PDA

View Full Version : Harm and Heal.



Doomboy911
2013-12-18, 10:12 PM
So I'm a positive cleric with far too much time on my hands and I've been spending this time flipping through spells and reading OotS and now I've run into the wonderful harm spell. My dm says that I can't have it though since I'm a positive cleric which I figure is ok means the bad guys can't heal themselves but now I'm reading and finding evil clerics healing themselves and now I'm confused. Are negative energy clerics allowed harm and heal spells?

Erock
2013-12-18, 10:21 PM
Negative energy heals evil things, as far as I know.

eggynack
2013-12-18, 10:28 PM
Neither heal, nor harm, nor any spell in the inflict or cure line, is aligned. Thus, by the rules, a good cleric can prepare harm, as well as inflicts, and an evil cleric can prepare heal, as well as cures. The only restriction is what you're allowed to cast spontaneously, which in your case would be the cure x wounds line. That ability doesn't even have any effect on heal or harm, because those spells aren't part of the cure or inflict lines.

Pex
2013-12-18, 10:29 PM
Negative energy heals undead. Living evil creatures are hurt by it as normal.

Harm is not an evil spell. It is not an evil act to cast it. Why you are casting it and against whom matter, but that's the same for every spell not specifically because of Harm.

Abd al-Azrad
2013-12-18, 11:27 PM
Eggynack has said it precisely. The restrictions on using Heal or Harm are not whether a Good / Evil cleric can prepare them as regular spells (anyone can). The broader restriction is whether a cleric can spontaneously convert spells of that level into Cure / Inflict X Wounds spells. Positive-channeling clerics can convert any spell they have prepared into a Cure X spell of the same level; negative-channeling clerics can convert for Inflict X spells.

Neither Heal, nor Harm, are Cure / Inflict spells. They serve a similar purpose, but barring really special circumstances, they're just regular spells that can be prepared by any cleric.

Same thing with the Cure / Inflict line. Any cleric CAN prepare and cast them like regular spells.

If, however, your DM is using a houserule here (which is the DM's prerogative), the key thing is consistency. If positive-channeling clerics cannot cast negative energy spells in your game, it stands to reason that negative-channeling clerics ought to be barred from casting positive energy spells, which will prevent them from healing damage to living creatures.

If the DM insists that evil clerics get to have both sets of spells, then he has made a rule that EVIL WILL ALWAYS BE MORE POWERFUL.

Which, again, is the DM's prerogative. I would merely hope that yours has considered the ramifications of such a choice. I.e. all the players will want to be Evil.

SethoMarkus
2013-12-19, 08:25 AM
As stated above, unless there is a houserule in effect, all clerics, regardless of alignment, can cast Heal and Harm, as well as Cure and Inflict spells.

I think your DM is merely confused about this line:

Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.

All that means is that a Good aligned cleric can cast Bless Water but never Curse Water, while an Evil aligned cleric can cast Curse Water but never Bless Water. A Neutral cleric can cast either.

It is also worth noting that a Good cleric can spontaneously cast any prepared spell as though it were prepared as an Cure spell that she knows, while an Evil cleric can do the same with Inflict spells. A Neutral cleric must choose one or the other - positive energy or negative energy - and cannot change this decision. This only applies to spontaneous casting.

Jay R
2013-12-19, 12:20 PM
[Note: "Good" and "Evil", with capitals, are used to mean D&D alignments. But "good" and "evil" in lower-case letters are moral judgments - closely related, but not identical.]


If, however, your DM is using a houserule here (which is the DM's prerogative), the key thing is consistency. If positive-channeling clerics cannot cast negative energy spells in your game, it stands to reason that negative-channeling clerics ought to be barred from casting positive energy spells, which will prevent them from healing damage to living creatures.

Only on the assumption that Evil and Good are merely factions opposed to each other, and have no relationship to evil and good.

I could understand a rule saying that good clerics will not channel that kind of energy with intent to harm others. Since this is a moral judgment, it would not affect evil clerics. Presumably that means that Good clerics won't do it and Evil characters will.


If the DM insists that evil clerics get to have both sets of spells, then he has made a rule that EVIL WILL ALWAYS BE MORE POWERFUL.

Which, again, is the DM's prerogative. I would merely hope that yours has considered the ramifications of such a choice. I.e. all the players will want to be Evil.

Yes, evil characters will always be willing to do things that good characters won't - torture, murdering people who are inconvenient, etc.

Players who understand that fact won't automatically want to be Evil, unless power is the only thing they want or understand - in which case they wouldn't be able to play a good character correctly anyway.

AMFV
2013-12-19, 02:30 PM
[Note: "Good" and "Evil", with capitals, are used to mean D&D alignments. But "good" and "evil" in lower-case letters are moral judgments - closely related, but not identical.]



Only on the assumption that Evil and Good are merely factions opposed to each other, and have no relationship to evil and good.

I could understand a rule saying that good clerics will not channel that kind of energy with intent to harm others. Since this is a moral judgment, it would not affect evil clerics. Presumably that means that Good clerics won't do it and Evil characters will.


But they can beat people to death with sharp objects? That seems like an interesting values dissonance to me. Or they could cast Slay Living (since that's not evil either). They just can't cast Harm, that seems like a really arbitrary restriction, particularly since violence isn't against most good deities, most of them are fine with killing if it's considered morally right to do so.

The_Snark
2013-12-19, 03:40 PM
But they can beat people to death with sharp objects?

Goodness, no. They beat people to death with blunt objects. The classic cleric weapon is a mace, not a sword. :smallwink:

Seriously though, I could understand a DM creating a good-aligned religion which forbids channeling the power of their god to directly harm or maim others. To use an analogy, it's the difference between a Jedi carrying a lightsaber, and a Jedi choking a guy with the Force. It kind of limits people playing clerics, though (it'd outlaw Slay Living and a number of other spells in addition to Harm and the Inflict line) so it's probably something the player should buy into, or at least be warned about before deciding to play a cleric.

Also, I personally would make this a part of the setting rather than a rules change - you can cast damaging spells if you really need to, but it might land you in trouble with the church. If you want to, you could decide to play a Maverick Templar Who Doesn't Play By The Rules and challenge this idea.

And yeah, as other people have mentioned, this is not a default part of the rules. Good clerics can cast Harm.

AMFV
2013-12-19, 03:42 PM
Goodness, no. They beat people to death with blunt objects. The classic cleric weapon is a mace, not a sword. :smallwink:

Seriously though, I could understand a DM creating a good-aligned religion which forbids channeling the power of their god to directly harm or maim others. To use an analogy, it's the difference between a Jedi carrying a lightsaber, and a Jedi choking a guy with the Force. It kind of limits people playing clerics, though (it'd outlaw Slay Living and a number of other spells in addition to Harm and the Inflict line) so it's probably something the player should buy into, or at least be warned about before deciding to play a cleric.

Also, I personally would make this a part of the setting rather than a rules change - you can cast damaging spells if you really need to, but it might land you in trouble with the church. If you want to, you could decide to play a Maverick Templar Who Doesn't Play By The Rules and challenge this idea.

And yeah, as other people have mentioned, this is not a default part of the rules. Good clerics can cast Harm.

But you can't not play be the rules... Clerics get their spells directly from their Gods, so if their God isn't cool with a spell, you can't get it, period. That's how that works.

To be fair I always thought the pseudo-asian philosophy crap George Lucas spouted out was really kind of hamfisted and stupid. It showed not a great understanding of Taoism or of the philosophy in general, but that's neither here nor there.

ReaderAt2046
2013-12-19, 06:29 PM
Goodness, no. They beat people to death with blunt objects. The classic cleric weapon is a mace, not a sword. :smallwink:

Seriously though, I could understand a DM creating a good-aligned religion which forbids channeling the power of their god to directly harm or maim others. To use an analogy, it's the difference between a Jedi carrying a lightsaber, and a Jedi choking a guy with the Force. It kind of limits people playing clerics, though (it'd outlaw Slay Living and a number of other spells in addition to Harm and the Inflict line) so it's probably something the player should buy into, or at least be warned about before deciding to play a cleric.

Also, I personally would make this a part of the setting rather than a rules change - you can cast damaging spells if you really need to, but it might land you in trouble with the church. If you want to, you could decide to play a Maverick Templar Who Doesn't Play By The Rules and challenge this idea.

And yeah, as other people have mentioned, this is not a default part of the rules. Good clerics can cast Harm.

The Dresden Files has the same rule. If you cause someone to die with magic, you immediately are infected by the essence of Evil and must have your head cut off. However, shooting someone or cutting their head off with a sword is not only acceptable but sometimes morally obligatory.

Envyus
2013-12-19, 07:55 PM
Harm Is probably the least evil spell of the all the ones that hurt things. As while it can hurt things it can't kill them.

Rhynn
2013-12-19, 08:46 PM
So I'm a positive cleric with far too much time on my hands and I've been spending this time flipping through spells and reading OotS and now I've run into the wonderful harm spell. My dm says that I can't have it though since I'm a positive cleric which I figure is ok means the bad guys can't heal themselves but now I'm reading and finding evil clerics healing themselves and now I'm confused. Are negative energy clerics allowed harm and heal spells?

What edition of D&D?

Many old-school games are run so that only anti-clerics, or Chaotic or Evil clerics, can use reversed spells, such as blindness, inflict wounds, or darkness. Others (such as by-the-book ACKS) permit e.g. Chaotic clerics to cast non-reversed spells only on Chaotic creatures, and non-Chaotic clerics to cast reversed spells only on Chaotic creatures.

People have given ample answers for D&D 3E, though. There's no such restriction at all.

Doomboy911
2013-12-19, 11:08 PM
Pathfinder actually, the dm strangely relented on this idea the second I brought it up but now I'm dealing with him and how word of recall works, apparently I have to be in the spot I want to recall to when I prepare the spell rather than pick a spot I'm familiar with and than teleport to it.

SethoMarkus
2013-12-19, 11:12 PM
Pathfinder actually, the dm strangely relented on this idea the second I brought it up but now I'm dealing with him and how word of recall works, apparently I have to be in the spot I want to recall to when I prepare the spell rather than pick a spot I'm familiar with and than teleport to it.

The DM is always allowed to alter the rules or make new rules, but as per the spell description (for both 3.5 and 3.P) you don't have to actually be in the "sanctuary" location when you cast the spell, merely be very familiar with the space.

Doomboy911
2013-12-19, 11:21 PM
The DM is always allowed to alter the rules or make new rules, but as per the spell description (for both 3.5 and 3.P) you don't have to actually be in the "sanctuary" location when you cast the spell, merely be very familiar with the space.

Could you cite where it says that you don't have to be there for it be designated?

Gnoman
2013-12-19, 11:40 PM
Spells will rarely, if ever, include a "you do not have to X" in the spell description unless there is text in the same spell (or in things like the greater/lesser or mass variants, the same "family") that requires clarification. Any requirements that are not explicitly spelled out DO NOT EXIST.

The destination requirement is:

" You must designate the sanctuary when you prepare the spell, and it must be a very familiar place. "

That is the ONLY RAW REQUIREMENT for the spell.

Doomboy911
2013-12-19, 11:49 PM
Spells will rarely, if ever, include a "you do not have to X" in the spell description unless there is text in the same spell (or in things like the greater/lesser or mass variants, the same "family") that requires clarification. Any requirements that are not explicitly spelled out DO NOT EXIST.

The destination requirement is:

" You must designate the sanctuary when you prepare the spell, and it must be a very familiar place. "

That is the ONLY RAW REQUIREMENT for the spell.

So I have to find a way to prove that designate doesn't mean pick where I'm at right now.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-12-20, 12:12 AM
So I have to find a way to prove that designate doesn't mean pick where I'm at right now.


des·ig·nate * transitive verb \-ˌnāt\

: to officially choose (someone or something) to do or be something : to officially give (someone or something) a particular role or purpose

: to call (something or someone) by a particular name or title

: to be used as a name for (something or someone)

Nothing suggests "you must be there," any more than "pick a target" requires you to be that target.

Rhynn
2013-12-20, 11:35 AM
General piece of advice: if your GM keeps incorrectly arguing the rules against you and forces you into wrangles over the meaning of words in order to use parts of the game as intended, you should get a new GM. That is one petty control freak.

Doomboy911
2013-12-20, 10:40 PM
Apparently the change came about from the dm wanting us to not teleport. Standard railroad nothing I can do about it.

Rhynn
2013-12-20, 11:22 PM
Apparently the change came about from the dm wanting us to not teleport. Standard railroad nothing I can do about it.

Sure there is. It's the same simple solution as to all other outrageous railroading: change GMs!

The_Snark
2013-12-21, 12:02 AM
But you can't not play by the rules... Clerics get their spells directly from their Gods, so if their God isn't cool with a spell, you can't get it, period. That's how that works.

I said the religion forbids it, not the god. In a fantasy setting with hands-on gods that's often the same thing, but not always; some settings have more distant gods who are unlikely to micromanage their church, and others (Eberron) have gods so hands-off that they may not actually exist.

Doomboy911
2013-12-21, 12:02 AM
Sure there is. It's the same simple solution as to all other outrageous railroading: change GMs!

Sound advice to be sure, it doesn't really apply though when it's the dm running his own module.

Rhynn
2013-12-21, 12:08 AM
Sound advice to be sure, it doesn't really apply though when it's the dm running his own module.

Of course it does. Unless you're being held hostage in a basement (in which case, you should tell us where so we can contact the authorities), you can stop playing with that GM, either alone or as a group; the "nicest" option is to tell the GM, as a group, that he's now a player because he's a horrible railroading jerk when he's a GM. (You can probably think of a nicer way to put that.) And then somebody else GMs some other adventure or campaign.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-12-21, 12:14 AM
Sound advice to be sure, it doesn't really apply though when it's the dm running his own module.
Given how many complains we see here about teleport wrecking campaigns, I can't quite understand the reaction of "OMFG get out of there." There are a lot of games people might like to run where spells like that can ruin everything. And the "good casters don't cast inflict spells" is far from the most nonsensical misreading I've seen-- my current group used to be convinced that you didn't add your Strength to attacks of opportunity, for example.

eggynack
2013-12-21, 12:20 AM
Given how many complains we see here about teleport wrecking campaigns, I can't quite understand the reaction of "OMFG get out of there." There are a lot of games people might like to run where spells like that can ruin everything. And the "good casters don't cast inflict spells" is far from the most nonsensical misreading I've seen-- my current group used to be convinced that you didn't add your Strength to attacks of opportunity, for example.
Y'know, honestly, the problem is far less what he's doing than how he's doing it. He could say, "All teleportation is banned," or, "I'm house ruling cure and inflict to work this way," and I'd probably disagree with that decision, but it's his decision to make. However, standing behind a faulty interpretation of RAW to support your claims makes no sense. If the DM wants to fight in a RAW arena, then that's an arena where everyone is equal. Standing behind inaccurate RAW, and then justifying that stance with fiat, just seems dishonest to me.

Brookshw
2013-12-21, 12:49 AM
Y'know, honestly, the problem is far less what he's doing than how he's doing it. He could say, "All teleportation is banned," or, "I'm house ruling cure and inflict to work this way," and I'd probably disagree with that decision, but it's his decision to make. However, standing behind a faulty interpretation of RAW to support your claims makes no sense. If the DM wants to fight in a RAW arena, then that's an arena where everyone is equal. Standing behind inaccurate RAW, and then justifying that stance with fiat, just seems dishonest to me.

I could see theoretically a homebrew setting having gods refuse to grant spells in the manner the dm has prescribed (though its certainly not raw) but that should have been a discussion pre-campaign, not thrust forward later. The most generous interpretation I can think of would be this was bad communication. As usual, talk to him and see if the heal/harm bit is a matter of campaign vision poorly communicated and if so its time to reevaluate what the expectations are of everyone at the table.

Jay R
2013-12-21, 01:21 AM
A DM who disagrees with me about a rules interpretation isn't either railroading or a bad DM. (He isn't even necessarily mistaken.)

He just disagrees with me. But he's in charge of the rules, so that's how the spell works in that universe.

No problem.

awa
2013-12-21, 01:34 AM
in general i agree that the dms rules interpretation should be the one you use and walking is a rather extreme response. Of course on the other hand ive played with a bad dm where many rule's were changed to my detriment and the rules changed back as soon as it would effect any one but me, in that game i just did not make a new character after the last one dead but i probably would have been happier quitting earlier then that.

So i guess my advice comes down to this do the rule changes hurt your enjoyment of the game? Do you encounter lots of these unfun rule changes?
Because leaving the game is a pretty extreme choice but sometimes it is the right one.

eggynack
2013-12-21, 01:38 AM
A DM who disagrees with me about a rules interpretation isn't either railroading or a bad DM. (He isn't even necessarily mistaken.)

He just disagrees with me. But he's in charge of the rules, so that's how the spell works in that universe.

No problem.
A DM who disagrees with me about this rules interpretation is just wrong. There's no interpretation to be had here. The spell can work however he wants in his little world, but in the harsh waters of RAW, his desire holds no sway. Sure, if the situation were actually ambiguous then that's a role that the DM fills, but that isn't where we are. If he wants to claim RAW, then he's wrong. If he wants to claim the rules of his universe, then he can do that all he wants.

The_Snark
2013-12-21, 01:42 AM
I could see theoretically a homebrew setting having gods refuse to grant spells in the manner the dm has prescribed (though its certainly not raw) but that should have been a discussion pre-campaign, not thrust forward later.

Yeah. It's not unreasonable for a GM to restrict inflict spells or change how Teleport works or [insert X change here], but this is something that should be mentioned at the start of the game, ideally. Failing that, propose the rules change between sessions (and maybe allow players to tweak their character sheets in response, if they're heavily affected by the rules change). Doing it mid-session when a player uses a teleport spell to bypass an obstacle you don't want bypassed would be... clumsy GMing, at best.

Rhynn
2013-12-21, 01:55 AM
Given how many complains we see here about teleport wrecking campaigns, I can't quite understand the reaction of "OMFG get out of there." There are a lot of games people might like to run where spells like that can ruin everything. And the "good casters don't cast inflict spells" is far from the most nonsensical misreading I've seen-- my current group used to be convinced that you didn't add your Strength to attacks of opportunity, for example.

Banning teleportation, or any specific spell, at the outset, is perfectly fine. So is restricting what spells are available to whom.

This is pretty clearly a case of a GM changing the rules back-and-forth in order to screw the players. Notice how the "good clerics use positive energy, evil clerics use negative energy" thing got overturned once he realized he wanted evil (enemy NPC) clerics to heal.

Springing obviously malicious rules-changes on players mid-play is usually railroading, and in this case clearly enough is.

eggynack
2013-12-21, 02:06 AM
Banning teleportation, or any specific spell, at the outset, is perfectly fine. So is restricting what spells are available to whom.

This is pretty clearly a case of a GM changing the rules back-and-forth in order to screw the players. Notice how the "good clerics use positive energy, evil clerics use negative energy" thing got overturned once he realized he wanted evil (enemy NPC) clerics to heal.

Springing obviously malicious rules-changes on players mid-play is usually railroading, and in this case clearly enough is.
I think you're misreading the situation with regards to the positive/negative energy thing. The OP didn't see evil clerics healing stuff in the game. He saw it in the comic, which lead to him presenting the issue to the DM, and posting hereabouts when his claim found limited traction. I don't think there was a weird double standard that was used maliciously against the players in that case. Just wrongness, which was subsequently corrected.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-12-21, 02:35 AM
I think you're misreading the situation with regards to the positive/negative energy thing. The OP didn't see evil clerics healing stuff in the game. He saw it in the comic, which lead to him presenting the issue to the DM, and posting hereabouts when his claim found limited traction. I don't think there was a weird double standard that was used maliciously against the players in that case. Just wrongness, which was subsequently corrected.
Agreed. What's the old saying? "Never attribute to malice what you can chalk up to simple stupidity?"

awa
2013-12-21, 10:16 AM
personally i actually don't have a problem with the dm saying mid game okay i'm changing that spell. I don't require my dms to have encyclopedic knowledge of rules particularly spells. So if in a low op game a player suddenly pulls out a candle of invocation and says hes gonna wish for more wish i definitely want my dm to nerf/ ban it right now even if its in the middle of a session.

My requirement is if the dm changes how a spell works he allows the player the opportunity to switch it out for a new one and change his action if so desired.

Also being wrong is not a crime and in all fairness some guy on the internet said so is not a particularly compelling argument. I know how engrained a particular interpretation of the rules can be particularly in the echo chamber of a single group. I more care if the house rule makes the game better or worse arguing the raw of it is more valuable on an internet forum then it is in a group.

And while some may disagree with this i have no problem of bad guys having access to things pcs don't there are a lot of things that work fine in the hands of the dm but caused the game to go into a tail spin. Manipulate form is a the perfect example in the hands of a dm using it as intended its a very interesting ability in the hands of a pc it's pun pun.

Jay R
2013-12-21, 11:33 AM
This is pretty clearly a case of a GM changing the rules back-and-forth in order to screw the players.

I'm not prepared to start assigning motives until I've heard from both sides. You don't know what the DM intended; you only know what the person currently annoyed with him thinks he intended.

Doomboy911
2013-12-21, 02:38 PM
The idea behind him not allowing the word of recall to be an effortless teleportation was because he didn't want us teleporting out of the mountain we were adventuring in to sell the weapons we'd picked off our enemies, we would've made a good 30k from them. The mountain has also apparently been filled to the brim with all kinds of spells preventing teleporting, plane shifting and anything like it. If this is the case though Dimension Door and such should also be off.

The_Snark
2013-12-21, 03:49 PM
personally i actually don't have a problem with the dm saying mid game okay i'm changing that spell. I don't require my dms to have encyclopedic knowledge of rules particularly spells. So if in a low op game a player suddenly pulls out a candle of invocation and says hes gonna wish for more wish i definitely want my dm to nerf/ ban it right now even if its in the middle of a session.

Sure, but I would expect the DM to have a passing familiarity with the players' character sheets. If you see Shock Trooper and Leap Attack on their feats list, you shouldn't be surprised when they deal over a hundred damage on a charge attack; if you see a candle of invocation in their inventory... that one does have theoretically non-broken uses, actually. That's why I said it's clumsy GMing rather than unforgivably bad - if it's a choice between being a little ham-handed or letting the game be broken wide-open by an infinite wishing loop, definitely go for the former. It is OK if you don't anticipate every house-rule you're going to need in advance, but it's not ideal to implement them mid-game.

Changing rules mid-session is a bad habit for a DM to get into, I think; it's too easy to start thinking, "crap, the players bypassed my encounter or obstacle with clever use of spell X, I had better ban or change spell X so they can't do that." Better to a) be familiar with what your players can do, and b) roll with the punches when they do manage to surprise you.


The idea behind him not allowing the word of recall to be an effortless teleportation was because he didn't want us teleporting out of the mountain we were adventuring in to sell the weapons we'd picked off our enemies, we would've made a good 30k from them. The mountain has also apparently been filled to the brim with all kinds of spells preventing teleporting, plane shifting and anything like it. If this is the case though Dimension Door and such should also be off.
To be fair, there really ought to be some kind of warding spell that prevents people inside from teleporting in (or people inside teleporting out), but does not impede short-range teleportation inside the ward. I don't think such a spell exists in any printed book, but it ought.

It's hard to say whether your DM was thinking along the same lines, or if this was something he planned all along (versus inventing on the spur of the moment).

Doomboy911
2013-12-21, 04:33 PM
It was a measure to prevent another DM's blunder, we were able to teleport off to the nine rings and sell some loot and we became powerful enough that the dragon at the end wasn't an issue.

Also on warding I imagine two different spells, anti-teleportation bubble and teleportation bubble. Anti would just be anything outside of this area gets counterspelled and the normal would just allow them to teleport to any area within the bubble's effect.

Jay R
2013-12-21, 04:48 PM
It was a measure to prevent another DM's blunder, we were able to teleport off to the nine rings and sell some loot and we became powerful enough that the dragon at the end wasn't an issue.

Thanks for the additional information. That's a lot more reasonable than some people were assuming.

Isamu Dyson
2013-12-23, 03:22 PM
How about prepping Harm on one hand, and Heal on the other?

Doomboy911
2013-12-24, 05:01 PM
How about prepping Harm on one hand, and Heal on the other?

"I will harm a hundred points out of you with one hand and heal it back with the other hand and beat it out of you with both hands"