Applying Reach and Chain Spell to healing effects

[SgtCarnage92]

One of my players wants to use the combination of Reach Spell, Chain Spell and his cure spells (playing a healstick cleric). I will allow this combination, but an argument came up the other day that had us at each others throats and I'm not sure how we should handle it.

In the description for Chain spell it mentions that after the initial target is struck by a damaging spell, the targets that the spell "jumps" to take only half the damage that the initial target takes. He was arguing that if he wanted to use Chain spell on his Reach cure spells, that the healing effect would not be halved on the additional targets because he is not dealing damage with it, and the feat does specify damaging spells. I argued the opposing point that seeing as the spell has the potential to do damage (to undead) that it should still qualify as a damaging spell. (He agreed that if he was using the combination to fight undead that the effect would be halved). I rationalize it as the same amount of energy being produced no matter who your target is, therefore it should reduce the healing effects to the secondary targets.

My question is, would the healing effect of a cure spell be reduced for secondary targets when using both reach and chain spell on the same casting?

[Rhaegar14]

This is pretty simple RAW versus RAI. So far as RAI, you're probably right (and secondary targets would take half), whereas so far as RAW, he's definitely right.

[LordBlades]

By RAW he's right. Chain Spell only has restrictions on spells that deal damage or that has a save. All other spell that produce numerical effects (negative levels, healing etc.) work normally.

I do believe the RAI was to add a drawback to any kind of spell used via chain spell though and they just failed at it.




I rationalize it as the same amount of energy being produced no matter who your target is, therefore it should reduce the healing effects to the secondary targets.



That's not entirely true by RAW. Creatures that you heal aren't entitled for a Will save for half healing, nor do they need to take the action to lower their SR despite the spell allowing SR for the damaging version.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Eh, it's already +3 meta (with a +2 meta stacked on top of that). Stupid designer intent aside, without metamagic reducers, don't you get Mass CLW around then anyway? And if he's just being a heal stick, do you really have to go out of your way to kill his buzz? He could just be DMM Persisting Vigorous Circle instead.

[Zaq]

That's not entirely true by RAW. Creatures that you heal aren't entitled for a Will save for half healing, nor do they need to take the action to lower their SR despite the spell allowing SR for the damaging version.

Actually, both of these are false. They ARE allowed to save for half (most people simply don't . . . you always CAN, though, if, for instance, you're under Amon's influence). Likewise, SR is a double-edged sword, and while it doesn't apply against your own spells, you'd better believe that it makes it harder for the party healstick to patch you up.

[dextercorvia]

How is he planning to pay for that metamagic? As was mentioned, Mass Cures are only 4 levels higher than their corresponding Cure Wounds, and they have a higher cap on the damage healed. Mass Lesser Vigor is a 3rd level spell that gives Fast Healing to everyone in 30' for ?25? rounds at a time.

[SgtCarnage92]

I think he was planning on using Divine Metamagic to burn turn attempts to pay for all of the metamagic.

[Coidzor]

Eh, it's already +3 meta (with a +2 meta stacked on top of that). Stupid designer intent aside, without metamagic reducers, don't you get Mass CLW around then anyway? And if he's just being a heal stick, do you really have to go out of your way to kill his buzz? He could just be DMM Persisting Vigorous Circle instead.

Pretty much this. Kind of a waste of effort to have a fight over something that doesn't really increase his power level at all. And leads to him squandering useful spell slots on giving people piddling amounts of HP per casting.


I think he was planning on using Divine Metamagic to burn turn attempts to pay for all of the metamagic.

Then he's DMMing it wrong and you should be thankful rather than encouraging him to use DMM in a way that's actually useful to him.

[LordBlades]

Actually, both of these are false. They ARE allowed to save for half (most people simply don't . . . you always CAN, though, if, for instance, you're under Amon's influence). Likewise, SR is a double-edged sword, and while it doesn't apply against your own spells, you'd better believe that it makes it harder for the party healstick to patch you up.

From the SRD description of Cure light wounds:



Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless); see text


Which is further detailed in the text as:



An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.


Given the 'see text' above and the fact that the sentence I quoted is the only reference to saves and SR in the spell text, I believe that by RAW only undead get saves and SR vs. the spell.

[Coidzor]

My question is, would the healing effect of a cure spell be reduced for secondary targets when using both reach and extend spell on the same casting?

Wait. What would extend even be doing here. Do cure spells gain durations when they're reached or is that from the chaining?

[Baka Nikujaga]

I believe that's just an error.

[SgtCarnage92]

Wait. What would extend even be doing here. Do cure spells gain durations when they're reached or is that from the chaining?

Sorry, Chain spell...not extend spell.

[faceroll]

I think he was planning on using Divine Metamagic to burn turn attempts to pay for all of the metamagic.

I believe you can only use one divine metamagic at a time on a spell. So he could DMM Chain and use a rod of reach, but not DMM chain & DMM reach.

[dextercorvia]

I think he was planning on using Divine Metamagic to burn turn attempts to pay for all of the metamagic.


I believe you can only use one divine metamagic at a time on a spell. So he could DMM Chain and use a rod of reach, but not DMM chain & DMM reach.

This is correct

For the feat/money investment involved, he could be doing a lot better things.

Reach Spell, Chain Spell, Divine Metamagic: Chain, Extra Turning(1/Chain) or Nightsticks -- 7500gp , Rod of Reach -- 9,000gp.

He could bring this online around 8th level as a reasonable estimate. By this point he already has Mass Lesser Vigor for 18 hp to all party members, and next level he gets Mass Cure Light Wounds. None of the (his or my alternate) options are reasonable in combat, so for all of that, he could just pick up a couple of Healing Belts and a Wand of Lesser Vigor.

It would have limited use when he finally gets Heal, but if he is needing to heal multiple party members to full in a round, then probably some other things need addressed.

[SgtCarnage92]

The magic item combos are interesting and would be effective, if he wasn't trying to make his character sanctified and took vow of poverty as one of his exalted feats.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Why even bother? There are Mass Cure spells for a reason, though most people don't consider how the targeting works. Example:

Cure Light Wounds, Mass; Caster Level 9
Target: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
...cure 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25) in each selected creature.

In the above, each instance of 'creature' is actually a separate targeting of the spell, you do not have to select that many unique creatures as targets. For example, that 9th level character could target three creatures each three times, healing each one for 3d8+25 damage (1d8+9 times three, maximum +25).

Reach Chained Cure Light Wounds is equivalent to a 6th level spell slot, Cure Moderate Wounds, Mass is 6th level, which would be at caster level 11 minimum
Target: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart (as Cure Light Wounds, Mass)
...cures 2d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +30).

So eleven targeted instances of the spell's effect, so you hit three targets each three times for 6d8+30 (2d8+11 times three, maximum +30) and one target twice for 4d8+22 (2d8+11 times two). Note that they could be used to harm undead in the same manner, though with a Will save for half damage.

Seriously, why would these spells allow so many targets if you couldn't double-up on it? Other spells that target multiple creatures specify 'any number of targets in (area)' and state that each creature may only be targeted once, for example, but the Mass Cure (and Mass Inflict) spells specify an exact number of targets, and do not state a limitation of only affecting each creature once, i.e. you have to pick that many targets since it doesn't say 'up to' that number of creatures. You have to pick that many targets and thus have to double-up on its effect, so do so and save yourself a lot of trouble and wasted resources on unnecessary metamagic.

[Keld Denar]

Divine Ward (PHBII) will let you cast healing spells at range. I don't think it'll make them a valid source for Chain Spell though (and Divine Ward is a [Divine] feat anyway, so it can't be combined with DMM due to the general restriction on [Divine] feats/turn).

There is also the issue with stacking metamagic. From reading the interaction between Empower and Maximize, it can be infered that each metamagic applies to the base spell only. Thus, even with Reach Spell applied, Chain Spell isn't a legal MM to apply because it alone can't be applied to a cure spell alone. Then again, you have Rapid Spell suggesting that you combine it with Quicken Spell to allow you to quicken full round action spells...so...I dunno.

For a mid level alternative, consider the spell Insignia of Healing from Cityscape. It allows you to heal a decent number of people at range from a 3rd level slot. Good for recovering from AoE damage. DMM Empower + Insignia could give you a decent amount of potency.

[SgtCarnage92]

I linked my healer to this thread just so that he could read over some of your suggestions himself and get some ideas. He also wanted me to mention that he took "reigning Servant of Pelor" as a prestige class. (1 level right now I believe).

[Keld Denar]

Its Radiant Servant of Pelor. Its a decent PrC. It basically loses 1 HP/level average from a normal cleric and gains a bunch of abilities. I wouldn't recommend taking more than 5 levels of it though, as 6th level is actually a bit of a nerf until you get to 10, and levels 6-9 are REALLY boring. Better would be to take all of the good stuff at levels 1-5 and then jump into something like Sacred Exorcist for even more low hanging fruit.

[CommodoreCrunch]

I've encountered similar things before and found a simple solution. Looking at Inflict X Wounds spells, they deal negative energy damage, which is why they harm living but heal undead.

Now, consider the following:
*Cure X Wounds heals living and harms undead.
*Cure spells also require a touch attack to hit, though most people don't realize this until they try to hit an undead with it, because willing targets aren't going to try to dodge. No DM would make someone roll a touch attack every time they wanted to heal an ally who is spreading his arms wide to welcome it. Since they require an attack roll, this means that Cure spells can crit (Player's Handbook p140, Critical Hits sidebar).
*Cure X wounds states that you specifically channel positive energy to provide the healing of the spell, just how Inflict states that you channel negative energy.
*Positive and Negative Energy are damage types (Rules Compendium p42).
Finally:

positive energy: A white, luminous energy that originates on the Positive Material Plane. In general, positive energy heals the living
and hurts undead creatures.

From this we can extrapolate that Cure x Wounds deals positive energy damage, and the fact that the spell's description states that it "heals" rather than "deals damage" is a simplification. Thus, it is logical that the player's combination of Reach Spell, Chain Spell and Cure x Wounds would experience the drop-off in damage that any other damaging spell would receive when affected by Chain Spell.

Sure, it's not technically RAW. But blindly following RAW allows for Pun-Pun to exist, and RAW never accounts for some things that are simple common sense. I think it's pretty evident that this explanation follows RAI.

Incidentally, you can sneak attack with a Cure spell, which converts the sneak attack damage into positive energy damage for lots of healing.

[ScionoftheVoid]

I've encountered similar things before and found a simple solution. Looking at Inflict X Wounds spells, they deal negative energy damage, which is why they harm living but heal undead.

Now, consider the following:
*Cure X Wounds heals living and harms undead.
*Cure spells also require a touch attack to hit, though most people don't realize this until they try to hit an undead with it, because willing targets aren't going to try to dodge. No DM would make someone roll a touch attack every time they wanted to heal an ally who is spreading his arms wide to welcome it. Since they require an attack roll, this means that Cure spells can crit (Player's Handbook p140, Critical Hits sidebar).
*Cure X wounds states that you specifically channel positive energy to provide the healing of the spell, just how Inflict states that you channel negative energy.
*Positive and Negative Energy are damage types (Rules Compendium p42).
Finally:


From this we can extrapolate that Cure x Wounds deals positive energy damage, and the fact that the spell's description states that it "heals" rather than "deals damage" is a simplification. Thus, it is logical that the player's combination of Reach Spell, Chain Spell and Cure x Wounds would experience the drop-off in damage that any other damaging spell would receive when affected by Chain Spell.

Sure, it's not technically RAW. But blindly following RAW allows for Pun-Pun to exist, and RAW never accounts for some things that are simple common sense. I think it's pretty evident that this explanation follows RAI.

Incidentally, you can sneak attack with a Cure spell, which converts the sneak attack damage into positive energy damage for lots of healing.

First, if you're going to admit it's RAI rather than RAW anyway you needn't jump through hoops about it. Just say "I think RAI should be used over RAW in this case".

Second, sneak attacking with a spell which doesn't deal damage (which a Cure spell doesn't, unless against Undead) gives the sneak attack dice as negative energy damage. Don't ask me how this is supposed to work, just realise that sneak attacking with healing spells is a bad idea (if you are indeed attempting to heal them).

[CommodoreCrunch]

First, if you're going to admit it's RAI rather than RAW anyway you needn't jump through hoops about it. Just say "I think RAI should be used over RAW in this case".

Second, sneak attacking with a spell which doesn't deal damage (which a Cure spell doesn't, unless against Undead) gives the sneak attack dice as negative energy damage. Don't ask me how this is supposed to work, just realise that sneak attacking with healing spells is a bad idea (if you are indeed attempting to heal them). Well the whole point of mentioning sneak attacks was that I was connecting it to the "Cure spells logically deal positive energy damage" point I was making. If you follow that and sneak attack with a cure spell, it's dealing positive energy damage and the sneak attack's damage changes to match the spells damage type. Basically, sneak attacking with cure spell = big healing if you rule that cure spells deal positive energy damage was what I meant.

[maysarahs]

In the above, each instance of 'creature' is actually a separate targeting of the spell, you do not have to select that many unique creatures as targets. For example, that 9th level character could target three creatures each three times, healing each one for 3d8+25 damage (1d8+9 times three, maximum +25).



Is there an actual rule where this is stated? Or is it just lenient interpretation of the rules? Can I for example force more than one save versus a slow spell, or something similar?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Is there an actual rule where this is stated? Or is it just lenient interpretation of the rules? Can I for example force more than one save versus a slow spell, or something similar?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to cast a Mass Inflict Light Wounds spell and name the same creature as all nine targets, they would only save once for the spell's entire effect. Thus if you were to target the same creature multiple times with a Slow spell, they would still only have to save once for the spell's entire effect. Similarly, if you cast Fire Seeds: Berry Bombs, put all eight bombs in a pouch, dropped them at the center of four creatures, and detonated them, each of those four creatures would only make one Reflex save for the spell's entire effect. (Though if you had berries from multiple different castings, they would make saves for each separately.)