Mass Cure Wounds spells

[Biggus]

These never seem to see any use, as the amount of damage they heal is pretty trivial by the time you get them, so I'm considering dropping them all by one level. Is there any reason not to do this? On the other hand, would they still be too weak to use even if I did?

[Telonius]

Mass Cure Light would be wand-eligible, and you'd need to re-fit the Healing Domain spells. If you're bumping down all the Cure spells (not just the Mass versions) it might make out-of-combat healing less expensive. There may be some magic items that would have their prices altered, if Mass Cure was one of the spells used to make them.

Would the Inflict line have a similar change?

[HouseRules]

Well, Mass Spells as a meta-magic should be +2. The other parts are +1 to make the melee touch attack becomes range touch attack. Then, an arbitrary +1 to +3 is added. That's why when we look at the list of Mass Spells, they have a range from +2 to +6.

[Biggus]

Mass Cure Light would be wand-eligible, and you'd need to re-fit the Healing Domain spells. If you're bumping down all the Cure spells (not just the Mass versions) it might make out-of-combat healing less expensive. There may be some magic items that would have their prices altered, if Mass Cure was one of the spells used to make them.

Would the Inflict line have a similar change?

I'm only thinking of bumping down the mass versions. I'll probably do the same for the Mass Inflict spells too, as they're similarly uninspiring for their level. I don't see a problem with Mass CLW being wand-eligible, unless there's something I'm missing?

I hadn't thought of the Healing Domain spells, thanks for pointing that out. Again, I don't see it as a major problem, but it's something I need to think about.

[Telonius]

I don't see any particular problem with wand access - just trying to think of any mechanical things this would affect beyond just changing the spell levels. I usually take a minute to think about any indirect consequences a houserule might have. 3.5 has a lot of moving parts, and even something that seems like a minor change could have bigger impacts than you might think. Anyway, yeah, I don't see how this would unbalance things.

[Xasten]

In my campaign, I doubled the D8s that each mass spell does, and they see a lot more use after that.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The Mass Cure and Mass Inflict spells get one target per level, they don't specify that you can't target the same creature twice.

So for Mass Cure Light Wounds:
"You channel positive energy to cure 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25) in each selected creature."

A 10th level caster can choose ten targets. Each target is healed for 1d8+10 for each time they're targeted by the spell, but the total bonus can't exceed +25.

A creature targeted twice by that caster is healed for 2d8+20. A creature targeted three times by that caster is healed for 3d8+25. A creature targeted four times is healed for 4d8+25, and so on.


Why else would Mass Cure Serious Wounds say it maxes out at +35 in the core rules, when you can't reasonably expect to have a caster level of 35? Same for Mass Cure Critical Wounds maxing out at +40.


Ruling it this way also makes the Mass Inflict spells significantly more viable.

[Biggus]

I don't see any particular problem with wand access - just trying to think of any mechanical things this would affect beyond just changing the spell levels. I usually take a minute to think about any indirect consequences a houserule might have. 3.5 has a lot of moving parts, and even something that seems like a minor change could have bigger impacts than you might think. Anyway, yeah, I don't see how this would unbalance things.

Thank you, yes that's why I asked about it on here: house rules often indirect consequences I haven't thought of, and there's a good chance one of the more experienced players will pick it up if so.


In my campaign, I doubled the D8s that each mass spell does, and they see a lot more use after that.

Hmmm, that's not a bad idea, I might do that instead. Mass Cure Critical Wounds is still pretty weak as a 7th-level spell as written.


The Mass Cure and Mass Inflict spells get one target per level, they don't specify that you can't target the same creature twice.

So for Mass Cure Light Wounds:
"You channel positive energy to cure 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25) in each selected creature."

A 10th level caster can choose ten targets. Each target is healed for 1d8+10 for each time they're targeted by the spell, but the total bonus can't exceed +25.

A creature targeted twice by that caster is healed for 2d8+20. A creature targeted three times by that caster is healed for 3d8+25. A creature targeted four times is healed for 4d8+25, and so on.


Why else would Mass Cure Serious Wounds say it maxes out at +35 in the core rules, when you can't reasonably expect to have a caster level of 35? Same for Mass Cure Critical Wounds maxing out at +40.


Ruling it this way also makes the Mass Inflict spells significantly more viable.

Interesting, it had never occurred to me that it could be ruled that way. I'd assumed that the +25 to +40 caster level limits were because

1) it continues the existing pattern of the individual Cure Wounds spells

2) epic is part of core in 3.5

3) even at nonepic levels a Cleric can potentially get their CL up to at least 31 for healing spells using only the core rules

Having said that, I can't think of any other spells which have CL limits higher than 25 off the top of my head.

[H_H_F_F]

The Mass Cure and Mass Inflict spells get one target per level, they don't specify that you can't target the same creature twice.

So for Mass Cure Light Wounds:
"You channel positive energy to cure 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25) in each selected creature."

A 10th level caster can choose ten targets. Each target is healed for 1d8+10 for each time they're targeted by the spell, but the total bonus can't exceed +25.

A creature targeted twice by that caster is healed for 2d8+20. A creature targeted three times by that caster is healed for 3d8+25. A creature targeted four times is healed for 4d8+25, and so on.


Why else would Mass Cure Serious Wounds say it maxes out at +35 in the core rules, when you can't reasonably expect to have a caster level of 35? Same for Mass Cure Critical Wounds maxing out at +40.


Ruling it this way also makes the Mass Inflict spells significantly more viable.

This may be RAW, though I don't think so. The thing is, your point about the caster level limit seems to imply you think it's RAI, and that seems absurd to me. The descriptors "mass" and "target" are never used in spells this way. If someone thinks that would be a good houserule for their table, they should use it, but it is a houserule.

[Zombimode]

From a linguistic standpoint this doesn't make much sense. The spell description talks about "selecting" and being selected is not a quantity. It's a binary state: either you are selected or you are not.

From a text interpretation standpoint this also seems highly unlikely. In essence you're saying that Mass Cure Spells work like Magic Missile. But Magic Missile uses a very different language, and more importantly, makes it explicit that you can direct more then one missile at the same target. So IF Mass Cure Spells should work like Magic Missile then why the decription isn't similar?

It's fairly safe to conclude that Mass Cure Spells are not meant to work like Magic Missile.


Having said that, I'm totally for houseruling them that way.

[Khedrac]

The Mass Cure and Mass Inflict spells get one target per level, they don't specify that you can't target the same creature twice.

I strongly recommend not doing this, it opens up an arms race the DM will win.

The next time a party of e.g. 6 characters runs into a 12th level caster who casts slow every character will have to make two saves or be slowed - they will all be targetted twice. Admittedly, for most of these spells being affected mreo than once won't stack, but it does make multiple-target save-or-lose spells far mroe powerful.

In the "slow" example, I probably wouldn't even bother to target the party casters - they probably only make a single offensive act per round, but the poor melee types will find they get 3 saves each (or 4 for the 2-weapon fighter) just to make sure they become ineffective.

Higher level save-or-lose spells will just be worse.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I strongly recommend not doing this, it opens up an arms race the DM will win.

The next time a party of e.g. 6 characters runs into a 12th level caster who casts slow every character will have to make two saves or be slowed - they will all be targetted twice. Admittedly, for most of these spells being affected mreo than once won't stack, but it does make multiple-target save-or-lose spells far mroe powerful.

In the "slow" example, I probably wouldn't even bother to target the party casters - they probably only make a single offensive act per round, but the poor melee types will find they get 3 saves each (or 4 for the 2-weapon fighter) just to make sure they become ineffective.

Higher level save-or-lose spells will just be worse.

Not exactly. If you target the same creature six times with a Mass Inflict spell, you've only cast the spell once so they only make one save, and you get one roll vs SR. Same goes for Slow and similar, no matter how many times they choose to call the same creature as a target, that creature only needs to make one save to resist the whole spell. Only the effect of the spell would stack, and Slow doesn't have an effect that becomes stronger the more it's used on a single creature, since untyped penalties from the same source don't stack.

Other spells that may benefit from targeting the same creature more than once specify that the same creature can't be targeted multiple times, such as Chain Lightning.

[Vaern]

Other spells that may benefit from targeting the same creature more than once specify that the same creature can't be targeted multiple times, such as Chain Lightning.
Chain lightning is described as a bolt of electricity arcing from one target to the next, making it a specific case where it was necessary to state that the bolt can't simply bounce back and forth between two creatures. As far as I'm aware, it's the only spell that makes this distinction and and the only one whose fluff necessitates this level of specificity.

[Ashiel]

These never seem to see any use, as the amount of damage they heal is pretty trivial by the time you get them, so I'm considering dropping them all by one level. Is there any reason not to do this? On the other hand, would they still be too weak to use even if I did?

There are several things the mass cure spells have going for them that make them worthwhile.

1. They are ranged which is not commonplace for heals in base D&D/Pathfinder. This means you can provide heals even when you're not right on top of the person needing healing.

2. Their base healing is not impressive, but they have much higher caster level limits than their regular counterparts (cure light wounds heals up to 1d8+5, mass cure light wounds heals up to 1d8+25), and those caster level bonuses are multiplied when using empower spell as they are considered part of the variable spell effect.

3. The total amount of healing is actually very large compared to general healing, which makes it quite effective for topping off damage taken from AoEs in a hurry. By the time you get the spell, you can heal up to 9 characters for 1d8+9 damage (minimum 10, max 19). Even if you only target a party of 4, that's between 40-76 hit points healed for your party for 1 spell slot, and more than likely will completely erase the damage taken by common AoEs, relieving any pressure they applied. However, there's a good chance that your typical party will also have a variety of minions, cohorts, animal companions, summons, and other things you can heal as well.

4. They are cure spells so they can be spontaneously cast as a positive-cleric. They also can harm undead, albeit not for a whole lot. Still, minimum damage is plenty to sweep low-level undead who are just acting as path-blockers or aid-spammers.

5. If you happen to have a Vitalist in the party, these spells become absolutely incredible. :smallsmile:

[nedz]

Why else would Mass Cure Serious Wounds say it maxes out at +35 in the core rules, when you can't reasonably expect to have a caster level of 35? Same for Mass Cure Critical Wounds maxing out at +40.
It's a simple formulae: 5 x Spell level [Cleric]
Mass Cure Serious Wounds is a 7th level Cleric spell so the limit is +35
Mass Cure Critical Wounds is a 8th level Cleric spell so the limit is +40

They do have uses: if, say, you have several PCs down and you want to get them all back in action immediately then you cast one of these.

Also, these pre-dates spells like Mass Lesser Vigor.

[Thurbane]

The Mass Cures are more useful if you can attach some sort of rider effect which affects multiple targets, like the Deity's Favor ACF for a Favored Soul of 12th level or higher.

The Imbued Healing feat is another option.

[Ashiel]

Clerics also have the most ways of getting pretty goofy caster level buffs in core. You can get a +5 bonus to caster level just with death knell + prayer beads: karma. That's also before you consider that spells can exist as SLAs possessed by creatures and characters outside of PCs, some of which have exceptionally high caster levels for their HD or CRs.

IIRC, it was a pretty common meta for a while to build clerics who had something like +11 CL and just wipe level-appropriate things with spells like holy word and blasphemy.

[Biggus]

1. They are ranged which is not commonplace for heals in base D&D/Pathfinder. This means you can provide heals even when you're not right on top of the person needing healing.

This is a fair point.



2. Their base healing is not impressive, but they have much higher caster level limits than their regular counterparts (cure light wounds heals up to 1d8+5, mass cure light wounds heals up to 1d8+25)

This is true, but by the time you can take full advantage of a very high caster level limit, the amount of damage healed is a small percentage of a character's total HPs. Also, if you're a Cleric, you have Mass Heal by that point, which is vastly more powerful than any of the Cure Spells.



and those caster level bonuses are multiplied when using empower spell as they are considered part of the variable spell effect.

You can get a little more mileage out of them this way if you can boost your caster level enough, but you're still using a level 7+ spell slot for not very much healing, unless you have some form of metamagic reduction.



3. The total amount of healing is actually very large compared to general healing, which makes it quite effective for topping off damage taken from AoEs in a hurry. By the time you get the spell, you can heal up to 9 characters for 1d8+9 damage (minimum 10, max 19).

Huh? A Fireball does 9d6=31.5 average damage at level 9, Mass CLW heals 1d8+9=13.5 average.



5. If you happen to have a Vitalist in the party, these spells become absolutely incredible. :smallsmile:

I don't know the Vitalist class, I mostly use 3.5 material (hence the 3rd Ed tag on this thread) although I do allow some PF stuff on a case-by-case basis.


The Mass Cures are more useful if you can attach some sort of rider effect which affects multiple targets, like the Deity's Favor ACF for a Favored Soul of 12th level or higher.

The Imbued Healing feat is another option.

There are several ways to make them better if you're willing to spend resources specialising in healing, but in general specialising in healing seems to be regarded as a waste of a character.

[Darg]

If the mass cure spells can target the same target more than once, then eldritch doom can do the same infinitely. I just don't think AoE spells work that way.

Healing overall isn't a zero sum game. The way D&D was designed was that resources over time are expended. Healing is meant as a way to increase the sustainability of the resource "HP." It doesn't need to be stronger than it is already. Specializing is only bad when your selected niche isn't good enough. In D&D putting all your eggs in one basket is always a good way to end up with nothing.

[King of Nowhere]

there is a feat that increases healing by 2 hit points per spell level. with that feat, mass cure light wounds become quite useful, as it heals 10 more to everyone. i agree without that feat the whole spell line is quite rubbish.


The Mass Cure and Mass Inflict spells get one target per level, they don't specify that you can't target the same creature twice.

putting aside the other rule arguments others have put forth, if that was the case a 10th level cleric targeting a single person would deal 10d8+100, making this spell as powerful as harm, but ranged. at 15th level it would deal 15d8+225, effectively becoming a save-or-die (and even if you save, you are half dead). at 20th level, it would be 20d8+400, most characters would not survive even if they made the saving throw. all from an unmodified 5th level spell.
and let's not talk about increasing caster level; a cleric with CL 30 casting mass inflict moderate wounds would deal 60d8+900 damage.

i'm sure that wasn't the intended effect

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

putting aside the other rule arguments others have put forth, if that was the case a 10th level cleric targeting a single person would deal 10d8+100, making this spell as powerful as harm, but ranged. at 15th level it would deal 15d8+225, effectively becoming a save-or-die (and even if you save, you are half dead). at 20th level, it would be 20d8+400, most characters would not survive even if they made the saving throw. all from an unmodified 5th level spell.
and let's not talk about increasing caster level; a cleric with CL 30 casting mass inflict moderate wounds would deal 60d8+900 damage.

i'm sure that wasn't the intended effect

I think you missed the part about the spells being hard capped at +25 to +40 depending on the specific spell. That 10th level Cleric targeting the same person ten times only gets 10d8+25, which will average out to 70.

[King of Nowhere]

I think you missed the part about the spells being hard capped at +25 to +40 depending on the specific spell. That 10th level Cleric targeting the same person ten times only gets 10d8+25, which will average out to 70.

that's... an even less defensible interpretation.

the spell deals 1d8+(max 25) to every target. if you interpret that you can target the same person twice, and you deal twice the damage, then also the cap is applied only to a single instance of the spell taking effect. as in, you deal (max 25), and then you deal (max 25) again.

there's no way your interpretation can be justified either as RAW or as RAI.
that said, if you want to keep it as a houserule to reinforce and otherwise weak spell, it's probably a good houserule.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

that's... an even less defensible interpretation.

the spell deals 1d8+(max 25) to every target. if you interpret that you can target the same person twice, and you deal twice the damage, then also the cap is applied only to a single instance of the spell taking effect. as in, you deal (max 25), and then you deal (max 25) again.

there's no way your interpretation can be justified either as RAW or as RAI.
that said, if you want to keep it as a houserule to reinforce and otherwise weak spell, it's probably a good houserule.

No, it cures 1d8 + 1 per caster level to each target, with a hard limit of +25 per roll.

So at CL 10, it's 1d8+10 per target, a creature targeted twice gets 2d8+20, a creature targeted three times gets 3d8+25 because the bonus rolled for a given creature is capped at +25.

[Thurbane]

If the mass cure spells can target the same target more than once, then eldritch doom can do the same infinitely. I just don't think AoE spells work that way.

Healing overall isn't a zero sum game. The way D&D was designed was that resources over time are expended. Healing is meant as a way to increase the sustainability of the resource "HP." It doesn't need to be stronger than it is already. Specializing is only bad when your selected niche isn't good enough. In D&D putting all your eggs in one basket is always a good way to end up with nothing.

^^ Very much this, IMHO.

Side note: I have made characters entirely optimised for healing and pretty much nothing else - but these have been support NPCs for the party, built specifically so as not to overshadow or step on the toes of the PCs.

[ngilop]

These never seem to see any use, as the amount of damage they heal is pretty trivial by the time you get them, so I'm considering dropping them all by one level. Is there any reason not to do this? On the other hand, would they still be too weak to use even if I did?

trivial healing?

I think you don't seem to understand what '1 creature per level' actually means perhaps?

You are lets just say... 12th level; so that means you are healing 12 creatures for 2d8 plus 12. You only have 3 members other than you, in your party. So that means each is able to get healed 6d8+36.

I do not think a reasonable person would say that ~63 HP per person healed, for ~252 total hit points is 'trivial'.

But, then I am not the typical GiTPer, so i guess a 12 level character probably has like 1000 HP or closer to it than the 100-150 that I normally see on front liners.

[Ashiel]

Huh? A Fireball does 9d6=31.5 average damage at level 9, Mass CLW heals 1d8+9=13.5 average.
Any adventurers adventuring in this level range should be sporting at least resist-10 against most common elements, if not higher, since resist energy is one of the most common core spells (showing up on almost all spell lists in core and has a long duration, and is low enough in level that it's very cheap if acquired via magic items, as it is a 1st level spell for the purposes of magic item pricing due to Rangers).

Resist energy is always the first step to handling AoE or focused elemental spam (such as groups of adepts who toss very powerful lightning bolt spells relative to their CRs, kobolds throwing alchemist fires with point blank shot, or traps and environmental hazards like acid showers or fires erupting through floor grates), but having a nice way to top off or quickly bring multiple downed allies out of the unconscious zone is an attractive option that supports this other common spell.

I would also like to note that mass heal is superior in every respect, and heal is the ultimate healing spell and dwarfs all cure spells. But it's also a higher level and cannot be spontaneously cast. Lower level spells are easier to cast, and also more practical to use with metamagic rods, since spells of 7/8/9th level tend to be very expensive to buy or craft rods of quicken for.

Mind you, nothing that I have said is necessarily saying that mass cure spells are as strong as they perhaps should be. I wouldn't lose any sleep if they got buffed a bit. I was just showing that the spell does have its merits, especially in the environment in was introduced in.


I don't know the Vitalist class, I mostly use 3.5 material (hence the 3rd Ed tag on this thread) although I do allow some PF stuff on a case-by-case basis.
Vitalist is a psionic healing class released by Dreamscarred Press for Pathfinder. The TL;DR is it's a very fun, very effective healing class, and one of its core features is that it can re-distribute healing between a limited number of targets. This means it's a healer that gets better with other healers in the party. For example, if a vitalist was in a party with a cleric and the cleric cast mass cure light wounds to heal the whole party for 1d8+9 hit points each, the vitalist could then take the total and redistribute it to whom needed it the most (such as the severely injured front-line warrior).


There are several ways to make them better if you're willing to spend resources specialising in healing, but in general specialising in healing seems to be regarded as a waste of a character.Depends on the resources available. Vitalists are competent healers. Spheres of Might and Power make for good healers as well, and fun ones at that. The problem with core healing is that an ounce of prevention is usually worth a pound of cure. :smalltongue:

[Darg]

The problem with core healing is that an ounce of prevention is usually worth a pound of cure. :smalltongue:

It's worth more than that. The more you reduce the damage intake, the more effective healing becomes.


Huh? A Fireball does 9d6=31.5 average damage at level 9, Mass CLW heals 1d8+9=13.5 average.

You forgot about saving throws too. At DC 17 (+4) the bare minimum saving throws your party could have minus extenuating effects is 2 all the way up to 14. 27.6 average damage to 18.1 average damage.

[Elkad]

I've raised all "cure" spells from d8 to d12 (and I tried 2d8 in the prior campaign). But that's not really relevant when comparing cures as it applies to the Mass versions as well. (it does matter vs vigor)

If I dropped the Mass versions a level, I think that's enough to get more use out of them.

My groups are always bigger than 4 players, so they do get some additional value from that as well. And by 9th (or 7th with the reduced level) there will always be some sort of companions around as well. Plenty of targets to get the full use while skipping the ones that don't need it.

8th level caster. 4d8+8 to one target. Or 1d8+8 to 8 targets. 26hp vs 100hp. That's a pretty big jump.

Once you compare to the Vigor spells (for out-of-combat healing), my d12 houserule matters.

Extended Mass Lesser Vigor. 4th level slot. 36hp for 4 targets, 144hp total.
Mass CLW out of a 4th level slot with d12s. 116hp (with a large enough party). Not as good, but it's a single round, not 36.

You could get the extend for the vigor out of a cheap lesser rod, and that really makes the mass clw look bad - especially if it's still d8s and Level 5.

[nedz]

Any adventurers adventuring in this level range should be sporting at least resist-10 against most common elements, if not higher, since resist energy is one of the most common core spells (showing up on almost all spell lists in core and has a long duration, and is low enough in level that it's very cheap if acquired via magic items, as it is a 1st level spell for the purposes of magic item pricing due to Rangers).

Resist energy is always the first step to handling AoE or focused elemental spam (such as groups of adepts who toss very powerful lightning bolt spells relative to their CRs, kobolds throwing alchemist fires with point blank shot, or traps and environmental hazards like acid showers or fires erupting through floor grates), but having a nice way to top off or quickly bring multiple downed allies out of the unconscious zone is an attractive option that supports this other common spell.
In some games perhaps. I have seen games where Evasion was ubiquitous on both sides - that works against AoEs too.


You could get the extend for the vigor out of a cheap lesser rod, and that really makes the mass clw look bad - especially if it's still d8s and Level 5.
Well maybe

The vigor series of spells (found in Complete Divine) raise an interesting question. Does the built-in maximum duration of each spell limitation override the effect of the Extend Spell feat?
Yes. Extend Spell still increases the spell’s duration, but only up to the spell’s listed maximum duration. Use either the normal maximum duration or the doubled duration, whichever is less. If a 7th-level druid used Extend Spell on her vigor spell, the duration could not increase beyond 25 rounds.

[Elkad]

That faq ruling is ridiculous. (So it fits right in with most of the rest of them)
I bet whoever wrote that thinks you can't extend Heat Metal either and get 10 rounds of "searing" in the middle.

[Vaern]

That's why the FAQ generally isn't regarded as official errata or RAW. It's basically one writer's personal rulings with no review or oversight from anyone else involved in the game's development. We could apply the same logic to, say, an empowered fireball or lightning bolt and rule that you can increase the damage of the spell by 50%, but only up to its set maximum of 10d6.

[nedz]

That faq ruling is ridiculous. (So it fits right in with most of the rest of them)
I bet whoever wrote that thinks you can't extend Heat Metal either and get 10 rounds of "searing" in the middle.

Yes I agree, but I thought I'd mention it.

[Ashiel]

Personally, rather than buffing the dice, buffing the caster level benefit to +2 or +3 per caster level would make most of the cure spells much more attractive and less random. Makes potions and such more attractive as well since you're not going to just roll 2 hp worth of healing on your 50 gp potion. :smalltongue:

[Thurbane]

Would making the entire Cure line of spells a Move Action casting time help, or open up a new can of worms?

[nedz]

Would making the entire Cure line of spells a Move Action casting time help, or open up a new can of worms?

I actually think that they are fine — at least I've never heard a complaint at a table.
That said, I've never seen anyone cast any of the mass ones twice.

[Thurbane]

I actually think that they are fine — at least I've never heard a complaint at a table.
That said, I've never seen anyone cast any of the mass ones twice.

Same here - at least regarding complaints about Cures. We rarely play high enough level to get the Mass Cure spells.

Honestly, I never saw an issue with in combat healing, until I started reading optimisation forums. I've explained the PoV that healing in combat is a wasted action, and my whole group shrugged it off. As I said, we play low-ish level mostly, and Raise Dead etc. can be difficult to come by, so stopping people from dying in the first place is a priority.

Yes yes, I know - that standard action you "wasted" on a Cure could have been spent taking out one (or more) of the attackers blah blah. I've heard ALL of the arguments, and to be honest, it largely depends on the optimisation level, character level/play level, and play style of an individual table as to how true all of that is.

[Vaern]

On the other hand, would they still be too weak to use even if I did?
I once played a healer, starting at level 6, who used the Complete Divine version of Sacred Healing to convert daily uses of Turn Undead into AoE fast healing to all of my allies. Upon looking into that old build for the purpose of responding to this thread with a bit of AoE healing accessible before mass cure spells, I found that there is another feat named Sacred Healing in PHB2. The PHB2 version is much less impressive and barely worth mentioning, except that it grants access to the Sacred Purification feat which looks amazing for early game healing.
Sacred Purification is activated by a swift action, healing everyone within a 60 foot burst for 1d8 + your charisma bonus and harming undead for the same amount. This healing doesn't really scale at all and will fall off in mid to late game, but it's great early on. It's effectively a quckened mass cure that you can burn on someone else's turn, expanded from a 30-foot diameter spread to a 120-foot diameter, without the limit of one target per caster level, and without burning an actual spell slot. On top of all of that, it's accessible at level 1 to your average human cleric with no flaws or other cheese to meet prerequisites.
The downside, of course, is that it heals everyone within the area - not just selected targets. Still good for a clutch heal if someone's about to die or a pick-me-up between encounters, if nothing else.

[King of Nowhere]

Yes yes, I know - that standard action you "wasted" on a Cure could have been spent taking out one (or more) of the attackers blah blah. I've heard ALL of the arguments, and to be honest, it largely depends on the optimisation level, character level/play level, and play style of an individual table as to how true all of that is.

it also depends on the situation. if three opponents attacked your ally, and you undo the damage with a single spell, you are winning the action economy.
actually, provided that no one is one-shotted, healing is a very reliable way of taking one enemy out of combat (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0077.html). you cast a spell so he doesn't get to act, or you cast a spell to undo what he did, what's the difference? and in the second case he doesn't even get a saving throw.
and let's not talk about mass heal, i've seen a high level cleric dominate the board just with that. though it helps that at my table i tend to shore up defences a bit so instakills are less likely.

[Biggus]

trivial healing?

I think you don't seem to understand what '1 creature per level' actually means perhaps?

You are lets just say... 12th level; so that means you are healing 12 creatures for 2d8 plus 12. You only have 3 members other than you, in your party. So that means each is able to get healed 6d8+36.

I do not think a reasonable person would say that ~63 HP per person healed, for ~252 total hit points is 'trivial'.

But, then I am not the typical GiTPer, so i guess a 12 level character probably has like 1000 HP or closer to it than the 100-150 that I normally see on front liners.

The interpretation that you can target one person several times with the same Mass Cure spell is highly debatable. See Biffoniacus_Furiou's posts and the replies to them above.


I've raised all "cure" spells from d8 to d12 (and I tried 2d8 in the prior campaign). But that's not really relevant when comparing cures as it applies to the Mass versions as well. (it does matter vs vigor)

If I dropped the Mass versions a level, I think that's enough to get more use out of them.

My groups are always bigger than 4 players, so they do get some additional value from that as well. And by 9th (or 7th with the reduced level) there will always be some sort of companions around as well. Plenty of targets to get the full use while skipping the ones that don't need it.

8th level caster. 4d8+8 to one target. Or 1d8+8 to 8 targets. 26hp vs 100hp. That's a pretty big jump.

Once you compare to the Vigor spells (for out-of-combat healing), my d12 houserule matters.

Extended Mass Lesser Vigor. 4th level slot. 36hp for 4 targets, 144hp total.
Mass CLW out of a 4th level slot with d12s. 116hp (with a large enough party). Not as good, but it's a single round, not 36.

You could get the extend for the vigor out of a cheap lesser rod, and that really makes the mass clw look bad - especially if it's still d8s and Level 5.

Yeah, I'm now leaning towards increasing the base damage of the Mass Cure spells based on your and Xasten's suggestions, it seems to be less problematic than changing the level.


Same here - at least regarding complaints about Cures. We rarely play high enough level to get the Mass Cure spells.

Honestly, I never saw an issue with in combat healing, until I started reading optimisation forums. I've explained the PoV that healing in combat is a wasted action, and my whole group shrugged it off. As I said, we play low-ish level mostly, and Raise Dead etc. can be difficult to come by, so stopping people from dying in the first place is a priority.

Yes yes, I know - that standard action you "wasted" on a Cure could have been spent taking out one (or more) of the attackers blah blah. I've heard ALL of the arguments, and to be honest, it largely depends on the optimisation level, character level/play level, and play style of an individual table as to how true all of that is.

I agree that it depends. I certainly don't think that healing in combat is always a wasted action, but it does become a law of diminishing returns as you go up levels, until Heal and Mass Heal become available.

[nedz]

Same here - at least regarding complaints about Cures. We rarely play high enough level to get the Mass Cure spells.

Honestly, I never saw an issue with in combat healing, until I started reading optimisation forums. I've explained the PoV that healing in combat is a wasted action, and my whole group shrugged it off. As I said, we play low-ish level mostly, and Raise Dead etc. can be difficult to come by, so stopping people from dying in the first place is a priority.

Yes yes, I know - that standard action you "wasted" on a Cure could have been spent taking out one (or more) of the attackers blah blah. I've heard ALL of the arguments, and to be honest, it largely depends on the optimisation level, character level/play level, and play style of an individual table as to how true all of that is.

Well if someone is down, and you spend your action to bring them back into action then that's a win from an action economy POV.
Also stopping them dying, if that's imminent, can save lots of resources in having to raise them etc.
Thirdly: your character may have no more effective action than healing another PC - this is entirely situational.
But otherwise - yes - the game is geared towards offence.

[Zombimode]

That's why Close Wounds is so great. Sure, it heals even less then a Cure Serious Wounds, but range and immediate action casting time will get you the healing exactly when you need it.

[Biggus]

Why else would Mass Cure Serious Wounds say it maxes out at +35 in the core rules, when you can't reasonably expect to have a caster level of 35? Same for Mass Cure Critical Wounds maxing out at +40.


Just noticed that Regenerate, which like CSW is 7th-level but is single-target, also maxes out at +35, so apparently the designers do expect you to have a caster level of over 30...

[Darg]

Just noticed that Regenerate, which like CSW is 7th-level but is single-target, also maxes out at +35, so apparently the designers do expect you to have a caster level of over 30...

Or if you look at the Healing Domain (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm#healingDomain) you'll see that it follows the formula of +5 maximum per spell level.

[farothel]

Mass cures can also be useful for keeping low-level cohorts and allies alive. If you have a bunch of allies keeping a bunch of equally low level enemies at bay, having a cleric to keep them going will mean you win that battle, while the PCs can concentrate on the enemy commanders.

That being said, I'm not sure if the 'you can target people twice' would be a good idea. As GM I'm always of a mind that 'whatever the PCs can do, the enemy can do as well'. So if you allow it for the PCs, the enemies can do that kind of healing as well. The same goes for other spells, like inflict spells.