I don't get why Bear's Endurance is a suggested "druid healing"

[ciopo]

What the topic says.

I've seen here and there mentioned that Bear's endurance is the staple way for druids to do combat healing.

And well, I don't get it.

I understand that for combat healing, it's probably the best scaling one, assuming the target doesn't have enhancement bonus to constitution from elsewhere, it's an hefty 2HP per HD of the target, sweet!

But, it needs the target to not have a constitution enhancement bonus from elsewhere, AND the HP go away X minutes later, so you need to heal that damage with something else anyway.

Therefore, I don't understand why I've seen so many praises sung to the effectivenes of using Bear's endurance for "healing"

Am I missing something?

[Kurald Galain]

Yep.

Ok, so you're a level 5 fighter with 40 hit points. At that level, you very likely don't have an item that enhances your constitution, because that's pretty expensive for level 5 and really not a priority.

Situation 1:
You have 40/40 hit points. You get hit during combat for 16 damage total. You now have 24/40 hit points.

Situation 2:
I cast Bear's Endurance before combat. You now have 50/50 hit points. You get hit during combat for 16. You now have 34/50 hit points.
Bear's Endurance wears off; you now have 34/40 hit points. Ta dah, I've healed you for 10.

[ciopo]

Uhm, no? 16 damage don't magically (Ah!) Become 6 damage when bear endurance expires, you'll be at 24/40.

I guess it makes sense for low levels where we don't have con item yet, but at that time we also have low HD, a cleric CMW outperforms Bear endurance for a 2nd level slot at this time, curse you wizards for making CMW 3rd level for druids I guess :D

[Troacctid]

The HP does go away after combat, it's true. I disagree that everyone is going to have an enhancement bonus to Con already, though. They're somewhat common, but hardly ubiquitous, especially at low to mid levels.

Anyway, yeah, it's pretty bad as a healing spell. You're better off with one of those unupdated 3.0 fast healing granters, unless you have some other way of making use of the Con bonus—but the folks who do are also the folks who actually will have enhancement bonuses to Con already.

[ciopo]

There are unupdated fast healing granters? The variations of Vigor are in the spell compendium, I'm pretty sure. I admit that I'm not familiar with 3.0 since my gm has a "officially updated material only" policy

So... I wasn't not seeing something obvious, I take heart at that

[Crake]

I've literally never heard of someone saying to use bears endurance as a healing spell, until right now.

[Gnaeus]

It isn’t bears endurance or a fast healing granter. It is bears endurance AND a fast healing granter. The wand of lesser vigor gets used in the 4 minutes between when the 10 round fight ends and the 5 minute spell elapses.

Also, the endo can be used before combat (better than in combat). Or on round 1 before damage is taken. And it has a beneficial side effect (fort saves). If you are a Druid riding a bear or big cat, you can share Bears Endo even if you haven’t BOTH been hurt.

I don’t expect a +con item that fast. It’s almost never the first stat +. It may or may not be the second. A fighter may Str/con. Or he may Str/Dex for AC and initiative and ranged attacks. Or a wizard may int/dex for the same reasons. A part caster like a Paladin or Ranger may Str/Wis or dex/wis or Str/Cha. And you might be using that neck slot for something else, potentially tacking on a surcharge for power stacking or nonstandard location. Especially if you are regularly getting con buffed. Or cast on the Druid pet or a friendly NPC. It’s probably going to take a minute for the bear to get his second stat +.

OTOH as a CoD player I often find myself asking if people want + con items as a way of freeing up spell slots for more fun spells.

[ShurikVch]

There are unupdated fast healing granters?
Magic of Faerûn have Remedy Moderate Wounds (Druid 2/Cleric 3): fast healing 2 for 10 rounds +1 round/2 levels
Masters of the Wild have Regenerate Light/Moderate/Critical Wounds spell line (Druid 1/Cleric 1, Druid 2/Cleric 3, and Druid 5/Cleric 6 respectively): fast healing 1, 2, and 4 - all for 10 rounds + 1 round/level

[Lapak]

I've literally never heard of someone saying to use bears endurance as a healing spell, until right now.
This. I'm sure it was posted in good faith, but this is the kind of thread that feels like a strawman argument to me when I read it as I've never once seen the suggestion it's arguing against.

[ciopo]

Magic of Faerûn have Remedy Moderate Wounds (Druid 2/Cleric 3): fast healing 2 for 10 rounds +1 round/2 levels
Masters of the Wild have Regenerate Light/Moderate/Critical Wounds spell line (Druid 1/Cleric 1, Druid 2/Cleric 3, and Druid 5/Cleric 6 respectively): fast healing 1, 2, and 4 - all for 10 rounds + 1 round/level
Cool, thanks!


This. I'm sure it was posted in good faith, but this is the kind of thread that feels like a strawman argument to me when I read it as I've never once seen the suggestion it's arguing against.
:( I have seen it mentioned at least once, I'm fairly sure it crossed my awareness at least once, but it wasn't today, it's a non sequitur in relation to what I've been doing today. I am not sure if it was "Bear's endurance for healing" exactly, but the general feel of my memory on the topic is that it relates to "commonly suggested druid spells for the 2nd level" with some subtags of "healing related", it was most likely from a druid handbook somewhere

[Crake]

:( I have seen it mentioned at least once, I'm fairly sure it crossed my awareness at least once, but it wasn't today, it's a non sequitur in relation to what I've been doing today. I am not sure if it was "Bear's endurance for healing" exactly, but the general feel of my memory on the topic is that it relates to "commonly suggested druid spells for the 2nd level" with some subtags of "healing related"

Well, it makes it so the fighter can last longer before REQUIRING healing, thus, if a fighter ends a combat within bear's endurance's hp buffer, you saved yourself having to cast a spell to keep them in the battle during a time where every action matters.

Of course, it comes with the risk of sudden barbarian death syndrome, where, if they're low enough, and it gets dispelled, they just instantly die. The name was coined after the barbarians who have it happen to them often with their rage.

[Lilapop]

Magic of Faerûn have Remedy Moderate Wounds (Druid 2/Cleric 3): fast healing 2 for 10 rounds +1 round/2 levels
Masters of the Wild have Regenerate Light/Moderate/Critical Wounds spell line (Druid 1/Cleric 1, Druid 2/Cleric 3, and Druid 5/Cleric 6 respectively): fast healing 1, 2, and 4 - all for 10 rounds + 1 round/level

The Spell Compendium explicitly calls out monstrous regeneration (which was actual regeneration, not just fast healing) as being replaced by greater vigor and remedy moderate wounds as replaced by vigor, and Complete Divine calls out the regenerate family in general (with a list of included spells and mentioning MotW) as replaced by the vigor family.

[Lapak]

:( I have seen it mentioned at least once, I'm fairly sure it crossed my awareness at least once, but it wasn't today, it's a non sequitur in relation to what I've been doing today. I am not sure if it was "Bear's endurance for healing" exactly, but the general feel of my memory on the topic is that it relates to "commonly suggested druid spells for the 2nd level" with some subtags of "healing related", it was most likely from a druid handbook somewhereNo need for the sad face! Like I said, I don't doubt that you're asking out of a sincere doubt about it, it's just the way you phrased the first post comes across as 'this is a known and widespread thing' rather than just 'I saw this suggestion and don't agree with it.' All it means you're probably going to get about an equal amount of answers that amount to 'but that isn't a thing' alongside the rest of the of the discussion when you build the thread that way. No harm done.

[ShurikVch]

The Spell Compendium explicitly calls out monstrous regeneration (which was actual regeneration, not just fast healing) as being replaced by greater vigor
Joke on them: Polymorph is lower level than Monstrous Regeneration, and lasts longer!..


and Complete Divine calls out the regenerate family in general (with a list of included spells and mentioning MotW) as replaced by the vigor family.
Yes, it says so; but it isn't right - there is no Vigor analog for Regenerate Serious Wounds (fast healing 3)

[rrwoods]

FWIW, I remember reading a Druid handbook a while back that had this advice in it, you’re not crazy.

[Zanos]

Can't druids cast all the normal cure spells anyway? A cleric would only be better at healing if they spontaneously convert cures. Lesser Vigor is also explicitly a druid spell.

I don't know why you would use bears endurance to heal. At best it's giving you 2xHD of worse than temporary hit points. Even cure light, as inefficient as it is, will likely do better. At 5th level a druid would heal an average of 9.5 with a cure light for a first level slot while bears only gives 10 hp that disappear. Cure moderate for the same spell slot as a bear's endurance is going to heal 14 on average, and they're real hit points that don't go away. Out of combat, lesser vigor heals 15.

Bear's endurance is really only useful as a pre-combat buff since using actions and spell slots in combat to heal is usually not optimal.


Joke on them: Polymorph is lower level than Monstrous Regeneration, and lasts longer!..
Polymorph doesn't grant regeneration, unless there's some wacky monster out that with regeneration as an extraordinary special attack.


Yes, it says so; but it isn't right - there is no Vigor analog for Regenerate Moderate Wounds (fast healing 3)
That's a very unique and interesting way of reading the rules wrong.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't know why you would use bears endurance to heal. At best it's giving you 2xHD of worse than temporary hit points. Even cure light, as inefficient as it is, will likely do better.

The reason is action economy. 9.5 HP for one combat action is worse than 10 HP for zero combat actions :smallamused:

[Zanos]

The reason is action economy. 9.5 HP for one combat action is worse than 10 HP for zero combat actions :smallamused:
Wow, it's like you're reading my mind! Or maybe just my post:

Bear's endurance is really only useful as a pre-combat buff since using actions and spell slots in combat to heal is usually not optimal.
Although I'd still question even that usage, since blowing a 2nd level slot on a handful of disappearing hp is probably not a good strategy at level 5.

[Kurald Galain]

Wow, it's like you're reading my mind! Or maybe just my post:

Then maybe you shouldn't post "I don't know why you would use bears endurance to heal" and then proceed to explain precisely why one would use Bear's Endurance to heal :smallbiggrin:

[Zanos]

Then maybe you shouldn't post "I don't know why you would use bears endurance to heal" and then proceed to explain precisely why one would use Bear's Endurance to heal :smallbiggrin:
It isn't healing; bear's endurance running out causes you to lose the hit points you gained from the spell. It's even in the spells description:

Hit points gained by a temporary increase in Constitution score are not temporary hit points. They go away when the subject’s Constitution drops back to normal. They are not lost first as temporary hit points are.

It is useful as a niche long-duration buff to prevent people from dying to large hits, provided you have the resources to heal them afterwards so the loss of the hit points does not result in death.

[ciopo]

CMW is 3rd level for druids, I know this by heart because I've grumbled about it at my table a lot :D

[Vaern]

Can't druids cast all the normal cure spells anyway? A cleric would only be better at healing if they spontaneously convert cures. Lesser Vigor is also explicitly a druid spell.

They do get all of the normal cure spells, but their progression is delayed early on with CMW being a 3rd level spell for them rather than 2nd level like it is for clerics (which ultimately causes them to miss out on mass heal). Perhaps bear's endurance was just suggested as a way to fill 2nd level spell slots in the absence of an alternative healing spell.

Whoops, swordsaged.

[Zanos]

CMW is 3rd level for druids, I know this by heart because I've grumbled about it at my table a lot :D


They do get all of the normal cure spells, but their progression is delayed early on with CMW being a 3rd level spell for them rather than 2nd level like it is for clerics. Perhaps bear's endurance was just suggested as a way to fill 2nd level spell slots.
Ah, fair enough. I guess they wanted to make druids worse at healing? At least they still get cure light wounds and lesser vigor as 1st level spells. The only time I've actually played a druid is when my current DM gave me a free gestalt druid level for doing his settings God of Growth a favor. So I've never played a character with more than one druid level. :smalltongue:

[ciopo]

iirc, might be wrong with that, but we get the bigger vigor one level earlier than cleric in exchange, I'd have to check on that and I'm AFB, but I'm certain Vigor, the fast healing 2 verison, is druid 3

[Vaern]

Ah, fair enough. I guess they wanted to make druids worse at healing? At least they still get cure light wounds and lesser vigor as 1st level spells. The only time I've actually played a druid is when my current DM gave me a free gestalt druid level for doing his settings God of Growth a favor. So I've never played a character with more than one druid level. :smalltongue:
Interesting. I've never considered gestalt character levels as something you could just give somebody one of. That's certainly an interesting idea for a reward apart from the usual loot and XP :smalltongue:


iirc, might be wrong with that, but we get the bigger vigor one level earlier than cleric in exchange, I'd have to check on that and I'm AFB, but I'm certain Vigor, the fast healing 2 verison, is druid 3

Looks like all of the Vigor spells are gained at the same levels for cleric and druid, at least in SpC. I'm not sure where else they may be printed, though, so it's possible they just revised them at some point to make them a bit more accessible to clerics.

[ShurikVch]

Polymorph doesn't grant regeneration, unless there's some wacky monster out that with regeneration as an extraordinary special attack.
Lemme check it...
Or, dang it!
The "owl can't see in the dark" problem stretches all the way up to "regular" Polymorph...
(Then why the heck Andy Collins complained (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a) about the War Troll polymorph? :smallconfused:)

OK, since there is, actually, no "silver lining", - let me spit one more time on the Spell Compendium's "Renamed Spells" section: on top of depriving us of ability to create Disney-esque sentient animated objects (because, you know, Awaken Construct doesn't works on Animated Objects (at least - without Permanency), or really on anything which isn't Humanoid-shaped), it also takes away the only lowish-level spell which grants actual regeneration...



That's a very unique and interesting way of reading the rules wrong.
Where I was wrong? (Other than pointing to the incorrect spell)
It says:

The regeneration-focused spells from Masters of the Wild (regnerate circle, regenerate critical wounds, regenerate light wounds, regenerate moderate wound, regnerate ring, and regenerate serious wounds) appear in this volumn as the vigor spells.
Let's see:


Regenerate
Vigor
effect


Regenerate Light Wounds
Vigor, Lesser
fast healing 1


Regenerate Moderate Wounds
Vigor
fast healing 2


Regenerate Serious Wounds

fast healing 3


Regenerate Critical Wounds
Vigor, Greater
fast healing 4


Regenerate Ring
Vigor, Mass Lesser
fast healing 1 on multiple creatures (one per two levels)


Regenerate Circle
Vigorous Circle
fast healing 3 on multiple creatures (one per two levels)


See the gap in the middle of the table?
IMHO, it means the 3.0 spell is still legal (because it wasn't replaced with anything newer)

[Vaern]

See the gap in the middle of the table?
IMHO, it means the 3.0 spell is still legal (because it wasn't replaced with anything newer)
Maybe. But if it specifically calls out each of these spells and then says that the group is to be replaced with the vigor series then the lack of a spell with the equivalent effect may also indicate that the spell in question has simply been removed, which was more likely the intention.

[Zanos]

(Then why the heck Andy Collins complained (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a) about the War Troll polymorph? :smallconfused:)
Regeneration isn't a particularly good feature for PCs since the round over round healing isn't that large and being knocked out will still result in your death. The reason to complain about the war troll polymorph is that polymorph grants a lot of other stuff. So what does war troll give? 40ft base movement speed, large size(so reach), 30 base strength, 16 base dexterity, 29 base constitution, 14 natural armor, and the dazing blow special attack, which causes a str based fort save vs daze(so lost turn) with every physical attack. It also makes you a monstrous humanoid, making you immune to some lower level spells, granting darkvision 60, and arguably giving you the war trolls proficiencies. All that for a 4th level spell for 1 min/level? Pretty robust.


The "owl can't see in the dark" problem stretches all the way up to "regular" Polymorph...
Not quite. Your type does change, and low-light vision and darkvision are usually included in type traits. So if you polymorph into something with the animal type, you would get low-light vision.



Where I was wrong? (Other than pointing to the incorrect spell)
The rules text doesn't say there's a 1:1 replacement, only that the vigor spells in RoW take the place of the previous spells. Regenerate serious is even explicitly called out as replaced. I'd struggle to support a reading where a spell that's explicitly called out as being replaced is still legal, even if there's no 1:1 equivalent.

[ShurikVch]

The rules text doesn't say there's a 1:1 replacement, only that the vigor spells in RoW take the place of the previous spells. Regenerate serious is even explicitly called out as replaced. I'd struggle to support a reading where a spell that's explicitly called out as being replaced is still legal, even if there's no 1:1 equivalent.
Actually, it doesn't even says "replaced":

The regeneration-focused spells from Masters of the Wild (regnerate circle, regenerate critical wounds, regenerate light wounds, regenerate moderate wound, regnerate ring, and regenerate serious wounds) appear in this volumn as the vigor spells.
See: "appear"!
But what should we do, if some of replacements doesn't, actually, "appear"? :smallconfused:
How about to just use the old spell?



Not quite. Your type does change, and low-light vision and darkvision are usually included in type traits. So if you polymorph into something with the animal type, you would get low-light vision.
I mean - Darkvision is SQ; no SQ - no Darkvision



Regeneration isn't a particularly good feature for PCs since the round over round healing isn't that large and being knocked out will still result in your death. The reason to complain about the war troll polymorph is that polymorph grants a lot of other stuff. So what does war troll give? 40ft base movement speed, large size(so reach), 30 base strength, 16 base dexterity, 29 base constitution, 14 natural armor, and the dazing blow special attack, which causes a str based fort save vs daze(so lost turn) with every physical attack. It also makes you a monstrous humanoid, making you immune to some lower level spells, granting darkvision 60, and arguably giving you the war trolls proficiencies. All that for a 4th level spell for 1 min/level? Pretty robust.
Except Cave Troll have about the same (-2 abilities on average) and more (improved grab, pounce, rake, rend) while being three levels lower - yet nobody is complaining about possibility of polymorphing into Cave Troll...

[ciopo]

Eh, I can see myself slotting a fast healing 3 spell for druid 4, between the normal and greater vigor.

it feels very intentional on their part to not make a fast healing 3 spell, however

[Vizzerdrix]

OK, since there is, actually, no "silver lining", - let me spit one more time on the Spell Compendium's "Renamed Spells" section: on top of depriving us of ability to create Disney-esque sentient animated objects (because, you know, Awaken Construct doesn't works on Animated Objects (at least - without Permanency), or really on anything which isn't Humanoid-shaped), it also takes away the only lowish-level spell which grants actual regeneration...


The spell you want is minor servator from savage species. That will let you make all the singing and dancing tea pots you desire.

[ShurikVch]

The spell you want is minor servator from savage species. That will let you make all the singing and dancing tea pots you desire.
Yes, I know
But Spell Compendium "updates" :smallfurious: Minor Servitor into Awaken Construct...

[Vizzerdrix]

Yes, I know
But Spell Compendium "updates" :smallfurious: Minor Servitor into Awaken Construct...

Are you sure about that? I don't doubt you, but if I'm going to join the anti SC club I would like to see it for myself.

Found it. My physical copy is missing those pages so I never saw that list till now. Just ignore it. It is a silly list almost as dumb as complete psyonic.

Huh. They change amanuesis but don't say so. Strange.

[tiercel]

Because everything is better with bears, especially when your druid is a wildshaped bear riding an enlarged bear animal companion and summoning bears and throwing bear-missiles and healing your party with bears….

But personally I’d not really seen bear’s endurance as “druid healing”; a buff, sure, especially before +Con items (though a somewhat dangerous one), but I suppose I’ve also generally thought of the vigor line more as “druid healing” (even though clerics get them at the same spell levels)

[Vaern]

Huh. They change amanuesis but don't say so. Strange.

The list only shows spells that have been renamed. There's a footnote that mentions that some of the spells they reprinted from other sources, especially those being revised from 3.0 to 3.5, have had their effects and/or spell levels tweaked based on feedback from players to make them more appealing.

[Gnaeus]

Bear's endurance is really only useful as a pre-combat buff since using actions and spell slots in combat to heal is usually not optimal..

We all agree it is better the round before combat.

The back half of the sentence is true but radically overemphasized on forum. Is it really so hard to imagine that a Druid in the 3-8 range, with limited spells memorized, with a desire to ration slots over a 3-5 encounter day, might regard +6-16 hp +fort save buff, maybe shared with pet, as not so much “not optimal” as maybe “a productive action which is kind of ok in a wide range of fights, which I can probably cast productively every day when I don’t convert it into a black bear.”

[Calthropstu]

Some people treat it as "I have 40 max hp, I take 10 damage and have 30 hp. So the reasoning is "I have 40 max hp, gain 4 con, now have 50 max hp. I take 10 damage, and have 40 hp left. The extra con goes away, well I have 40 hp which is my max."

Others think "well I am tracking damage. I have 10 damage, if I lose the extra con I still have 10 damage."

I have had dms run it both ways.

[JNAProductions]

Some people treat it as "I have 40 max hp, I take 10 damage and have 30 hp. So the reasoning is "I have 40 max hp, gain 4 con, now have 50 max hp. I take 10 damage, and have 40 hp left. The extra con goes away, well I have 40 hp which is my max."

Others think "well I am tracking damage. I have 10 damage, if I lose the extra con I still have 10 damage."

I have had dms run it both ways.

Only one of which is right, by the rules.

DMs are free to houserule it, of course, but by the book you'd still have 10 damage taken after the Con Buff goes away.

[Calthropstu]

Only one of which is right, by the rules.

DMs are free to houserule it, of course, but by the book you'd still have 10 damage taken after the Con Buff goes away.
Incorrect according to the srd.

"Damage reduces a target’s current hit points. " So the "healing" technically counts.

[JNAProductions]

Incorrect according to the srd.

"Damage reduces a target’s current hit points. " So the "healing" technically counts.

That... That doesn't relate to the situation.

If you want something that DOES...


Rage (Ex)
A barbarian can fly into a rage a certain number of times per day. In a rage, a barbarian temporarily gains a +4 bonus to Strength, a +4 bonus to Constitution, and a +2 morale bonus on Will saves, but he takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian’s hit points by 2 points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are not lost first the way temporary hit points are.)

[RandomPeasant]

The back half of the sentence is true but radically overemphasized on forum. Is it really so hard to imagine that a Druid in the 3-8 range, with limited spells memorized, with a desire to ration slots over a 3-5 encounter day, might regard +6-16 hp +fort save buff, maybe shared with pet, as not so much “not optimal” as maybe “a productive action which is kind of ok in a wide range of fights, which I can probably cast productively every day when I don’t convert it into a black bear.”

It depends on what you think the other things a Druid might be doing with that 2nd level spell slot are. kelpstrand, for example, is a pretty strong competitor for your 2nd level spell slots in that range. If bear's endurance was 10 mins/level or hour/level and could reasonably be expected to last through multiple fights, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But I'm skeptical that the best use of that spell slot is bear's endurance (though it is arguably better than cure moderate wounds).

[rrwoods]

That... That doesn't relate to the situation.

If you want something that DOES...

And to make completely sure, it’s also in the text of bear’s endurance itself:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bearsEndurance.htm

[JNAProductions]

And to make completely sure, it’s also in the text of bear’s endurance itself:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bearsEndurance.htm

Yeah. Even more relevant!

Didn't realize that reminder text was there.

[Calthropstu]

That... That doesn't relate to the situation.

If you want something that DOES...

Aha. I knew there had to be something that prevented "I take my con belt off and put it back on again to heal myself infinitely."

The actual full relevant info is listed under constitution. The rest is reminder text.




If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly.

The hitpoints increase or decrease means both max and current. It did seem wierd that this con heal thing would work.

[Gnaeus]

It depends on what you think the other things a Druid might be doing with that 2nd level spell slot are. kelpstrand, for example, is a pretty strong competitor for your 2nd level spell slots in that range. If bear's endurance was 10 mins/level or hour/level and could reasonably be expected to last through multiple fights, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But I'm skeptical that the best use of that spell slot is bear's endurance (though it is arguably better than cure moderate wounds).

I can think of a lot of situations in which BE > Kelpstrand. Could be multiple mooks wearing down you or your fighter. Could be something with a high touch AC. Or something you don’t think you could beat in a grapple. Swarms. Could be enemies shooting you from more than 35 feet away. You could be one of those players who just can’t roll or are risk averse and you are trying to avoid spells with multiple points of failure (touch then grapple). You could just have bad dex. You might, very reasonably, prepare both BE and kelpstrand in the same day.

[RandomPeasant]

I can think of a lot of situations in which BE > Kelpstrand. Could be multiple mooks wearing down you or your fighter. Could be something with a high touch AC. Or something you don’t think you could beat in a grapple. Swarms. Could be enemies shooting you from more than 35 feet away. You could be one of those players who just can’t roll or are risk averse and you are trying to avoid spells with multiple points of failure (touch then grapple). You could just have bad dex. You might, very reasonably, prepare both BE and kelpstrand in the same day.

But kelpstrand is just one spell. There are hundreds on the Druid list all competing for that slot. And while I'm sure there are scenarios where you're happy with bear's endurance, you don't necessarily know in advance you'll end up there. When a Druid prepares spells at the beginning of the day, they have only imperfect information about the challenge's they're likely to face. It may be that, when you get into the fight, you're sorry you have kelpstrand (or, again, whichever other 2nd level spell you picked, as this is not a binary tradeoff) instead of bear's endurance. But since you're a Druid and not a Sorcerer or Spirit Shaman, that's not when you choose your spells.

[Gnaeus]

But kelpstrand is just one spell. There are hundreds on the Druid list all competing for that slot. And while I'm sure there are scenarios where you're happy with bear's endurance, you don't necessarily know in advance you'll end up there. When a Druid prepares spells at the beginning of the day, they have only imperfect information about the challenge's they're likely to face. It may be that, when you get into the fight, you're sorry you have kelpstrand (or, again, whichever other 2nd level spell you picked, as this is not a binary tradeoff) instead of bear's endurance. But since you're a Druid and not a Sorcerer or Spirit Shaman, that's not when you choose your spells.

When I look at the Druid full spell list index, I find 69 2nd level spells. I’m not double checking it’s accuracy with every sourcebook but it includes at least many of the lates sources so I’m going to say your hundreds of 2nd level spells is a vast exaggeration. Certainly by the time you have checked every source from PHB to races of eberron and dragon magic you (or at least I) am pretty likely to stop and determine that those are enough spells. Of those 69ish probably half are useless or so specialized as to be only picked up in very unusual situations. Locate node and reachwalkers wariness just aren’t likely to come up for consideration unless something very odd is going on. I’m only memorizing Animal Messenger if I really think I’m going to need one. (In PF I see more. Almost 120. But I think the % of useless/hyper situational ones is higher)

So then you will whittle down the 3 dozen decent Druid spells down to the 2-5 that you can prep. You will dump the ones that are useful to someone but probably not you (like daggerspell stance, or brambles if you aren’t built for melee). You will prep scrolls of niche utility spells, like delay poison. (Actually, BE is also a decent scroll/wand since it is generally useful and doesn’t depend on casting stat, but then you are still using BE so still counts), when you are done you have about a dozen or so spells that are worth memorizing. At that point you are well into personal preference, but when I am playing a T1, I will be trying to spread my 2-5 spells into attacks and defenses, and targeted spells against what I think I’m likely to fight with general purpose spells in case I’m wrong. For a non foe-specific buff, actually I think bears endurance is one of the standouts. Because the vast majority of fights are going to involve HP, fort saves or both. I’d probably generally prefer the less useful (because you are more likely to face things that ignore natural armor than hp/saves) but longer duration Barkskin for my defense buff. But I’d probably keep a scroll of whichever I didn’t use, and this could easily be changed by specifics of loot and party composition, like whether more people had amulets of natural armor or constitution. Anyway, I’m not saying BE is the best second level Druid spell. But I’d say it’s well within the top 20 and is certainly going to make it into MY list of spells to consider memorizing or getting as a wand or scroll.

[RandomPeasant]

When I look at the Druid full spell list index, I find 69 2nd level spells. IÂ’m not double checking itÂ’s accuracy with every sourcebook but it includes at least many of the lates sources so IÂ’m going to say your hundreds of 2nd level spells is a vast exaggeration.

Nitpicking that there are merely "dozens" and not hundreds is a pretty weak argument. It's still an order of magnitude more spells then you get to prepare.


For a non foe-specific buff, actually I think bears endurance is one of the standouts. Because the vast majority of fights are going to involve HP, fort saves or both.

But bear's endurance doesn't really give you HP (see the discussion going on in parallel). It increases your HP pool, but it lasts for less than ten minutes, and when the boost goes away you don't have any less damage on you. So if you have 30 HP and take 20 damage, it doesn't do anything. If you have 30 HP and take 50 damage, it doesn't do anything. If you have 30 HP and take 35 damage, it might allow your party to stabilize you because you go to "bleeding out" after combat ends rather than during it (but then again, maybe not since you're probably the one with Heal and healing magic). It's also not a lot of HP. At 3rd level, +4 CON means 6 more HP. A CR 3 Ogre deals 16 damage on an average hit. Again, there are certainly situations you can devise where it's worthwhile. But those are sufficiently rare that it's difficult to justify preparing it as a spell.


Anyway, IÂ’m not saying BE is the best second level Druid spell. But IÂ’d say itÂ’s well within the top 20 and is certainly going to make it into MY list of spells to consider memorizing or getting as a wand or scroll.

I think if you're saying "it's in the same category of goodness as delay poison", you will find very few people who call it bad that will bother arguing with you. It's also worth noting that once you start talking about wands and scrolls, the competition really is "hundreds of spells", because gold is fungible and your party has people with other spell lists or UMD who have access to other spells that are higher priorities to get in a magic item.

[Vaern]

When I look at the Druid full spell list index, I find 69 2nd level spells. I’m not double checking it’s accuracy with every sourcebook but it includes at least many of the lates sources so I’m going to say your hundreds of 2nd level spells is a vast exaggeration.
To be fair, he didn't say hundreds of 2nd level spells. He said hundreds of spells competing for the slot. You can technically prepare 1st and 0-level spells in that 2nd level slot, and there are certainly cases where having an extra copy of a particular 1st level spell available might be more useful than what's normally available at 2nd.

[Gnaeus]

Nitpicking that there are merely "dozens" and not hundreds is a pretty weak argument. It's still an order of magnitude more spells then you get to prepare

Not as weak as “Kelpstrand is one of hundreds of spells you can prepare in that slot” when really there are only a few dozen and only a few which reasonably compete for non-specialized defense buff good to keep one or 2 combatants in play for another round.



But bear's endurance doesn't really give you HP (see the discussion going on in parallel). It increases your HP pool, but it lasts for less than ten minutes, and when the boost goes away you don't have any less damage on you. So if you have 30 HP and take 20 damage, it doesn't do anything. If you have 30 HP and take 50 damage, it doesn't do anything. If you have 30 HP and take 35 damage, it might allow your party to stabilize you because you go to "bleeding out" after combat ends rather than during it (but then again, maybe not since you're probably the one with Heal and healing magic). It's also not a lot of HP

You probably have a wand of lesser vigor. Those are cheap at less than 1.5 gold/hp. But also not very helpful before or in combat or to block enemy save or lose effects. As I mentioned before, it doesn’t replace the vigor line it complements them.



Again, there are certainly situations you can devise where it's worthwhile. But those are sufficiently rare that it's difficult to justify preparing it as a spell
It’s every single combat in which HP or fort saves may be determinative. That’s a lot more situations than Kelpstrand. I have no difficulty justifying it. I’ve already given half a dozen situations. I can give more. There could be ongoing con damage without enough time for a 3 round lesser restoration. You could be extending the barbarians rage.


A CR 3 Ogre deals 16 damage on an average hit.
Or your fighter could be staggering around with 5 hp worrying that the next hit will flat kill him and maybe he should withdraw and start drinking CLW potion, or you can keep him in combat. Thanks! Also a great example of a time BE>Kelpstrand, the ogre’s grapple mod being quite decent, 4 above the Druid with 20 wisdom. And the ogre being in melee means even the range touch is a very real obstacle to overcome. So a bit less than 1 in 3 of sticking a grapple versus 100% give fighter hp.

Being a tier 1 does include some flashy I win buttons. It also very definitely includes never being shut out of combat. BE is great for #2.


It's also worth noting that once you start talking about wands and scrolls, the competition really is "hundreds of spells", because gold is fungible and your party has people with other spell lists or UMD who have access to other spells that are higher priorities to get in a magic item.

They can’t have my WBL. Whether the wizard gets a 5 charge wand of alter self has no bearing on whether I want a similar wand of BE

[Ashtagon]

On a more general level, as I understand it, temporary hit points granted by enhancement bonuses are lost last, whether it be from bear's endurance, barbarian rage, or aid spells. In effect, at the end of the duration of the bonus, these temporary hit points are always lost, and therefore you are always at risk of dropping to negative hit points if those temporary hit points are all that's keeping you standing.

Is this correct RAW? Is this RAI? If intended, why did they think that might be useful?

[Gnaeus]

On a more general level, as I understand it, temporary hit points granted by enhancement bonuses are lost last, whether it be from bear's endurance, barbarian rage, or aid spells. In effect, at the end of the duration of the bonus, these temporary hit points are always lost, and therefore you are always at risk of dropping to negative hit points if those temporary hit points are all that's keeping you standing.

Is this correct RAW? Is this RAI? If intended, why did they think that might be useful?

You are correct RAW. I assume that’s RAI but won’t speculate. It’s useful because out of combat healing is widely available and inexpensive. Few combats will run the clock on a 3 minute spell, that’s 30 rounds. The Barbarian hp are more tricky.

[RandomPeasant]

Not as weak as “Kelpstrand is one of hundreds of spells you can prepare in that slot” when really there are only a few dozen and only a few which reasonably compete for non-specialized defense buff good to keep one or 2 combatants in play for another round.

That's not how spell slots work. You don't have "defensive buff slots" and "attack spell slots", you have spell slots. You fill those in a way that maximizes expected value, regardless of whether you're doubling up.


It’s every single combat in which HP or fort saves may be determinative. That’s a lot more situations than Kelpstrand. I have no difficulty justifying it. I’ve already given half a dozen situations. I can give more. There could be ongoing con damage without enough time for a 3 round lesser restoration. You could be extending the barbarians rage.

The number of different situations you can imagine in which the spell is good is not what matters. What matters is the expected value of the spell. The number of situations where "you have a HP pool that is slightly larger" wins the fight is much smaller than the number of situations in which an offensive spell will do that. I will grant you that if you 100% know that you will end up in a situation where "the Barbarian's Rage lasts two additional rounds" is your win condition, bear's endurance is good. But if you think you can guarantee that, you've played a very different game than I have.


Or your fighter could be staggering around with 5 hp worrying that the next hit will flat kill him and maybe he should withdraw and start drinking CLW potion, or you can keep him in combat.

Going from 5 to 11 doesn't safe you against an Ogre, the thing's max hit on a non-crit is 23. The margin you are talking about is very small. Certainly, you can find numbers where it matters, but there are a lot of other numbers where it doesn't matter. The question is what the overall expected impact is, not how it works in a scenario you've cherry-picked to choose its value. I could go out and pick out the best possible scenarios for Druid offensive spells, and they would look very good in those scenarios. But that's simply not a useful sort of analysis to do for this type of question.


They can’t have my WBL. Whether the wizard gets a 5 charge wand of alter self has no bearing on whether I want a similar wand of BE

Yes it does. One of those wands will be overall better for your party. That wand is a better plan than the other wand, and you should want to put your money towards it. Just as the Wizard should want the reverse if a wand of alter self is worse than a wand of bear's endurance, or you should both want to get the Fighter a better +STR item if that's better. If you want to spend your money purely on yourself, that's fine. It is your character, and the game is certainly not tightly tuned enough that the party needs to budget wealth optimally. But if you refuse to consider that tradeoff, you're making a less compelling argument for bear's endurance being worthwhile than if you were willing to argue that it is the best use for the party's wealth overall.

[liquidformat]

Some people treat it as "I have 40 max hp, I take 10 damage and have 30 hp. So the reasoning is "I have 40 max hp, gain 4 con, now have 50 max hp. I take 10 damage, and have 40 hp left. The extra con goes away, well I have 40 hp which is my max."

Others think "well I am tracking damage. I have 10 damage, if I lose the extra con I still have 10 damage."

I have had dms run it both ways.

I have always had DMs that treat HP gained from temp Con and Temp HP the same, I apparently haven't realized that they should be treated differently until now. So they end up being treated more like having die hard feat...

[Gnaeus]

That's not how spell slots work. You don't have "defensive buff slots" and "attack spell slots", you have spell slots. You fill those in a way that maximizes expected value, regardless of whether you're doubling up

And part of maximizing expected value is carrying spells that are almost always useful. You also want situational fight enders. But if all you have are offensive situational spells you are a terrible T1 caster. Even as a sorcerer 3 I would want a good utility defensive buff, a run away spell, a good attack spell etc. Not 5 good attack spells. Buffs are fully as important a part of the optimized caster tool bag as offense.



The number of different situations you can imagine in which the spell is good is not what matters

Uhm yeah, it absolutely is. Or at least it is one of the leading factors. Not getting shut out of fights where you didn’t pick exactly the right spells is as much a part of top tier play as flashily winning the ones where you did. Moreover, in Druid, the equation becomes the number of different situations in which the spell is good and SNA isn’t. Because BE >>> black bear mimics an attack spell way better than attack spell x mimics a utility buff.



Going from 5 to 11 doesn't safe you against an Ogre, the thing's max hit on a non-crit is 23. The margin you are talking about is very small. Certainly, you can find numbers where it matters, but there are a lot of other numbers where it doesn't matter. The question is what the overall expected impact is, not how it works in a scenario you've cherry-picked to choose its value. I could go out and pick out the best possible scenarios for Druid offensive spells, and they would look very good in those scenarios. But that's simply not a useful sort of analysis to do for this type of question

The ogre was your scenario. It just happens that it is also a better case for my spell than yours, in which BE gave a far better chance of saving the fighter from death than Kelpstrand. My scenarios would be things like swarms, where both hp and fort saves matter. Or multiple mooks, where your attack spell won’t solve the problem and the fighter is taking damage every round. Or the rogue has found a poison needle on a locked chest and is nervous about his rolls. Or we are escaping a burning palace and need to run down a corridor taking damage and holding our breath and the wizard is concerned about his odds. Or where I’m getting double duty by sharing buffs with my pet so that +6 hp becomes +14 and 2 combatants with fort save bonuses. And factoring in that under ideal circumstances, BE gets cast before fight and thus also has better action economy, while also being an ok option in most fights. So you can mem it as a “cast before kicking BBEG’s door,” but if you happen to run into a nest of diseased animals it’s still right there ready to be useful.



Yes it does. One of those wands will be overall better for your party. That wand is a better plan than the other wand, and you should want to put your money towards it. Just as the Wizard should want the reverse if a wand of alter self is worse than a wand of bear's endurance, or you should both want to get the Fighter a better +STR item if that's better. If you want to spend your money purely on yourself, that's fine. It is your character, and the game is certainly not tightly tuned enough that the party needs to budget wealth optimally. But if you refuse to consider that tradeoff, you're making a less compelling argument for bear's endurance being worthwhile than if you were willing to argue that it is the best use for the party's wealth overall.

Indeed. The wand of BE is also better for the party it’s true. The alter self almost certainly isn’t going to help anyone but the wizard. But regardless, they can’t have my WBL any more than my feats.

Honestly, Kelpstrand and the other Druid 2 attacks are the worst reason not to pack BE. The spell to beat is still the best spell in its category, barkskin. Which is usually a better spell, mostly because of duration. It probably does require specific party composition, or items, or anticipating certain kinds of foes to make BE>barkskin. Or a combat strategy where Druid and pet are both regularly in melee to make us want both. The niches where BE is useful and barkskin isnt are way, way smaller than the niches where it could be useful and an attack spell isn’t. Of course I have discussed several of them above.

[Chronos]

On the one hand, a HP increase due to increased Con is worse than temporary HP, since your HP total drops when your Con does. But on the other hand, they're better than temporary HP, since they can be healed. If you have a Con buff that lasts long enough for multiple combats, and plentiful access to out-of-combat healing, then the Con buff is good.

Bear's Endurance isn't usually long enough for that to be a big deal. But if, say, you're persisting spells, I'd much rather have a persisted Con buff than persisted temporary HP, even if they give the same number of HP.

[liquidformat]

Because everything is better with bears, especially when your druid is a wildshaped bear riding an enlarged bear animal companion and summoning bears and throwing bear-missiles and healing your party with bears….

Wait, can you actually throw a bear missile, if this is actually possible please explain?!

[Jay R]

It's temporary, yes. But it's also life-saving. I think of Bear's Endurance as a wizard's healing spell.

Somebody's 6th level character is knocked down to -8 hit points. In two rounds she will be dead. The cleric is engaged and cannot get there. My wizard casts Bear's Endurance, giving an additional 12 hp, putting the character at +4. Within 6 minutes, that character needs the cleric, or a potion, but at that moment, it was the only spell my wizard can cast to save her life.

[Zanos]

It's temporary, yes. But it's also life-saving. I think of Bear's Endurance as a wizard's healing spell.

Somebody's 6th level character is knocked down to -8 hit points. In two rounds she will be dead. The cleric is engaged and cannot get there. My wizard casts Bear's Endurance, giving an additional 12 hp, putting the character at +4. Within 6 minutes, that character needs the cleric, or a potion, but at that moment, it was the only spell my wizard can cast to save her life.
I feel like that situation is so incredibly niche and would likely have been prevented by preparing several dozen spells that could have prevented the situation to begin with. At 6th level 2nd level spells are still some of your best combat options, meaning you're giving up some of your strongest abilities to prevent people from dying to save people from dying.

So basically, you're preparing bear's endurance because you forgot to buy blessed bandages, a 10gp item.

[Darg]

At my tables, Bear's Endurance is a really good buff to put out. Hold the charge and apply it to 6 friendlies. The same can be done with barkskin. The +2 modifier helps in a lot of ways such as fort saves and concentration checks when you need to cast grappled or defensively. It doesn't need to be cast every day, but for a general buff it has its uses when the party doesn't have other sources of Con enhancement bonuses. Is it always useful? No. Is it there for healing? No. Can it be used as a buffer for Con damage? Yes, as the bonus to Con can be lost first instead of your base Con.

[Tzardok]

Uhm, you do know that Bear's Endurance and Barkskin have only single target? As soon as you touch someone, the held charge is gone.

[Darg]

Uhm, you do know that Bear's Endurance and Barkskin have only single target? As soon as you touch someone, the held charge is gone.

The target line doesn't say "one touched creature" like a spell like charm says "one creature." The hold the charge rules allow you to make a full-round action to touch 6 friends. The touch range rules require touch spells that allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell to touch all targets in the same round that you cast; meaning you can't hold the charge on these spells. This leaves spells like bear's endurance as the only ones that can benefit from the full-round action.

You don't have to change how you play at your table, but our interpretation has only brought more fun for the groups I play with.

[Lilapop]

The target line doesn't say "one touched creature" like a spell like charm says "one creature."

While it doesn't supply a number, it explicitly uses the singular. And IIRC the section that talks about up to six targets refers to spells that allow a specific number of targets higher than one, or that in the text explicitly allow you to make multiple touches.

I'll also point you to mass bear's endurance (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bearsEnduranceMass.htm), which is effectively made obsolete by your houserule and provides a bit of a balancing target.

[Vaern]

The target line doesn't say "one touched creature" like a spell like charm says "one creature." The hold the charge rules allow you to make a full-round action to touch 6 friends. The touch range rules require touch spells that allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell to touch all targets in the same round that you cast; meaning you can't hold the charge on these spells. This leaves spells like bear's endurance as the only ones that can benefit from the full-round action.

You don't have to change how you play at your table, but our interpretation has only brought more fun for the groups I play with.

Bear's Endurance has a target of "creature touched," and the description indicates a singular creature gaining the benefit of the spell. This is as opposed to spells like Water Walk which targets "one touched creature/level," or Teleport which can take up to 1 additional medium creature per 3 caster levels. Bear's Endurance can be held indefinitely and discharges to affect a single creature; Water Walk and Teleport can not be held, but can affect as many targets as the caster can reach (up to the maximum the spell allows) on the round that he finishes casting the spell.
There's no problem playing it differently at the table, of course, but for the sake of RAW arguments it should be regarded as single-target like Cure Light Wounds or Harm, which also target "creature touched." It's also worth noting that by allowing the base spells to affect multiple targets then the mass versions of the same spells become kind of pointless besides the upgrade from touch to short range, which I honestly don't think is worth the difference in spell level in most cases.

Edit: Ninja'd. Found the specific bit that mentions hitting 6 friends with a touch spell. Going to see what my group has to say about that one.

[Vizzerdrix]

You don't have to change how you play at your table, but our interpretation has only brought more fun for the groups I play with.

This is the important part right here. 👍

[Darg]

While it doesn't supply a number, it explicitly uses the singular. And IIRC the section that talks about up to six targets refers to spells that allow a specific number of targets higher than one, or that in the text explicitly allow you to make multiple touches.

That isn't true. If I touch 6 creatures, each creature is a creature touched. It isn't singular at all. "One touched creature" however is because it provides a limit. You are also mistaken on the multi-target touch spells. You can't hold the charge as they have to be discharged in the same round as the casting:


Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.


It's also worth noting that by allowing the base spells to affect multiple targets then the mass versions of the same spells become kind of pointless besides the upgrade from touch to short range, which I honestly don't think is worth the difference in spell level in most cases.

This isn't true at all. The mass versions of spells can hit more than 6 targets and they don't have to be adjacent to you to benefit. Another side benefit is that you can use them to burn an enemy's spell reflection while giving yourself the benefit. Just the fact it doesn't take 2 turns to benefit is enough of a reason itself.


Edit: Ninja'd. Found the specific bit that mentions hitting 6 friends with a touch spell. Going to see what my group has to say about that one.

Hope it works out. The QoL and having more room for fun stuff can't be overstated. We also generally have longer days of activity so it helps with spell selection as the casters don't have to be as stingy with their spells.


This is the important part right here. 👍

Exactly. Joining the community here and looking at online communities as a whole has made me realize that we are a very small niche in this ruling. We came to it as fairly insular groups as we are somewhat isolated.

[Covenant12]

The target line doesn't say "one touched creature" like a spell like charm says "one creature." The hold the charge rules allow you to make a full-round action to touch 6 friends. The touch range rules require touch spells that allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell to touch all targets in the same round that you cast; meaning you can't hold the charge on these spells. This leaves spells like bear's endurance as the only ones that can benefit from the full-round action.

You don't have to change how you play at your table, but our interpretation has only brought more fun for the groups I play with.PHB 176: "*Some* touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell."
Teleport: Target: "You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures" Water Walk: Targets: "One touched creature/level"

Bear's Endurance: Target: "Creature touched".

I'm sorry, those rules in no way state or imply all touch spells=6 targets. They strongly imply the opposite. Singular touch spells affect one creature. There are metamagic feats that can change that. This is a good way to get put in timeout during every serious rules discussion at your table. This isn't even TO, it is just deceptive. When a touch spell outright indicates multiple targets, here's the rules. If they *don't* touch means one target. Your interpretation is a house rule that ignores the written rules a solid amount.

[Darg]

PHB 176: "*Some* touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell."
Teleport: Target: "You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures" Water Walk: Targets: "One touched creature/level"

Bear's Endurance: Target: "Creature touched".

I'm sorry, those rules in no way state or imply all touch spells=6 targets. They strongly imply the opposite. Singular touch spells affect one creature. There are metamagic feats that can change that. This is a good way to get put in timeout during every serious rules discussion at your table. This isn't even TO, it is just deceptive. When a touch spell outright indicates multiple targets, here's the rules. If they *don't* touch means one target. Your interpretation is a house rule that ignores the written rules a solid amount.

This is in no way deceptive and my tables do use this rule so I highly doubt I'll be put in timeout like a child. First, the targets are only "friends" which cuts out a lot of touch spells. Second, as I mentioned before "creature touched" grammatically is only singular if the situation makes it singular. The rule gives a situation that makes it plural:


Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.

To expand on it, it's the rules on page 141 that make it singular in most situations for in most cases it is discharged with the first thing that gets touched. The full-round action changes that. "Creature touched" does not limit the number of targets. It's only stating what the target is.

On that note, what touch spells are then allowed to make this action? Keep in mind that multi-target touch spells cannot have the charge be held as they are required by the rules on page 175 and 176 to have all targets touched in the same round as the spell is cast. So the example spells such as teleport and water walk are out. It may simply be a defunct action accidentally left in the book as a holdover from 3.0. Or it may be that it was intended that you could hold the charge for multi-target touch spells. It doesn't change the fact that the way it is written prevents that, but it is interesting to think about.

The rules as written tell you it can be done, which is what the others in my groups agree with. As the rules not only allow it but give you instruction on how to do it, the onus is on you to disprove it or I move somewhere it isn't interpreted as such and I try to convince people of the QoL and fun it brings with it.

Sources for being unable to hold the charge for multi-target touch spells:

Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.


Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

[Tzardok]

If you argue that way, you would also accept that the same thing goes for every other single target touch spell (which are most touch spells), including Shock Grasp and Temporal Stasis. Do you do that?

[Darg]

If you argue that way, you would also accept that the same thing goes for every other single target touch spell (which are most touch spells), including Shock Grasp and Temporal Stasis. Do you do that?

Well yeah, but how often do you spend 2 rounds shocking your friends and they willingly let it happen? Friends implies you aren't harming them or doing something they don't approve of. The term "friends" is a limiter that prevents you from doing it offensively. Even in 3.0 where the exact same phrase is used (twice I might add) you wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you tried to use chill touch in that way to make a pseudo Whirlwind Attack.

So no, you aren't going to be doing that. At best it's useful for saving spell slots, increasing teamwork, making some spells with questionable value in taking a slot have a value niche, and increasing the efficacy and efficiency of cure spells when out of combat. Honestly it's been a win win experience with basically 0 downsides as far as I can tell. The caveat is that my groups tend to have longer adventuring days and more combat encounters than I think most people on these boards experience.

[Arkhios]

The only way I can think of that would make Bear's Endurance a "healing spell" for druids is to use it in conjunction with Wild Shape and Rapid Metabolism feat (XPH), and even then it would only heal the druid themself, and not all that much (by +4 extra hp)

[Quentinas]

Well yeah, but how often do you spend 2 rounds shocking your friends and they willingly let it happen? Friends implies you aren't harming them or doing something they don't approve of. The term "friends" is a limiter that prevents you from doing it offensively. Even in 3.0 where the exact same phrase is used (twice I might add) you wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you tried to use chill touch in that way to make a pseudo Whirlwind Attack.

So no, you aren't going to be doing that. At best it's useful for saving spell slots, increasing teamwork, making some spells with questionable value in taking a slot have a value niche, and increasing the efficacy and efficiency of cure spells when out of combat. Honestly it's been a win win experience with basically 0 downsides as far as I can tell. The caveat is that my groups tend to have longer adventuring days and more combat encounters than I think most people on these boards experience.

Never happened an enemy charming/dominate your friends, then let them come near him as they are his "new friends" then casting some nasty touch spell as harm with these rules? Or a spellcasting boss that using his higher level slot buff his personal guard with spells that you don't have at that moment?

[Darg]

Never happened an enemy charming/dominate your friends, then let them come near him as they are his "new friends" then casting some nasty touch spell as harm with these rules? Or a spellcasting boss that using his higher level slot buff his personal guard with spells that you don't have at that moment?

Obvious self destructive orders can't be carried out. So even if you dominate the entire group, after the first touch it is obvious that the order becomes self destructive and they would no longer simply allow you to touch them. It would be a waste of a full action and wouldn't be any different than taking the standard which doesn't require the target to be a friend. The boss would be better off making them sleep and doing despicable things that way.

You can always act to dispel. If the boss is using the higher level spell slot on something that can be removed, that's one less chance at using the high level slot to disable your group. And, how often does the BBEG end up adjacent to 6 of their minions at the start of a fight and can afford to spend 2 rounds doing something that has questionable utility compared to other spells that could hamstring the party instead. A spellcasting boss is fairly vulnerable to counterspelling. If the boss is clairvoyant then I could see it as the party not really having much of a chance anyway. It's not like the mooks start at an equal footing with the adventuring party in the first place. A 5th level fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric wouldn't fight a mirrored group if you go by CR unless the opposition is given significant handicap. Especially considering the appropriate CR would say that a single 5th level fighter would be appropriate for the encounter.