Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dog45 01-17-06, 09:48 PM	This thread is a continuation of a discussion started here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8257416#post8257416) . It seems to me that there is a general understanding on these boards that Augment Healing bumps up the HP healed with the Vigor spells only in the first round. If the feat or spells have been errated, please link me or tell me which book to look in. But for now, I don't see why the two wouldn't work each round. An example of what I think most people are doing: Cleric with Augmented Healing casts Greater Vigor. In the first round the characters has Fast Healing 14. In the second and subsequent rounds, the character only has Fast Healing 4, the bonus from Augment Healing not being applied. I don't understand why this is how it works out. What is the mechanical difference between the first and second rounds? Pretty simple really. The feat increases the healing of any conjuration(healing) spell by 2 points per spell level. Not 2 points per round, 20 points, or anything else. Under the "you get the extra 2 points of healing in the first round" version, the feat is functioning as stated. Under your version, it's not. I think that's pretty clear cut. In the first round, when Augmented Healing is being applied, the Conjuration [Healing] spell is healing damage and therefore is granted the effect of the feat. In the second and subsequent rounds, the Conjuration [Healing] spell is still healing damage and should therefore be granted the effect of the feat. Anyone care to shed some light on the subject? (or beat me over the head with a rulebook?)
stamhaven 01-17-06, 10:11 PM	The most recent update to the FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv12212005.zip) uses that same specific example of a vigor spell. What effect does the Augment Healing feat (Complete Divine, page 79) have on lesser vigor (Complete Divine, page 186) and similar spells? Augment Healing adds twice the spell’s level to the total healing it provides. The simplest method is to have the spell apply the extra healing to the first round of fast healing. Thus, lesser vigor (a 1st-level spell) would cure an extra 2 hp of damage in the first round, for a total of 3 hit points. Each round thereafter it would heal the normal 1 hp of damage. Mass lesser vigor (a 3rd-level spell) would cure an extra 6 hp of damage to each target in the first round (for a total of 7 hit points), and would heal 1 hp of damage each round thereafter as normal. The critical part of the feat you need to pay attention to is that it adds 2 hp per spell level of healing to any conjuration healing spell you cast. Vigor spells are only cast on the first round and if you applied it more than once it would provide a much greater number of HP than the 2 hp per spell level that it specifies. At the loosest interpretation I would imagine you could specify which round the extra healing happened on. Your interpretation makes even a lesser vigor spell with the application of one feat (not even metamagic) stronger than greater vigor (whcih only offers 2 HP per level) and the difference gets bigger with succsessively higher level vigor spells... mass lesser vigor providing fast heal 7 to a group... more than twice as potent as vigorous circle, a 6th level spell that grants fast healing 3 to a group. In this case it looks like the faq, the language of the feat, and a sense of balance would indicate the more accepted interpretation of the interaction of the feat and vigor spells. Hope that helps, Stamhaven
dog45 01-17-06, 10:33 PM	Hope that helps, Stamhaven It does, in the sense that there has been somewhat of a clarification. It doesn't, in the sense that I don't agree with it. ::sigh:: They say it's the simplest method, and it may be, but I don't think it's the correct method. I think it's the simplest method because they didn't think beforehand what would happen when you combined the two. Which they should have since both the Vigor spells and Augment Healing were released in the same book. What that FAQ does is simply cover up their mistake. It doesn't provide a logical reasoning as to why the feat and spell should interact that way. And while I may possibly agree with you that in the sense of balance, perhaps this should be the way it works, I would prefer a more definitive explanation as to why it has to be that way. Unfortunately, I don't sense that it will be forthcoming, so right now I'm left with the FAQ, which I have failed to have more than marginal trust in since they screwed up Polymorph.
Zathyr 01-17-06, 11:19 PM	Augment healing increases the amount healed by the spell by a certain amount. To use the simplest example: a level one cleric casting lesser vigor normally cures 11 points of damage over the course of 11 rounds. With Augment Healing it heals 13 points, but over the same duration. To keep the math to whole numbers, there are 66 different ways you could apply the extra healing, and as your level increases it only gets more complex. The simplest method is to add the full amount of additional damage healed in the first round. I think the caster could chose (upon casting the spell) when and how they want the extra healing to take place. For example, if you were casting the spell before combat as preemptive healing, they could decide the 2 extra points show up on turn 3, or 1 point at turn 5 and the other on the last round, but these decisions complicate the game, expecially since they would need to be made without knowing exactly what will happen in those subsequent rounds. The FAQ suggests the simplest solution because many people don't want an overly complicated game. In fact, many DM's particularly don't want an overly complicated game, and of course as always, the DM has the final say.
dog45 01-17-06, 11:39 PM	Augment healing increases the amount healed by the spell by a certain amount. To use the simplest example: a level one cleric casting lesser vigor normally cures 11 points of damage over the course of 11 rounds. With Augment Healing it heals 13 points, but over the same duration. To keep the math to whole numbers, there are 66 different ways you could apply the extra healing, and as your level increases it only gets more complex. The simplest method is to add the full amount of additional damage healed in the first round. emphasis mine I get what you're trying to say, but that's not exactly what's happening. That may be the effective end result by the FAQ's interpretation, but how it happens is a little more involved. The difference is in how you are interpreting the result. the example cleric cured 11 HP in 11 rounds, so therefore adding augment healing would add +2 more HP, according to yourself and the FAQ. I think the problem is that the FAQ is looking at the spell as one single effect over the course of the duration, i.e. the example cleric is going to heal 11 HP with this spell, so augment healing simply adds +2 HP healed. I look at the spell as a single effect occuring once each round during the duration, i.e. the example cleric is going to heal 1 HP this round, so augment healing adds +2 HP healed this round. So it's not about choosing which round to apply the effect of augment healing to (which the FAQ did by declaring it the first round) but rather recognizing that the spell has a distinct effect that is occuring each round (and should therefore receive the benefit of augment healing each round).
Sancus 01-18-06, 12:59 AM	Unless you are trying to argue that a seperate spell is being cast every round, your argument doesn't really make any sense at all. The feat specifies X amount of healing added to the spell. There is only one spell. There may be multiple effects, that's quite irrelevant. It doesn't say "add X healing to each effect of the spell".
dog45 01-18-06, 06:56 AM	Unless you are trying to argue that a seperate spell is being cast every round, your argument doesn't really make any sense at all. The feat specifies X amount of healing added to the spell. There is only one spell. There may be multiple effects, that's quite irrelevant. It doesn't say "add X healing to each effect of the spell". It was late, I suppose. What I meant for all that to say was that the spell comes into effect multiple times over the duration. Maybe that's not much clearer. I'm thinking about it like an IF -> THEN problem. IF I am being healed by a conjuration healing spell THEN I get an extra +2 HP per level of the spell. Every round the spell is in effect, you check the above, and apply the effect accordingly.
Atarmalake Stormspire 01-18-06, 08:54 AM	It was late, I suppose. What I meant for all that to say was that the spell comes into effect multiple times over the duration. Maybe that's not much clearer. I'm thinking about it like an IF -> THEN problem. IF I am being healed by a conjuration healing spell THEN I get an extra +2 HP per level of the spell. Every round the spell is in effect, you check the above, and apply the effect accordingly. The spell actually comes in to effect only once. The spell happens to have a duration longer than one round so the effect lasts until the duration is over. When the spell duration ends the effect (increased healing) stops. Again... The spell is only cast once. The spell effect only happens once, it just has a longer duration. Example: If a mage casts the spell Fly and gains the ability to fly. The effect has a duration of 1 minute / level (3.5). The spell effect does not reoccure every round the spell effect stays in effect constantly until the end of the duration (or dispelled/cancled). Lake
stamhaven 01-18-06, 09:01 AM	That mentality ignores the fact the feat says specifically that it takes place when the spell is cast. That removes any wiggle room to for rules lawering to try and make things more powerful. The effect you're describing would have to be worded similar to this, "when producing a conjuration (healing) effect the ammount healed increases by +2/spell level..." which is very different from the text in the complete divine. The FAQ also talks about the interactoin of the Extend Spell feat and Vigor spells, which I happen to disagree with. The FAQ says in that case that the duration caps in the spell description trump the extend spell feat. To me that goes too far as Extend Spell is always able to exceed normal duration limits including those with fixed durations (more strictly limited than vigor spells) like divine favor. With extend spell and vigor spells, it still will not improve the combat effectiveness of a vigor spell, it simply improves the total healing. That effectively reduces the cost (either wand charges or spell slots) of healing but does not drastically affect the tactical usefulness (and comes with a spell level bump). If extend spell feat had some qualifiers about not improving fixed or maximum durations then I'd be inclined to agree with the faq but it doesn't. There are plenty of other spells with fixed durations that see as much or more tactical benefits from extend spell... flame spherer, creeping cold, acid fog, incendiary cloud, cloud kill, and any other lingering damage spell. In this case I don't think either a sense of balance or the text agree witht he FAQ. My point for brining up the extend spell/vigor combo is to demonstrate that there are places where I disagree with some official interpretations, and reinforce that because the FAQ says so isn't the sole reason you should rule a certain way with that situation. In the vigor/augment healing case I simply don't feel there is any wiggle room without making a very distinct change to the text and intent of the feat.
dog45 01-18-06, 10:27 AM	The spell actually comes in to effect only once. The spell happens to have a duration longer than one round so the effect lasts until the duration is over. When the spell duration ends the effect (increased healing) stops. Again... The spell is only cast once. The spell effect only happens once, it just has a longer duration. That mentality ignores the fact the feat says specifically that it takes place when the spell is cast. That removes any wiggle room to for rules lawering to try and make things more powerful. The effect you're describing would have to be worded similar to this, "when producing a conjuration (healing) effect the ammount healed increases by +2/spell level..." which is very different from the text in the complete divine. I agree. Sorta. The spells effect only happens once and it lasts through the duration of the spell. The thing is, the effect of the spell is to heal damage each round during the duration. So each round that the spell is active, the character is getting damaged healed by a Conjuration [Healing] spell that you cast. How am I making 'wiggle room' in this reading of the feat and application of the spell?
stamhaven 01-18-06, 10:55 AM	If you can't see it by now I don't expect you ever will. The feat say you add +2 points per spell level to the ammon of damage healed by any Conjuration healing] spell that you cast. Explaining why everyone else reads that line and thinks it applies only once to a given spell would seem like a waste of effort. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I don't know how to explain it any more clearly for you than I've already done. That said if it's your game, rule however you want, just make it clear to your players so they can tak e the same advantage of the uling as your NPC's do (and if you're a player consider the ramifications of facing most foes with this augmented set of spells in effect in most fights with clerics or druids.
dog45 01-18-06, 11:51 AM	If you can't see it by now I don't expect you ever will. Explaining why everyone else reads that line and thinks it applies only once to a given spell would seem like a waste of effort. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I don't know how to explain it any more clearly for you than I've already done. That said if it's your game, rule however you want, just make it clear to your players so they can tak e the same advantage of the uling as your NPC's do (and if you're a player consider the ramifications of facing most foes with this augmented set of spells in effect in most fights with clerics or druids. Eh. Don't worry, I realize you're not trying to insult me. I guess i'm just thinking about it differently. BTW, I'm the player in this case. And having enemies with my interpretation of the feat and spell active doesn't bother me. I've got Beastlands Ferocity + Delay Death up, so they'll be running of out HP way before I do. ;)
Atarmalake Stormspire 01-18-06, 12:06 PM	I agree. Sorta. The spells effect only happens once and it lasts through the duration of the spell. The thing is, the effect of the spell is to heal damage each round during the duration. So each round that the spell is active, the character is getting damaged healed by a Conjuration [Healing] spell that you cast. How am I making 'wiggle room' in this reading of the feat and application of the spell? Ok... One last time... and this time with feeling.. ;) Another example... :D With the spell Charm person... From the SRD Charm Person Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting] Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: One humanoid creature Duration: 1 hour/level Saving Throw: Will negatesSpell Resistance: Yes This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw... Now the effect last 1 hour / level. The creature that is under the spell does not get a saving through every round just because the effect lasts longer than a round. The target gets one and only one saving throw for the spell as it first takes effect. After that the spell effect mearly continues until the duration is reached (or cancelled/dispelled) The saving throw only applies to the spell when it is first coming into effect (not as it continues it's effect past the initial round) The Augment Healing feat only applies when the spell is first comming into effect (not as it continues it's effect past the initial round) does this make it any easier to understand? Lake ;) ;)
dog45 01-18-06, 12:18 PM	Ok... One last time... and this time with feeling.. ;) With the spell Charm person... From the SRD Now the effect last 1 hour / level. The creature that is under the spell does not get a saving through every round just because the effect lasts longer than a round. The target gets one and only one saving throw for the spell as it first takes effect. After that the spell effect mearly continues until the duration is reached (or cancelled/dispelled) The saving throw only applies to the spell when it is first coming into effect (not as it continues it's effect past the initial round) The Augment Healing feat only applies when the spell is first comming into effect (not as it continues it's effect past the initial round) does this make it any easier to understand? Lake ;) ;) Gah. I was hoping by ignoring your last spell analogy you wouldn't bring another one up. Oh well. It's a bad analogy, trying to compare the basics of saving throws to a feat that increase the damage healed. It's like the old saying "comparing apples to oranges" although in this case it's like comparing steel girders to balloons. Since were all about analogys, imagine a spell as a house, or building. The saving throw (the girder) is a part of a building (a spell that allows saving throws) but not neccesarily part of a house (a spell that doesn't allow saving throws). The balloon represents the feat. Neither the house nor the building need it to function, it simply adds to either. In this case, it adds a balloon. Yay. ... Right. See why I don't like analogys? I suck at them. The point is, comparing a saving throw to augment healing is bad.
EvilVegan 01-18-06, 07:29 PM	No it isn't a bad idea. You're saying a continuous effect is a reoccuring spell. That is, every round every aspect of the spell is repeated (instead of continuing, as the word continuous would imply). So for every round you're under the effects you are 1) healed, 2) allowed a saving throw, 3) damaged, 4) flying, 5) affected. Regardless of the nature of the spell, it is continuous and as such each affect that modifies said spell is only applied once, either over the duration of the spell, or at a set point during the duration. Augment healing only applies 1 time to 1 spell. Vigor is 1 spell that lasts X rounds. Augment healing applies 1 time to vigor. If you want to spread the extra healing out over several rounds that may be fine, but it would be a ruling issue (not a house rule, but just a judgement call on how the feat works). It is not 1 spell that comes into effect each round for its duration, it is in effect constantly for the duration, which is completely different. If it makes it easier view a round as segments, say each round is divided by 10 segments, which is when the different people go in initiative order, if they have fast healing 10 they heal 1 point per segment, not 10 points at the end of the round. It is constantly affecting them. If you made it work 1 time per round of the spell you would be completely misreading the feat and making it more powerful by a factor of the number of levels that the spell lasts, which is not only unbalanced, it is wrong. You are adding a premise to the argument that is faulty. This premise is that vigor recurs every round, when to recur it would have to stop, which it does not during the duration of the spell, which makes your argument faulty (not a faulty conclusion, just a faulty premise). Vigor is 1 spell. Augment healing affects one spell once. You probably still won't accept this though. So good luck! It won't break a game as long as it works both ways. (but it is wrong)
dog45 01-19-06, 08:30 AM	You're saying a continuous effect is a reoccuring spell. That's not what I'm trying to say. I know it's only cast once. If you made it work 1 time per round of the spell you would be completely misreading the feat and making it more powerful by a factor of the number of levels that the spell lasts, which is not only unbalanced, it is wrong. I'm having a hard time understanding how I am misreading the feat. Lemme try and break it down a little more. 1) Every round that Vigor is in effect, the receipient of the Vigor spell is getting damage healed by a Conjuration [Healing] spell that the Cleric cast. 2) Augment Healing requires a Conjuration [Healing] spell to heal damage in order for the bonus HP to apply. How am I misreading the application of feat and spell, given those true statements?
Teydyn 01-19-06, 11:10 AM	The feat say you add +2 points per spell level to the ammon of damage healed by any Conjuration [healing] spell that you cast. How much damage heals a lesser vigor spell at caster level 1? 11. With Augment Healing its 11 + 2 = 13. However you distribute the 2 extra HP healed. The way you want it to work: Caster level 1 has duration 11 rounds. 11 rounds * (1+2) = 33 hp healed. Thats an increase by 22 hp, not as the feat stated 2 points per spell level. And besides, do you really dont see how BROKEN it would be? If there are 2 possible ways to see how a feat/spell/whatever works and one is balanced, the other is broken, then the broken one is wrong.
Mad Monkey 01-19-06, 11:32 AM	Note that the Vigor spells don't heal damage by themselves, they grant fast healing to a character. The fast healing heals the damage. So a Vigor spell cast with Augment Healing heals 0+6=6 hitpoints. Personally I find the possible interaction of Augment Healing with spells that heal ability damage more interesting. A Lesser Restoration that could heal 1d4+4 ability damage is very nice.
Krelios 01-19-06, 11:49 AM	It was late, I suppose. What I meant for all that to say was that the spell comes into effect multiple times over the duration. Maybe that's not much clearer. I'm thinking about it like an IF -> THEN problem. IF I am being healed by a conjuration healing spell THEN I get an extra +2 HP per level of the spell. Every round the spell is in effect, you check the above, and apply the effect accordingly.The two big problems are this. The feat only applies to spells that you cast, if you're not casting the spell each round, then you don't get the bonus each round. More importantly, the spells is supposed to add +2 per level of the spell for each casting. Changing it to the way you suggest would add significantly more than that--thus it cannot be the correct interpretation. It really shouldn't be something to debate. It certainly goes against the intent of the rules, and IMO against the letter of them as well.
Someone 01-19-06, 12:09 PM	Personally I find the possible interaction of Augment Healing with spells that heal ability damage more interesting. A Lesser Restoration that could heal 1d4+4 ability damage is very nice.Actually, I believe the spell would heal 1d4 ability damage, and 4 hp.
dog45 01-19-06, 12:36 PM	And besides, do you really dont see how BROKEN it would be? If there are 2 possible ways to see how a feat/spell/whatever works and one is balanced, the other is broken, then the broken one is wrong. Whether I think it would be broken or not is not the point. What i'm looking at is how the feat/spell actually works, not the issue of balance. Game balance means different things in different campaigns (i.e. different DM's). Note that the Vigor spells don't heal damage by themselves, they grant fast healing to a character. The fast healing heals the damage. So a Vigor spell cast with Augment Healing heals 0+6=6 hitpoints. I mentioned this in the other thread. There is the interpretation that the effect of the Vigor spells is not to heal damage at all, but instead grant Fast Healing. If this were the case, then Augment Healing would not apply at all, because you aren't being healed by a Conjuration [Healing] spell, you would be granted the Fast Healing quality by a Conjuration [Healing] spell. However, I think the standard interpretation is that the Vigor spells actually cures the damage, and therefore can benefit from Augment Healing. Personally I find the possible interaction of Augment Healing with spells that heal ability damage more interesting. A Lesser Restoration that could heal 1d4+4 ability damage is very nice. A strict reading of AH could imply that, as AH does not specificly say Hit Point damage, and Lesser Restoration is curing damage, albeit temporary ability damage. The two big problems are this. The feat only applies to spells that you cast, if you're not casting the spell each round, then you don't get the bonus each round. That's not neccesarily so. Just because I didn't cast the spell the second round the spell is in effect, I am still being healed by a Conjuration [Healing] spell that I cast. Got it? More importantly, the spells is supposed to add +2 per level of the spell for each casting. Changing it to the way you suggest would add significantly more than that--thus it cannot be the correct interpretation. It really shouldn't be something to debate. It certainly goes against the intent of the rules, and IMO against the letter of them as well. Emphasis Mine Where does it say in the feat that it only applys once per casting? I'm not trying to imply that because a feat says you can't do something that you can. I'm just saying that's your interpretation of how the feat works. Also, how does it goes against the intent of the rules? Actually, I believe the spell would heal 1d4 ability damage, and 4 hp. If AH worked with LR, it wouldn't heal extra HP because the original spell doesnt heal HP.
Vedic Cold 01-19-06, 12:36 PM	It's been pretty clearly stated before now, but I want to just chime in my agreement with those who believe the bonus healing should only be applied once. From my point of view, it's all about the numbers, not the wording of the feat. The feat implies a total number of extra points of healing = 2 * Spell level. That number should be the maximum amount of bonus healing applied to the entire spell above and beyond the normal effect. As was broken down earlier, a 1st level spell should receive a total bonus of 2 extra points of healing. Over the course of 11 rounds, the spell in question would receive a total of 22 extra points of healing if your interpretation is implied. Significantly more than the feat's implied maximum bonus per spell level.
dog45 01-19-06, 12:42 PM	Over the course of 11 rounds, the spell in question would receive a total of 22 extra points of healing if your interpretation is implied. Significantly more than the feat's implied maximum bonus per spell level. And this wouldn't be the first time that a feat turned out to be more powerful than it was originally intended to be. Divine Metamagic anyone?
Vedic Cold 01-19-06, 01:02 PM	That argument has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The Divine Metamagic feat is an entirely different feat, with many threads discussing its multiple uses and abuses. In regard to that topic, however, the many manipulations I have seen of that feat utilize it within the bounds of its written capabilities. The point that I am attempting to make is that the Augment healing feat itself clearly states the total amount of extra healing it provides to any given spell, and that the wording of the spell pretty clearly excludes the interpretation for which you are arguing. Any interpretation of the feat that causes it to provide more than 2 points of bonus healing per spell level to a single casting of any spell is, from my perspective, incorrect. In all honesty, I considered your interpretation of that interaction myself when I first purchased my copy of Complete Divine. As both a player and a DM, I quickly dismissed it, because it did not adhere to the restrictions and limitations inherent to the feat as it is written. I'm not the sort to tell someone that the way they're doing D&D is wrong, because there is no wrong way to play as long as everyone has fun. However, I do think it should be acknowledged that an interpretation of this particular feat that allows it to provide its bonus every round in conjunction with the Vigor spells is not in keeping with the way the feat is written or with the limitations implied therein. If that's the way it works in your game, then that's all that matters for you. However, as you can see, that is not how most people believe it works.
dog45 01-19-06, 10:02 PM	That argument has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The Divine Metamagic feat is an entirely different feat, with many threads discussing its multiple uses and abuses. In regard to that topic, however, the many manipulations I have seen of that feat utilize it within the bounds of its written capabilities. I wasn't trying to use Divine Metamagic as an argument really. Just sorta saying, "hey, look at this feat. It's doing things to the game that the designers probably didn't intend but are legal by the wording of the feat." The point that I am attempting to make is that the Augment healing feat itself clearly states the total amount of extra healing it provides to any given spell, Right. and that the wording of the spell pretty clearly excludes the interpretation for which you are arguing. No where in the feat does it mention or give an example of the feat being applied to a Conjuration [Healing] spell that lasts multiple rounds, so how does it clearly exclude something that it doesn't even referance? Re-read the bottom of post #16 to see how my interpretation is entirely in line with the feat and doesn't need to use any implied or presumed meaning. Note, however, that although I realize the feat doesn't mention being applied to healing spells with multiple round durations am I going to agree that because of it not being mentioned, they won't work with the feat. Just wanted to squash that bug right there. Any interpretation of the feat that causes it to provide more than 2 points of bonus healing per spell level to a single casting of any spell is, from my perspective, incorrect. That's your perogative. However, I haven't read an argument yet that proves that my interpretation is logically incorrect. Prove that my arguments in post #7 and #16 are false, and then I might agree with the consensus. In all honesty, I considered your interpretation of that interaction myself when I first purchased my copy of Complete Divine. As both a player and a DM, I quickly dismissed it, because it did not adhere to the restrictions and limitations inherent to the feat as it is written. Emphasis Mine This is pretty much my argument. How is my interpretation breaking the very clearly stated restrictions? I'm not the sort to tell someone that the way they're doing D&D is wrong, because there is no wrong way to play as long as everyone has fun. However, I do think it should be acknowledged that an interpretation of this particular feat that allows it to provide its bonus every round in conjunction with the Vigor spells is not in keeping with the way the feat is written or with the limitations implied therein. If that's the way it works in your game, then that's all that matters for you. However, as you can see, that is not how most people believe it works. Like I said, that's entirely up to you to feel that why. And I appreciate not being flat out told that im stupid or an idiot to try and apply it this way.
Talon Stormwarden 01-20-06, 12:37 AM	Add +2 points per spell level to the amount of damage healed by any Conjuration[Healing] spell that you cast. For the purpose of this argument (ignoring the argument that states that the Vigor line of spells doesn't heal at all but rather grants the Fast Healing ability temporarily), Lesser Vigor cast by a level 5 cleric heals how much damage? 15, right. The feat says to add 2 per spell level to that. 15 + (1*2) = 17. It's as simple as that, really. Just because it heals it's 15 points in different rounds is irrelevant. Your argument could be stretched to say that a Cure Light Wounds is augmented from say 8 hit points to 24. Cure light wounds heals me for 8 discrete points of damage, I should be able to add 2 to each one, right? Obviously not. The feat makes reference to 'the amount of damage healed', that's total. Breaking it down into amount per round is reading more into the words than is there.
Chaser 01-20-06, 02:46 AM	Re-read the bottom of post #16 to see how my interpretation is entirely in line with the feat and doesn't need to use any implied or presumed meaning. OK The feat says, "Benefit: Add +2 points per spell level to the amount of damage healed by any conjuration [Healing] spell that you cast." I'm thinking about it like an IF -> THEN problem. IF I am being healed by a conjuration healing spell THEN I get an extra +2 HP per level of the spell. Every round the spell is in effect, you check the above, and apply the effect accordingly. I think your first weak point is your translation into a conditional. You are in fact depending on, or adding in, an implied or presumed meaning. You have attempted to introduce several terms that are not present in the source material, namely the feat, like 'I am being healed,' 'every round,' and 'you check.' That is almost a cardinal sin in trying to translate something into logic. If you don't translate the situation well, logic bears no true fruit. There is no need to logically prove your result is wrong, when you have mistranslated the scenario from the start. A more straightforward attempt to convert the feat to a conditional might yield "If the caster of a Conjuration [Healing] Spell has the feat Augment Healing, then add 2 points of healing per spell level to the sum healed." Logic does not bear the burden of disproving your conditional, you bear the burden of proof of why including your extra terms is appropriate. In other words, prove why your conditional is a translation that adds nothing to the meaning or wording of the feat, then we'll talk about any implications.
Shatteredtower 01-20-06, 03:23 AM	Dog45, you're trying to equate Augment Healing with Empower Spell, but it doesn't work out. Empower Spell reads: "All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one half." Notice that the sentence begins with all. Meanwhile, Augment Healing adds a fixed number of hp to the effect of healing spells. In the case of 2nd level spells, that number is 2 -- not 4, not 8, and 22 is certainly right out. In order for that +2 to be +2/round, a very different term, you would have to rule that a 5th/8th level rogue/wizard that scored a sneak attack with acid arrow causes +3d6 sneak attack damage with that spell every round it does damage. To rule otherwise would be to rule inconsistently. Is that how you handle sneak attacks with damaging effects that recur round after round?
Vedic Cold 01-20-06, 01:47 PM	This is pretty much my argument. How is my interpretation breaking the very clearly stated restrictions? This is probably the most straightforward question yet, and let me try to answer it in the most direct manner possible. I believe that your interpretation breaks the stated restrictions because of the following two points: A) The fundamental restriction is that the sum total of bonus healing applied to a single casting of a Conjuration (Healing) spell is equal to 2 * the spell's level, and B) adding the bonus to the entire duration of a Vigor spell would vastly exceed that amount. I honestly don't know a more concise way of stating it. You mention that the feat doesn't specifically address certain situations (such as long duration spells or spells that heal damage other than HP damage from the Conjuration (Healing) subschool). Perhaps that's a flaw in the writing, but I have no difficulty extending the current wording so that it includes ALL spells of the Conjuration (Healing) subschool. It places a limit on the total amount of extra healing based on spell level, and for me that clearly defines much of what it will and will not do. I also get the sense that your argument centers on the fact that the wording of the feat does not explicitly prohibit the bonus being applied every round. Just because the feat doesn't specifically say "If the spell has a duration greater than 1 round, this bonus healing is not applied every round," is not a solid foundation for a logical argument to that effect. The two points I've made above are the clearest, most logical arguments I can make as to my own interpretation of the effect of the feat. If you can clearly explain to me how those two points can be resolved to one another in way that supports your interpretation, I will gladly concede the point. If you do not hold one of those two points to be true, please explain your reasoning for that.
dog45 01-20-06, 03:12 PM	Dog45, you're trying to equate Augment Healing with Empower Spell, but it doesn't work out. I don't know how you came up with that, but that's never been one of my arguments. In order for that +2 to be +2/round, a very different term, you would have to rule that a 5th/8th level rogue/wizard that scored a sneak attack with acid arrow causes +3d6 sneak attack damage with that spell every round it does damage. To rule otherwise would be to rule inconsistently. Is that how you handle sneak attacks with damaging effects that recur round after round? No, I wouldn't have to rule that. The reason being there are very specific rules concerning sneak attack. The later rounds of damage caused by Acid Arrow do not meet the conditions required to deal sneak attack damage, therefore I don't get to apply it. The reason I say AH works with the later rounds of Vigor is because the effect of the spell in each of those rounds meets the requirements of the AH feat, so it applys. I believe that your interpretation breaks the stated restrictions because of the following two points: A) The fundamental restriction is that the sum total of bonus healing applied to a single casting of a Conjuration (Healing) spell is equal to 2 * the spell's level, and B) adding the bonus to the entire duration of a Vigor spell would vastly exceed that amount. ... If you can clearly explain to me how those two points can be resolved to one another in way that supports your interpretation, I will gladly concede the point. If you do not hold one of those two points to be true, please explain your reasoning for that. It's becoming apparent to me that we are seeing the conditional factors that govern application of the feat differently. It seems to me that you want the amount of extra healing being applied to determine when the feat stops working. In your case, that is when the spell has healed an extra 2 HP per spell level, right? So, according to this view, having the extra healing apply each round would exceed the point when the feat should stop working. To me, the point at which the feat stops working is when the character is no longer being healed damage by a Conjuration [Healing] spell. This takes the limiting factor away from a certain number of HP and leaves it up to the effect of the spell to determine when the feat stops working. So, given these two separate understandings of how the feat works, A+B will always be right for your view, and they will always be wrong for mine. However, this doesn't mean my understanding of the feat is automatically wrong. I realize this wasn't the answer you wanted, but I think it's a right answer anyway. There is no need to logically prove your result is wrong, when you have mistranslated the scenario from the start. ... Logic does not bear the burden of disproving your conditional, you bear the burden of proof of why including your extra terms is appropriate. As far as extra terms go, both you and Vedic Cold imply that there is a 'sum', or an ultimate total, that the spell stops at. But that's not what the feat says. It says to add it to the amount of damage healed. In the 2nd round of Vigor, damage is being healed, so why doesn't the feat apply? [Rhetorical question, I know i've already asked it] Again, it's the view that the extra healing stops when a certain number of extra HP have been healed. In other words, prove why your conditional is a translation that adds nothing to the meaning or wording of the feat, then we'll talk about any implications. I could say the same thing about your conitional translation. It applys a limit based on the number of HP healed, when instead the limit in the feat is when you are no longer getting damage healed.
Chaser 01-21-06, 03:30 AM	I could say the same thing about your conitional translation. It applys a limit based on the number of HP healed, when instead the limit in the feat is when you are no longer getting damage healed. You could say that, but at that point you would be verifiably wrong. The only thing I stated that might be considered different from having and using the feat was using 'sum healed' instead of 'amount healed.' Sum and amount are synonyms. 1. Mathematics 1. An amount obtained as a result of adding numbers. 2. An arithmetic problem: a child good at sums. 2. The whole amount, quantity, or number; an aggregate: the sum of the team's combined experience. 3. An amount of money: paid an enormous sum. 4. A summary: my view of the world, in sum. 5. The central idea or point; the gist. 1. The total of two or more quantities; the aggregate. 2. A number; a sum. 3. A principal plus its interest, as in a loan. 4. The full effect or meaning; import. 5. Quantity: a great amount of intelligence. Note the first definitions are equivalent, and each definition refers to the other, and each definition uses terms and meanings that show up in the other. Sum is just clearer in this context. Your interpretation is a translation that adds in no less than three phrases not found or referenced in the feat at all. The translation I attempted is an actual restating that stands on its own as provably equivalent to the source material, while actually helping to understand it. So, a conditional that illuminates the feat: "If the caster of a Conjuration [Healing] Spell has the feat Augment Healing, then add 2 points of healing per spell level to the sum healed."
Shatteredtower 01-21-06, 04:49 AM	I don't know how you came up with that, but that's never been one of my arguments.On the contrary, it is the entirety of your argument. It is exactly what you are arguing for, even if you don't know it. You are arguing that a Augment Healing's flat bonus applies repeatedly -- just as Empower Spell does. However, Empower Spell is clear on the point that it applies to all effects of the spell. Augment Healing tells you to add a fixed number of hp to the healing granted by an x level spell. It doesn't say, "x points per round," or "x points every time it produces a healing effect," no matter how much you try to read that in there. And because you are trying to read it in there, you are trying to apply the effect the same way you would Empower Spell. I never said you were looking for the exact same +50% benefit. I said that you were looking for an effect that transcended the normal level-based limit Augment Healing has. Duration is irrelevant to the latter, not the former. INo, I wouldn't have to rule that. The reason being there are very specific rules concerning sneak attack. The later rounds of damage caused by Acid Arrow do not meet the conditions required to deal sneak attack damage, therefore I don't get to apply it.You're right, you don't. You've yet to show any grounds by which the +x bonus Augment Healing gives you is any different than the guidelines set down by sneak attack, however. Instead, you choose to redefine a feat that doesn't specifically grant you a round after round bonus and ignore the precedents established for bonuses on recurring damage or healing without any support for the break from the norm. As you rule sneak attack, you must rule Augment Healing in the absence of anything more definitive that the feat as written. The reason I say AH works with the later rounds of Vigor is because the effect of the spell in each of those rounds meets the requirements of the AH feat, so it applys.Except that you already got the bonus, which is defined as fixed by level, not variable by duration, so it doesn't apply. As far as extra terms go, both you and Vedic Cold imply that there is a 'sum', or an ultimate total, that the spell stops at. But that's not what the feat says. It says to add it to the amount of damage healed. In the 2nd round of Vigor, damage is being healed, so why doesn't the feat apply? [Rhetorical question, I know i've already asked it]Because 1+2+1 = 4, not 6. Assume a spell with a duration of 4 rounds heals 1 hp per round. If you're told to increase the amount of healing by 2 hp, the total healed is 6. If that was a question on a math quiz and you replied 12 hp, you wouldn't get any marks for that question. You'd get full marks if the problem said that the rate of healing was increased by 2 hp, but that's not what it says. Augment Healing indicate nothing of the sort either.
Grug the Just 01-21-06, 04:51 PM	I skimmed through a good portion of the arguement. I've been in a similar arguement as well. We ironed out a couple of key ideas I think may help answer some questions. Wizards may intended this spell to simply heal damage over time with the Fast Healing ability being the most succinct way to convey the effect. Now if, say, the spell specifically stated that the character healed that same amount of hit point damage over the same amount of time without the virtue of Fast Healing. Would you still have the same problem with the interaction of the spell and the feat? If then the Vigor spell chain was then changed to a Transmutation or Abjuration spell, I'm not sure which would be more pertinent, the problem would be null. What I'm saying, mainly, is that if that Vigor was changed to another school of spell the problem would dissapear same as if Vigor was worded to be healing over time instead of Fast Healing the problem would dissapear. Personally, I see the latter being the easiest just to assume.