PDA

View Full Version : Augment Healing



Dark Knight Renee
2007-06-27, 01:20 PM
This may or may not be obvious, but I'm a little unclear about the feat Augment Healing from CD. Based on the wording, would you say you do or do not gain +2/spell level healing when using spells such as Restoration or Remove Bilndness/Deafness, which are Conjuration (Healing) spells but to not normally heal hit points?


As the DM on this matter, I'm unsure if there is a clear RAW answer that I'm missing, or which way to rule with or without a RAW answer.

FdL
2007-06-27, 01:23 PM
Um, but if you apply it to spells which do not cure hit points, what you get +2 of??????????

Edit: Got it, according to one possible interpretation, you'd be curing additional HPs besides curing the blindness or disease or whatever. Don't know, seems a little beyond the intended scope of the spell as I understand it.

Have you checked the errata? FAQ?

Yechezkiel
2007-06-27, 01:23 PM
It definately reads like it adds to a spell that is already healing.

Ghal Marak
2007-06-27, 01:24 PM
I thought it was you "Do" get that stuff, but it has been a while since I looked at the book, so... don't take my word for it.

Jasdoif
2007-06-27, 01:28 PM
It says "add +2 per spell level to the amount of damage healed by any Conjuration(healing) spell". So...add +2 per spell level to the amount of damage healed.

Strictly reading, this applies to whatever kind of damage is healed. For cure blindness/deafness, there's no numeric damage to apply additional healing to. For lesser restoration, it applies to ability damage healed (this doesn't apply to standard restoration, which heals all ability damage by default).

cupkeyk
2007-06-27, 01:28 PM
Well zero + 2/spell level is still a positive number. It doesn't sound game breaking or anything. So I would say yes. Augment Healing plus ritual blessing makes first level spells retain their usefulness. Ritual Blessing makes Cure Minor Wounds actually useful.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-06-27, 01:32 PM
Ack. I hadn't considered that it might affect Lesser Restoration that way. I guess it doesn't mention Hit Points specifically.

EDIT: This would also apply to the Vigor spells from SpC, which would be unbalanced.



Well zero + 2/spell level is still a positive number. It doesn't sound game breaking or anything. So I would say yes. Augment Healing plus ritual blessing makes first level spells retain their usefulness. Ritual Blessing makes Cure Minor Wounds actually useful.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but I'm not sure whether to go with it or not. Also, what is Ritual Blessing from? I'm sure I've seen it, but for the life of me I can't remember which book.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-27, 01:39 PM
RAW? It work's with any conjuration (healing) spell. Even if you found one that dealt damage.

It's not particularly overpowered, I would allow it.

FireSpark
2007-06-27, 01:47 PM
I thought that the feat stated that it heals an additional 2 hit points per spell level. This to me says that if the spell does not heal any hit points then it doesn't heal any additional either. Although I could see having lesser restoration heal 2 hp in the process, or something.

Stam
2007-06-27, 02:02 PM
EDIT: This would also apply to the Vigor spells from SpC, which would be unbalanced.
Actually...no. It heals +2 HP per casting of the spell, not +2 HP per incident of healing that the spell deals. So, in Lesser Vigor's case, it either heals 3 HP the first round and then 1/round after that (someone told me this was the official FAQ answer), or it just goes on for an additional two rounds.

(Which, of course, now made me go wonder what it does on a Mass Cure Light Wounds. Spreads its extra healing out over all the recipients, or choose one, or...what? Hate it when WotC sticks these things out without really considering all the possibilities.)

Jasdoif
2007-06-27, 02:11 PM
(Which, of course, now made me go wonder what it does on a Mass Cure Light Wounds. Spreads its extra healing out over all the recipients, or choose one, or...what? Hate it when WotC sticks these things out without really considering all the possibilities.)It applies the bonus to everyone. Mass Cure Light Wounds heals everyone affected by the same amount: the amount that gets the +10 (or +12 if you're a druid) bonus from Augment Healing.

cupkeyk
2007-06-27, 02:15 PM
Yes, it heals an additional two hit points. Once again, if a healing spell heals zero hit points topped with an additional two hit points per spell level, that sum is still a positive number.
A+2B=C, where A is the amount of hit points spell heals, B is the spell level and C is the Total hit points healed.

Cure light cast by a level 1 cleric (1d8+1)+2(1)= 1d8+3
Remove Blindness/Deafness by a third level cleric would be 0 + 2(2) = 4


This applies in a similar way as sneak attack and point blank shot does to non-damaging rays. Ray of Stunning cast by a Arcane Trickster with PBS would still deal his SA dice plus one for PBS in negative energy damage.

*****
Ritual Blessing is in PH2.

Pestlepup
2007-06-27, 02:16 PM
Well, the feat states and I quote "Add +2 points per spell level to the amount of damage healed by any Conjuration [Healing] spell that you cast." That would indicate that it adds to existing damage healed by the spell, though interestingly enough it doesn't discriminate between healing hit point damage, nonlethal damage or ability damage. So by RAW, it would benefit Restoration in a way that may not have been intended. I'd say it's up to the DM if Augment Healing boosts Restoration and the likes, but the spell has to heal some damage regardless of type to benefit from the feat.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-06-27, 02:34 PM
(Which, of course, now made me go wonder what it does on a Mass Cure Light Wounds. Spreads its extra healing out over all the recipients, or choose one, or...what? Hate it when WotC sticks these things out without really considering all the possibilities.)

On spells with multiple targets, it applies the extra healing to each target. I've used it on Mass Lesser Vigor (3rd-level) to get a low-level MCLW: +7 HP the first round, Fast Healing 1 afterwards.

Corolinth
2007-06-27, 02:35 PM
The more appropriate question is: What do you want it to do? DM adjudication. Gotta love it.

You're right, it's not terribly clear. It's also not a huge deal either way. Remove Blindness would heal what, six damage? You just got a free Cure Light Wounds and rolled a 1. Not a big deal.

When the word "damage" is used without a particular type of damage being specified, the default assumption is that we're talking about hit point damage and not ability damage. Lesser Restoration recovering an extra four points of ability score damage is a bit excessive, considering the normal range is 1-4. Lesser Restoration recovering four hit points in addition to the 1-4 ability score points isn't really that bad.

Piccamo
2007-06-27, 02:46 PM
The more appropriate question is: What do you want it to do? DM adjudication. Gotta love it.


Or, because the OP asked for a RAW citation, we could assist in that instead of saying "just do whatever you want."

The way it is worded suggests it works on every spell, though as others have said its no big deal either way. It is generally a poor feat because it doesn't really do much.

my_evil_twin
2007-06-27, 02:53 PM
Complete Divine was a pretty half-baked book, so I'm inclined to attribute any vagueness in the wording to the author just forgetting to consider something. In this case, the author doesn't seem to have considered ability damage, or else he would have included Lesser Restoration among the three example spells given in the feat text.

FireSpark
2007-06-27, 02:55 PM
Well, the feat states and I quote "Add +2 points per spell level to the amount of damage healed by any Conjuration [Healing] spell that you cast." That would indicate that it adds to existing damage healed by the spell, though interestingly enough it doesn't discriminate between healing hit point damage, nonlethal damage or ability damage. So by RAW, it would benefit Restoration in a way that may not have been intended. I'd say it's up to the DM if Augment Healing boosts Restoration and the likes, but the spell has to heal some damage regardless of type to benefit from the feat.

I thought Restoration was supposed to heal all HP damage anyways? Or am I thinking of another spell?:smallconfused:

my_evil_twin
2007-06-27, 02:59 PM
I thought Restoration was supposed to heal all HP damage anyways? Or am I thinking of another spell?:smallconfused:You're thinking of Heal, probably.

Restoration does heal all ability damage, instead of Lesser Restoration just healing 1d4.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-06-27, 03:03 PM
I did ask for the RAW, but I was also looking for alternate rulings, since the RAW looks to be... vague. At best. And thanks for all the answers:smallsmile:


I think I'll go with having it grant 2/spell level HP healing to spells that don't do so normally (as cupkeyk says, 0 +2...). This would apply only to the first round of spells such as Vigor, and would not affect the balance of Lesser Restoration. Not really powerful, but quite flavorful.

FireSpark
2007-06-27, 03:04 PM
You're thinking of Heal, probably.

Restoration does heal all ability damage, instead of Lesser Restoration just healing 1d4.

Heal only cures 150 Hp (at least it does in 3.5). I seem to remember somewhere that there was a spell that cured just about everything. Or maybe my memory really is headed out the door. Meh, I'll check up on it once I get home either way.

Corolinth
2007-06-27, 03:04 PM
Or, because the OP asked for a RAW citation, we could assist in that instead of saying "just do whatever you want."Except the problem is that there's no RAW to cite. That's why he's asking. Or she. The original post asked if there was a RAW answer, or failing that, what way this should be house-ruled. That's why I followed up with a few points to consider when making a decision on the feat.

Piccamo
2007-06-27, 03:13 PM
Except the problem is that there's no RAW to cite. That's why he's asking. Or she. The original post asked if there was a RAW answer, or failing that, what way this should be house-ruled. That's why I followed up with a few points to consider when making a decision on the feat.

There is RAW to cite.


Prerequisite: Heal 4 ranks
Benefit: Add +2 points per spell level to the amount of damage healed by any Conjuration [Healing] spell that you cast.
Any time you cast a Conjuration [Healing] spell you add +2 points per spell level to the damage healed. It doesn't matter how much or how little the base spell does. Zero is still a number; 0 + 2 = 2.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-27, 03:22 PM
There is RAW to cite.



Prerequisite: Heal 4 ranks
Benefit: Add +2 points per spell level to the amount of damage healed by any Conjuration [Healing] spell that you cast.

Any time you cast a Conjuration [Healing] spell you add +2 points per spell level to the damage healed. It doesn't matter how much or how little the base spell does. Zero is still a number; 0 + 2 = 2.

Take Cure light wounds and Lesser Restoration. The text doesn't state the word 'Heal' in any form, stating that the spells 'Cure' damage. Cure light wounds cures HP damage whereas Lesser Restoration cures ability damage. So according to RAW with the feat (and assuming a level 5 cleric), Cure Light Wounds cures 1d8+7 HP damage, Lesser restoration cures 1d4+4 ability damage.

The feat does NOT specify that the spells heal +2 points of HP damage/spell level. It specifies +2 points of Damage/spell level. The feat increases damage healed, and by RAW, cure X wounds cures HP damage, Restoration cures ability damage.

Yechezkiel
2007-06-27, 03:25 PM
Take Cure light wounds and Lesser Restoration. The text doesn't state the word 'Heal' in any form, stating that the spells 'Cure' damage. Cure light wounds cures HP damage whereas Lesser Restoration cures ability damage. So according to RAW with the feat (and assuming a level 5 cleric), Cure Light Wounds cures 1d8+7 HP damage, Lesser restoration cures 1d4+4 ability damage.

The feat does NOT specify that the spells heal +2 points of HP damage/spell level. It specifies +2 points of Damage/spell level. By RAW, cure X wounds cures HP damage, Restoration cures ability damage.

As an aside, do you believe 2 hp = 2 ability points in terms of game balance? Would you rather be hit by something that deals 10 damage or 10 ability damage?

Damionte
2007-06-27, 03:29 PM
HEAL used to cure almost everything. it's been neutered a bit in 3.5. Previously it just healed up a % of your hit points. Now it does a flat 10 points of damage per level of the caster.

Corolinth
2007-06-27, 03:42 PM
Ability score damage is specifically noted as such. "Damage" is hit point damage.


There is RAW to cite.No, there isn't RAW to cite. The spell Remove Blindness/Deafness does not say anything about healing 0 hit point damage. It doesn't mention healing damage at all. That's the point. You say that the lack of a specific number means it's 0, and since 0 is a real number, we can add 2x to it. Other people are saying the lack of any mention whatsoever means that there is no healing to add 2x to. You can't add 6 apples to book. Still others are pointing out that by literal interpretation, we would be adding 2 per spell level to spells that heal ability score damage, and that's by far more powerful than adding an equal amount to the hit point damage healed by a different spell of the same level.

There's no RAW to cite.

valadil
2007-06-27, 03:43 PM
As a DM, I'd allow this. Most of my games are casual though and you rarely see people trying to powergame.

Basically it's a question of whether other spells heal 0 hp or no hp. You can add +2 to 0 hp, but not to no hp. As a rules stickler/computer programmer I'm inclined to say that if there's no hp healed in a spell, there's no number to add to. null + 2 != 2.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-27, 03:52 PM
EDIT!!!! (See below)


As a DM, I'd allow this. Most of my games are casual though and you rarely see people trying to powergame.

Basically it's a question of whether other spells heal 0 hp or no hp. You can add +2 to 0 hp, but not to no hp. As a rules stickler/computer programmer I'm inclined to say that if there's no hp healed in a spell, there's no number to add to. null + 2 != 2.

The feat doesn't increase HP damage healed, just DAMAGE healed. Restoration also cures damage, just a different type of damage.


As an aside, do you believe 2 hp = 2 ability points in terms of game balance? Would you rather be hit by something that deals 10 damage or 10 ability damage?

Obviously 10 damage is much less significant than 10 ability damage (unless you're at 0 HP). However, the restoration spells are not combat effective (I doubt the cleric and his target have 3 rounds to spare casting any of the restoration spells during combat). As such, I see restoration as more of an 'after battle recovery' spell. Since ability damage is debilitating enough to halt a party for multiple days (especially if STR damage is involved and the fighter can't lift his armor), I'm not opposed to the idea of having restoration work a little more efficiently if it means that the party doesn't halt all progress for multiple days while they wait for ability damage to be healed.

EDIT: I looked through the SRD and it looks like 'Damage' in plain form does indeed refer to HP damage, and ability damage is its own seperate term. As such, I retract my statements :smallbiggrin:

Of course, I still believe that Lesser Restoration SUCKS for low level ability damage healing, as it tends to slow down game progression (1d4 ability damage per spell isn't much, especially when rolling 1s).

Yechezkiel
2007-06-27, 03:55 PM
My point is, that if you interpret Augment Healing as giving a bonus to anything but normal hp it becomes much more appealing and powerful, mechanically.

Jasdoif
2007-06-27, 04:12 PM
As an aside, do you believe 2 hp = 2 ability points in terms of game balance? Would you rather be hit by something that deals 10 damage or 10 ability damage?The damage one really depends on a number of factors. I'd rather have my Int dropped from 16 to 6 then have my hit points dropped from 9 to -1.


My point is, that if you interpret Augment Healing as giving a bonus to anything but normal hp it becomes much more appealing and powerful, mechanically.It's a feat. It's not supposed to look bad.

Besides, it's not like better healing of ability damage is totally game-breaking, since you could just rest and recover some of it anyway. If anything, it makes lesser restoration more useful to have prepared, since a single cast might actually be sufficient to make a difference.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-27, 04:24 PM
You can't add 6 apples to book.Sure you can. You put a book on the table, then you put six apples on the table. Now you have a book and six apples.

Similarly, you have an effect that cures blindness. In addition, you add 2 HP/spell level. Now you have an effect that cures blindness and heals 6 HP.

Yechezkiel
2007-06-27, 04:28 PM
Besides, it's not like better healing of ability damage is totally game-breaking, since you could just rest and recover some of it anyway. If anything, it makes lesser restoration more useful to have prepared, since a single cast might actually be sufficient to make a difference.

Not saying it's game breaking, I'm just pointing out that affecting 2 hp is vastly different then 2 ability points.

Jasdoif
2007-06-27, 04:30 PM
Sure you can. You put a book on the table, then you put six apples on the table. Now you have a book and six apples.

Similarly, you have an effect that cures blindness. In addition, you add 2 HP/spell level. Now you have an effect that cures blindness and heals 6 HP.It's questionable, seeing as the feat says you add to the amount of damage the spell heals, so if the spell doesn't heal damage it might not have anything to add to. It seems reasonable enough that I don't feel the need to argue it, however. (Incidentally, it'd be nice if the feat came out and said "Any creature that benefits from a Conjuration (healing) spell you cast is healed for two hit points per spell level, in addition to the spell's normal effects" or similar)

Likewise, I've decided that as written it doesn't increase ability damage healing; however I don't find that unreasonable (as a house rule), either.

Pestlepup
2007-06-28, 01:58 AM
I thought Restoration was supposed to heal all HP damage anyways? Or am I thinking of another spell?:smallconfused:

Whoops, forgot to add the critical word "Lesser" in front of the rest(oration). :smallredface:

LeeMon
2007-06-28, 03:51 PM
You can increment the number 0. You cannot increment a number which does not exist.

Generally speaking, actions in the rules which do not have valid targets fizzle, resolving without action. For example, if you have Cleave and drop an opponent, yet have no valid targets in range, you do not get to resolve Cleave in the manner most beneficial to you; it simply does nothing.

Cleave's action is "get an immediate, extra melee attack." Cleave's target of effect is "another creature within reach;" if that target does not exist, Cleave has no effect.

Augment Healing's action is "Add +2 points per spell level (of healing)." Augment Healing's target of effect is "the amount of damage healed by a Conjuration [Healing] spell." If Augment Healing is applied to a spell that does not heal damage, it has no effect, as it is being applied to an invalid target.

That's my take on it, at least.

Forks
2007-06-28, 04:48 PM
Augment Healing's action is "Add +2 points per spell level (of healing)." Augment Healing's target of effect is "the amount of damage healed by a Conjuration [Healing] spell." If Augment Healing is applied to a spell that does not heal damage, it has no effect, as it is being applied to an invalid target.

That's my take on it, at least.

The difference here, which others have pointed out, is that the RAW is unclear as to whether "the amount of damage healed etc" counts as a valid target if the amount is zero. Dont forget that zero is still technically an amount.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-28, 06:52 PM
LeeMon, I definitely see where you're coming from. It's quite logical to rule that if a spell doesn't heal any HP, it is simply lacking that ability. If it were in a database, it wouldn't even have the "Damage Healed" field, rather than having one with a 0 value. Which means the value cannot be added to, because it doesn't exist (rather than being zero).

But on the other hand, that strikes me as an overly technical legalistic way of reading the rule. There's no real RAW reason to start with the assumption that the healing "doesn't exist" rather than being "0 healing." Either way is reasonable, IMO.

That leaves us with a final guideline, which is "how big of a deal is it to allow this?" Which is not really a big deal at all. 2/spell level is not astonishingly great. Really, as far as I can tell the best deal you'll get from this interpretation is 14 HP of healing from Greater Restoration. At a level where you're casting that spell, 14 HP is not that big of a thing.

LeeMon
2007-06-29, 06:11 PM
Oh, it's certainly not a big deal at all. I recommend any DM use their fair judgement.

Yes, it's a very technical breakdown of the wording. Of course, to look at a bigger picture, the feat name "Augment Healing" suggests that it's intended for a boost to spells that are already healing.

I'll try to present another angle. You can sneak attack with a weaponlike spell, defined in Complete Arcane as "Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage..." If you use such a spell (and qualify for sneak attack), you add your sneak attack damage.

May I argue (for a moment) that Touch of Fatigue deals no damage, and thus deals zero damage? If so, then does that mean it deals an amount of damage (even if it is zero), and that I may add sneak attack? Touch of Fatigue "channel[s] negative energy", so I know the energy type, and I would find it very useful to sneak attack negative energy with a cantrip.

I don't believe the above is actually true, though. The reason (as I understand it) is that there actually is a difference between a spell that does 0 damage and a spell that does not do damage.

It's shaky (I see points in my logic where I'm hopping a bit), but I feel that it's closest to the intention and closest to the wording. The feat's worded poorly, and I can only make a moderate case against the argument due to the poor wording, but I do feel the rules differentiate between "does not have this effect" and "has this effect with a value of 0." If I allowed this in my campaign, I would fully expect my players to make a case for sneak attack spells based on that decision, and really, I'd have more trouble defending THAT issue (in light of letting Augment Healing boost non-healing spells) than I would this one.

To be clear, again, I don't think it's a big issue other than setting a precedent with one's group of players. Everyone's free to decide this murky case for their own table. However, when discussing Rules As Written, things usually center around whether it's permitted, with disregard (for better or worse) to whether it is balanced. :)

Lemur
2007-06-29, 06:28 PM
In regards to the Vigor chain of spells:

None of the vigor spells actually cure any damage to the target. All that the spell itself does is grant the fast healing ability to the target for a period of time. So Vigor isn't affected by Augment Healing any more than Remove Blindness/Deafness.