Wand of Cu Light vs Wand of Vigor, Lesser

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

but a fireball quite literally heals zero damage. (Well, usually.)

That's true in English. I don't believe it's true so long as we're speaking Rulese. The answer to the question, "How much damage does a Fireball spell heal?" isn't "zero"; it's "does not compute." It's analogous to, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" when asked of someone who isn't married, let alone abusive.

What's the Con score of an Undead? What's the Intelligence score of an Iron Golem?

Let me ask you this: how much Strength damage does an Augmented lesser restoration heal, minimum? Does it heal any HP damage?

How much does it heal? Does not compute, because:

or cures 1d4 points of temporary ability damage to one of the subject’s ability scores.

And, no, it doesn't heal any HP damage.

Unfortunately:

you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5)

So, legalistically speaking, it would appear that no speal actually heals damage. Several of them cure it, however.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

That's true in English. I don't believe it's true so long as we're speaking Rulese. The answer to the question, "How much damage does a Fireball spell heal?" isn't "zero"; it's "does not compute."

If you can gimme a rule on that, you're good to go.

It's analogous to, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" when asked of someone who isn't married, let alone abusive.

No, it's not analogous. It would be analogous to "Do you beat your wife?" to which the literal answer is, if you're not married, "No." (Which, incidentally, is exactly how a lawyer would instruct you to answer. Believe me, in this area I know whereof I speak.)

What's the Con score of an Undead? What's the Intelligence score of an Iron Golem?

Here's the difference: I can show you the rule that says that a creature's lack of an ability score isn't the same as it possessing a 0 in that score. Why do the rules need to do that, if "Rulese" is so clear?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If you can gimme a rule on that, you're good to go.

Well, to play turnabout, we've already got an indication that "0" and "N/A" are different.

Can you find a rule that says a spell which makes no mention of healing any damage at all actually heals 0 damage?

 

[tomBitonti]

Granting Fast Healing 1?

Don't have the spell in front of me, but does lesser vigor grant fast healing 1, or does it
grant the target the ability to heal a point of damage per round, or does it heal a point
of damage on the target per round?

The precise wording seems to make a difference:

If fast healing 1 is granted, what happens when lesser vigor is cast on a creature
with fast healing(not a troll, which has regeneration, which is different)? Do the
healing rates stack? Under this case, wouldn't it make more sense for the spell to be
of type Transutation instead of Conjuration(Healing)?

In the second case, you have almost the same as the first case, but different wording
would mean that there should be no stacking problem.

In the third case, the spell would definitely be healing the target, so augmented healing
should apply. (Although, you could argue that the extra healing is tacked on by
making the spell last longer.)

All three cases "effectively" grant fast healing 1, but the wording matters.

The title of the spell would seem to indicate the first option, since it implies that the
spell is increasing the "vigor" of the target, that is, a change to the target. But the
spell type is more inline with the third option, as the type implies that the spell is of a
sort that "heals" the target.

As an aside, what happens if you cast cure light wounds plus augmented healing on
an undead? Do they take 1d8 + level + 2 points of damage, or just 1d8 + level, in the
second case with the argument that the spell doesn't do any "healing", so augmented
healing should not apply. That would seem to be indicated, but that doesn't sit right
with me.

Thx,

TFB

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Can you find a rule that says a spell which makes no mention of healing any damage at all actually heals 0 damage?

A rule? No. But in the absence of a rule, you go with the default: the English language.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Don't have the spell in front of me, but does lesser vigor grant fast healing 1, or does it
grant the target the ability to heal a point of damage per round, or does it heal a point
of damage on the target per round?

It grants Fast Healing 1.

As an aside, what happens if you cast cure light wounds plus augmented healing on
an undead? Do they take 1d8 + level + 2 points of damage, or just 1d8 + level, in the
second case with the argument that the spell doesn't do any "healing", so augmented
healing should not apply. That would seem to be indicated, but that doesn't sit right
with me.

If you target an undead with the spell, you are no longer healing any damage (the answer to the question is "N/A"), so it does not apply.

Jeff - how would you respond to the question posed above?

If we assume that the answer to "How much damage does a non-healing spell heal?" is 0, then when someone with the Augment Healing feat uses Cure Light Wounds against Undead, he inflicts 1d8 + CLvl damage, and heals the undead for 2 points*. That would seem to be a problem with your interpretation ...

* - I think it's two points, anyway.

 

[Crothian]

A rule? No. But in the absence of a rule, you go with the default: the English language.

Actually, generally speaking with absence of a rule its a DMs call.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

That would seem to be a problem with your interpretation ...

Just as a reminder, it's really not my interpretation. It's a literal reading of the feat, and I happen to think it leads to absurd results. But that doesn't change the literal language.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Just as a reminder, it's really not my interpretation. It's a literal reading of the feat, and I happen to think it leads to absurd results. But that doesn't change the literal language.

But that is what you are proposing would happen, correct?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But that is what you are proposing would happen, correct?

I'm not sure, because I'm not actually sure what the rules say is the direct cause of the damage undead creatures take from cure spells. (Is it positive energy, is it "healing," or is it a direct function of the spell?) But I do understand your point, and I do agree that interpreting the feat literally leads to absurd results, as I said.

And isn't that "admission" what you're actually going for?

(IMO, the intent behind Augment Healing would be that undead take extra damage from it.)