is this heated debate being unfairly misguided by Bob's obvious evil intent? Is he unfairly painting John in the 'Pie sucks' crowd? Is he suggesting Sarah and John are utterly against the Pie+coke combo?

Or is it, as I'd suggest, just a goddamn conversation? It remains a conversation even if Bob adds "I hear it's pretty healthy too", or "Meat pies are the best". It doesn't even matter that someone sitting behind them on the bus happens to think they're merely averagely healthy and takes some form of frothing at the mouth offense at the suggestion.

I was merely giving a more in depth response to the initial question.
"Is this how it works?". It is not, I gave the reasons why. In a spell where you can choose targets, you can obviously choose to ignore targets. If it worked the way it is described in the first post all the things mentioned in my post are also possible. That is why those rules are obviously not RAI, and that is why he is reasonable/sensible to block that interpretation of the rules.

Does it suck? A little, yes. Sure it only does 13 HP, but it's closest rival up until that point only does 27 HP on average and only to one person.
Could you make it better, or more level appropriate? I'm sure you could. Go for it.

I was never standing in your way on the matter. Feel free to post a thousand suggestions, all of which I'm sure will be acceptable/reasonable alternatives to the current spell. House rules can be awesome. None of that will ever change what the current spell describes/is or how it works however.

If however you would like a pointless debate on a matter I wasn't even aware I was debating, feel free to pretend I am your nemesis existing for the sole purpose of belittling your ideas, but don't impose those delusions on others by hijacking a thread to make ad hominems and finally make use of the italics function you've evidently been itching to use for quite some time now.
I found me a new hero on this forum.
Much because I loathe about every use of "your argument is a strawman" for here, it is so very overused.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-04-22, 04:49 AM
I would actually say that it can indeed target the same creature multiple times. Examples of similar spells would be as follows:

All targets within a certain distance of each other, such as Horrid Wilting or Mass Hold Person. In this case you affect a nigh-unlimited potential number of targets, but of course each target is affected only once. The limiting factor is distance, not number of creatures.

Shapable area effects, or Sculpt Spell with any AoE spell, one such common trick is Whirling Blade with Sculpt Spell to affect a single 10-foot cube four times, thus granting four attacks against each of up to four creatures at the caster's full BAB. This is an extremely dirty trick, but perfectly legitimate according to the RAW. The limiting factor is the spell's area, each creature in the spell's area is subject to the spell's effect (an attack), and overlapping the area on the same creature multiple times causes that creature to be subject to the spell's effect multiple times.

X number of targets, such as Energy Missile and the Mass Cure spells. In this case, the spell's effect is limited by the number of potential targets, but one of these spells actually states that it cannot target the same creature multiple times, which would imply that in the absence of that limitation such spells can target the same creature multiple times.

Healing spells in combat are bad anyway, you're almost always better off just casting an offensive spell unless it's an emergency. The Mass Cure spells are generally considered bad, this actually makes them usable, and much more efficient than multiple low-level spells and more versatile than one huge single-target Heal.

Dragonsdoom
2009-04-22, 07:26 AM
Just want to butt in here and make the point that some of us will use all of a mass heal and more. My last party had 8 members before familiars, constructs, prisoners and animal companions. I think the final count was around 17 members, only four of which would not benefit from the spell.

Rubicon
2009-04-22, 07:42 AM
X number of targets, such as Energy Missile and the Mass Cure spells. In this case, the spell's effect is limited by the number of potential targets, but one of these spells actually states that it cannot target the same creature multiple times, which would imply that in the absence of that limitation such spells can target the same creature multiple times.

This argument works both ways. Spells such as magic missile or scorching ray specifically state that multiple missiles/rays may target the same creature. For this reason, you could also claim that the spell may not affect the same creature multiple times unless it is specifically stated in the spell description.

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-22, 08:25 AM
This argument works both ways. Spells such as magic missile or scorching ray specifically state that multiple missiles/rays may target the same creature. For this reason, you could also claim that the spell may not affect the same creature multiple times unless it is specifically stated in the spell description.

I second this. Otherwise, it's like say a druid can cast "Drown, mass" 10 times on a target.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-04-22, 09:47 AM
With Magic Missile it is possible to fire only one missile due to a low caster level, or multiple missiles, in which case they may strike the same target or different targets. At the lower levels when you're learning spells like Magic Missile and Scorching Ray some players need to be told that when a spell grants X number of effects, it's ok to dump them all onto a single target. By the time you get 5th level spells you should know this already and it can go without saying.

Mass Drown doesn't have X number of effects, it has a single effect on every target within a certain distance of each other, otherwise it would say "X creatures/level" rather than "One or more creatures, no two of which are more than 30 ft. apart." It can affect any number of creatures within the range limitation, rather than handing out its effect X times distributed among as many or as few creatures as the caster desires.

Even the most liberal interpretation wouldn't exceed Xd8+25, because that is the limit given for the spell's effect on each selected creature. It could even be taken to mean that a creature targeted four times would be healed for 4d8 points +1 per caster level (maximum +25) rather than 4d8 plus four times the caster level. I can't even see the Mass Inflict spells getting out of hand by either of those interpretations.

Who_Da_Halfling
2009-04-22, 01:56 PM
With Magic Missile it is possible to fire only one missile due to a low caster level, or multiple missiles, in which case they may strike the same target or different targets. At the lower levels when you're learning spells like Magic Missile and Scorching Ray some players need to be told that when a spell grants X number of effects, it's ok to dump them all onto a single target. By the time you get 5th level spells you should know this already and it can go without saying.

Mass Drown doesn't have X number of effects, it has a single effect on every target within a certain distance of each other, otherwise it would say "X creatures/level" rather than "One or more creatures, no two of which are more than 30 ft. apart." It can affect any number of creatures within the range limitation, rather than handing out its effect X times distributed among as many or as few creatures as the caster desires.

Even the most liberal interpretation wouldn't exceed Xd8+25, because that is the limit given for the spell's effect on each selected creature. It could even be taken to mean that a creature targeted four times would be healed for 4d8 points +1 per caster level (maximum +25) rather than 4d8 plus four times the caster level. I can't even see the Mass Inflict spells getting out of hand by either of those interpretations.

Actually, the limit given is 1d8 + 1 point per caster level in each selected creature. If you're going to limit it like that by RAW, I don't see how multi-targetting is any help at all. And, it's definitely sketchy to try and argue that it only limits half of that effect per creature, for no apparent reason.


You channel positive energy to cure 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25) in each selected creature.

Like other cure spells, mass cure light wounds deals damage to undead in its area rather than curing them. Each affected undead may attempt a Will save for half damage.

There's nothing there that implies that each targetting would provide that healing. It's saying, IMO, that each target gets that benefit. How many times they're targetted is irrelevant.

-JM

OverWilliam
2009-04-22, 02:25 PM
If you are playing an undead themed campaign (or part of a campaign) this spell, RAW, is actually more useful than it sounds. There's nothing that says you can't effect Allies and Enemies at the same time, meaning that your caster can heal friendlies and damage enemies at the same time, thereby using the full effects of the spell (not 'wasting' any). DMM Quicken it and use twice per round until everything is either full HP out of a tough encounter or reduced to ash.

EDIT: Yyyeeah, on second thought, scratch that last part... :smallredface: