Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="moritheil" data-source="post: 4121885" data-attributes="member: 30610">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.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.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 - 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification