The warforged, restoration, and you

[Arnwyn]

By strict interpretation, you'd round the half-ending of the condition down to no ending of the condition,

This doesn't make any sense. It's not a "strict interpretation", it's no interpretation at all.

One still has to have a grasp of the English language to play D&D.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Taking Peter's assertion as true, doesn't that make the whole discussion moot?

Not at all. There are times when you don't want to wait to naturally heal your ability damage, and there's still the question of restoration's effect on warforged who have been ability drained.

For what it's worth, I'm on Patryn's and Someone's side of the argument, but I would agree that the published rules are (surprisingly) poorly thought-out on this point. Ultimately, I believe one must ask oneself if the Eberron authors really intended for restoration to be less effective on warforged than lesser restoration. I don't think they did.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Ultimately, I believe one must ask oneself if the Eberron authors really intended for restoration to be less effective on warforged than lesser restoration. I don't think they did.

This argument really has no bearing on the matter at all (and it's not the 1st time it was brought up). An analogy in the core rules would be inflict light wounds vs. harm when the target is at 1 hp. Which does more damage? Based on your statement above, I take it that you don't think the core rules authors really intended that a 6th level spell would be "less effective" than a 1st level spell?

Therefore, so what if lesser restoration might work better than restoration when the target has 2 points of ability damage? If you want to discuss how this oddity would impact your houserule on the warforged, okay, but it has nothing to do with the rules.

The question IMO boils down to: I heal you for all of your damage. If instead I heal you for half that amount, is it still all? To say it's still all makes no sense whatsover and cannot be correct.

 

[Hypersmurf]

An analogy in the core rules would be inflict light wounds vs. harm when the target is at 1 hp. Which does more damage?

As Harm is written, of course, it depends on whether or not the target makes his save

-Hyp.

 

[Starglim]

Which brings us back to the question, "how does Greater Restoration fit into this"

As an earlier poster mentioned, in the case of temporary ability damage, Greater Restoration has the same effect as Restoration.

 

[Enkhidu]

As an earlier poster mentioned, in the case of temporary ability damage, Greater Restoration has the same effect as Restoration.

Which means that, according to the "heal works better than restoration" school" that Heal is suddenly more powerful than Greater Restoration. While some have no problem with a lower level spell having a more powerful effect than a higher level spell when the two provide the same type of benefit, I'm not one of them.

 

[Starglim]

Which means that, according to the "heal works better than restoration" school" that Heal is suddenly more powerful than Greater Restoration. While some have no problem with a lower level spell having a more powerful effect than a higher level spell when the two provide the same type of benefit, I'm not one of them.

So house rule Heal to cure half of the ability damage suffered, as Restoration and Greater Restoration do, but at that point you're making things up.

By the wording of Heal, it ends the condition of ability damage. It's possible that Heal may be reduced in effect upon a warforged. Either Heal still ends the condition of ability damage for a warforged, or it does nothing to ability damage, or it does not end the condition of ability damage but cures some lesser amount. The second option is unreasonable and the third requires an arbitrary ruling on what the new effect of the spell will be.

I don't think there is a "heal works better than restoration" school. My argument was that Heal should be not worse than Restoration, and the wording allows only one valid alternative.