cure spell cap

[wopap]

Does any one know of a 3.5 feat that removes the max caster lvl bounus on cure spells

ie. cure light wounds is 1d8+1/lvl (max 5) so even a tenth lvl cleric casts it as 1d8+5

I am looking for a way to remove that cap so my 10th lvl cleric can cast cure light wounds for 1d8+10

[Elric VIII]

Well, the Reserves of Strength feat (Dragonlance) can do this. It increases the caster level by up to 3 and changes the cap. However, there are two interpretations of how the cap is altered:

a) the cap increases by the amount your CL increases.
b) the cap is removed.

[wopap]

oooo that stun that comes along with it really makes this feat worthless for healers (at least my healer who has the healing touch feat [from complete champion] which lets him heal 15 hit points to a max of half the subjects max health if I save a 5th lvl spell slot as a standard action unlimited times per day)

I was looking for a way to make my cure light wounds worth more then 1d8+5 even with sacred boost that is only 13 hit points.

I guess I can just use all my 1st and 2nd lvl spells for offence if I can't make them worth more

[hydraa]

there is augment Healing in CD that gives you +2 healing per spell level.

If you are Healer class you add your Cha bonus to spells of the healing subschool cast as a healer

[DarkestKnight]

There isn't much for increasing maximum caster level, and caster level is kind of worthless for cure spells, as it only means another point of healing. As earlier stated Augment Healing is a great feat. There is some good gear to boost your abilities like some rings in MIC that allow you to add d8s to your heal spell. I had a Uber heal cleric character sheet somewhere, I'll find it if you are interested.

[hydraa]

INITIATE OF TAMARA adds spell level to a cure spell
Chosen of the Deathless adds +1 to cure spell


A possibility is to have the DM houserule that using Healing domain that instead of +1 CL you get no cap on your cure spells and/or your Healing domain spell is not subject to a cap

[DarkestKnight]

while having no cap to the cure spells would be fine, having no cap for any of the heal domain spells gets silly. keep in mind they get heal and regenerate, which already heal massive HP amounts. Just cure spells would be fine though.

[nedz]

... so my 10th lvl cleric can cast cure light wounds for 1d8+10
Your doing this wrong. Buy a wand.

... As earlier stated Augment Healing is a great feat ...
Your doing this wrong. Buy a wand.

[Siosilvar]

You're doing this wrong. Buy a wand.

You might want to include the reasoning behind that; namely, that in-combat healing is a much less effective use of an action than stopping damage from happening in the first place, since cure spells heal piddly little amounts of damage compared to an attack; instead of just saying "you're doing this wrong."

[DarkestKnight]

You might want to include the reasoning behind that; namely, that in-combat healing is a much less effective use of an action than stopping damage from happening in the first place, since cure spells heal piddly little amounts of damage compared to an attack; instead of just saying "you're doing this wrong."

Thank you Siosilvar. I am aware of the reasoning behind the comment, but IMHO there still a feasible role for a dedicated healer in a party, though certain criteria are necessary.

[nedz]

Thank you Siosilvar. I am aware of the reasoning behind the comment, but IMHO there still a feasible role for a dedicated healer in a party, though certain criteria are necessary.

Yes, but its a very bad use of a feat. In combat healing has its place: Cure Moderate: to get an unconscious PC back up and able to take some actions; Heal: because it removes conditions and restores a large amount of HP; and well, most people disagree on the first one - so even Cure Moderate is questionable.

I'm sorry if I appeared flippant, its just my manner you see.:smallsmile:

[ericgrau]

Cure spells are still useful in combat for emergencies, so that's where augment healing comes in. It's also great to abuse with immediate action and mass cures.

Yes, you should fight the first couple rounds but if an ally is about to die it's better to drag out the fight and cure him than to pay for the rez. You'll usually still win the fight even though you extended it unless it's a desperate situation. The main thing PCs fear is rezzes, not losing the fight entirely.

[DarkestKnight]

@ Nedz: Is cool. I'm a RP then Minmax guy, so when people jump to saying "buy a wand" if someone is asking about healers I find it a little counter productive.

@ ericgrau: and that's why revivify is fun with divine metamagic(reach).

[ericgrau]

Oh ya but that's still a lot of diamonds and then the darn bugger keeps re-dying once the foe figures out it's an easy way to make the party lose turns. I heard a story in one campaign where the DM made it so you lose a small piece of your soul every time you die which thus limited the number of times you could be rezzed. An NPC died and got revivified 5 times in the same fight. The next part of the campaign was a trip to mechanus to find more soul pieces for him.

And ya there are all kinds of cheesy tricks you can also pull but most parties use healing to avoid the cost of a rez. Whether you use one spell or another the goal and role of the guy doing it is the same: a medic who can also fight.

Oh ya, and while cures have limited use, heal is the one spell that's often worth it even when things aren't going so bad.

[Coidzor]

Would the cure spells have remained more relevant if they didn't have that arbitrary CL cap to begin with?

[Dumbledore lives]

Would the cure spells have remained more relevant if they didn't have that arbitrary CL cap to begin with?

Not really because as someone said above it is just an extra point of healing per level, which doesn't account for much.

Healing spells do have a place in very low level play before you get access to wands however, such as in the campaign I'm currently playing in. I think once we get to the next town we'll all chip in for a wand of CLW or lesser vigor, but still for the first 3 levels healing was very necessary.

[Jeraa]

The problem with healing spells, is then in the transition from 2nd edition to 3rd edition, the amount of hit points that characters have*, and the amount of damage creatures do, increased significantly while the amount healed stayed the same. (Which is also why direct damage spells are generally seen as bad - their damage stayed the same in the transition, but everyones hit points greatly increased, making the spells less effective.)

Instead of Cure Light Wounds healing 1d8+1 per caster level to a maximum of 1d8+5, instead let it heal 1d8 damage per level, to a maximum of 5d8. Cure Moderate is the same, but caps at 10d8, Serious caps at 15d8, and Critical caps at 20d8. The Mass versions have the same cap as the single-target once. So Mass Cure Light Wounds (5th level spell) still heals 5d8, it just does it to multiple targets.

With CLW capping at 5d8 (Average of 22.5 points), and your typical 5th level fighter having 47 hp (with a 16 constitution), thats half of his health. Something actually worth using, instead of the measly 9.5 healed that it used to do. (The more level-appropriate Cure Serious Wounds would heal 3d8+5, or 18.5)

Or drop them down to d6, instead of d8. Then a CLW caps at 5d6 (17.5 average). If a spell is capable of dealing its caster level x d6 damage, then healing magics should also be capable of healing its caster level x d6 damage.

*
In 2nd edition, you stopped gaining hit dice from your class at around 9th level. Beyond that, you only gained a few points per level. And you only gain bonus hp from constitution if you con score was 15 or higher. Even then it was only +1 or +2 hp per level (unless you were a warrior type). And even the greatest red dragon only had 99 hit points on average. (15 hit dice base, +8 for great wyrm. Monsters usually didn't get hp bonuses from constitution, and all monsters had a d8 hit die unless it was noted specifically as something different.)

[Telonius]

If the Cure cap were removed, I'd think that the lower-level Cure spells would be used much more often for in-combat healing. The point of healing in-combat is that, in an emergency situation, you can prevent a character from actually dying. At higher levels (say,10 or so) is it really worth it to use a Cure Critical for (average) 28, as opposed to a Cure Light for (average) 14.5? Both will probably get your friend out of negatives and keep your him alive for about one more hit. But Cure Critical will mean you don't have that extra Death Ward or Divine Power.

Not sure if this is a good thing or not, but I think it's something to consider.

[Coidzor]

If the Cure cap were removed, I'd think that the lower-level Cure spells would be used much more often for in-combat healing. The point of healing in-combat is that, in an emergency situation, you can prevent a character from actually dying. At higher levels (say,10 or so) is it really worth it to use a Cure Critical for (average) 28, as opposed to a Cure Light for (average) 14.5? Both will probably get your friend out of negatives and keep your him alive for about one more hit. But Cure Critical will mean you don't have that extra Death Ward or Divine Power.

Not sure if this is a good thing or not, but I think it's something to consider.

It seems like it would be. I've tossed around some ideas on the subject myself, but I've not really got a head for manipulating the numbers that make up the game. I don't see any real downsides to making it so that healing is more powerful than equivalent level enemy attacks, since it still doesn't really further the action economy game...