therapeutic mantle question

[TheSethGrey]

So, say I have the therapeutic mantle soulmeld with a single point of essentia invested in it, and I am healed by non-spell effect like fast healing or lay on hands. Do I receive two points of extra healing from the one essentia I invested or do I get no extra healing because the healing effect has no spell level?

[Flickerdart]

You get no extra healing. Therapeutic Mantle only augments spells.

[TheSethGrey]

Then why have the line about spell or effects, I realize that that a non-spell effect would gain zero hp with no invested essentia, but wouldn't essentia invested grant some healing since the text states it increases the additional healing by two per essentia, so wouldn't that make it 0 + 2 instead of 0?

[Flickerdart]

Then why have the line about spell or effects, I realize that that a non-spell effect would gain zero hp with no invested essentia, but wouldn't essentia invested grant some healing since the text states it increases the additional healing by two per essentia, so wouldn't that make it 0 + 2 instead of 0?
It seems to be an editing mistake. The summary of the soulmeld is "enhances the effects of healing spells" (which is overridden by the actual text, but points to intent).

The text is "Whenever you are the target of a spell or effect that heals hit point damage, the spell heals additional damage equal to its spell level." No provision is given for the "effect" portion of this, so by RAW, this triggers on "effects" but does nothing.

It will never trigger for Fast Healing anyway - you are never the target of it, it just happens to you.

[Taveena]

There's an argument to be made that it could affect other abilities with an equivalent to spell level - such as spell-like abilities or psionic powers. A slightly larger stretch would be to allow it to affect maneuvers as well - but by RAW, I think it's just spells.

[Necroticplague]

No extra healing. Therapeutic mantle works on healing effects, in addition to spells. However, when trying to figure out the extra healing, you get Error 404, spell level not found. So you get N/A+2=N/A.

[Chronos]

It works however your DM says it works. The rules as written are inconsistent, so they need to be sorted out by an arbiter, and in D&D, that arbiter is the DM. As a suggestion for DMs, it's probably reasonable to treat power level or maneuver level as equivalent to spell level here, but your DM might decide otherwise.

[Fizban]

It seems to be an editing mistake. The summary of the soulmeld is "enhances the effects of healing spells" (which is overridden by the actual text, but points to intent).
Seriously? No, text trumps table, that's not even an argument.

Now, some folks just had a massive tangent over in another thread over what happens if something asks for a level of a certain type which is not being used-they were arguing about prestige classes increasing levels they expected you to have and what happens if you get in without those levels, and there's a similar problem here. You'll have to ask your DM weather or not they think "spell or effect" is negated by the "spell level" call, but as far as I'm concerned it's pretty obvious they wouldn't use "or effect" if it weren't meant to work with non-spells. I would/do allow it with any magical effect, it combos quite nicely with the supernatural Martial Spirit stance, and it's hardly the most broken combo out there. I was ready to take it with just the essentia bonus for non-spells, but the guy DMing when I ran the character allowed any applicable ability level similar to a spell level.

[Flickerdart]

Seriously? No, text trumps table, that's not even an argument.
It's an argument for intent. RAW is addressed by the (much longer) part of the post that you decided to cut out so you could have a leg to stand on when trumpeting your houserule that's neither RAW nor RAI.

[Necroticplague]

I would/do allow it with any magical effect, it combos quite nicely with the supernatural Martial Spirit stance, and it's hardly the most broken combo out there.

Minor tangent: Martial Spirit isn't Supernatural.

[xyianth]

The way I read it is that the healing is triggered by spells or effects that target you, but healing is equal to spell level + 2*essentia. As long as the effect targets you, any effect without a spell level should heal for spell level(0) + 2*essentia. Fast healing and regeneration qualities don't target you though, so they don't trigger the mantle. Lay on hands does target you though.

In all cases of RAW rulings, text trumps table. When it comes to RAI though, its a DM's call; and all too many DMs just choose to use the interpretation that provides the least possible amount of power to the PC. (see rainbow servant as the most famous example) So if you are using (or plan to use) this in an actual game, run it by your DM to find out how (s)he will rule on it. If this is for CharOp work, just include a note that explains the interpretation you are using.

I would personally rule this to work on any targeted healing effect, and further if the effect has something equivalent to a 'spell level' I would use it as part of the calculation. For martial spirit, the stance level(1) could be used. For lay on hands, the paladin's class level could be used. Extra healing is hardly gamebreaking since wands of lesser vigor cost so little. I am used to tier 1-3 games though, so this ruling might not be appropriate for a lower tier game.

[Fizban]

Minor tangent: Martial Spirit isn't Supernatural.
I, huh, wuh? So it is (not). Must have read so many people houseruling it I internalized all healing maneuvers as supernatural. Well I guess it's a good thing I never really needed to use the combo anyway.

I never did address Fast Healing: as a continuous ability, I would not classify Fast Healing as an "effect" for this purpose The Effect line for spells usually refers to an external manifestation rather than a direct change to a creature, but it's also often used as shorthand for an "instantaneous effect," or basically anything instantaneous. In either case Fast Healing does not qualify, nor does it target you as Flick pointed out beforehand.

Edit: you know what, strike that, I already know I'm not going to convince Flick of anything or get a quote on his rules source because it doesn't exist. Suffice to say, there is no "404 error clause" (good name Necrcoticplague) anywhere in the rules, which means there is no RAW answer no matter how obvious anyone thinks it is. Nor is there any true RAI answer unless you have a quote from the original author. Any answers provided by the community on this sort of question are going to be interpretations, and as always you and your DM are free to pick or ignore them as you please.

[Necroticplague]

I never did address Fast Healing: as a continuous ability, I would not classify Fast Healing as an "effect" for this purpose The Effect line for spells usually refers to an external manifestation rather than a direct change to a creature, but it's also often used as shorthand for an "instantaneous effect," or basically anything instantaneous. In either case Fast Healing does not qualify, nor does it target you as Flick pointed out beforehand.
Honestly, I don't think the Mantle works for fast healing, but for a different reason. While fast healing is a healing effect (since it's something that heals you), it's not something that ever targets anybody, so it never causes the condition "when you are the target"




Edit: you know what, strike that, I already know I'm not going to convince Flick of anything or get a quote on his rules source because it doesn't exist. Suffice to say, there is no "404 error clause" (good name Necrcoticplague) anywhere in the rules, which means there is no RAW answer no matter how obvious anyone thinks it is. Nor is there any true RAI answer unless you have a quote from the original author. Any answers provided by the community on this sort of question are going to be interpretations, and as always you and your DM are free to pick or ignore them as you please.

Actually, the 'error 404' rule does exist. What happens when you slap a +2 Headband of Intellect on a skeleton? Nothing. The skeleton doesn't suddenly gain INT 2. Similarly, if the healing effect is without a spell level, the the null value of its spell level+any bonus from essentia invested still produces a null value. While I agree that neglecting to provide a formula for non-spell healing effects is a grievous oversight, it is fairly clear how it works. And on a similar note, I would probably houserule it a similar way (.5 rhd for monster abilities, .5 class level for class abilities, maneuver level for initiation abilities, power level for powers), but I recognize it as a houserule.

[Deophaun]

There's an argument to be made that it could affect other abilities with an equivalent to spell level - such as spell-like abilities or psionic powers.

That's RAW, actually:


Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described...

Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell
Note that it doesn't say "in all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell, except it doesn't trigger Therapeutic Mantle."

Edit: BTW, if the point is to get more healing out of fast healing, then, for the same reason as above, just get access to healthful rest. Since fast healing is also "just like" natural healing, healthful rest will double it.

[Fizban]

Honestly, I don't think the Mantle works for fast healing, but for a different reason. While fast healing is a healing effect (since it's something that heals you), it's not something that ever targets anybody, so it never causes the condition "when you are the target"
That. . . is exactly what I just agreed with.

Actually, the 'error 404' rule does exist. What happens when you slap a +2 Headband of Intellect on a skeleton? Nothing.
That's closer since under Nonabilities there is an explicit definition of what "int -" means, but there is still no definition of what - +2 would be so it is still an interpretation. Stronger evidence, but still not a written rule, just a reasonable interpretation. There is no such definition as a "null value" in DnD that immediately invalidates a formula, you're making an assumption based on a different rule, no matter how reasonable it sounds it's still an interpretation. A non spell effect does not have "spell level -," it simply isn't a spell and there's no rule for what happens if a different formula asks for it's spell level.

So until you can point me to a general rule about "null values" or a specific one regarding the spell level of a non-spell, you can't claim your interpretation is RAW. Even if you did, I'd still tell them to allow the combo simply because it's interesting, fun, and is very clearly not going break the game or the game-world, but before you can claim I'm ignoring RAW you have to find the Written Rule.

[Necroticplague]

That. . . is exactly what I just agreed with. No, you said Fast Healing wouldn't work because it wasn't an effect, I was saying it wouldn't work because it isn't targeted.


That's closer since under Nonabilities there is an explicit definition of what "int -" means, but there is still no definition of what - +2 would be so it is still an interpretation. Stronger evidence, but still not a written rule, just a reasonable interpretation. There is no such definition as a "null value" in DnD that immediately invalidates a formula, you're making an assumption based on a different rule, no matter how reasonable it sounds it's still an interpretation. A non spell effect does not have "spell level -," it simply isn't a spell and there's no rule for what happens if a different formula asks for it's spell level.

So until you can point me to a general rule about "null values" or a specific one regarding the spell level of a non-spell, you can't claim your interpretation is RAW. Even if you did, I'd still tell them to allow the combo simply because it's interesting, fun, and is very clearly not going break the game or the game-world, but before you can claim I'm ignoring RAW you have to find the Written Rule.

It's not a rule within the game rule for the same reason that the game doesn't go over what addition, subtraction, multiplication or division are: the relevant thing (how non-defined values work with math) is a mathematical rule. A non-defined value (which I called a null value earlier)+ a defined value produces a non-defined value. So the not defined spell level+the defined 2*essentia=not defined amount of improved healing. Just like how sqrt(-1)+1 doesn't produce a real defined answer. The spell level isn't defined exactly because there is no rule for it.

[xyianth]

It's not a rule within the game rule for the same reason that the game doesn't go over what addition, subtraction, multiplication or division are: the relevant thing (how non-defined values work with math) is a mathematical rule. A non-defined value (which I called a null value earlier)+ a defined value produces a non-defined value. So the not defined spell level+the defined 2*essentia=not defined amount of improved healing. Just like how sqrt(-1)+1 doesn't produce a real defined answer. The spell level isn't defined exactly because there is no rule for it.

There are entire fields of mathematics devoted to dealing with non-defined values using arithmetic operations. One standard way of dealing with non-defined values is to use limits and act upon those. I would posit that lim(-) = 0 and that you could rule that way just as easily as you can rule (-) + 1 = (-). This is of course irrelevant to the larger issue: RAW isn't clear which means RAI is all we have. If +1 or +2 extra hp healed breaks your game, you play a very different kind of game than I do. (no less valid mind you, just very different)

[Necroticplague]

There are entire fields of mathematics devoted to dealing with non-defined values using arithmetic operations. One standard way of dealing with non-defined values is to use limits and act upon those.
Yes, but doing so requires that the function be defined at SOME point.(x^2-16)/(x-4) can be manipulated using L'Hopital's rule at x=4 , but only because it still has values at everything except x=o.The spell level of a stance is defined at absolutely no point.


I would posit that lim(-) = 0 and that you could rule that way just as easily as you can rule (-) + 1 = (-). This is of course irrelevant to the larger issue: RAW isn't clear which means RAI is all we have. Just as easily, yes, because handing out fiat takes no effort. Equally sensibly, not as much.


If +1 or +2 extra hp healed breaks your game, you play a very different kind of game than I do. (no less valid mind you, just very different)

When did I ever say it would be gamebreaking? Never. In fact, if you look back at my posts earlier, I specifically said I would houserule it to work with various non-spell effects by defining an effective spell level. Heck, at my table, I could probably rule it applies to fast healing and it still wouldn't be overly useful (they find it's more effective to kill than heal in combat, and Fast Healing handwaves away almost all out of combat healing).

[xyianth]

Wow. I think one or both of us is misreading tone. I apologize if I've offended you in some way, as that wasn't my intent. I stand by my assertion that using the rules of mathematics to argue that (-)+x = (-) is not RAW. For the record, I was referring to computational mathematics dealing with chaos theory and tenser fields when I mentioned limits being used to deal with non-defined values, where infinities are regularly dealt with using limits and don't necessarily require any defined points. The argument is moot though, the point is RAW isn't helpful and RAI is subjective.