Healing word

[JobsforFun]

I just had a quick question about the healing word spell and other ones like cure wounds that do a dice + your wisdom modifier. If for whatever reason someone had a negative wisdom modifier and had healing word and cast the spell on someone would that be 1d4+ a -3 for example? I know most people shouldn't have a negative modifier for wisdom if they have healing spells such as cure wounds and healing word but if so would that be how it works?

[nickl_2000]

Yes it could be negative if you were hit with some pretty hard curses.

[Dalebert]

Does it say "minimum of 1"? I don't recall so probably not. I'd say it minimums out at zero. It wouldn't do dmg to someone. Though I don't think they thought of that possibility when writing the spell and I have no idea if healing for negative points is a thing that can happen by RAW based on some rules lawyering.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Does it say "minimum of 1"? I don't recall so probably not. I'd say it minimums out at zero. It wouldn't do dmg to someone.

That's how I would rule it. The text of the spell does indeed not specify a minimum, so zero is the safest assumption. No matter how dumb you are, you can't hurt someone with a healing spell.

[Dappershire]

That's how I would rule it. The text of the spell does indeed not specify a minimum, so zero is the safest assumption. No matter how dumb you are, you can't hurt someone with a healing spell.

You could be uneducated enough to pull the energy for the spell from the wrong source. Say, a necromantic one.

[Dalebert]

You could be uneducated enough to pull the energy for the spell from the wrong source. Say, a necromantic one.

Here's the problem with that. You'd be allowing another use of the spell accidentally that a more competent person couldn't do on purpose. Nah. I'd go with the spell just fizzles because you were so barely able to cast it.

[Arkhios]

Also, I don't think spell schools are as "transparent" as that you could accidentally slip from one school to another.

Considering that spells that restore hit points are evocation in 5th edition, it means they create something (in this case hit points) out of nothing. You can't just "create" negative hit points.

[Beelzebubba]

"The spell successfully heals that nagging paper cut on their left thumb. Unfortunately, that was only 1/20th hit point of damage, so they're still unconscious."

[xanderh]

If you allow healing word with negative modifier to deal damage, you'd also have to allow an unarmed attack with negative modifier to heal people. There's no meaningful difference in the way they are worded, and neither has a stated minimum. Yet, most people play with unarmed strikes dealing a minimum of 0 damage. The only reasonable thing to do is to treat healing the same way.

[RickAllison]

If you allow healing word with negative modifier to deal damage, you'd also have to allow an unarmed attack with negative modifier to heal people. There's no meaningful difference in the way they are worded, and neither has a stated minimum. Yet, most people play with unarmed strikes dealing a minimum of 0 damage. The only reasonable thing to do is to treat healing the same way.

You know what, I'm going to allow it now just so I can have a monk Order of the Healing Hands. Since Martial Arts only says you can use the 1dX for your damage and that you can use Strength, the monks will go around dumping Strength to heal with their fists. "Falcon... HEAL!"

[pwykersotz]

If you allow healing word with negative modifier to deal damage, you'd also have to allow an unarmed attack with negative modifier to heal people. There's no meaningful difference in the way they are worded, and neither has a stated minimum. Yet, most people play with unarmed strikes dealing a minimum of 0 damage. The only reasonable thing to do is to treat healing the same way.

Bah! Unreasonable you say? An unarmed attack with a negative modifier is a refreshing massage, replenishing vigor and soothing aches!