Wand of Cu Light vs Wand of Vigor, Lesser

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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?)

The answer to that question is:

When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.

Similarly:

When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it.

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

Yeah - I just wanted to make sure that I was understanding you.

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

Whereas I would assume that the intent was that it would have no effect when used against undead, just like it would have no effect when combined with a Vigor spell or a Resurrection spell.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I agree that it's a benefit. In fact, I do the same with my 12th level cleric--prep one lesser vigor and use pearls of power to cast it repeatedly. The efficiency of healing that way is a benefit. However, it's important not to exaggerate the benefit. At the levels we're talking about, it's about a 33% increase in spell slot efficiency and generally means either that we have a few more second and third level spells available in the next combat or that we burn through fewer CLW wand charges. (Because I try to keep my cleric from running on empty if I suspect there may be another combat--and if there isn't, it doesn't matter how inefficient I am).

This benefits from the fact that most LG judges are not very strict about the in-game time involved in this method and often tend not to track minutes of game time, preferring to hand-wave min/level duration spells one way or the other.

However, I think the efficiency is more a side benefit of pearl of power Is than an actual practical efficiency of pearl of power+lesser vigor (at least for the casting character). You need to use a pearl about 30 times before you've saved enough money on CLW wand charges to pay for it. And, if you consider that, at least in LG, you would probably have used someone else's CLW wand at least a good portion of that time, it may be even longer than that. OTOH, I often use other peoples' pearls of power too, so the math may not change at all. Even so, I'd say that the primary advantage is the flexibility of the PoP I rather than the efficiency of Lesser Vigor. I think my 12th level cleric just recently broke even on his PoPs and he won't have saved any game-changing amount of money through the tactic by the time he retires.

So, it's unquestionably a benefit. I'm just not sure that it's a huge one.

Let me include in the cost of out of combat healing the extra prepared spells the cleric must expend. I also have a LG cleric who makes extensive use of this spell. His usual M.O. after combat (if we're not expecting another fight immediately) is to cast this spell on everyone who needs it and repeatedly recover the spell with the several 1st level pearls of power he carries.

The net result is that he usually doesn't have to spend any of his higher-level spells to heal the party up, making those spells available for more encounters in the same day, and saving consumable healing resources. The low-level, efficient healing is a huge benefit.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Whereas I would assume that the intent was that it would have no effect when used against undead, just like it would have no effect when combined with a Vigor spell or a Resurrection spell.

Well, given that I'm not familiar with the feat, I should have stated my opinion with the caveat that I'm assuming the "flavor" of the feat indicates it enhances the cleric's ability to channel the positive energy used in cure spells. It would be possible, for example, that the feat has prerequisites that would indicate that it instead depends upon the cleric's medical or first aid skills.

In other words, I'm spouting off an opinion without a basis. Shame on me.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In other words, I'm spouting off an opinion without a basis. Shame on me.

Man, if I had a dollar ...

 

[Diirk]

It has a prerequisite of 4 ranks of heal. But thats really irrelevant, it doesn't say "on any spell that heals damage it heals an additional +2 per spell level", it says "on any spell in this school, it heals +2 per spell level" (paraphrasing)

There's nothing that says its hitpoint damage either; and while thats definately the default, on something like lesser restoration which cures 1d4 ability damage, curing an additional +4 damage would make it 1d4+4, no ?

While the feat is poorly worded in some respects, I have to say if they really wanted to restrict it to healing spells, I'd expect them to have said healing spells, not conjuration [healing] spells.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It has a prerequisite of 4 ranks of heal. But thats really irrelevant, it doesn't say "on any spell that heals damage it heals an additional +2 per spell level", it says "on any spell in this school, it heals +2 per spell level" (paraphrasing)

Actually, what it says is:

AUGMENT HEALING [GENERAL]
Benefit: Add +2 points per spell level to the amount of damage healed by any Conjuration [Healing] spell that you cast.

"To the amount of damage healed."

I maintain that "+2 points to Undefined healing" is still "Undefined healing", just like "+2 enhancement to Undefined Con" is still "Undefined Con" (the undead situation).

Thanks, Nail, for posting it earlier!

 

[Diirk]

Actually, what it says is:

Yes, thats why I believe I mentioned that I was paraphrasing.

I maintain that "+2 points to Undefined healing" is still "Undefined healing", just like "+2 enhancement to Undefined Con" is still "Undefined Con" (the undead situation).

I take it, its also your position then, that a human dragon disciple wouldn't get the natural armour bonus ?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes, thats why I believe I mentioned that I was paraphrasing.

Right. I thought, however, that your paraphrasing was poorly written because it led fairly obviously to one particular interpretation. Accordingly, I reprovided the actual text.

I take it, its also your position then, that a human dragon disciple wouldn't get the natural armour bonus ?

Why would that happen? Because he does not have a Natural Armor bonus to improve?

A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.

 

[Diirk]

The enhancement bonus provided by barkskin stacks with the target's natural armor bonus, but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0

So given that a creature without a natural armour bonus has an effective natural armour bonus of +0, then a spell that doesn't heal effectively heals +0. I see that as perfectly natural.

I can see the counterargument "but its spelled out in the case of natural armour bonuses and it isn't for healing", but then I'd contend that the description of a spells effects are in no way the place to define broad rules... I'd suspect therefore that either the barkskin description means 'for the purposes of this spell', or that its infact a default rule which the spell description is merely reinforcing.

However I'm of the opinion that regardless of what the base spell does, the feat merely heals +2/level hitpoint damage. So a cure light would heal 1d8+1/level hitpoint damage and 2 hitpoint damage, a lesser restoration would cure 1d4 strength damage and 4 hitpoint damage (as opposed to 4 strength damage), a remove disease would heal undefined (or 0, whichever) damage, and 6 hitpoint damage.

Otherwise why bother saying it applied to all conjuration [healing] spells when in fact only about 1/3 of them actually heal damage ?

 

[Liquidsabre]

The Vigor Spells are rather close to being maximized and empowered Cure Spell equivalents that only suffer from a longer and drawn-out time of effect. Quite a bonus for the penalty they take. OOC use of the Vigor spells will indeed increase the power-base of any of the divine classes, without a doubt.

Anyhow, whatever way folk want to put it, it all boils down that the penalty the spell effects that the Vigor spells take is in no way commisserate with the benefits that these spells enjoy, i.e. not balanced for their spell level. Pure and simple folks. Frankly I'm surprised anyone can really argue *for* the Vigor spells at all.

Much better to allow the Vigor spells as lengthy maximize cure spells and leave it at that. Quick and easy to figure the healing, and better yet, balanced for their level. A maximized cure is a darn good deal at only 1 minute or so of in-game time. Let alone having them near double the effective healing (on average), sheesh.

Edit - math bad, thanks! been a while since I've looked at the CD version since IOG we don't use it.