Close Wounds

[Melcar]

Hi guys...

At our latest gaming session this thursday, our cleric wanted to use this spell, to prevent a large hit on our tank. The spell says that it

1) Heals 1d4 +1/level (max+5)

2) When cast immidiately aftersomeone has been hit if effectively prevents the damage.

Now the thing is. 1d4+5 is very low healing for a second level spell, if the intepretation of this spell was that this is the total maximun effect outcome of this spell. I understand it to have 2 effects. 1) When used on your turn, it heals 1d4+5 but as an immidiate action you would be able to cast another. 2) if you cast it on someone else's turn, it would negate what ever amount of damage; not only 1d4+5.

I am full aware of the possible power of such a spell, but I personally feel that the second line of the spell, would be redundant, if not to indicate the effect as I understand it. It would simple just be an immidiate healing spell, that healed 1d4+5. The second/extra line thus indicates a special rule regarding this spell.

Therefor it is my clear understanding that it can be used in two different ways. One as a healing spell, and two, as a damage preventer. (even though that could mean negating a monstrous crit of 1000 damage)

How does this community se the spell?

http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/close-wounds--3542/

[bjoern]

It seems like the writers Intent was to have it prevent 1d4+1 damage. However, as written,id say it has a valid case as a complete damage negater if used as specified.

[grarrrg]

1) Heals 1d4 +1/level (max+5)

2) When cast immidiately aftersomeone has been hit if effectively prevents the damage.

You're missing the example after the second part "It would keep alive someone who had just dropped to —10 hit points, for example, leaving the character at negative hit points but stable."

This means that if someone is at 5 and gets hit for 15 damage, they would normally drop to -10 and be dead. Healing is no longer useful in this case.
The spell can be cast immediately after that 15 damage to "effectively prevent" 6-9 of that damage, as if they never took it, dropping him to only -4 or so.

It doesn't _actually_ prevent the damage, it's merely pointing out that it lets you bypass the normal "-10 is dead instantly" rule.

Basically, pretend you healed them BEFORE the damage was taken.

[Nettlekid]

It seems pretty straightforward in it's usage: It's meant to prevent a killing blow. It is low healing for a 2nd level spell, yeah, but that sacrifice comes with the benefit of the Immediate action casting time. In any case it does heal 1d4+5, but the point of that specific number is that the maximum is 9, meaning that if you cast it on someone who has just reached -10 HP and is about to die at the end of the damage calculation, you can bring them back to being just under 0 HP. It won't bring someone back to consciousness, but as far from death as they can be while unconscious.

The clause about "preventing damage" is there to make it clear that even though someone just reached -10 HP, they still haven't died, so DMs can't say the healing took place too late. If you cast Celerity and then Cure Light Wounds, a DM could say "You acted just after he died, so the healing doesn't work, too bad." But Close Wounds is meant for exactly that case.

[Bronk]

Hi guys...

Now the thing is. 1d4+5 is very low healing for a second level spell, if the intepretation of this spell was that this is the total maximun effect outcome of this spell. I understand it to have 2 effects. 1) When used on your turn, it heals 1d4+5 but as an immidiate action you would be able to cast another. 2) if you cast it on someone else's turn, it would negate what ever amount of damage; not only 1d4+5.

I am full aware of the possible power of such a spell, but I personally feel that the second line of the spell, would be redundant, if not to indicate the effect as I understand it. It would simple just be an immidiate healing spell, that healed 1d4+5. The second/extra line thus indicates a special rule regarding this spell.

Therefor it is my clear understanding that it can be used in two different ways. One as a healing spell, and two, as a damage preventer. (even though that could mean negating a monstrous crit of 1000 damage)

I think that it is a poorly written spell.

First of all, you can only cast it once per round, not twice, since the casting time is 'one immediate action'. You only get one immediate action per round, and there is no way to cast the spell as a standard action (unless you are a spontaneous caster applying metamagic to it).

Now the first intended effect is the healing, check.

The second effect is, if it is cast directly after an attack, to 'effectively prevent the damage'. To me, that one line by itself would indicate that the spell had a powerful second ability to negate any one hit, even if it was way above what the spell could normally heal.

However, the example just mentions that if someone would have died by that by dropping to -10 (the minimum) and you cast the spell, they would be brought up above that, as if it never happened, so that they didn't just die but were still in negative hit points and stable.

So, considering the example, I'd say that if someone with 20hp got hit for 40 damage, they'd be at -10hp. If they received this spell, they'd then be, at best, -1 hp and stable. I don't think it would work like this: completely negated, and back at 20hp.

[bjoern]

I think that it is a poorly written spell.

First of all, you can only cast it once per round, not twice, since the casting time is 'one immediate action'. You only get one immediate action per round, and there is no way to cast the spell as a standard action (unless you are a spontaneous caster applying metamagic to it).

Now the first intended effect is the healing, check.

The second effect is, if it is cast directly after an attack, to 'effectively prevent the damage'. To me, that one line by itself would indicate that the spell had a powerful second ability to negate any one hit, even if it was way above what the spell could normally heal.

However, the example just mentions that if someone would have died by that by dropping to -10 (the minimum) and you cast the spell, they would be brought up above that, as if it never happened, so that they didn't just die but were still in negative hit points and stable.

So, considering the example, I'd say that if someone with 20hp got hit for 40 damage, they'd be at -10hp. If they received this spell, they'd then be, at best, -1 hp and stable. I don't think it would work like this: completely negated, and back at 20hp.

20hp-40damage= -20hp?

Best case is he would be -11. Still dead.

[Nettlekid]

I think that it is a poorly written spell.

First of all, you can only cast it once per round, not twice, since the casting time is 'one immediate action'. You only get one immediate action per round, and there is no way to cast the spell as a standard action (unless you are a spontaneous caster applying metamagic to it).

Now the first intended effect is the healing, check.

The second effect is, if it is cast directly after an attack, to 'effectively prevent the damage'. To me, that one line by itself would indicate that the spell had a powerful second ability to negate any one hit, even if it was way above what the spell could normally heal.

However, the example just mentions that if someone would have died by that by dropping to -10 (the minimum) and you cast the spell, they would be brought up above that, as if it never happened, so that they didn't just die but were still in negative hit points and stable.

So, considering the example, I'd say that if someone with 20hp got hit for 40 damage, they'd be at -10hp. If they received this spell, they'd then be, at best, -1 hp and stable. I don't think it would work like this: completely negated, and back at 20hp.

You can actually cast it twice in a round, but only every other round. An Immediate action is just a Swift action taken out of turn, and if you take it in turn, it counts as that current turn's Swift action. So you could cast Close Wounds on your turn as a Swift action, and then on your opponent's turn cast it again as an Immediate action and use up your next turn's Swift action. Once that's done you can't cast it next turn, but you could cast it again as an Immediate action at any point between your 2nd and 3rd turns.


20hp-40damage= -20hp?

Best case is he would be -11. Still dead.

That's not how it works. You don't subtract the healing from the damage dealt, you heal after the damage is dealt. Barring extraordinary cases like Frenzied Berserker or that (I think Epic?) feat that extends your dying range, the minimum HP you can have at any one time is -10. If you have 1 HP and take 100 points of damage, it'll finish you at -10 HP. That's the lowest it can go. The bottom, the floor.

Once that's where it is, and when you're finished calculating damage that's where it will be, THEN you can cast Close Wounds to heal up to 9 HP and not be dead.

[Cazero]

Yes, the spell description mentions it can be used to prevent damage. But it doesn't say it prevents all of it. I would say it amounts as the same value than the regular healing, up to 1d4+5, and overprevention converted as healing. The prevent part is as already stated to save someone from immediate death.

The healing value is indeed low for a 2nd level spell, but that spell is meant to be used at extended range (compared to touch) and as immediate death prevention (with the fast casting).

[bjoern]

You can actually cast it twice in a round, but only every other round. An Immediate action is just a Swift action taken out of turn, and if you take it in turn, it counts as that current turn's Swift action. So you could cast Close Wounds on your turn as a Swift action, and then on your opponent's turn cast it again as an Immediate action and use up your next turn's Swift action. Once that's done you can't cast it next turn, but you could cast it again as an Immediate action at any point between your 2nd and 3rd turns.



That's not how it works. You don't subtract the healing from the damage dealt, you heal after the damage is dealt. Barring extraordinary cases like Frenzied Berserker or that (I think Epic?) feat that extends your dying range, the minimum HP you can have at any one time is -10. If you have 1 HP and take 100 points of damage, it'll finish you at -10 HP. That's the lowest it can go. The bottom, the floor.

Once that's where it is, and when you're finished calculating damage that's where it will be, THEN you can cast Close Wounds to heal up to 9 HP and not be dead.

OK, that would make the spell more useable as it would guarantee survival to the target.

[Requiem_Jeer]

I think Close Wounds is a great spell. It's an emergency heal, used not to actually heal someone, but to keep them alive by inuring them to bad luck.

It's also handy if you combine it with other means of increasing a healing spell's potency. There's a magic item that lets you add another 2d6, there's another 2nd level spell that's self-only, but heals 3d8+1/level (Max +10) if you cast another healing spell during it's 10 min/level duration.

[Afgncaap5]

In specific cases, this spell can be crazy useful I've found. I used it with a Healer that I made as a joke character while another character was real busy being dead, and I gave that Healer things like Mastery of Day and Night and other such things. With the bonus healing Healers get from Charisma (and a few other special feats I had to boost it), I think it could easily heal between 15 and 20 without rolling for it. It wasn't the best healing my Healer could pull off, but considering it was an immediate action and at range... not bad.

In addition to the prevention of death, my DM also ruled that it might also prevent poison or disease that spreads through damage, using the same logic that DR can prevent poison since the damage "didn't happen" even in a case where the DR is explained as very rapid healing. I don't know if the DM was right by RAW, but it was a fun thought (and the situation never came up.)

[Melcar]

.



That's not how it works. You don't subtract the healing from the damage dealt, you heal after the damage is dealt. Barring extraordinary cases like Frenzied Berserker or that (I think Epic?) feat that extends your dying range, the minimum HP you can have at any one time is -10. If you have 1 HP and take 100 points of damage, it'll finish you at -10 HP. That's the lowest it can go. The bottom, the floor.

Once that's where it is, and when you're finished calculating damage that's where it will be, THEN you can cast Close Wounds to heal up to 9 HP and not be dead.

Well that would indeed make it more useful. Are you sure you cantgo below -10 HP?

[Afgncaap5]

I'd argue that the Loyal Beyond Death ability that Knights get at level 20 suggests that it's possible to go lower than -10.

[Slipperychicken]

Immediate action to retroactively prevent 1d4+5 damage is balanced for a 2nd level spell, but automatically negating all damage from a hit is OP. I think the former is the correct and most appropriate interpretation.

[Wacky89]

cool trick with a level bard you can get healing hymn which adds your perform rank to a conjuration healing spell

then its suddenly 1d4+5+4-23
that makes it useable on higher lvls aswell

[Nettlekid]

I'd argue that the Loyal Beyond Death ability that Knights get at level 20 suggests that it's possible to go lower than -10.

Which is why I said barring extraordinary circumstances, like the Frenzied Berserker's ability.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It's cast as an immediate action, so you can cast it to effectively reduce a hit by the amount it heals, but not to reduce an entire hit.

Let's say your Rogue is at 5 hp, and gets hit for 16 damage, which would put him below -10. You cast Close Wounds, healing 1d4+5 and effectively reducing the hit by that amount. If you roll maximum on that, it prevents nine points of that 16 damage, so he only takes 7 damage. He's at -2, but at least he's not dead.

As another example, let's say a party member takes a hit for 55 damage, forcing a save vs dying to massive damage. You cast Close Wounds, reducing the damage he takes from that attack by 1d4+5 points, dropping it below the 50 point threshold and negating the massive damage check.

[Melcar]

Question...

Is -10 the lowest number of hitpoints?

(–10 HIT POINTS OR LOWER)
When your character’s current hit points drop to –10 or lower, or if
he takes massive damage (see above), he’s dead. A character can also
die from taking ability damage or suffering an ability drain that
reduces his Constitution to 0. When a character dies, his soul
immediately departs. Getting it back into the body is a major hassle
(see Bringing Back the Dead, page 171).

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Question...

Is -10 the lowest number of hitpoints?

(–10 HIT POINTS OR LOWER)
When your character’s current hit points drop to –10 or lower, or if
he takes massive damage (see above), he’s dead. A character can also
die from taking ability damage or suffering an ability drain that
reduces his Constitution to 0. When a character dies, his soul
immediately departs. Getting it back into the body is a major hassle
(see Bringing Back the Dead, page 171).

No, it specifically says, "-10 or lower" so you can be reduced below -10.

If you're hoping that a character with 5 hp who takes a hit for 85 damage would only be taking 15 damage from it, enough to put them at -10, and that Close Wounds would further reduce it, then you are mistaken. Good try, though.

[Nettlekid]

No, it specifically says, "-10 or lower" so you can be reduced below -10.

If you're hoping that a character with 5 hp who takes a hit for 85 damage would only be taking 15 damage from it, enough to put them at -10, and that Close Wounds would further reduce it, then you are mistaken. Good try, though.

I disagree. Once a creature hits -10, it becomes dead. A dead creature does not take damage. If a creature was at -10 and dead, and then his enemy stabbed him again, he isn't at -15 and dead. He's still dead, at -10. The moment you hit that -10 threshold, you are dead, and damage no longer applies to you. Close Wounds then acts after damage stops being calculated, so the furthest you can go is indeed -10.

There are cases in which you can be reduced to lower than -10. The Delay Death spell, the Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy, the Knight's Loyal Beyond Death, and similar effects DO mean you can go down to below -10, so it's pertinent to have that "-10 or lower" clause because there will be cases when those effects run out and you will be at below -10. But under normal circumstances, -10 is the limit.

[bjoern]

I disagree. Once a creature hits -10, it becomes dead. A dead creature does not take damage. If a creature was at -10 and dead, and then his enemy stabbed him again, he isn't at -15 and dead. He's still dead, at -10. The moment you hit that -10 threshold, you are dead, and damage no longer applies to you. Close Wounds then acts after damage stops being calculated, so the furthest you can go is indeed -10.

There are cases in which you can be reduced to lower than -10. The Delay Death spell, the Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy, the Knight's Loyal Beyond Death, and similar effects DO mean you can go down to below -10, so it's pertinent to have that "-10 or lower" clause because there will be cases when those effects run out and you will be at below -10. But under normal circumstances, -10 is the limit.

I don't think you take damage one point at a time. Its dealt all in one shot.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I disagree. Once a creature hits -10, it becomes dead. A dead creature does not take damage. If a creature was at -10 and dead, and then his enemy stabbed him again, he isn't at -15 and dead. He's still dead, at -10. The moment you hit that -10 threshold, you are dead, and damage no longer applies to you. Close Wounds then acts after damage stops being calculated, so the furthest you can go is indeed -10.

There are cases in which you can be reduced to lower than -10. The Delay Death spell, the Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy, the Knight's Loyal Beyond Death, and similar effects DO mean you can go down to below -10, so it's pertinent to have that "-10 or lower" clause because there will be cases when those effects run out and you will be at below -10. But under normal circumstances, -10 is the limit.

A dead body is an object, and you can damage and destroy objects. So after an opponent is at -10, any further damage dealt to them is dealt to their corpse as an object. However, if a character at 5 hp is hit with a single attack that deals 85 damage, then they go to -80 and die: "When your character’s current hit points drop to –10 or lower, or if he takes massive damage (see above), he’s dead."

[Zaq]

As has been mentioned, Close Wounds is remarkable not only for its immediate-action casting time but also for its ability to be used at a range greater than touch. I don't know why WotC was so obsessed with needing to make all healing spells touch range (probably legacy issues, but even then, really?), but Close Wounds is a clear anomaly in that regard. I'm pretty sure that it's as low a level as it's possible to get and still have a range greater than touch.

That doesn't make it a great spell on its own, of course (you really do need to add Healing Hands, Augment Healing, and similar tricks to make it be worth the spell slot), but it does explain why WotC would feel the need to limit it like they did.

[Nettlekid]

A dead body is an object, and you can damage and destroy objects. So after an opponent is at -10, any further damage dealt to them is dealt to their corpse as an object. However, if a character at 5 hp is hit with a single attack that deals 85 damage, then they go to -80 and die: "When your character’s current hit points drop to –10 or lower, or if he takes massive damage (see above), he’s dead."

A dead body isn't an object, a dead body is a creature with the "dead" condition. That's actually a sticking point that makes a lot of spells work/not work.

And on what grounds are you saying the rest of the damage is done as to an object? Are you saying you should halve the remainder if it's fire energy damage? When does hardness come into play? What you're saying is entirely arbitrary.

[Segev]

I have to chime in to say that I am not sure how you can read "-10 hp or lower" and assume from that that there is no "lower."

[Nettlekid]

I have to chime in to say that I am not sure how you can read "-10 hp or lower" and assume from that that there is no "lower."

I did mention all the cases where "lower" is the case. It is not the norm, but it is possible.

[Xerlith]

RAW there's nothing that says you can't get be damaged to lower than -10. So... Well. It means you can. It's just that at -10 you're dead anyway, no matter how far into the negatives you go.
Furthermore, the cases which allow you to go lower are actually from later books and weren't there when PHB was first out.

[Nettlekid]

RAW there's nothing that says you can't get be damaged to lower than -10. So... Well. It means you can. It's just that at -10 you're dead anyway, no matter how far into the negatives you go.
Furthermore, the cases which allow you to go lower are actually from later books and weren't there when PHB was first out.

Isn't the whole "it doesn't say you can't so that means you can" mindset not the way the rules work?

[bjoern]

Isn't the whole "it doesn't say you can't so that means you can" mindset not the way the rules work?

Well since there isn't a rule in d&d that says that math doesn't work normally, we have to assume that math does work normally.

They do list exceptions like a x2 and a x2 are a x3 rather than a x4.

Since they let us know when to deviate from normal math, its safe to assume that they would let is know if -10 HP was where math stopped in the negatives.

And if -10 was the smallest possible number, why not just add 10 to everything and have 0 be the smallest........

[Agincourt]

Isn't the whole "it doesn't say you can't so that means you can" mindset not the way the rules work?

The logic goes as follows:

1. There is a general rule. The general rule is that characters who take damage subtract the damage from their current hit point total.

2. Damage is cumulative and a character can keep taking damage indefinitely, even to the point of being at negative hit points.

3. If you want to say there is a specific point where a character can no longer take damage, you need a specific rule stating that points 1 or 2 no longer apply.

[The Random NPC]

I did mention all the cases where "lower" is the case. It is not the norm, but it is possible.

It bears repeating, all the cases where "lower" is the case did not exist when the PHB was published. Therefore the only case "lower" could possibly refer to is the case where you have been dealt HP damage and subsequently went below -10, even if you were dead at -10.

[Nettlekid]

The logic goes as follows:

1. There is a general rule. The general rule is that characters who take damage subtract the damage from their current hit point total.

2. Damage is cumulative and a character can keep taking damage indefinitely, even to the point of being at negative hit points.

3. If you want to say there is a specific point where a character can no longer take damage, you need a specific rule stating that points 1 or 2 no longer apply.

This is dangerously close to the ridiculous
1. The general rule is that characters can take actions.
2. Unless a condition (like dazed) says otherwise, the character can continue to take actions.
3. The condition of being "dead" does not state that a character can't take actions.

The "dead" condition changes matters.

I'm getting fed up with this, especially since everyone who was saying the same thing as me in the beginning seems to have vanished. Let me just say this, then. Putting aside Close Wounds for now, let's look at other minumum HP scenarios. Can you destroy a Construct or an Undead so they have less than 0 HP? And if you destroy an object and bring it to 0 HP, do the remaining shards of the object each have HP as they are objects themselves? If not, then it shouldn't be too contentious to say that the target of attack (be it creature or object) brought below the point to which it is rendered unable to recover (dead or destroyed) can no longer take damage to its nonexistent hit points.

[backwaterj]

I don't have my rulebooks on hand, but I'm sure at least the dying condition (which dead is the next level of) says you can't take actions.

Constructs and objects specifically state that they are destroyed at zero hit points; a (normal) creature is obviously not, barring disintegrate or some similar effect. Since there is (to my knowledge) no rule that states you stop taking damage at -10 hp, and real-life precedent proves it's definitely possible to take such damage (want to get rid of the body? Dismember it, shove it in the wood chipper, and dissolve it in acid), then damage shouldn't stop at -10 in-game either.

So Close Wounds is useful to stabilize your dying buddy, assuming he didn't just eat a full attack from a dragon at 5 hp. In that scenario, the spell you want is Revivify.

[The Random NPC]

This is dangerously close to the ridiculous
1. The general rule is that characters can take actions.
2. Unless a condition (like dazed) says otherwise, the character can continue to take actions.
3. The condition of being "dead" does not state that a character can't take actions.

The "dead" condition changes matters.

1. At -10 HP, their Nonlethal Damage is greater than their HP, and thus they are unconscious.
2. Unless stated otherwise, the world depicted by the rules mimics our own.
3. Therefore the dead can not take any actions.


I'm getting fed up with this, especially since everyone who was saying the same thing as me in the beginning seems to have vanished. Let me just say this, then. Putting aside Close Wounds for now, let's look at other minumum HP scenarios. Can you destroy a Construct or an Undead so they have less than 0 HP?

No, they are immediately destroyed at 0 HP (though I wouldn't argue with a GM if they houseruled it).


And if you destroy an object and bring it to 0 HP, do the remaining shards of the object each have HP as they are objects themselves?

Yes, but it generally doesn't matter.

[georgie_leech]

It bears repeating, all the cases where "lower" is the case did not exist when the PHB was published. Therefore the only case "lower" could possibly refer to is the case where you have been dealt HP damage and subsequently went below -10, even if you were dead at -10.

In addition, such things that "allow" lower than -10 hitpoints also say you don't die yet, as that's the point of such abilities. It makes no sense to future-proof a rule for a case that doesn't exist; what would the point of an ability that says "You can have hp less than -10, but you're still dead?"

[grarrrg]

Well since there isn't a rule in d&d that says that math doesn't work normally, we have to assume that math does work normally.

They do list exceptions like a x2 and a x2 are a x3 rather than a x4.

Your example is a bad example.
x2 is the same as +100%
+100% and +100% equals +200%
+200% is the same as x3
Their math is fine.

The problem is that people get dumb when they see percentages, so the game books don't use percentages if they can help it.

[Divide by Zero]

x2 is the same as +100%

In normal math, x*2*2 is not the same as x+x+x, which is why they have to call out a specific exception if they're going to use multiplication for it.

[backwaterj]

Your example is a bad example.
x2 is the same as +100%
+100% and +100% equals +200%
+200% is the same as x3
Their math is fine.

The problem is that people get dumb when they see percentages, so the game books don't use percentages if they can help it.

Except for all those times D&D game books use percentages.

In the real world multiplying by 2 twice would put the net result at 400% (4x), which is why the exception was spelled out.

[bjoern]

In normal math, x*2*2 is not the same as x+x+x, which is why they have to call out a specific exception if they're going to use multiplication for it.

A guy with this name giving math lessons......were doomed ;p

[Bronk]

I don't think you take damage one point at a time. Its dealt all in one shot.

Well, since it looks like you can go below -10 hit points, and I agree that damage is taken all in one go, it looks like the spell has three effects, and the second effect states rather bluntly that if the spell is cast directly after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage. No limit is given to the damage that would be negated.

As long as there is no lower limit to hit points, the example doesn't pose a limit either.

I guess this is a powerful spell, and it really scales well with level too!

[grarrrg]

In normal math, x*2*2 is not the same as x+x+x, which is why they have to call out a specific exception if they're going to use multiplication for it.

Ok, lets skip math and use logic.
When you get "x2" on something, you get your "regular damage", and an amount of "bonus damage" equal to your "regular damage".
So x2 is 1 part Regular, 1 part Bonus.
Getting x2 x2 on something gives x3 which is 1 part Regular, 2 parts Bonus. You do NOT get x4, because then you would be getting double Regular damage, which is not a thing.



if the spell is cast directly after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage. No limit is given to the damage that would be negated.

"Effectively" being the operative word here.
If it prevented ALL damage it would state that, and would require MUCH simpler wording.
Instead it "effectively" prevents the damage, which only becomes a factor if -10 (or less) hp is involved.
Since they took the time to write out an entire sentence and a half more text than strictly needed to "prevent all damage", then we must assume that it only "effectively prevents" an amount of damage equal to the healing done. Which means that it _actually_ prevents NO damage.

[Bronk]

"Effectively" being the operative word here.
If it prevented ALL damage it would state that, and would require MUCH simpler wording.
Instead it "effectively" prevents the damage, which only becomes a factor if -10 (or less) hp is involved.
Since they took the time to write out an entire sentence and a half more text than strictly needed to "prevent all damage", then we must assume that it only "effectively prevents" an amount of damage equal to the healing done. Which means that it _actually_ prevents NO damage.

I hear ya... that's why I think it's poorly worded. I think the writers of the spell in the Miniatures Handbook thought HP only went down to -10, and so did whoever updated it in the Spell Compendium. As it is, if it doesn't prevent all the damage, it would be doing it 'ineffectively' instead of 'effectively'.

[georgie_leech]

I hear ya... that's why I think it's poorly worded. I think the writers of the spell in the Miniatures Handbook thought HP only went down to -10, and so did whoever updated it in the Spell Compendium. As it is, if it doesn't prevent all the damage, it would be doing it 'ineffectively' instead of 'effectively'.

"Effectively" in this context means "as if it were actually but not officially," not "quite well."

[troqdor1316]

I disagree. Once a creature hits -10, it becomes dead. A dead creature does not take damage. If a creature was at -10 and dead, and then his enemy stabbed him again, he isn't at -15 and dead. He's still dead, at -10. The moment you hit that -10 threshold, you are dead, and damage no longer applies to you. Close Wounds then acts after damage stops being calculated, so the furthest you can go is indeed -10.

There are cases in which you can be reduced to lower than -10. The Delay Death spell, the Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy, the Knight's Loyal Beyond Death, and similar effects DO mean you can go down to below -10, so it's pertinent to have that "-10 or lower" clause because there will be cases when those effects run out and you will be at below -10. But under normal circumstances, -10 is the limit.

None of these cases existed at the point when the relevant rule was released in the PHB. There'a no reason to think that those cases are the only cases in which your hit point total can go below -10. What exactly excludes a dead character from having -11 HP?

[Divide by Zero]

Ok, lets skip math and use logic.
When you get "x2" on something, you get your "regular damage", and an amount of "bonus damage" equal to your "regular damage".

This is not logic. This is you arbitrarily defining things. If it were really so obvious, then why did they need to call out the exception?

[Segev]

The rules state that you can have "-10 or lower" as your hp value, and that at such a time you are dead. No rules state that your hp is set at the highest value it can be and you still be dead when you die. The rules do specify that you apply hp damage against your current total to determine your total after taking the damage. Therefore, if you are at 10 hp and take 110 damage, the rules specify that you apply the 110 damage against your 10 hp and arrive at a total of -100 hp. Under standard rules (i.e. without special exceptions), you are now at "-10 or lower" hp, and you are dead.

There would need to be a rule somewhere which specified that your hp were set to -10 when you took enough damage to put you at "-10 or lower" hp in order for you to be unable to be knocked to -100 in the aforementioned example. There is no such rule. This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say you can't, so you can." This is a case of the rules, when applied plainly, saying you do go below -10 and even covering the condition wherein you do by specifying "-10 or lower" as when you are dead. To claim that you stop at -10 hp when you die is inserting a rule that is not specified.

While you can claim that "logically" makes death have no effect which prevents you from acting normally, you are willfully ignoring that "death" has a real-world meaning that is contradicted by the assumption that it would allow you to keep acting as if you were alive. On the other hand, not inserting the extra rule to make you stop at -10 hp in no way contradicts the use of any words in English which are not defined game terms. "Death" and "dead" are not defined to have specific game states contrary to their plain English meanings; therefore, they can be assumed to have said meanings. To refuse that assumption is to make it impossible to even define game terms, as we have to use a language to do it.

[Chronos]

Suppose that a character is at 5 HP, and gets hit for 20 points of damage. In the ordinary course of affairs, the sequence would go something like this:

1: Character has 5 HP
2: Character is hit for 20
3: Character is reduced to -15
4: Character dies by virtue of having -10 or fewer HP
5: Character's HP is set to -10 by virtue of being dead

If the party cleric responded to the hit by casting Close Wounds, then the sequence instead goes like:

1: Character has 5 HP
2: Character is hit for 20
3: Character is reduced to -15
4: Delay Death takes effect before the character has a chance to die
5: Character's HP are raised by a few points (let's say the value was 7)
6: Character's HP are now -8
7: Character is still alive, since HP are above -10 (and also stable).

The resetting to -10 happens as a result of dying. If the dying never happens, then neither does the resetting to -10.

[backwaterj]

The resetting to -10 happens as a result of dying. If the dying never happens, then neither does the resetting to -10.

Can anyone cite where this is actually written? Otherwise I think basic math and logic should prevail.

[StreamOfTheSky]

cool trick with a level bard you can get healing hymn which adds your perform rank to a conjuration healing spell

then its suddenly 1d4+5+4-23
that makes it useable on higher lvls aswell

You can further buff it with the Soul of Light spell and Augmented Healing feat, both would give another +4 healed each (probably not worth the feat slot, of course). And use Healing Lorecall spell to also have it remove stuff like DAZED as an immediate action. And there's surely more (Radiant Servant of Pelor levels, etc...)

Point is, it's an amazing, literally life-saving low level spell w/o any optimization. With optimization, it can be pretty impressive healing that leaves you your standard / full round action to also do other things.

[Chronos]

Quoth backwaterj:

Can anyone cite where this is actually written? Otherwise I think basic math and logic should prevail.
It's under Death Attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#deathAttacks):

In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has -10 hit points.
This is, so far as I know, the only place in the rules that even suggests that -10 is the minimum, and it only applies once the creature is dead.

As to the value of the spell itself, consider: The amount it heals is less than Cure Light Wounds, but more than Cure Minor Wounds. So that would make it worth somewhere between a 0th and 1st-level spell. It's ranged instead of touch, which is the equivalent of a +1 metamagic, so now it's worth somewhere between a 1st and 2nd level spell. And it's an immediate action: Quicken is a +4 metamagic, and that's still a swift action (only usable on your turn), not an immediate (usable even on others' turns), so now it's worth at least more than a 5th-level spell. More than that, even, since using metamagic requires you to have the feat, while you can cast this spell without feats. So here we have a spell which appears to be worth at least a 5th level, probably more, and it's only a 2nd-level. That sounds like a bargain to me.

[Segev]

That is interesting. It means anything that would need to deal with an already-dead character's hit point total would work from -10 hp. This also means that's what it's at even if you were a Frenzied Berserker at -10000 hp before you died.

However, because Close Wounds triggers "before" you die, it would not apply to the total at which you're set post-death. It would apply to the total you're at just before you died. So it applies to your lower-than-negative-10 hp if you were hit for enough to put you below -10.

[ericgrau]

The error is measuring your resources in spell slots rather than actions. Past level 3 or so your 3-5 standard actions are your bottleneck, not your 20ish spells. For an immediate action the amount of healing is amazing. Saving someone who would be dead is a minor added bonus. That's all that 2nd part means by the way. Normally healing someone who should have low enough hp to be dead doesn't work. For this spell as long as you respond the instant the person would die, it does work, happening just before he dies.

Immediate actions are even more amazing if you give them to characters who don't normally have them, widening the bottleneck even further. Imbue with spell ability + close wounds is one of my favorite tactics.

[backwaterj]

It's under Death Attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#deathAttacks):

This is, so far as I know, the only place in the rules that even suggests that -10 is the minimum, and it only applies once the creature is dead.

As to the value of the spell itself, consider: The amount it heals is less than Cure Light Wounds, but more than Cure Minor Wounds. So that would make it worth somewhere between a 0th and 1st-level spell. It's ranged instead of touch, which is the equivalent of a +1 metamagic, so now it's worth somewhere between a 1st and 2nd level spell. And it's an immediate action: Quicken is a +4 metamagic, and that's still a swift action (only usable on your turn), not an immediate (usable even on others' turns), so now it's worth at least more than a 5th-level spell. More than that, even, since using metamagic requires you to have the feat, while you can cast this spell without feats. So here we have a spell which appears to be worth at least a 5th level, probably more, and it's only a 2nd-level. That sounds like a bargain to me.

Fascinating, we have a case of D&D rulebooks contradicting each other. What are the odds? :smallbiggrin:

On the one hand, we have PHB, in the general rules for death, stating it occurs at 10 hp or below. On the other, we have DMG, under the death attack heading, stating that a dead character always has 10 hp. I'd rule the general over the specific in this case, although it's beginning to look like there's no clear-cut answer.

The idea that a character below -10 hp becomes dead and then returns to exactly -10 hp has some merit according to RAW, however it's very hard to reconcile with common sense.

Regardless, though, Close Wounds should operate at the full negative total, not counting from -10. And agreed, a very worthwhile spell to have, with the slight correction that reach is +2 metamagic, so it would by the numbers be at least level 6 in power.

[Melcar]

So... The spell does indeed only heal 1d4+5, and that it added to the total minus hit point of the target? That is less powerful than my first assumption, but that does seem more balanced!

[Segev]

Fascinating, we have a case of D&D rulebooks contradicting each other. What are the odds? :smallbiggrin:

On the one hand, we have PHB, in the general rules for death, stating it occurs at 10 hp or below. On the other, we have DMG, under the death attack heading, stating that a dead character always has 10 hp. I'd rule the general over the specific in this case, although it's beginning to look like there's no clear-cut answer.

The idea that a character below -10 hp becomes dead and then returns to exactly -10 hp has some merit according to RAW, however it's very hard to reconcile with common sense.Actually, going back up to -10 (if below) after dying is not contradictory; the rules are compatible without needing any reconciliation or overriding. It is a little odd, but I don't find it too painfully out of sync with common sense, either: -10 is where living things become dead things, and anything that needs the hit point total of the once-living creature operates from the -10 value. Hit points of living things represent vitality, luck, and ability to avoid damage as much as the physical ability to sustain life. Once the body has died, the creature is at the -10 point because that's "unable to sustain life anymore."


Regardless, though, Close Wounds should operate at the full negative total, not counting from -10. And agreed, a very worthwhile spell to have, with the slight correction that reach is +2 metamagic, so it would by the numbers be at least level 6 in power.That is how it works, yeah. And can be useful in the right situations.


So... The spell does indeed only heal 1d4+5, and that it added to the total minus hit point of the target? That is less powerful than my first assumption, but that does seem more balanced!Indeed!

[Bronk]

It's under Death Attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#deathAttacks):

This is, so far as I know, the only place in the rules that even suggests that -10 is the minimum, and it only applies once the creature is dead.

Thanks for finding that! It really cleared things up (at least for RAI).

[Melcar]

Just a quick thought...

While under the spell Sould of Light and having the feat Augment Healing, if I were to heighten Close wounds to level 9 would it not heal 1d4+41?

[georgie_leech]

Just a quick thought...

While under the spell Sould of Light and having the feat Augment Healing, if I were to heighten Close wounds to level 9 would it not heal 1d4+41?

I don't see why not. I question the efficiency of wasting a level 9 on that, but it should work.

[Troacctid]

Just a quick thought...

While under the spell Sould of Light and having the feat Augment Healing, if I were to heighten Close wounds to level 9 would it not heal 1d4+41?

1d4 + 5 + 18 + 18

Yep, that's correct. Edit: Eh, Swordsage'd.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It'd be better to do Soul of Light + Augment healing + that bardic healing song (maybe play the bard and the cleric is your cohort?) and then Empower Spell all of that. Not sure if empower would apply to all of those bonuses, but if it did, at level 20 that would be (1d4 +5 +23 +4 +4) x 1.5 = (1d4 +36) x 1.5 = average of 57.75 hp healed in a 4th level slot (and Easy Metamagic feat can drop that to 3rd level slot) as an immediate action....not bad. Makes me wonder if Close Wounds can work with Chain Spell to make it a "mass" version.

[dextercorvia]

Makes me wonder if Close Wounds can work with Chain Spell to make it a "mass" version.

Yes it can.