# Wand of Cu Light vs Wand of Vigor, Lesser



## tomBitonti (Jun 2, 2005)

Hi,

My group just noticed that a cure light wand (@ 1st level) will do 1d8+1 points of
healing (average 5.5) vs. a want of vigor lesser (@ 1st level) doing 11 points
(10 rounds + 1 round/level), exactly twice as much.

In combat, there is a need for quick healing, so the cure light wand has a use, but outside
of combat the wand of vigor, lesser is (seems to me) clearly superior.

Further, the third level spell vigor, lesser, mass, cast by a 5th level caster does
15 points of healing, times two if there is another person needing the healing.
(Btw, can you target this twice to the same character?)  Cure serious does what,
3d8 + 5 points?  So 30 points for the mass vigor compared to 17.5 for the cure serious.

Two questions:

Are the figures above correct?

Does this seem unbalanced?

And a third, has this arisen before on the board?

Thx,

TFB


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 2, 2005)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> In combat, there is a need for quick healing, so the cure light wand has a use, but outside
> of combat the wand of vigor, lesser is (seems to me) clearly superior.




There's your answer.

If you need healing *now*, then a Cure X Wounds spell is your answer.

If you've got a couple minutes, then a Vigor spell is your answer.

EDIT:

Also, more classes can use wands of CXW than can use Vigor.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jun 2, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Also, more classes can use wands of CXW than can use Vigor.




This was noted in our group, too.  It was thought best if paladins, rangers and bards could use a healing wand in cases of emergency, not just the clerics and druids.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 2, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> There's your answer.
> 
> If you need healing *now*, then a Cure X Wounds spell is your answer.
> 
> ...




Yes, definitely, in combat, the cure spells are what are needed.

I'm not understanding that CXW is more usable than Vigor, Lesser, as both
are Cleric 1, aren't they?  Because of the ability to spontaineously convert to
a cure spell?

My cleric has a wand of Cu Li and a wand of Vigor, Lesser, and the wand of
Vigor, Lesser, well, rocks.

At 8'th level, with augmented healing, my cleric does (10 + 8 + 6) * 3 points of
healing (total == 72 points) with a single casting of Mass Lesser Vigor (total is
spread across three seperate targets), compared with 3d8 + 8 + 6 == 27.5 for cure
moderate.

Thx.

TFB


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 2, 2005)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Yes, definitely, in combat, the cure spells are what are needed.
> 
> I'm not understanding that CXW is more usable than Vigor, Lesser, as both
> are Cleric 1, aren't they?  Because of the ability to spontaineously convert to
> a cure spell?




Yes and no.  A cleric can certainly convert any prepared spell into an appropriate CXW spell (CXW meaning Cure Light Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, etc.).  He can't convert to a Vigor spell, which means that he must prepare them ahead of time.

What I was getting at, however, is that Cure Light Wounds (along with many of its brothers) is on the spell list of multiple classes: Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Bard, etc.  Accordingly, any of those classes can pick up and use a wand of CLW.  Vigor is Cleric-only (or Cleric- and Druid-only), which means that fewer people can use that particular wand.

Thus, an extra wand or two of CLW in the hands of the other members of the party is an excellent back-up plan, a safety net for when the cleric cops one.


----------



## Diirk (Jun 2, 2005)

Splat Book power creep. One thing you might want to think about, why exactly is lesser vigor, mass a 3rd level spell? cure light wounds, mass is 5th level...

As to the useability issue, they're both equally useable by your cleric sure... but if your cleric got knocked unconcious, then a ranger could use your cure light wounds wand to bring you back up, but he couldn't use your vigor wand.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 2, 2005)

The _vigor_ spells used to only heal damage taken after the spell was cast.  It was a big limiting factor.  That language was, perhaps inadvertently, dropped for the 3.5 version, and the spells are now pretty clearly superior "clean up after the fight" spells.


----------



## sfedi (Jun 2, 2005)

That spell is totally broken.

Not as much as others, but sufficiently so as to be banned in my campaigns.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 2, 2005)

sfedi said:
			
		

> That spell is totally broken.
> 
> Not as much as others




Ponder the juxtaposition of these two bits of text.

Lesser Vigor is totally broken.

There are things which are more broken.

Therefore, there are things which are more than totally broken.  Does that mean that they were totally broken, and then broken again?  

Seriously, I don't see how you can argue that the Vigor line of spells is totally broken.  Is it more useful than CLW out of combat?  Yes, but then CLW is more useful than Vigor inside of combat.  It's a trade-off - can you afford to wait 5 rounds before getting the average benefit of what you could have had *right now*?


----------



## Len (Jun 3, 2005)

Lesser Vigor is a great spell, but the slow healing is a real drawback. We rely on Cure spells to keep us going in combat, and Vigor spells just don't do that. That plus the spontaneous casting thing and the fact that my ranger can use CLW wands mean that the Cure spells still get lots of use in our games even though we've been using the Vigor spells for quite a while now.

And since we still use Cure a lot, Vigor isn't broken. QED.


----------



## Len (Jun 3, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Therefore, there are things which are more than totally broken.



When Lesser Vigor goes out there, it gives _a hundred and ten percent!_


----------



## kjenks (Jun 3, 2005)

Vigor spells also auto-stabilize you when your HP drop to -1 to -9. Nice!


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 3, 2005)

A few points to consider:

1. Yes, wands of lesser vigor are more gold-efficient than wands of cure light wounds.

1.5 Wands of cure light wounds have several other advantages, however:
1.6 As discussed, they are usable by more classes
1.7 They work 5.5 times as quickly. By the time you're level 6, wands of cure light wounds aren't combat healing any more so the "now" bit is irrelevant. However, if you're sixth level and your fighters need to heal 45 hp after a gruelling combat, getting it done in 8 rounds leaves you with plenty of room on the min/level spells. Getting that done in 45 rounds means those min/level spells will be running out by the time you get to the next combat or will not have fully taken effect by the time enemy reinforcements arrive.

WRT Mass Lesser Vigor, it's a useful spell but it suffers from the problem that:
1. It's one hit point per round. In combat, that's not so special by the time it can be cast; out of combat, the multiple targets will often be wasted.
2. Compared to mass cure light wounds, it's better if you want to heal the party after a fight, but mass cure light wounds is not used to heal parties after fights. Mass cure light wounds is in-combat healing.
2.5 Mass cure light wounds is also a very weak spell for 5th level. The only reason it's ever cast is because it doesn't need preparation and consequently can be substituted for a good spell that's not useful at the moment. If it had to compete with flame strike and spell resistance on its own, it would never get cast.

On the whole, I don't think the vigor spells are overpowered. They're useful and powerful, but they have their drawbacks. If you worry about power creep, the only one you need to be wary of is lesser vigor (because it makes non-combat healing slightly cheaper). It can be dealt with by either including more multi-part encounters or by moving it to 2nd level.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 3, 2005)

As Patryn and EB have quite cogently argued, the Vigor spells aren't really overpowered in comparison to the Cure spells, though they may seem so at first glance if you just look at the final amount of damage cured and nothing else. As a DM, I actually prefer the PCs to be using Vigor spells and wands for out of combat healing since it needs no dice-rolling and saves time.


----------



## sfedi (Jun 3, 2005)

> Seriously, I don't see how you can argue that the Vigor line of spells is totally broken. Is it more useful than CLW out of combat? Yes, but then CLW is more useful than Vigor inside of combat. It's a trade-off - can you afford to wait 5 rounds before getting the average benefit of what you could have had *right now*?



CLW i sbetter in combat at levels 1-2.
Then Vigor is much more usefull.
If practicaly cuts in half the cost of healing after combat, which is a VERY common thing to do. It isn't a very "niche" role for a spell.
I mean, it's something too common to be so drastically changed by a splat book spell.
It really makes CLW wands useless.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 3, 2005)

I'm a little bit curious as to what level folks are that _cure light wounds_ remains useful during combat.

In our games, by 5th level or so the only use _cure light wounds_ sees in combat is if someone goes unconscious (and even then higher-level _cure_ spells are preferable and _lesser vigor_ works very nearly as well).

At 13th level (our current level in the Shackled City campaign), casting a _cure light wounds_ during combat would be a complete waste of a round.  And, as I've said, outside of combat _lesser vigor_ is much superior.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 3, 2005)

I also think, that the _Vigor_ spells are overall better than the _Cure_ spells, but not so much as to pose a real problem.

_Vigor_ is also pretty cool in combat, by the way, since you will be able to auto-stabilize and get back to consciousness. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jun 3, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> I'm a little bit curious as to what level folks are that _cure light wounds_ remains useful during combat.




I guess they are speaking of _Cure_ spells in general, not just _Cure Light Wounds_?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 3, 2005)

I'd just like to point this out.

A CLW takes 1 round. You can be zapped with multiple ones in a single round. The typical party has AT LEAST 2 people capable of using a CLW wand.

A lesser vigour takes, I believe, 11 rounds. Even if people stack them on you, it still takes the full duration. Also, I believe it's cleric only? So you're probably down to 2 people AT MOST.

Even OUT of combat, that's a HUGE difference.

Each lesser vigour is taking a MINUTE. A hundred hitpoints (not an inconceivable amount by any standards) takes almost 10 minutes to heal with lesser vigour. CLW could (potentially) do it in 2 minutes, less if you have multiple wands.

You can CLW the entire party to health before the party rogue finishes taking 20 on checking the next door for traps.

You can CLW the entire party to health before your bulls strength wears off.

You can CLW before reinforcements arrive.

Lesser vigour just won't cut it.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 3, 2005)

Fundamentally, time is an often-overlooked resource.

The superiority of the _vigor_ range of spells over the _cure_ range of spells depends greatly on how much time the PCs have to spend. If the DM likes to run games where the PCs can take as much time as they want, the _vigor_ range of spells will have the edge. Still, I don't see how giving the PCs access to twice the healing per spell or per gp is going to significantly reduce anybody's enjoyment of the game.

For the record, I also think that the _vigor_ range of spells should be Transmutation and not Conjuration (healing), so that Augment Healing would not work with them.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 3, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> For the record, I also think that the _vigor_ range of spells should be Transmutation and not Conjuration (healing), so that Augment Healing would not work with them.




Arguably, it doesn't.

Augment Healing adds to the amount of damage healed by a Healing spell.  There is no damage healed by a Vigor spell, therefore there is nothing for Augment Healing to add to.

Vigor doesn't heal damage, it provides a character with the Fast Healing ability.

-Hyp.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 3, 2005)

Lesser Vigor actually reduces the cost of out of combat healing by exactly 50%... assuming three things:
1. You have ready access to wands of lesser vigor
2. You have time to let it work (already discussed adequately)
3. You rely exclusively on consumables to heal after combat

With regard to cost, 3 is actually a very significant factor. In my experience, characters only use consumables to heal after combat if they are low on spells and/or worried about the possibility of another (tough) fight. In most of the encounters where they're pretty sure there won't be another group of wyverns on the road between Dyvers and Chendl that day, characters will just cast their spells to heal up. By the time wands are affordable, IME, it's only ther series of encounters in the same day that they would be used on. (Otherwise, the characters aren't saving money, they're just throwing it away more slowly). There are few enough of these that I would estimate it only boils down to 750gp or so of savings for the whole party across a two to three level span. (My 7th level Living Greyhawk character got a wand of cure light wounds at 2nd level and still has roughly half the charges left and my party in RttToEE went through about 1.5 wands of CLW between levels 4 and 8 IIRC so that's a fairly conservative figure). Even if the party went through one wand of CLW (between all of them) for every level they gained (starting at level 4 when wands become readily affordable), switching to wands of lesser vigor would only save them about 6000gp--split across the whole party and over 20 levels.

In the larger scheme of things, I don't think saving 1500 gp over 20 levels is a really big deal. Even if your party needs to use wands so much that every character goes through an entire wand of cure light wounds every level, you're still only talking 6000gp of savings by level 20. That's not a big deal--certainly not enough to consistently outweigh the utility of being able to heal quickly and to be healed by rangers, bards, and paladins.



			
				sfedi said:
			
		

> CLW i sbetter in combat at levels 1-2.
> Then Vigor is much more usefull.
> If practicaly cuts in half the cost of healing after combat, which is a VERY common thing to do. It isn't a very "niche" role for a spell.
> I mean, it's something too common to be so drastically changed by a splat book spell.
> It really makes CLW wands useless.


----------



## Diirk (Jun 3, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Arguably, it doesn't.
> 
> Augment Healing adds to the amount of damage healed by a Healing spell.  There is no damage healed by a Vigor spell, therefore there is nothing for Augment Healing to add to.
> 
> ...




The problem with that argument, is it doesn't matter. Mass Lesser Vigor is a 3rd level conjuration (healing) spell. It heals no damage. Augment Healing makes it heal an extra 6 (2x3). It now heals 6 damage, in addition to providing fast healing 1 for however many rounds.

From a literal interpretation, anyway. There's no requirement in the augment healing feat that the spell you cast has to normally be able to heal damage... it simply needs to be a conjuration (healing) spell.


----------



## Shellman (Jun 3, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Yes and no.  A cleric can certainly convert any prepared spell into an appropriate CXW spell (CXW meaning Cure Light Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, etc.).  He can't convert to a Vigor spell, which means that he must prepare them ahead of time.
> 
> What I was getting at, however, is that Cure Light Wounds (along with many of its brothers) is on the spell list of multiple classes: Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Bard, etc.  Accordingly, any of those classes can pick up and use a wand of CLW.  Vigor is Cleric-only (or Cleric- and Druid-only), which means that fewer people can use that particular wand.
> 
> Thus, an extra wand or two of CLW in the hands of the other members of the party is an excellent back-up plan, a safety net for when the cleric cops one.




Just a thought,

     You know that sneaky pest of a PC who goes around trying to do wads of sneak attack damage tends not to be able to take alot of damage. With only a d6 for HD, that use magic device skill can come in handy if he needs some immediate healing.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 3, 2005)

Shellman said:
			
		

> Just a thought,
> 
> You know that sneaky pest of a PC who goes around trying to do wads of sneak attack damage tends not to be able to take alot of damage. With only a d6 for HD, that use magic device skill can come in handy if he needs some immediate healing.




Very true.  However, a guaranteed back-up is generally better than an "It might work" back-up.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Use a Wand: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand’s spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill also applies to other spell trigger magic items, such as staffs.
> ...
> 
> Try Again: Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can’t try to activate that item again for 24 hours.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 3, 2005)

Hey, you could be a Warlock, then it is guaranteed to work. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## VorpalStare (Jun 3, 2005)

sfedi said:
			
		

> CLW i sbetter in combat at levels 1-2.
> Then Vigor is much more usefull.




In my experience, the opposite is true. At higher levels, the damage accumulates so fast that the healing provided by the Vigor spells is overwhelmed. At levels 1-2, where it might take a few rounds for the fighter to run out of hit points, a lesser vigor spell can make quite a difference (almost as much as a cure light wounds spell), and provides after combat healing as well. The trick is trying to predict how much damage will be taken so that the healing is not wasted.


----------



## VorpalStare (Jun 3, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Lesser Vigor actually reduces the cost of out of combat healing ....




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.


----------



## VorpalStare (Jun 3, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Fundamentally, time is an often-overlooked resource.
> 
> The superiority of the _vigor_ range of spells over the _cure_ range of spells depends greatly on how much time the PCs have to spend.....




I completely agree with this assessment, even more so while combat is still in progress. This is where a CLW wand outshines a LV wand, even beyond low levels. On many occasions IME the wizard, druid, or other key character gets knocked unconscious at the beginning of combat. The entire tide of battle may depend on this character getting back into the fight.

If the sorcerer is at -2 hit points, for example, a CLW can get him conscious quick enough to get off an extra fireball, web, etc. Even if the cleric has both a CLW wand and a LV wand, he'll use the CLW wand on the sorcerer (assuming he's out of other healing options). In the same situation, a rogue or a bard could use the CLW on the sorcerer, freeing the cleric to bolster the front lines.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 3, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> What I was getting at, however, is that Cure Light Wounds (along with many of its brothers) is on the spell list of multiple classes: Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Bard, etc.  Accordingly, any of those classes can pick up and use a wand of CLW.  Vigor is Cleric-only (or Cleric- and Druid-only), which means that fewer people can use that particular wand.



Is this perhaps an oversight?  Now I need to go back to my books and check exactly
what classes get which of the new spells.  What would the reason be for denying
classes the Vigor family, if they can already cast spells from the Cure family?  I don't
see that Lesser Vigor is more "Cleric"-ish than Cure Light.

[BAIT ON]
Waiting for the reason to be that "Vigor is too good" to give it to the other classes.
[BAIT OFF]


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2005)

shilsen said:
			
		

> As a DM, I actually prefer the PCs to be using Vigor spells and wands for out of combat healing since it needs no dice-rolling and saves game-session time.



Fixed that for you.   

...and I completely agree.  Less muss and fuss after combats, and no die rolling for the DM to waste time watching over.


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2005)

Diirk said:
			
		

> From a literal interpretation, anyway. There's no requirement in the augment healing feat that the spell you cast has to normally be able to heal damage... it simply needs to be a conjuration (healing) spell.




I disagree.  Here's the text from CD:







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



The text _strongly_ implies (even says!) that the spell must heal damage.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 3, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Here's the text from CD:
> The text _strongly_ implies (even says!) that the spell must heal damage.



I agree with you that's almost certainly the intent, but "zero" _is_ an "amount of damage."


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2005)

Oooooooh.  Got me there.  

But: to have an "amount", must not you also have a "unit"?  Zero, without a unit, is meaningless.


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2005)

Just for giggles, here are all of the core Conjuration(healing) spells:

Cure Critical Wounds
Cure Critical Wounds, Mass
Cure Light Wounds
Cure Light Wounds, Mass
Cure Minor Wounds
Cure Moderate Wounds
Cure Moderate Wounds, Mass
Cure Serious Wounds
Cure Serious Wounds, Mass
Delay Poison
Heal
Heal Mount
Heal, Mass
Neutralize Poison
Raise Dead
Regenerate
Remove Blindness/Deafness
Remove Disease
Remove Paralysis
Restoration
Restoration, Greater
Restoration, Lesser
Resurrection
True Resurrection


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 3, 2005)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Is this perhaps an oversight?




Not that I can tell, no.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 3, 2005)

Druids can also use the Vigor line of spells, in addition to Clerics.  In our campaign, we have made it a Druid-exclusive spell, as it feels more Druid-like.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 3, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Oooooooh.  Got me there.



I'm channeling Hypersmurf.  (Although, oddly, he for once seems inclined _against_ a hypersmurfic -- er, a hyperliteral reading.  Adds credence to my theory that he's got a great deal of contrarian in him.)



> But: to have an "amount", must not you also have a "unit"?  Zero, without a unit, is meaningless.



I'm not sure I'm following you.  Units of damage are always "1," even if you're thinking of ability damage.  (Although in any case I can make a pretty airtight argument that "damage" is "hit point damage" unless explicit otherwise.)

BTW, can someone tell me where to find the feat in question, and what the prereqs are?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 3, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> I'm channeling Hypersmurf.  (Although, oddly, he for once seems inclined _against_ a hypersmurfic -- er, a hyperliteral reading.  Adds credence to my theory that he's got a great deal of contrarian in him.)




Actually, I'm not sure if you're correct.

D&D most certainly treats "Does not apply" and "0" as different.

For instance, take a look at the Constitution score of Undead.  Their Con score is not 0; it is N/A, meaning that an ability which provides a bonus or penalty to Con just doesn't affect them [fully].

Similarly, how much damage does a Fireball heal?  The answer isn't 0; it's N/A.  Fireball is not a spell that heals damage.

By extension, Lesser Vigor is not a spell that heals damage.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 3, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> D&D most certainly treats "Does not apply" and "0" as different.



Sure it does.  I don't see your point, though.



> Similarly, how much damage does a Fireball heal?  The answer isn't 0; it's N/A.  Fireball is not a spell that heals damage.



Again, I completely agree with you as to the _intent_ of the feat; but a _fireball_ quite literally heals zero damage.  (Well, usually.)

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


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 4, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> 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:  



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

*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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> 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.)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 4, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> 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:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

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.



			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

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




Man, if I had a dollar ...


----------



## Diirk (Jun 4, 2005)

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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Diirk said:
			
		

> 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:



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

Diirk said:
			
		

> 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?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

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


----------



## Diirk (Jun 4, 2005)

> 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 (Jun 4, 2005)

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._


----------



## Diirk (Jun 4, 2005)

Lesser Vigor caps at 15 hitpoints healed (over 90 seconds). Cure Light Wounds at the same caster level heals 6 - 13 (average 9.5), maximized 13, empowered 9 - 19 (average 14), maximized and empowered would average 19...

Now while a lesser vigor effectively heals slightly more on average than an empowered cure light, the penalty is fairly high: its only of real use in downtime situations, where its not really that big a deal.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 4, 2005)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> Frankly I'm surprised anyone can really argue *for* the Vigor spells at all.




Frankly, I'm surprised your math is so lousy. You completely screwed up your assessment of the nature of the two spells, and what a double empowered, maximized _cure light wounds_ spell would be like (i.e. it would be much more powerful than a casting of _lesser vigor_). As it is, I don't see how anyone can take your argument seriously.


----------



## CM (Jun 4, 2005)

Doesn't anyone use cure spells against undead these days? They still come in handy for that.


----------



## HeavyG (Jun 4, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Druids can also use the Vigor line of spells, in addition to Clerics.  In our campaign, we have made it a Druid-exclusive spell, as it feels more Druid-like.




I'm thinking of doing that myself.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 1, 2021)

tomBitonti said:


> Does this seem unbalanced?



Everything about this is utterly broken, yes


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 1, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> Everything about this is utterly broken, yes



Holy thread necromancy, Batman!
TomB


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 1, 2021)

Stopping abuse of Wands of Lesser Vigor is one of the biggest challenges facing gaming today.


----------

