May Rules Update

[MarkB]

Follow along:

Healing lore says you regain additional hit points when a Cleric power allows you to spend a healing surge. Cure Light Wounds is a cleric power that gives you hit points -as if you had spent a healing surge-.

But not -as if you had been affected by a Cleric power that let you spend a healing surge-.

The effects of Healer's Lore aren't invoked in that hypothetical - it simply returns a value for what the target critter would heal if it spent a surge. You then plumb that figure into the actual power, and apply any modifiers derived from it being a Cleric power. Which, as of the update, does not include Healer's Lore.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

why not decide it at the table for yourselves... no harm done... and for LFR a ruling was just made... not the right one IMHO, but still a reasonable...

 

[keterys]

X as if you do Y means certain things in the game, and if you undermine that, you break the game rules. That's not desirable. So yes, Healing Lore requires more errata for it to exclude CLW.

It doesn't require errata, though it could use an FAQ. It's not breaking game rules. Is it, perhaps, undesirable? Well, sure, that's totally different.

If a Ruffian Rogue is attacking with a mace, he's able to use his mace in any power that requires a light blade, and get his sneak attack. Great. He can't use Light Blade Precision or Deft Blade, which actually require a light blade though.

If Healer's Lore granted a saving throw, temporary hp, a shift, or anything other than hp, you'd be clear that it didn't apply to Cure Light Wounds under the new wording. You're clear it doesn't because you're approaching the problem from one direction (the cleric goes 'Hey, have a free surge at +15') instead of from the other direction (the target goes 'Okay, I get a free surge' and the cleric goes 'I get to add 3 to all healing powers, and, hmm, this other stuff doesn't matter since you didn't spend a surge. So have another 3.')

If they had worded Healer's Lore differently - there'd be no wriggle room. But they didn't. So we'll get table variance on how it's played, but it's clear how WotC wants it handled and that is a valid interpretation. So, that's fine, moving right along.

 

[boar]

If you have a feat that increases the number of hit points you get when spending a healing surge, it works with Cure Light Wounds, because, according to Cure Light Wounds, for the purposes of regaining hit points, you are treated as if you had spent a healing surge.

Draco, normally you're spot on with your rules interpretations, but you're simply incorrect here. Feats don't "increase the number of hit points you get when spending a surge." This is unusually sloppy and inaccurate language, coming from you. Feats and items add a bonus to your surge value, e.g. Dwarven Durability:

Benefit: Increase your number of healing surges by two and your healing surge value by your Constitution modifier.

When your surge value increases, then of course Cure X Wounds takes the bump into account -- it has to use your surge value to figure out the number of hitpoints to restore. This is entirely different from something that triggers when you actually spend a surge.

In other words: no, the ruling doesn't break 4e. There is nothing contradictory about Cure X Wounds working with Dwarven Durability and not working with Healer's Lore.

 

[phil500]

why not decide it at the table for yourselves... no harm done... and for LFR a ruling was just made... not the right one IMHO, but still a reasonable...

what ruling was that?

as for the nerf to astral seal: i dont see anyone talking about the nerf to recovery strike. that was even more damaging since str/cha clerics have almost no support.

recovery strike was bordering on being op with the power of love domain. +5 temp hp to 2 alllies instead of damage? pretty good, at paragon it becomes +10.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No healers lore on CLW etc...

 

[DracoSuave]

It doesn't require errata, though it could use an FAQ. It's not breaking game rules. Is it, perhaps, undesirable? Well, sure, that's totally different.

If a Ruffian Rogue is attacking with a mace, he's able to use his mace in any power that requires a light blade, and get his sneak attack. Great. He can't use Light Blade Precision or Deft Blade, which actually require a light blade though.

That's not the equivalent argument tho.

Ruthless Ruffian is:

Ruthless Ruffian: You are proficient with the club and the mace, and you can use those weapons with Sneak Attack or any rogue power that normally
requires a light blade. If you use a club or a mace to deliver an attack that has the rattling keyword, add your Strength modifier to the damage roll.

It's not the same wording.

The argument here isn't that you didn't spend a healing surge. The argument is that you regain hit points as if you'd spent a healing surge. Are you saying you do not regain hit points as if you'd spent a healing surge?



More importantly, the argument that it breaks the game isn't about CLW specifically. It's about setting the precident that 'Do X as if it were Y' abilities do not actually do so. That means that -other- abilities that allow 'as if it were' type substitutions no longer work. An example was given above of how it falls apart, in Wizard of the Spiral Tower. That would mean that the wizard who took that class couldn't use Accurate Wand or Staff of Defense or Orb of Imposition.

The argument against CLW giving hit points goes like this:

You regain hit points as if you spent a healing surge.
-But you didn't actually do so, so Healing Lore doesn't kick in.
-So, therefore, you just get your surge value.

So applying that precident to other rules:

Wizard of the Spiral Tower:

You treat a longsword as if it were a staff of defense.
-But it's not actually a staff, so Staff of Defense is not available.
-So, therefore, you do not get your +1 to AC.

Conjurations:

You determine line of sight normally. but you determine line of effect from the conjuration. as if you were in its space.
-But it's not actually your space
-so stuff that blocks line of effect can still block it if it's between you and the enemy.


See, this is where it gets problematic. Rules DO break down. Healer's Lore needs additional errata to make it not work with CLW in order for it to function.

"When you let a creature spend a healing surge to regain hit points with one of your cleric powers that has the healing keyword, add your Wisdom modifier to the hit points the recipient regains."

The way CLW is written, it treats regaining hit points as if he had spent that surge. Healer's Lore is a regaining hit point-affecting thing, so it fully applies. If it did not, CLW would NOT be working as it is stated, it would NOT be letting you regain hps as if you spent that surge.

Either that or 'Do X as if it were Y' doesn't work.

One. Or the other. And the second breaks the game rules apart.

 

[keterys]

The argument here isn't that you didn't spend a healing surge. The argument is that you regain hit points as if you'd spent a healing surge. Are you saying you do not regain hit points as if you'd spent a healing surge?

Are you arguing that if Healer's Lore said:
'When you use a cleric healing power where the target spends a surge, they get a saving throw with a bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier'
that they'd get a saving throw from Cure Light Wounds?

Or, to make it even more interesting:
Do you believe that a Battle Standard of Healing heals everyone in a group when Cure Light Wounds is used on someone?

If so, I believe you're quite wrong.
If not, then I don't understand why you think this breaks the game.

Either way, I think you're reading either too much or too little into this argument.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

The argument here isn't that you didn't spend a healing surge. ...

I may be late to this soiree, but... um... its not? I think this is the key point in the ruling.

a) CLW grants healing as if the target spent a surge, but a surge is not actually spent.

b) Healers Lore triggers when a cleric power enables a target to spend a healing surge.

a + b = Healer's Lore does not apply to CLW.



I agree with keterys in that I think you are reading too much into this one.

 

[Mirtek]

I agree with keterys in that I think you are reading too much into this one.

It's not this one, it's all the other instances using similar languages which are now wracked by this specific ruling.

RAI is clear, we heard it from the designers themselves, they didn't meant for HL to apply to CLW. However it seems as if the designers tripped over a snarl in their own rules language.

The way to make HL no longer apply to CLW would be the update CLW to just say "The target regains hit points equal to it's healing surge value" instead of "The target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge."

Because the "as if" wording has a special meaning in 4e rules language and their current answer about HL and CLW is generally changing this meaning across a lot of different powers.

While it changes the meaning of CLW to match RAW, the changes it brings to a host of other powers is certainly not intended.

E.g. the Wizard of the Spiral Tower has already been mentioned as an example. Until the designers answer to HL and CLW, a Wand of Accuracy wizard could use his wand of accuracy feature while using a longsword. With the answer regarding to HL and CLW he can no longer do so, even if the answers certainly was never intended to affect any other instances of the "as if" rules language being used, that's what it does nonetheless.

I agree with keterys in that I think you are reading too much into this one.

In this case it's the designers not thinking enough into what the intend and what the actually write down and how what they say about case A does affect cases B, C, and D