Augment Healing and Vigor Spells

[smootrk]

Well there is if the spell is healing 1 hit point a round and the Feat says it adds +2/per spell level to the amount of damage the spell heals (which it does).

This round it heals one point, next round the spell heals another point, and so on. They could be looked at as seperate events of healing, they are after all a full round apart. Other feats tend to trigger on each occurance of an event. So you could claim it triggers on each time the spell heals some damage.

It may say that, but IMO the Spell Vigor, despite having effects that last over several rounds, is only one occurance of the spell.

It may help for you to think of the 'intent' of the rule as written, not just the verbatim text. Given this new type of spell effect, the text of the rule probably needs to be altered slightly to stay in sync with the 'intent' of the original rule design.

 

[Bagpuss]

Exactly as GM I'd allow its effects just for the first round, but it's only opinion the text isn't remotely clear on it, and could be read at least 3 different ways (no benifit, benifit just on the initial round, benifit each round) middle ground seems the best option in my opinion as well.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well even if it is true that granting the ability is not actually healing the damage it is the ability that heals not the spell the spell is still effected by Augment Healing as it is a Conjuration (Healing) spell, it just heals 0 damage, which +2/spell level is then added. That would fit neatly with the second ruling I was thinking of.

How do ye rule with a spell like Remove Blindness, I be wonderin'?

It be a Healin' spell also, that heals no damage. (Take note o' the subtle different 'tween 'no damage' and '0 damage', mind!)

-Hyp.

 

[smootrk]

I do not think that the feat was created to exploit a loophole with the vigor spells, making them suddenly & massively more effective ( a first level spell that normally has a cap of 15 points of healing, suddenly having a cap of 45 points of healing).

I think that the reasoning behind having the feat work continuously and recurringly over the course of a duration spell, is a stretch. I do not think you have anything to worry about others trying to trumph your decsion.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This question came up when Complete Divine was first released. Andrew Finch from Wizards R&D made this comment on the WotC Boards:

"The Vigor spell line grants the recipient of the spell the Fast Healing ability, but does not in fact heal the target despite being a Conjuration (Healing) spell. The feat Augmented Healing increases the amount that a caster heals, which the caster is not doing with any of these spells.

It may be that this line of spell should be Transmutation and not Conjuration (Healing). This will be added to the items to be reviewed for errata."

Now, the school of the spell was not changed, but it remains a Conjuration (Healing) spell that doesn't actually heal damage...

-Hyp.

 

[Henrix]

The effect is the same as if the cleric had cast any other conjuration (healing) spell that does not heal hit point damage, like Lesser Restoration or Remove Paralysis.
In addition to the normal effect of the spell, he cures 2 hp/spell level when he casts the spell.

I'd say that the tricky thing with this feat is how it works with spells that have multiple targets, like Mass Cure Light Wounds.
The feat states that you heal an extra 2 hp/spell level, not 2 hp/spell level/target creature.
That is, a Mass Cure Light Wounds cast at four friends heals 10 hp extra all in all, not 10 hp times four.

 

[Sejs]

That's a good point, actually.

The spell itself does not heal damage.

It grants you an ability.

The ability heals damage. The difference would be similar to that between a spell that created fire versus a spell that created a tindertwig. The end result is the same, but only one spell actually creates fire in and of itself. Looking at it that way, Augment Healing wouldn't apply at all, which would take care of the entire issue quite handily.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That's a good explanation, Sejs.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The effect is the same as if the cleric had cast any other conjuration (healing) spell that does not heal hit point damage, like Lesser Restoration or Remove Paralysis.
In addition to the normal effect of the spell, he cures 2 hp/spell level when he casts the spell.

+2 when applied to 0 is 2.

+2 when applied to nothing is nonsensical - you can't add something unless there's something to add it to (even if that something is 0).

Remove Blindness doesn't cure 0 points of damage; it doesn't cure damage. There's nothing to add the +2s to.

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

+2 when applied to 0 is 2.

+2 when applied to nothing is nonsensical - you can't add something unless there's something to add it to (even if that something is 0).

Remove Blindness doesn't cure 0 points of damage; it doesn't cure damage. There's nothing to add the +2s to.

-Hyp.

"A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit."

I think that pretty much covers that argument.