Mass Heal vs Undead

[Beretta]

Hi all,

I was hoping that some of you may be able to help me out with this question.

One of the PC clerics has begun using Mass heal as a Mass Harm against undead.

I was looking at the SRD and it described the spell thus:

Mass Heal
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 8, Drd 9, Healing 8
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
The character channels positive energy into creatures to wipe away disease and injury. It completely cures all diseases, blindness, deafness, hit point damage, and all temporary ability damage. It neutralizes poisons in the subject’s system, so that no additional damage or effects are suffered. It offsets a feeblemind spell. It cures those mental disorders caused by spells or injury to the brain. Only a single application of the spell is needed to simultaneously achieve all these effects.
Heal does not remove negative levels, restore permanently drained levels, or restore permanently drained ability scores.
If used against undead creatures (requires a successful touch attack), mass heal reduces them to 1d4 hp.

My concern is the "requires a successful touch attack". This doesn't appear in my copy of the PHB (which says just "see Heal" in the text, and the version we have been using so far), and would appear to turn an 8th-level spell into its normal equivalent (unless you use it to Heal your companions and Harm a nearby undead, or else you are surrounded by undead[as I believe you can use a touch spell on up to 6 different targets per round if it is not discharged by the first attack, and the number of targets for MH is only limited by their proximity to each other]).

What are people's thoughts on this? Should MH vs Undead just be targetted at eligible Undead foes, none of which may be more than 30ft from another, or can it only affect them with a successful touch attack (which makes it no better than a normal Heal spell which is of a much lower level)?

Many thanks!

 

[3d6]

That text seems like an error. Probably an artifact of the SRD's removal of all "as spell" entries.

 

[AuraSeer]

The spell does not state that you must touch the target. If it requires a touch attack and has close range, then it's effectively a ray that affects multiple targets.

 

[Jalkain]

Looking at the SRD, Heal is described as Range: Touch, and Mass Heal is described as like Heal, except that it has Range: Close. So no touch attack is necessary for what you describe.

 

[XCorvis]

If used against undead creatures (requires a successful touch attack)...

It states that a touch attack is necessary ONLY if it is used against undead. 3d6 is probably right in that it's a goof and hold-over from the Heal spell. You must house rule it. Or, see if you can find how the new Mass Cure X Wounds spells work on undead. Then use the same mechanic.

BTW, did you house-rule Harm to involve a save (or are you using 3.5)? Because the undead really should get a save.

And if your player gets really nasty with it, have a lich cast Mass Harm and heal all his buddies while nailing the PCs.

 

[Beretta]

Thanks all!

I thought that perhaps it was a typo too.

It has proven very powerful against undead even with the save for half, which I use.

I'll leave it be - what with it being shifted to a 9th-level spell in 3.5e I don't see the lack of an attack roll of some description being an issue.

Thanks again for clarifying!

 

[AuraSeer]

I don't see the lack of an attack roll of some description being an issue.

There is an attack roll. Look up "ranged touch attack." It's not that complicated.

 

[Murrdox]

There's NOTHING in there for a ranged touch attack. It's definitely not a ray. Only a Touch attack is mentioned.

If used against undead creatures (requires a successful touch attack), mass heal reduces them to 1d4 hp.

I see a few possibilities for this.

1) Typo. You don't have to touch the undead. It affects undead within the range just as it affects your allies.

2) It says a touch attack is required, but it still affects "them". Thus, perhaps you could rule that you must TOUCH a single undead, and then it affects all other undead as if you had targeted the spell normally at the target you touched, ie all undead within 30' of the target.

3) You can affect as many undead with this spell as you can make touch attacks during your turn.

 

[ForceUser]

Why don't you just have it work like circle of doom with regards to targeting foes?

 

[AuraSeer]

There's NOTHING in there for a ranged touch attack. It's definitely not a ray. Only a Touch attack is mentioned.

It's a touch attack. It has range. We call this a "ranged touch attack", and it is used in lots of places. I fail to see what the problem is.

Once again: making a touch attack is not the same thing as touching a creature. The term "touch attack" is distinct from "attack" only in that there is a different DC. It has absolutely nothing to do with making physical contact.

If the spell said it required an "attack roll", this question would never come up; people would just use a regular attack roll at range. But because the special attack type is called a "touch attack", people get confused, and incorrectly assume it requires an actual touch. It doesn't.

When the spell is used on undead, it has the same range, but requires a roll against each target's touch AC. Just like harm, but with more targets and a range greater than touch.