Fast Healing = Natural Healing [Archive] - Wizards Community

Fast Healing = Natural Healing [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
arpster
03-08-07, 11:46 AM Hello All,

I have a question. Trying to figure out if it has been stated anywhere for LG if Fast Healing and Natural Healing count as the same thing, for the spells of Vigors, Healthful Rest, or if you have fast healing from another source.

I only am trying to figure it out because I have heard different things from countless judges and a few triad members.

I have not seen anything that would say otherwise in the Dispel confusions, errata's or FAQ.

Monster Manual v3.5, pg. 309
Fast Healing (Ex): A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptionally fast rate, usually 1 or more per hit points per round, as given in the creature's entry (for example, a vampire has fast healing 5). Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing (see page 146 of the Player's Handbook). Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, and it does not allow a creature to regrow body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow body parts to be reattached.

Spell Compendium, pg. 111
Healthful Rest: Healthful rest doubles the subject's natural healing rate. Each affected creature regains twice the hitpoints and ability damage it otherwise would have regained during that day, depending on its activity level. (PH 76)

Spell Compendium, pg. 229
Vigor, Lesser: The subject gains fast healing 1, enabling it to heal 1 hit point per round until the spell ends and automatically becoming stabilized if it begins dying from hit point loss during that time. Lesser vigor does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thrist, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow or attach lost body parts.
The effects of multiple vigor spells do not stack; only the highest-level effect applies.

Thanks
Mel
blood_kite
03-08-07, 11:51 AM I've seen some judges say its stupid not to use it, I've seen some that allow it with no complaint, I've seen some that say it borders on abusive, and I've seen some that say it just won't work with Vigor spells.

Expect table variation and ask the judge before you even bother to memorize it.
Timlagor
03-08-07, 01:09 PM Fast Healing in general is dubious but certainly plausible.

I can see no way in which a Vigour-type spell can be calle "natural healing" however: IT'S A SPELL!
bitznarf
03-08-07, 01:13 PM Fast Healing in generaly is most certainly dubious.

I can see no way in which a Vigour-type spell can be calle "natural healing" however: IT'S A SPELL!

So? The spell gives you a natural ability (for a limited time) which is "just like natural healing...". Heroism (I think I have the right spell) gives the target a feat. This doesn't mean the feat is not actually a feat because you received it through a spell.
Jay_Ibero_911
03-08-07, 01:38 PM Fast Healing in general is dubious but certainly plausible.

I can see no way in which a Vigour-type spell can be calle "natural healing" however: IT'S A SPELL!

It's a SPELL that grant's fast healing. Fast healing is natural healing. The magic is granting you increased natural healing in the form of fast healing, unlike cure spells which use positive energy to immediately heal X damage. It's no different than getting fast healing from a class or feat...the source of the fast healing itself is irrelevant...the only relevant matter here is whether or not Fast Healing counts as Natural Healing for the purposes of Healthful Rest...
Munkwunk
03-08-07, 02:32 PM I can see no way in which a Vigour-type spell can be calle "natural healing" however: IT'S A SPELL!
The spell simply augments a creature's natural healing rate to the point that they gain Fast Healing 1. It's still natural healing.

Fast Healing is "just like natural healing", meaning effects which apply to natural healing also apply to fast healing.

Conclusion: Healthful Rest applies to Vigor, because Vigor grants Fast Healing and Fast Healing is just like Natural Healing.

I really don't see why there is any confusion here. The only people who argue against this combination seem to be people who think that it is "broken" and, honestly, it has been my experience that many of those people will argue against just about any combination.
Mattastrophic
03-08-07, 02:38 PM The only people who argue against this combination seem to be people who think that it is "broken" and, honestly, it has been my experience that many of those people will argue against just about any combination.

Tangent: And these types of people are the same types who get Polymorph Closed. The membership of this campaign really needs to shift away from "That's so broken!"

-Matt
Timlagor
03-08-07, 02:48 PM Fast Healing is "just like natural healing", meaning effects which apply to natural healing also apply to fast healing.

It means nothing of the sort.
bitznarf
03-08-07, 02:53 PM It means nothing of the sort.

Can you provide some rules support?
arpster
03-08-07, 03:33 PM That is what I am looking for is rules clarification on the matter. I have looked in the FAQ, Dispel Confusions and errata’s for the different books and still nothing saying that Fast Healing is fact not Natural Healing. And since there is nothing of the type available you are at the DM discretion on this matter, even though the MM entry for Fast Healing says it is "just like natural healing".
bitznarf
03-08-07, 03:36 PM That is what I am looking for is rules clarification on the matter. I have looked in the FAQ, Dispel Confusions and errata’s for the different books and still nothing saying that Fast Healing is fact not Natural Healing. And since there is nothing of the type available you are at the DM discretion on this matter, even though the MM entry for Fast Healing says it is "just like natural healing".

Except, you know, when the DM is wrong. At which point, bring it up at the end of the session.
Timlagor
03-08-07, 03:38 PM Can you provide some rules support?

"just like" simply doesn't mean "the same as". In this case I would contend that it just uses the same basic mechanics as natural healing. If anything "just like" indicates that it is not actually natural healing.

You are at the judge's mercy on this one and I don't agree that Vigour Spells count as natural healing.
arpster
03-08-07, 03:40 PM I know. Learned that in the military. I normally bring it up at the end of a session or at a break away from the table when the DM is done with his break.

But I also know that I am not the only one that has this problem, and clarification on it would be good for the campaign.
arpster
03-08-07, 03:43 PM It is not the Vigor Spells that I am looking for. I am looking for Fast Healing because you can get it serval different ways besides via a spell.
Jay_Ibero_911
03-08-07, 04:53 PM The problem here is the phrase "fast healing is like natural healing." "Like" is an ambiguous term. It would be clear cut if they said "fast healing IS a form of natural healing", but they didn't so we don't know how much "like" natural healing fast healing is. We don't know if the phrase is meant merely as a comparison, or if they actually intended fast healing to be treated as natural healing for all purposes. So until there is some errata or faq ruling, it is up to each DM to make the call. From a previous debate on the subject, I believe Britt was against the combination...
MeinVT
03-08-07, 08:54 PM Fast Healing (Ex): A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptionally fast rate, usually 1 or more per hit points per round, as given in the creature's entry (for example, a vampire has fast healing 5). Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing (see page 146 of the Player's Handbook). Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, and it does not allow a creature to regrow body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow body parts to be reattached.

Despite what others said above, the sentence is not "fast healing is just like natural healing". The sentence is "Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing". It seems apparent to me that this is an appropriate lead in to the following sentence that confirms that -just like natural healing- it does not restore hit points lost from blah blah blah.

Spell Compendium, pg. 111
Healthful Rest: Healthful rest doubles the subject's natural healing rate. Each affected creature regains twice the hitpoints and ability damage it otherwise would have regained during that day, depending on its activity level. (PH 76)

Healthful rest specifically says a creature regains twice the hit points and ability damage it otherwise would have regained during that day. This makes it pretty clear that the appropriate healing interval to consider for healthful rest is healing that takes place daily, based on character's activity level.

Stating that fast healing is like natural healing doesn't mean any spell that impacts natural healing also impacts fast healing. They are not the same.
Jay_Ibero_911
03-08-07, 09:32 PM Despite what others said above, the sentence is not "fast healing is just like natural healing". The sentence is "Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing". It seems apparent to me that this is an appropriate lead in to the following sentence that confirms that -just like natural healing- it does not restore hit points lost from blah blah blah.

Healthful rest specifically says a creature regains twice the hit points and ability damage it otherwise would have regained during that day. This makes it pretty clear that the appropriate healing interval to consider for healthful rest is healing that takes place daily, based on character's activity level.

Stating that fast healing is like natural healing doesn't mean any spell that impacts natural healing also impacts fast healing. They are not the same.

And that is a well supported OPINION that they are not the same with regards to the rules...
Cardinal Teplin
03-09-07, 10:46 AM Healthful rest describes its effect on the daily healing rate, as referenced in the PHB. It has no effect on the healing rate per round.

Fast healing describes its effects as being per round. It has no effect on the daily healing rate, beyond making it obelete in all but a very few cases

I see no rules reason to suppose that they have any effect on eachother at all. Yes, you could assume that they were linked, but there is no rules support for it.
Munkwunk
03-09-07, 10:52 PM The problem here is the phrase "fast healing is like natural healing." "Like" is an ambiguous term. It would be clear cut if they said "fast healing IS a form of natural healing", but they didn't so we don't know how much "like" natural healing fast healing is. We don't know if the phrase is meant merely as a comparison, or if they actually intended fast healing to be treated as natural healing for all purposes. So until there is some errata or faq ruling, it is up to each DM to make the call. From a previous debate on the subject, I believe Britt was against the combination...
This is my complaint about several rules across several sources. The terms "just like" and "as if" are thrown around a lot, and they are almost always the reason that these "grey area" arguments arise. They are too ambiguous and they are nto cearly defined. I really wish developers would stop using these phrases entirely and I wish WotC would issue errata for every source that uses them. Or I suppose they could take the much simpler route and just issue a ruling which defines exactly what they mean.

Until then, I read "just like" and "as if" to mean that the effects function in all ways like the reference rule, except as noted. Thus, in my opinion, Fast Healing is, in fact, natural healing, it simply has a few varying properties which demand it be set apart. Spells and effects which relate to Natural Healing, under my interpretation, also affect Fast Healing.

Unfortunately, like you said, the way the rules are worded it is too ambiguous and open to interpretation.
zoinks69
03-10-07, 02:46 AM This was brought to my attention at XP. One or two players said "it's in the DMG" (fast healing = natural healing, that is) and I temporarily took them at their word (this didn't affect gameplay at all). When I started mentioning it to some other folks, I took it upon myself to actually look it up and I stumbled into the same vague wording.

While I see there are arguments both ways, my position is that "it doesn't work at my tables (barring an errata, etc)". Among other things, I just can't justify discounting out-of-combat healing to that degree. And it's hard to argue that it's within the "spirit of the rules" to take 2 low-level and rather innocuous looking spells and make them into massive HP wells (for low opportunity and gold cost).
gomeztoo
03-10-07, 09:17 AM "just like" simply doesn't mean "the same as". In this case I would contend that it just uses the same basic mechanics as natural healing. If anything "just like" indicates that it is not actually natural healing.

I agree with Tim: 'just like' is not the same. If it WAS the same, it would have said 'is the same as' or 'is a type of'.

Now, personally, I would LOVE to have a DM allow the Healthful Rest to apply to fast healing.
My PC has fast healing 2, permanently, due to an item. She has 1 lvl of cleric, so for 1 spell I get fast healing 4!
So if a DM rules it ok, I'm not objecting - Bring it on, baby, yeah!
(The downside is that it would then ALSO work on NPCs and monsters...)
Timlagor
03-10-07, 11:19 AM (The downside is that it would then ALSO work on NPCs and monsters...)

...but only if they came prepared with it.

The real downside is that we may see some author putting it in their module believing it works like that. I just hope that it would get shot down in reviewing but I certainly wouldn't count on it.

Such a module would then have several sorts of judge:
- those who agreed with the author
- those who assumed the author was right because it was in the module
- those who thought it was wrong but ran it as written
- those who modified it to make it 'legal' (trying not to be biased here) when they ran it giving a significantly easier combat (in most cases -sometimes things don't live long enough for it to be an issue).

Many of the second category would then take this interpretation from the module and use it elsewhere without checking its validity.

Still.. arguably less bad than the medium fliers who are supposed to grapple you on a fly-by attack without taking -20 (and fly off with you).
Madfox11
03-12-07, 11:13 AM Two things:
(1) I don't think that Healthful Rest doubles the hit point gain from lesser vigor either, and in that regards I share the opinion of Britt and several other people on these boards. Still, it is one of those things the Circle cannot really change. I also suspect if we put it before the designers they would react exactly as how they reacted to the centaur and boots thing ("Huh? Of course centaurs cannot wear boots.").

(2) The reason polymorph became restricted had little to do with abuse by players in the LG campaign. The rules were changed by R&D and they changed it because of both power in general and how time consuming it was when people had to recalculate everything.

Pieter Sleijpen,
RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member
The Splintered Suns
Mattastrophic
03-12-07, 01:56 PM The real downside is that we may see some author putting it in their module believing it works like that. I just hope that it would get shot down in reviewing but I certainly wouldn't count on it.

One very important lesson I learned the hard way as a judge is to always double-check the module. I've run into quite a few mods in which AC bonuses and BAB were calculated wrong, feats were given that the monsters didn't qualify for, and then there was stuff like the Chain Enervation trap and the lich who was stacking a Headband of Intellect with Fox's Cunning.

I say if it's grey, i.e. totally opinion-based, like Healthful Rest + Lesser Vigor, go with it, though.

-Matt
Mattastrophic
03-12-07, 01:59 PM (2) The reason polymorph became restricted had little to do with abuse by players in the LG campaign. The rules were changed by R&D and they changed it because of both power in general and how time consuming it was when people had to recalculate everything.

Pieter Sleijpen,
RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member
The Splintered Suns

Except R&D never changed a single thing about Polymorph; they only removed elements of the rules that referenced Polymorph.

Just figured I'd mention that. Don't want to rehash what's already set in stone.

-Matt admits he's bitter, but won't keep fighting it.
Britt
03-12-07, 03:41 PM Except R&D never changed a single thing about Polymorph; they only removed elements of the rules that referenced Polymorph.

Just figured I'd mention that. Don't want to rehash what's already set in stone.

-Matt admits he's bitter, but won't keep fighting it.
Right. They changed everything but polymorph and alter self, then recommended that you not use polymorph and alter self in your games.
Mattastrophic
03-12-07, 04:22 PM Incorrect. I'm just repeating myself now; end tangent.

-Matt
Britt
03-12-07, 08:22 PM http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a
"The same is not true in the RPGA’s Mark of Heroes campaign. As part of our continuing effort to ensure a fair and equitable play experience for all participants, the polymorph spell and several related game elements have been designed as “restricted,” meaning that they are now unavailable for use in that campaign. If you’ve found these game elements to be problematic in your home game, we recommend that you implement the same change." (emphasis added)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
arpster 03-08-07, 11:46 AM	Hello All, I have a question. Trying to figure out if it has been stated anywhere for LG if Fast Healing and Natural Healing count as the same thing, for the spells of Vigors, Healthful Rest, or if you have fast healing from another source. I only am trying to figure it out because I have heard different things from countless judges and a few triad members. I have not seen anything that would say otherwise in the Dispel confusions, errata's or FAQ. Monster Manual v3.5, pg. 309 Fast Healing (Ex): A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptionally fast rate, usually 1 or more per hit points per round, as given in the creature's entry (for example, a vampire has fast healing 5). Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing (see page 146 of the Player's Handbook). Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, and it does not allow a creature to regrow body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow body parts to be reattached. Spell Compendium, pg. 111 Healthful Rest: Healthful rest doubles the subject's natural healing rate. Each affected creature regains twice the hitpoints and ability damage it otherwise would have regained during that day, depending on its activity level. (PH 76) Spell Compendium, pg. 229 Vigor, Lesser: The subject gains fast healing 1, enabling it to heal 1 hit point per round until the spell ends and automatically becoming stabilized if it begins dying from hit point loss during that time. Lesser vigor does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thrist, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow or attach lost body parts. The effects of multiple vigor spells do not stack; only the highest-level effect applies. Thanks Mel
blood_kite 03-08-07, 11:51 AM	I've seen some judges say its stupid not to use it, I've seen some that allow it with no complaint, I've seen some that say it borders on abusive, and I've seen some that say it just won't work with Vigor spells. Expect table variation and ask the judge before you even bother to memorize it.
Timlagor 03-08-07, 01:09 PM	Fast Healing in general is dubious but certainly plausible. I can see no way in which a Vigour-type spell can be calle "natural healing" however: IT'S A SPELL!
bitznarf 03-08-07, 01:13 PM	Fast Healing in generaly is most certainly dubious. I can see no way in which a Vigour-type spell can be calle "natural healing" however: IT'S A SPELL! So? The spell gives you a natural ability (for a limited time) which is "just like natural healing...". Heroism (I think I have the right spell) gives the target a feat. This doesn't mean the feat is not actually a feat because you received it through a spell.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-08-07, 01:38 PM	Fast Healing in general is dubious but certainly plausible. I can see no way in which a Vigour-type spell can be calle "natural healing" however: IT'S A SPELL! It's a SPELL that grant's fast healing. Fast healing is natural healing. The magic is granting you increased natural healing in the form of fast healing, unlike cure spells which use positive energy to immediately heal X damage. It's no different than getting fast healing from a class or feat...the source of the fast healing itself is irrelevant...the only relevant matter here is whether or not Fast Healing counts as Natural Healing for the purposes of Healthful Rest...
Munkwunk 03-08-07, 02:32 PM	I can see no way in which a Vigour-type spell can be calle "natural healing" however: IT'S A SPELL! The spell simply augments a creature's natural healing rate to the point that they gain Fast Healing 1. It's still natural healing. Fast Healing is "just like natural healing", meaning effects which apply to natural healing also apply to fast healing. Conclusion: Healthful Rest applies to Vigor, because Vigor grants Fast Healing and Fast Healing is just like Natural Healing. I really don't see why there is any confusion here. The only people who argue against this combination seem to be people who think that it is "broken" and, honestly, it has been my experience that many of those people will argue against just about any combination.
Mattastrophic 03-08-07, 02:38 PM	The only people who argue against this combination seem to be people who think that it is "broken" and, honestly, it has been my experience that many of those people will argue against just about any combination. Tangent: And these types of people are the same types who get Polymorph Closed. The membership of this campaign really needs to shift away from "That's so broken!" -Matt
Timlagor 03-08-07, 02:48 PM	Fast Healing is "just like natural healing", meaning effects which apply to natural healing also apply to fast healing. It means nothing of the sort.
bitznarf 03-08-07, 02:53 PM	It means nothing of the sort. Can you provide some rules support?
arpster 03-08-07, 03:33 PM	That is what I am looking for is rules clarification on the matter. I have looked in the FAQ, Dispel Confusions and errata’s for the different books and still nothing saying that Fast Healing is fact not Natural Healing. And since there is nothing of the type available you are at the DM discretion on this matter, even though the MM entry for Fast Healing says it is "just like natural healing".
bitznarf 03-08-07, 03:36 PM	That is what I am looking for is rules clarification on the matter. I have looked in the FAQ, Dispel Confusions and errata’s for the different books and still nothing saying that Fast Healing is fact not Natural Healing. And since there is nothing of the type available you are at the DM discretion on this matter, even though the MM entry for Fast Healing says it is "just like natural healing". Except, you know, when the DM is wrong. At which point, bring it up at the end of the session.
Timlagor 03-08-07, 03:38 PM	Can you provide some rules support? "just like" simply doesn't mean "the same as". In this case I would contend that it just uses the same basic mechanics as natural healing. If anything "just like" indicates that it is not actually natural healing. You are at the judge's mercy on this one and I don't agree that Vigour Spells count as natural healing.
arpster 03-08-07, 03:40 PM	I know. Learned that in the military. I normally bring it up at the end of a session or at a break away from the table when the DM is done with his break. But I also know that I am not the only one that has this problem, and clarification on it would be good for the campaign.
arpster 03-08-07, 03:43 PM	It is not the Vigor Spells that I am looking for. I am looking for Fast Healing because you can get it serval different ways besides via a spell.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-08-07, 04:53 PM	The problem here is the phrase "fast healing is like natural healing." "Like" is an ambiguous term. It would be clear cut if they said "fast healing IS a form of natural healing", but they didn't so we don't know how much "like" natural healing fast healing is. We don't know if the phrase is meant merely as a comparison, or if they actually intended fast healing to be treated as natural healing for all purposes. So until there is some errata or faq ruling, it is up to each DM to make the call. From a previous debate on the subject, I believe Britt was against the combination...
MeinVT 03-08-07, 08:54 PM	Fast Healing (Ex): A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptionally fast rate, usually 1 or more per hit points per round, as given in the creature's entry (for example, a vampire has fast healing 5). Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing (see page 146 of the Player's Handbook). Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, and it does not allow a creature to regrow body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow body parts to be reattached. Despite what others said above, the sentence is not "fast healing is just like natural healing". The sentence is "Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing". It seems apparent to me that this is an appropriate lead in to the following sentence that confirms that -just like natural healing- it does not restore hit points lost from blah blah blah. Spell Compendium, pg. 111 Healthful Rest: Healthful rest doubles the subject's natural healing rate. Each affected creature regains twice the hitpoints and ability damage it otherwise would have regained during that day, depending on its activity level. (PH 76) Healthful rest specifically says a creature regains twice the hit points and ability damage it otherwise would have regained during that day. This makes it pretty clear that the appropriate healing interval to consider for healthful rest is healing that takes place daily, based on character's activity level. Stating that fast healing is like natural healing doesn't mean any spell that impacts natural healing also impacts fast healing. They are not the same.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-08-07, 09:32 PM	Despite what others said above, the sentence is not "fast healing is just like natural healing". The sentence is "Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing". It seems apparent to me that this is an appropriate lead in to the following sentence that confirms that -just like natural healing- it does not restore hit points lost from blah blah blah. Healthful rest specifically says a creature regains twice the hit points and ability damage it otherwise would have regained during that day. This makes it pretty clear that the appropriate healing interval to consider for healthful rest is healing that takes place daily, based on character's activity level. Stating that fast healing is like natural healing doesn't mean any spell that impacts natural healing also impacts fast healing. They are not the same. And that is a well supported OPINION that they are not the same with regards to the rules...
Cardinal Teplin 03-09-07, 10:46 AM	Healthful rest describes its effect on the daily healing rate, as referenced in the PHB. It has no effect on the healing rate per round. Fast healing describes its effects as being per round. It has no effect on the daily healing rate, beyond making it obelete in all but a very few cases I see no rules reason to suppose that they have any effect on eachother at all. Yes, you could assume that they were linked, but there is no rules support for it.
Munkwunk 03-09-07, 10:52 PM	The problem here is the phrase "fast healing is like natural healing." "Like" is an ambiguous term. It would be clear cut if they said "fast healing IS a form of natural healing", but they didn't so we don't know how much "like" natural healing fast healing is. We don't know if the phrase is meant merely as a comparison, or if they actually intended fast healing to be treated as natural healing for all purposes. So until there is some errata or faq ruling, it is up to each DM to make the call. From a previous debate on the subject, I believe Britt was against the combination... This is my complaint about several rules across several sources. The terms "just like" and "as if" are thrown around a lot, and they are almost always the reason that these "grey area" arguments arise. They are too ambiguous and they are nto cearly defined. I really wish developers would stop using these phrases entirely and I wish WotC would issue errata for every source that uses them. Or I suppose they could take the much simpler route and just issue a ruling which defines exactly what they mean. Until then, I read "just like" and "as if" to mean that the effects function in all ways like the reference rule, except as noted. Thus, in my opinion, Fast Healing is, in fact, natural healing, it simply has a few varying properties which demand it be set apart. Spells and effects which relate to Natural Healing, under my interpretation, also affect Fast Healing. Unfortunately, like you said, the way the rules are worded it is too ambiguous and open to interpretation.
zoinks69 03-10-07, 02:46 AM	This was brought to my attention at XP. One or two players said "it's in the DMG" (fast healing = natural healing, that is) and I temporarily took them at their word (this didn't affect gameplay at all). When I started mentioning it to some other folks, I took it upon myself to actually look it up and I stumbled into the same vague wording. While I see there are arguments both ways, my position is that "it doesn't work at my tables (barring an errata, etc)". Among other things, I just can't justify discounting out-of-combat healing to that degree. And it's hard to argue that it's within the "spirit of the rules" to take 2 low-level and rather innocuous looking spells and make them into massive HP wells (for low opportunity and gold cost).
gomeztoo 03-10-07, 09:17 AM	"just like" simply doesn't mean "the same as". In this case I would contend that it just uses the same basic mechanics as natural healing. If anything "just like" indicates that it is not actually natural healing. I agree with Tim: 'just like' is not the same. If it WAS the same, it would have said 'is the same as' or 'is a type of'. Now, personally, I would LOVE to have a DM allow the Healthful Rest to apply to fast healing. My PC has fast healing 2, permanently, due to an item. She has 1 lvl of cleric, so for 1 spell I get fast healing 4! So if a DM rules it ok, I'm not objecting - Bring it on, baby, yeah! (The downside is that it would then ALSO work on NPCs and monsters...)
Timlagor 03-10-07, 11:19 AM	(The downside is that it would then ALSO work on NPCs and monsters...) ...but only if they came prepared with it. The real downside is that we may see some author putting it in their module believing it works like that. I just hope that it would get shot down in reviewing but I certainly wouldn't count on it. Such a module would then have several sorts of judge: - those who agreed with the author - those who assumed the author was right because it was in the module - those who thought it was wrong but ran it as written - those who modified it to make it 'legal' (trying not to be biased here) when they ran it giving a significantly easier combat (in most cases -sometimes things don't live long enough for it to be an issue). Many of the second category would then take this interpretation from the module and use it elsewhere without checking its validity. Still.. arguably less bad than the medium fliers who are supposed to grapple you on a fly-by attack without taking -20 (and fly off with you).
Madfox11 03-12-07, 11:13 AM	Two things: (1) I don't think that Healthful Rest doubles the hit point gain from lesser vigor either, and in that regards I share the opinion of Britt and several other people on these boards. Still, it is one of those things the Circle cannot really change. I also suspect if we put it before the designers they would react exactly as how they reacted to the centaur and boots thing ("Huh? Of course centaurs cannot wear boots."). (2) The reason polymorph became restricted had little to do with abuse by players in the LG campaign. The rules were changed by R&D and they changed it because of both power in general and how time consuming it was when people had to recalculate everything. Pieter Sleijpen, RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
Mattastrophic 03-12-07, 01:56 PM	The real downside is that we may see some author putting it in their module believing it works like that. I just hope that it would get shot down in reviewing but I certainly wouldn't count on it. One very important lesson I learned the hard way as a judge is to always double-check the module. I've run into quite a few mods in which AC bonuses and BAB were calculated wrong, feats were given that the monsters didn't qualify for, and then there was stuff like the Chain Enervation trap and the lich who was stacking a Headband of Intellect with Fox's Cunning. I say if it's grey, i.e. totally opinion-based, like Healthful Rest + Lesser Vigor, go with it, though. -Matt
Mattastrophic 03-12-07, 01:59 PM	(2) The reason polymorph became restricted had little to do with abuse by players in the LG campaign. The rules were changed by R&D and they changed it because of both power in general and how time consuming it was when people had to recalculate everything. Pieter Sleijpen, RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns Except R&D never changed a single thing about Polymorph; they only removed elements of the rules that referenced Polymorph. Just figured I'd mention that. Don't want to rehash what's already set in stone. -Matt admits he's bitter, but won't keep fighting it.
Britt 03-12-07, 03:41 PM	Except R&D never changed a single thing about Polymorph; they only removed elements of the rules that referenced Polymorph. Just figured I'd mention that. Don't want to rehash what's already set in stone. -Matt admits he's bitter, but won't keep fighting it. Right. They changed everything but polymorph and alter self, then recommended that you not use polymorph and alter self in your games.
Mattastrophic 03-12-07, 04:22 PM	Incorrect. I'm just repeating myself now; end tangent. -Matt
Britt 03-12-07, 08:22 PM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a "The same is not true in the RPGA’s Mark of Heroes campaign. As part of our continuing effort to ensure a fair and equitable play experience for all participants, the polymorph spell and several related game elements have been designed as “restricted,” meaning that they are now unavailable for use in that campaign. If you’ve found these game elements to be problematic in your home game, we recommend that you implement the same change." (emphasis added)