Restoration question

[Legildur]

<snip> why does one say it "dispels negative levels" while the other "dispels all negative levels"?

I'm only speculating about this, but maybe for Restoration, if they had of written it as 'dispels a negative level' could the designers have been thinking that people would read that to mean that it could only ever dispel a single negative level? For example, a character has 3 negative levels inflicted, would Restoration restore only one level, ever? Three levels if cast 3 times? Or all negative levels with one casting?

On the flip side, it would appear to be a pretty weak option for the spell to dispel only a single negative level and yet still be able to dispel a permanently drained level.

I say that Retoration dispels all negative levels with a single casting.

PS Should I quote this thread over in the 'is the FAQ = Errata' or 'monks and INA' threads and see if cust serv's response about Retoration is therefore Errata and should be pencilled into our PHBs under pain of death? I'm sure Anubis would say so (sorry, couldn't help myself).

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm only speculating about this, but maybe for Restoration, if they had of written it as 'dispels a negative level' could the designers have been thinking that people would read that to mean that it could only ever dispel a single negative level? For example, a character has 3 negative levels inflicted, would Restoration restore only one level, ever?

Definitely not. If, however, someone would read it that way, then if you had multiple abilities drained, you could never actually recover fully via Restoration. If that reasoning applies to the negative level, then it should necessarily apply to ability drains. Obviously, it doesn't (as the remainder of your post concurs), so the designers use of a plural shows the most obvious intent.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

so the designers use of a plural shows the most obvious intent.

I agree. I simply disagree about the most obvious intent. IMO, the intent is for Restoration to remove one negative level per casting. The three spells seem to follow a set pattern of getting better with each iteration.

Ability drain

Lesser: No effect.
Reg: All ability drain from one stat.
Greater: All ability drain from all stats.

Level loss

Lesser: No effect.
Reg: Restores one lost level.
Greater: Restores all lost levels.

Now, here's now I see the point we're discussing:

Negative levels

Lesser: No effect.
Reg: Removes one negative level.
Greater: Removes all negative levels.

It seems to follow the pattern perfectly, (each iteration of the spell adds new functionality and improves upon the functionality already present,) rather than the alternative:

Lesser No effect.
Reg: Removes all negative levels.
Greater: Removes all negative levels.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's a reasonable analysis. When discussing intent, though, things can get a little shaky. There's a good chance that wording was changed from the original after playtesting. I know that some of the playtesting revisions do not go through the same strict editing process, or even the same editor (in this second case it can create a loss of continuity amongst rules like the very one we're addressing here).

So, what this means, IMO, is that the intent of the authors and/or playtesters is probably not as clear as we could determine, given either the pluralization of the word or your fine analysis. Both are equally valid. Now, if anyone has that signed copy of the first draft notes of the PH . . .

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Both are equally valid. Now, if anyone has that signed copy of the first draft notes of the PH . . .

Heh. I agree completely.

 

[Ranes]

I interpret the plural the same way as LP. To me, the plural explains the spell in the general sense of its functionality and not the specific instance. I agree there is room to interpret it differently. It confused me the first few times I read it, before I settled on LP's interpretation.