Question with Heal

[fba827]

I am pretty sure there is a sentence in either the chapter on magic or the chapter on spells (the page or two before the spells are listed) that explictly says that the word level in the spell description always refers to caster's caster level.

but.. that's just my recollection of it.

in either case, i'm of the mind that it refers to caster level.

 

[Darklone]

I am pretty sure there is a sentence in either the chapter on magic or the chapter on spells (the page or two before the spells are listed) that explictly says that the word level in the spell description always refers to caster's caster level.

but.. that's just my recollection of it.

in either case, i'm of the mind that it refers to caster level.

Right.

 

[Li Shenron]

The reason why I can see that they didn't mean caster level is that they did not say caster level.

IIRC, every single spell in the SRD gives details using the word "level": Range Close (25ft+5ft/2 levels), one creature/level, duration 1 hour/level and so on...

I don't think you have always played spells using character level instead of caster level!

 

[Hypersmurf]

IIRC, every single spell in the SRD gives details using the word "level": Range Close (25ft+5ft/2 levels)

Well, that's specifically defined in the Magic Overview as 25ft + 5ft / 2 caster levels, and abbreviated in the stat blocks

-Hyp.

 

[Lamoni]

Well, that's specifically defined in the Magic Overview as 25ft + 5ft / 2 caster levels, and abbreviated in the stat blocks

Right. Can anyone find an example where this is not true? Or an example of where they used the same wording as they do in Heal?

If you use the same wording over and over and over and over again, the stuff reads like crap. Writer's instincts is to find new ways to say things, to make the text more accessible.

The danger is, of course, implying stuff that you didn't mean.

For example, I had some text where I talked about 'incurring a penalty,' and then later used the wording 'gain a penalty of X.' One reader said 'gain a penalty? But that sounds positive!'

The difference being, incurring a penalty and gaining a penalty of X really do mean the same thing. They just sound different.
On the other hand... caster level and level of the caster have different meanings. They could have reworded it and said per levels of a caster class. That would sound differently, but mean the same thing. It still might confuse some people, but would not change the meaning.

I am pretty sure there is a sentence in either the chapter on magic or the chapter on spells (the page or two before the spells are listed) that explictly says that the word level in the spell description always refers to caster's caster level.

I have looked for this and couldn't find it. Could you post where it says this? I actually see no need for it to be written there since every spell that is based on caster level says caster level... except for maybe heal, but that is still being debated.

 

[Lamoni]

Just 'Level' means different things when talking about different stuff.
For spells, the default is caster level. They would have to specifically say 'character level' for your interpretation to be correct.

Where does it say that caster level is the default? It seems to me that if level defaulted to caster level for spells that they wouldn't bother spelling out caster level so much. I think that the default for just level is the character level. Anytime that level doesn't refer to the total level of the character, it is clarified.

Yeah, it's caster level. Sometimes you shouldn't think too hard about WHY the authors wrote what they did, just fix it and move on. Trying to understand the authors' minds will lead to 'pokemount' level insanity!

The problem is that you assume that it needs to be 'fixed'. That means that the authors wrote it unintentionally. I think that they did it intentionally. Maybe they didn't think too hard about the consequences before-hand... but on the other hand, maybe they did. Instead of 'fixing' things that I think that the authors didn't intend, I like to assume that they intended to write everything that they wrote... until they write something in an Errata or FAQ or something that says otherwise. Therefore I like to run things how they are written unless they pose a problem. Like someone pointed out... the problem is only going to be a difference between 110 and 150 points. Unless you are a Paladin. Then it affects Heal mount to heal 110 points of damage instead of just 50 at level 11.

 

[Will]

Why do you think it's intentionally character level?

What possible explanation could you have for a magic spell being higher powered by having more non-caster levels?

The only other magicish stuff I'm aware of that is based on character level are some of the supernatural abilities of templates.

The only spell I can think of where character level matters is alter self/polymorph/shapechange, and there are plenty of reasons why the HD-related rule there is not a precedent.

 

[Lamoni]

Why do you think it's intentionally character level?

I thought I already answered this in my earlier posts. I think it is character level because it doesn't say caster level. If you ask what level someone is, they will answer with their character level. I said that I like to think that whatever is written was done so intentionally until I see evidence to the contrary.

What possible explanation could you have for a magic spell being higher powered by having more non-caster levels?

The character is older and wiser, has more experience, whatever. The thing is, that doesn't matter. Many things don't have good explanations and are just there for mechanical reasons (like spending XP on spells). You can come up with explanations if you think hard enough, but the mechanic wasn't placed there to represent any real or fantasy world physics. It was placed there because of how it mechanically affected the game.

The only other magicish stuff I'm aware of that is based on character level are some of the supernatural abilities of templates.

The only spell I can think of where character level matters is alter self/polymorph/shapechange, and there are plenty of reasons why the HD-related rule there is not a precedent.

This is valid, but it can be used to support either side. Your side is saying that since it is always based on character level for every other spell (except for what you mention) it has precedent and must follow the same mechanics. However, you could also go the other way. Since every other spell that is based on character level says that it is based on character level and heal says something different, that must mean that it IS different.

 

[DanMcS]

Why do you think it's intentionally character level?

This thread annoys me. It's perfectly obvious why he would want it to be character level- it would benefit his character. It's intentional misreading of the text, "oh, it's unclear", to get a stupid munchkin benefit out of it. He got answers, they didn't agree with what he wanted to hear, now he's arguing.

Bah.

 

[Lamoni]

This thread annoys me. It's perfectly obvious why he would want it to be character level- it would benefit his character. It's intentional misreading of the text, "oh, it's unclear", to get a stupid munchkin benefit out of it. He got answers, they didn't agree with what he wanted to hear, now he's arguing.

Bah.

Sorry to annoy you. I didn't feel like I was intentionally misreading the text. It just cought me by surprise. I used the example of my Paladin to show where it would have the most affect. Otherwise going from healing 110 to healing 150 is something, but not as drastic as going from 60 to 120 or 130.

I haven't even selected Heal Mount as my third level spell. I have always relied on my lay on hands ability and then just dismissed him if he was getting wounded too badly. I am not sure if I'll take the spell if it does work differently than I thought at first. It will be more tempting though.

Yes, I got answers. True, they didn't agree with what I wanted to hear. I was expecting someone to point me to a FAQ, an e-mail, an old errata, a passage in a WOTC splatbook that mentions something about heal, or something similar. I am still not convinced that it should be one way or the other. However, I kept posting and 'arguing' as you say because people would ask questions, and I would still like to know if there is any other evidence than what was given.

I am perfectly happy to continue to play as heal restores 10 X caster level... and I probably won't even bring it up with my DM because it will affect very little. Even if I do select Heal Mount as a spell, there will be few occasions where being to heal more than 60 hp will make any difference. (My mount has about 80 hp's and I would be inclined to use it once he dropped to around 25) However, I like finding things in the rules and figuring out what they actually say and mean. I am happy to hear that I am wrong. It isn't critical, and won't really affect me either way... it won't even affect the cleric in the party since she plans to continue with cleric levels and has never even chosen the heal spell. She is content to use cure spells and likes to select offensive ones.

-Sorry for the long post. I just wanted to let you know where I was coming from. This is a rules forum where I just thought I'd bring up a rule I noticed. My intentions aren't to abuse them. I don't even think that this one can be abused... but maybe it can if you think hard enough.