This is for the Spell Aura of Life.
I looked into other spells that Disciple of Life was obviously intended for like Healing Word and Cure Wounds, to see is the word regains was used or the word restores thinking this would solve the debate, however:
Healing Word:
A creature of your choice that you can see within range regains hit points equal to 1d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
Cure Wounds:
A creature you touch regains a number of hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
So I looked at 2 different parts of the Disciple of Life feature and came to 2 conclusions.
First, the phrase "Whenever you use a spell," becomes the focal point. I would argue that you used that spell when it is first cast turning the entirety of the spell into 1 + Disciple of life. Then a Creature is regaining the benefits of that spell.
Second, you are not casting the spell"to restore hit points to a creature," you are instead casting and aura that doesn't target so it can't be "To" anything, also the spell works kind of imp
But that would depend and what the word "to" means.
So it can be argued that you are using the spell "to restore hit points" since that is your intended purpose.
I think this will ultimately boil down to a DM table decision.
However, If it were me. I would think that since the spell description states, "the living creature regains 1 hit point when it starts its turn in the aura with 0 hit points."
I think that is very limiting feature, I would then allow the Disciple of Life, because only dying players benefit. Also, when a character can take that level 4 spell enemies can still 1 hit the slightly more alive player who is regaining consciousness.
If your DM is still not having it.
This the point where the home-brewing/compromising begin.
I think a middle ground could be accomplished where Disciple of Life works for the first round, that is when you "cast/use" the spell, then when your turn comes around you are no longer casting the spell, only maintaining the spell. So the Disciple of Life benefit goes away.
This is where the word use gets tricky, on one hand you still use the Aura of Life spell it is up and creatures are benefiting from it, on the other hand you are not "using" the spell; other creatures are "using" the spell.
This is where the Aura of Vitality wording helps, "You can use a bonus action to cause one creature in the aura (including you) to regain 2d6 hit points."
You are "using" the spell Aura of Vitality, so there is a benefit.
So for the Aura of Life spell, a DM could rule that you do get the benefit of Disciple of Life if the character "uses" a action or a bonus action on each turn to "use" the spell for the soul purpose of adding the Disciple of Life benefit, and only for that specific Disciple of Life benefit. This would of course change the spells description to reflect that ruling.
I looked into other spells that Disciple of Life was obviously intended for like Healing Word and Cure Wounds, to see is the word regains was used or the word restores thinking this would solve the debate, however:
Healing Word:
A creature of your choice that you can see within range regains hit points equal to 1d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
Cure Wounds:
A creature you touch regains a number of hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
So I looked at 2 different parts of the Disciple of Life feature and came to 2 conclusions.
First, the phrase "Whenever you use a spell," becomes the focal point. I would argue that you used that spell when it is first cast turning the entirety of the spell into 1 + Disciple of life. Then a Creature is regaining the benefits of that spell.
Second, you are not casting the spell"to restore hit points to a creature," you are instead casting and aura that doesn't target so it can't be "To" anything, also the spell works kind of imp
But that would depend and what the word "to" means.
So it can be argued that you are using the spell "to restore hit points" since that is your intended purpose.
I think this will ultimately boil down to a DM table decision.
However, If it were me. I would think that since the spell description states, "the living creature regains 1 hit point when it starts its turn in the aura with 0 hit points."
I think that is very limiting feature, I would then allow the Disciple of Life, because only dying players benefit. Also, when a character can take that level 4 spell enemies can still 1 hit the slightly more alive player who is regaining consciousness.
If your DM is still not having it.
This the point where the home-brewing/compromising begin.
I think a middle ground could be accomplished where Disciple of Life works for the first round, that is when you "cast/use" the spell, then when your turn comes around you are no longer casting the spell, only maintaining the spell. So the Disciple of Life benefit goes away.
This is where the word use gets tricky, on one hand you still use the Aura of Life spell it is up and creatures are benefiting from it, on the other hand you are not "using" the spell; other creatures are "using" the spell.
This is where the Aura of Vitality wording helps, "You can use a bonus action to cause one creature in the aura (including you) to regain 2d6 hit points."
You are "using" the spell Aura of Vitality, so there is a benefit.
So for the Aura of Life spell, a DM could rule that you do get the benefit of Disciple of Life if the character "uses" a action or a bonus action on each turn to "use" the spell for the soul purpose of adding the Disciple of Life benefit, and only for that specific Disciple of Life benefit. This would of course change the spells description to reflect that ruling.
Last edited:
