Arkhandus
First Post
/snarky By Sab's logic, you could also deduce that you could make a 2nd-level version of Phantasmal Killer that just works on humanoids, because, y'know, narrowing the range of uses moderately is all you need to reduce a spell's level by 2 or so. Bam! 2nd-level death spell to use on the BBEG! Slippery slopes are fun! /snarky
Besides, the books I've read make mention of the benchmark spells and how there aren't supposed to be lower-level spells that manage to produce the same kind of effect. I.E. there shouldn't be any version of Limited Wish that's lower level than 7th.
Some very valid points were brought up though. The Undead definition says they can be healed by negative energy, not are healed by it, so it is obviously completely up to the individual effect's/item's description as to whether or not it heals them. If any positive energy that doesn't explicitly specify otherwise could be considered to heal living creatures, then you'd have to assume that Turn/Destroy Undead heals all living creatures within 60 feet of the cleric or paladin. /snarky Who needs CLW when a cleric can heal 3+ times per day for, what, 2d6+level worth of HP to all allies within 60 feet? /snarky And likewise regarding negative energy and undead. There are plenty of examples in the rules of positive energy effects that harm the living instead of healing them. Ravids, Xag-yas (or was it Xeg-yis?), the Positive Energy Plane itself, etc. You might take the example of cell regeneration and cancer; cancer is just out-of-control, excessive cell regeneration, but normal cell regeneration is just natural healing, but when it happens too rapidly and uncontrollably, it becomes harmful and dangerous rather than beneficial. Likewise, Positive Energy can be dangerous to the living when it's applied a certain way, such as a character spending too long on the Positive Energy Plane and rapidly being suffused with excessive, soul-bloating amounts of positive energy.
And a sorcerer who could heal with Disrupt Undead (if it were possible, which it isn't) is going to be a much better healer than a cleric at low level. Sorcerer 1 = casts over half a dozen DU spells a day, Cleric 1 = casts 2-3 CMW orisons and 1-2 CLW spells a day; Sorcerer 1 heals around 7d6 damage or so at close range (avg. 25 hp, max. 42), Cleric 1 heals around 2d8+6 damage or so at mere touch-range (avg. 15 hp, max 22). It would be ridiculous to say that a cleric's capacity to improve in healing ability at higher levels makes up for them sucking compared to a sorcerer at low level at said healing ability. Hell, the sorcerer could heal with 5 DU spells and still be able to unleash 2 Magic Missiles that day, without ever moving from his initial position on the battlefield, while the cleric has to spend all his time hustling from one ally to the next to deliver 1 or 1d8+1 HP of healing to each ally, and if he's lucky, he'll have the chance to get in one swing of his mace against an enemy amidst all this. Outside of battle, the sorcerer can stand next to an ally and point his finger at their chest point-blank and be assured of success with Disrupt Undead, so the cleric wouldn't even be better at post-battle patching-up. Most PCs have fairly low touch AC anyway, and ranged touch attacks aren't too hard to hit with at low level. Healing is supposed to be the cleric's shtick, the thing they do best and better than anyone else, it's what the core rules and such all support.
I think effects like Turn Undead and Disrupt Undead channel positive energy in a manner that is meant to only cancel out negative energy, like matter and antimatter, and aren't balanced/attuned/controlled enough to be beneficial to living creatures. I think, for instance, it could be that it takes a lasting infusion of positive energy to knit flesh and restore vitality before it fades, whereas a brief burst of positive energy is just too short-lived to regenerate or bind damaged flesh. As an example. I.E. a CLW spell infuses the subject with a brief lingering bit of positive energy, Turn Undead unleashes a brief flash of such energy that just disrupts negative energy.
Besides, the books I've read make mention of the benchmark spells and how there aren't supposed to be lower-level spells that manage to produce the same kind of effect. I.E. there shouldn't be any version of Limited Wish that's lower level than 7th.
Some very valid points were brought up though. The Undead definition says they can be healed by negative energy, not are healed by it, so it is obviously completely up to the individual effect's/item's description as to whether or not it heals them. If any positive energy that doesn't explicitly specify otherwise could be considered to heal living creatures, then you'd have to assume that Turn/Destroy Undead heals all living creatures within 60 feet of the cleric or paladin. /snarky Who needs CLW when a cleric can heal 3+ times per day for, what, 2d6+level worth of HP to all allies within 60 feet? /snarky And likewise regarding negative energy and undead. There are plenty of examples in the rules of positive energy effects that harm the living instead of healing them. Ravids, Xag-yas (or was it Xeg-yis?), the Positive Energy Plane itself, etc. You might take the example of cell regeneration and cancer; cancer is just out-of-control, excessive cell regeneration, but normal cell regeneration is just natural healing, but when it happens too rapidly and uncontrollably, it becomes harmful and dangerous rather than beneficial. Likewise, Positive Energy can be dangerous to the living when it's applied a certain way, such as a character spending too long on the Positive Energy Plane and rapidly being suffused with excessive, soul-bloating amounts of positive energy.
And a sorcerer who could heal with Disrupt Undead (if it were possible, which it isn't) is going to be a much better healer than a cleric at low level. Sorcerer 1 = casts over half a dozen DU spells a day, Cleric 1 = casts 2-3 CMW orisons and 1-2 CLW spells a day; Sorcerer 1 heals around 7d6 damage or so at close range (avg. 25 hp, max. 42), Cleric 1 heals around 2d8+6 damage or so at mere touch-range (avg. 15 hp, max 22). It would be ridiculous to say that a cleric's capacity to improve in healing ability at higher levels makes up for them sucking compared to a sorcerer at low level at said healing ability. Hell, the sorcerer could heal with 5 DU spells and still be able to unleash 2 Magic Missiles that day, without ever moving from his initial position on the battlefield, while the cleric has to spend all his time hustling from one ally to the next to deliver 1 or 1d8+1 HP of healing to each ally, and if he's lucky, he'll have the chance to get in one swing of his mace against an enemy amidst all this. Outside of battle, the sorcerer can stand next to an ally and point his finger at their chest point-blank and be assured of success with Disrupt Undead, so the cleric wouldn't even be better at post-battle patching-up. Most PCs have fairly low touch AC anyway, and ranged touch attacks aren't too hard to hit with at low level. Healing is supposed to be the cleric's shtick, the thing they do best and better than anyone else, it's what the core rules and such all support.
I think effects like Turn Undead and Disrupt Undead channel positive energy in a manner that is meant to only cancel out negative energy, like matter and antimatter, and aren't balanced/attuned/controlled enough to be beneficial to living creatures. I think, for instance, it could be that it takes a lasting infusion of positive energy to knit flesh and restore vitality before it fades, whereas a brief burst of positive energy is just too short-lived to regenerate or bind damaged flesh. As an example. I.E. a CLW spell infuses the subject with a brief lingering bit of positive energy, Turn Undead unleashes a brief flash of such energy that just disrupts negative energy.
