Augment Healing + Mass Lesser Vigor

[moritheil]

There is no intervening factor here however. There is no Paul in this case. Fast Healing is not it's own entity doing the healing

There absolutely is, and it absolutely is. That's where you and all the posters who understand that argument differ, and that's why everyone is having trouble explaining the argument to you.

Fast healing HAPPENS to give you hit points. In terms of the spell that's more like a happy coincidence. In terms of the caster, of course the caster has healing you in mind when he or she casts it, but objectively in terms of the spell itself, it is no more healing you for hit points than remove disease is.

You are disregarding the mechanics of the spell in favor of reading the intent behind the caster of the spell. While there are circumstances that might warrant that, we are in the middle of a spell mechanics discussion.

Let me give you another example since you didn't like the "paying Peter who then pays Paul" line of thought. When you cast a summoning spell to summon a celestial dire badger, who then injures your enemy, your intent is to injure your opponent. And yet since you do not do it directly, you can remain invisible while doing so. This is another case where the directness or indirectness of the mechanics is crucial for how the spell interacts with other spells.

I, like Hyp, would have no problem if you said something like "IMC, all healing spells are affected by this regardless of whether or not they heal hit points to begin with." That is consistent. But your assertion that there can be no difference whatsoever between direct and indirect means of healing is outrageous.

 

[Mistwell]

IMHO, it's misleading to say "allows him to heal" or "enables him to heal". IMHO it's more accurate to just say "gives him the Fast Healing special ability".

Consider initiative order. When do the benefits of Fast Healing accrue?

IMC, Fast Healing works like it says in the book: the PC with fast healing gets hit points back at the start of his turn.

This is typically a different initiative tick than when the Cleric casts the spell.

So if Bob the Fighter had lost 20 hit points, and went on initiative order 5, then Cecil the Cleric (who goes on initiative order 15) would have two options:

1: cast cure light wounds on Bob on initiative 15 (Bob immediately gets HP back on tick 15); or
2: cast lesser vigor on Bob on initiative 15 (Bob gains Fast Healing, and will begin getting hit points back on tick 5).

This is an important distinction, because Bob could get hit for his last 10 hp between ticks 15 and 5, or the spell could be dispelled (in which case Bob would not have gained any benefit from that casting of lesser vigor).

Cheers, -- N

That the healing does not happen instantaneously is not relevant to a discussion of whether or not the healing is directly from the spell. Indeed, we already discussed that issue up-thread. Lots of spells deal damage over many turns, or delay damage until something else happens, but that isn't a factor in determining if the damage is directly from the spell.

If Augment healing said "add +2 to any hit points you cure on your turn" you would have a good point. But in this case, I just do not see how it's relevant to this discussion.

 

[Nifft]

That the healing does not happen instantaneously is not relevant to a discussion of whether or not the healing is directly from the spell. Indeed, we already discussed that issue up-thread. Lots of spells deal damage over many turns, or delay damage until something else happens, but that isn't a factor in determining if the damage is directly from the spell.

The spell doesn't heal at all, though. The spell gives a special ability called "Fast Healing".

If you already have better Fast Healing, as many monsters do, then the spell does nothing.

If Augment healing said "add +2 to any hit points you cure on your turn" you would have a good point. But in this case, I just do not see how it's relevant to this discussion.

Does my clarification help?

Cheers, -- N

 

[moritheil]

The spell doesn't heal at all, though. The spell gives a special ability called "Fast Healing".

Precisely what I have been saying. The fact that you cast the spell with the intent of healing someone does not enter into a discussion of how the spell actually works.

 

[moritheil]

Lots of spells deal damage over many turns, or delay damage until something else happens, but that isn't a factor in determining if the damage is directly from the spell.

If I plane shift someone to the elemental plane of fire, they start taking fire damage each round. Does that damage come from the spell plane shift? I would say no. All plane shift does is change their circumstances, and as a result they take damage.

 

[Mistwell]

There absolutely is, and it absolutely is. That's where you and all the posters who understand that argument differ, and that's why everyone is having trouble explaining the argument to you.

Show me the indirectness then. People keep fiating over the only critical part of this discussion. If you think Fast Healing is independent of the spell itself, then show me in the rules where it suggests an independence. I understand that you yourself think of it as independent, but you need to explain WHY. Just asserting "it is" and then offering more analogies isn't compelling. Take me through the language in the rules that suggests that Fast Healing is independent of the thing that "grants" Fast Healing.

Fast healing HAPPENS to give you hit points. In terms of the spell that's more like a happy coincidence. In terms of the caster, of course the caster has healing you in mind when he or she casts it, but objectively in terms of the spell itself, it is no more healing you for hit points than remove disease is.

You are disregarding the mechanics of the spell in favor of reading the intent behind the caster of the spell. While there are circumstances that might warrant that, we are in the middle of a spell mechanics discussion.

I'm not. I am asking for where in the mechanics it reads the way you suggest, and I keep getting analogies and opinions and gut instincts and no rules quotes that suggest it works the way you says it does. On our side, we have a rules quote that says that any conjuration [healing] spell can gain the benefit of the feat. We have the official FAQ agreeing. We have the text of the conjuration [healing] general description. And we have the spell itself saying it heals. EVERY rules quote suggests to me that mechanically speaking Augment Healing (the feat) works with Vigor spells.

And on your side we have, in addition to those analogies and instincts and feelings, the typical Hypersmurf "yeah but then this completely other thing might not work perfectly consistently within the rules" which he's proven time and again can be applied to any rule at any time regardless of whether or not the side he is taking in the debate is actually correct (we know already the rules are not perfect and can result in inconsistent results and we just need to deal with that as a general issue).

Let me give you another example since you didn't like the "paying Peter who then pays Paul" line of thought.

Oh here we go again - let's not quote the rules involved with this issue, lets find a strawman to distract from those rules...

When you cast a summoning spell to summon a celestial dire badger, who then injures your enemy, your intent is to injure your opponent. And yet since you do not do it directly, you can remain invisible while doing so. This is another case where the directness or indirectness of the mechanics is crucial for how the spell interacts with other spells.

Yeah, it's the same summoning example used four times already in this thread. It's a great example of the different between this spell (which is direct) and a summoning spell (which is not).

I, like Hyp, would have no problem if you said something like "IMC, all healing spells are affected by this regardless of whether or not they heal hit points to begin with." That is consistent. But your assertion that there can be no difference whatsoever between direct and indirect means of healing is outrageous.

When did I make that assertion? What argument of mine do you think you are responding to (I suspect it is someone elses)?

Any really, outrageous? Exaggerate much? I did say there IS a different between direct and indirect, and also said in this case it's direct. That in fact is my entire contention. This spell directly heals you. Unlike a summoning spell, this spell is itself healing you of damage, and is a conjuration [healing] spell, and hence can gain the benefit of Augmented Healing. Fast Healing is a short-hand rules description for how a type of healing spell or ability heals over time rather than all at once, but it is not itself it's own entity that intervenes as an indirect healing thing like a summoning spell does. In this case, it's a spell directly healing.

 

[moritheil]

Any really, outrageous? Exaggerate much? I did say there IS a different between direct and indirect, and also said in this case it's direct. That in fact is my entire contention. This spell directly heals you. Unlike a summoning spell, this spell is itself healing you of damage, and is a conjuration [healing] spell, and hence can gain the benefit of Augmented Healing.

What is outrageous is the assertion that there is no such thing as indirect healing. Since you have revised your statements to admit the possibility and clarify that you simply don't think it is the case here, that is no longer outrageous. If you understand the rules that far, I think you must agree that any assertion that it is impossible for a spell to have an indirect effect would be outrageous, and language indicating such is in no way out of proportion or exaggerated.

On our side, we have a rules quote that says that any conjuration [healing] spell can gain the benefit of the feat. We have the official FAQ agreeing. We have the text of the conjuration [healing] general description. And we have the spell itself saying it heals. EVERY rules quote suggests to me that mechanically speaking Augment Healing (the feat) works with Vigor spells.

I am here to show the validity of another point of view. I am not here to give you the "my way is the true way and only my way is right" schtick. Splitting things up into "my side" and "your side" seems to indicate that your priority is not understanding the validity of another point of view.

Show me the indirectness then. People keep fiating over the only critical part of this discussion. If you think Fast Healing is independent of the spell itself, then show me in the rules where it suggests an independence.

First it's important to note what the spell does not say. By way of contrast with spells that I think we both agree do heal directly - say, cure light wounds -

When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.

the spell directly states that it "cures X damage."

Now let's look at lesser vigor. According to the rules text posted earlier "subjects gain fast healing X."

It's pretty clear that the spell does not heal X hit points. Nor does it heal X hit points per round. It simply says it grants X property. X property could easily be replaced by something else, which is why we put forth all these examples about summoning, plane shifting, and other things. It grants a property. That's all.

The property then goes on to do other things that are useful to you. That has never been questioned. But at what point the spell stops and at what point the property begins is the issue here.

If I join the army as an officer and say, "Private, shoot that man," have I killed the man the soldier shot under my instructions? No, not directly. I may be legally liable for that man's death if it turns out he was not an enemy combatant, but that doesn't mean that I literally pulled the trigger. And that is the type of distinction people are making here.

You continually assert, "oh, but you only have fast healing because of the spell." Yes, sure. But just because X happens as a result of Y which happens as a result of Z does not mean that Z directly causes X. If you only have a summoned avoral ally because of a spell, and the avoral heals you, did the spell heal you directly? No. Similarly if you only have fast healing because of a spell, and the fast healing healed you, did the spell heal you directly? No.

Fast Healing is a short-hand rules description for how a type of healing spell or ability heals over time rather than all at once, but it is not itself it's own entity that intervenes as an indirect healing thing like a summoning spell does. In this case, it's a spell directly healing.

I disagree. Fast healing is a property that a creature may or may not possess, and if the creature possesses the property it heals every round. It is a quality, just as Regeneration is, or the ability to breathe water.

The spell Mineralize allows you to take on the Mineral Warrior template. The Mineral Warrior template grants damage reduction. Does Mineralize grant you damage reduction directly? No, it only does so through the intermediate agency of the Mineral Warrior template.

Now, maybe you want to make the assertion that it does not matter whether or not the healing is direct because in your ruling ALL spells of the healing subschool benefit even if they didn't cure hit points to begin with. As I said earlier, that's fine and that is consistent. But if you DO think it makes a difference whether or not the spell cures damage to begin with, then you need to think about what granting fast healing means in mechanical terms.

 

[Mistwell]

If I plane shift someone to the elemental plane of fire, they start taking fire damage each round. Does that damage come from the spell plane shift? I would say no. All plane shift does is change their circumstances, and as a result they take damage.

That too is obviously indirect, and not direct.

Take the time now to explain how that is actually the same kind of thing as this spell. It seems to me an example of the opposite kind of thing to this spell. It once again is something that is completely independent of the spell itself that does the damage. In this case, fire.

Let me put it a different way, since you like analogies. In every example of an indirect effect caused by a spell, it's a person (or creature), or a place (plane of fire) or thing (like, say, if you light something on fire with a spell and then push someone into it). An independent intervening thing is always something you can point to. It's that creature you summon. It's that fire you got put in. It's that potion you drink.

Fast Healing is not like those things. It's not something you can point at. It's not a person, place, or thing. It's an effect of causing healing to happen over many rounds, much like cure light wounds causes an effect (instant healing).

 

[Mistwell]

What is outrageous is the assertion that there is no such thing as indirect healing. Since you have revised your statements to admit the possibility and clarify that you simply don't think it is the case here, that is no longer outrageous.

OK, enough.

You show me where I made an assertion that there is no such thing as indirect healing, or where I revised my statement. If you want to continue to have a discussion about this with me, making an accusation like that requires that you back it up first.

It's obvious (to me) that if you teleport someone to the positive energy plane, which causes you to heal, then the spell is indirectly healing not directly healing. And, if you summon a creature that is itself able to cast cure light wounds, the summoning is indirectly healing and not directly healing.

And I've said all along that there is a difference between those kinds of indirect healings and this kind of direct healing spell.

In this case, if the spell says conjuration [healing], I cannot think of a reason why it wouldn't gain the benefit of the Augment Healing feat, though I would run it like the FAQ says and apply it to the first round only. Nor do I think it's unbalanced (which I think is a valid issue if there is a judgment call to be made).

 

[moritheil]

OK, enough.

You show me where I made an assertion that there is no such thing as indirect healing, or where I revised my statement. If you want to continue to have a discussion about this with me, making an accusation like that requires that you back it up first.

I frankly don't care if you continue to discuss this or not. If you want to understand the possible arguments that can be advanced surrounding these rules better, that's fine; if not, that's fine too. I neither profit nor suffer either way.

I am confused by you going out of your way to make the statement above. Are you or are you not asserting that there is no such thing? It sure seemed like you were earlier. Then you clarified that you didn't mean to assert that, and I took that clarification at face value. Now you want me to prove something you yourself discarded. Are you just trying to argue as much as possible?