Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Invidious113 03-08-07, 01:52 AM	So you can crit with any spell that has range 'touch' or 'ranged touch' (pg141 phb)... Imagine I'm a Cleric and casting an Inflict Light Wounds spell. On a natural 20 on my touch I roll to confirm critical and might do double damage to my target, bonus. Ok, no problem here. Now, say I am casting a Cure Light Wounds spell against a hostile skeleton. It works the same way, I roll my touch attack and on a natural 20 I roll to confirm and might do double damage. Still with me? Allright, now let's say I decide to cast a Cure Light Wounds spell on my fighter buddy who's not looking so great. It would stand to reason that if I can critical an undead creature with a potent burst of powerful positive energy, I should be able to critically-cure my allies if I'm lucky enough to roll that 20. Considering how often clerics cast cure spells, this could happen quite a bit. However, we don't generally roll out the touch attack on a willing creature, as is again, right in the rules. On page 141 it says "you may automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll." It's that attack roll that allows for the critical. Furthermore, suppose your "friend" doesn't *want* your healing. Lets suppose that Exemplar, a fighter friend of ours, is locked in an honor duel with a tough opponent. For one reason or another, as the cleric you decide your friend is in trouble and needs healing, and screw the one-on-one rules, but Exemplar may not feel the same way. We can see in this situation our friend might resist your touch attack...... therefore you can critical-cure him in this situation, just not when he wants to be critically-cured. Does this seem a disconnect to anyone else? A character's mindset of wanting to be healed shouldn't let him be healed less... thoughts? adam
Mouseferatu 03-08-07, 02:00 AM	Actually, you can never "critically cure." In order to land a critical hit, an attack must fulfill two requirements. A) It must require an attack roll. B) it must deal damage of some sort. When used against an undead, cure light wounds deals damage. When used against a normal living creature, it does not deal damage; it heals damage. Thus, whether or not you have to roll to hit, or the target is unwilling, it cannot ever crit under those circumstances.
Invidious113 03-08-07, 02:07 AM	mmn, ok I guess I see. And, I don't know why i didn't think of this before but that was actually a terrible example. Skeletons (being undead) are not subject to critical hits. I suppose a critical-cure wouldn't work on them either?
Mouseferatu 03-08-07, 02:14 AM	And, I don't know why i didn't think of this before but that was actually a terrible example. Skeletons (being undead) are not subject to critical hits. I suppose a critical-cure wouldn't work on them either? Heh, true. But to be fair, I missed that fact, too, when reading your example. What I get for posting on message boards at 1 am, I suppose. ;)
tarkin 03-08-07, 01:40 PM	Also, the same thing goes for Vampiric Touch. If you crit on someone using Vampiric Touch, then they take extra damage but you do NOT get extra hitpoints. Crits only increase the damage done, nothing else.
Aracor 03-08-07, 01:50 PM	If you crit on someone using Vampiric Touch, then they take extra damage but you do NOT get extra hitpoints. Crits only increase the damage done, nothing else. Going to have to go ahead and disagree on this one, tarkin; based on the wording of the spell. Vampiric touch allows you to gain temporary hit points equal to the damage dealt. As long as the damage is dealt by the spell; and it's less than the target's current hit points + 10, you'll get temporary hit points for it.
runestar 03-08-07, 11:44 PM	I don't like the idea of critting with cure spells since it opens up a whole can of worms. Critting with heal spells? And if you allow this, you have to allow a rogue to heal extra by sneak attacking with his wand of cure minor wounds, since they both operate off the same logic.
Ryuu_Tenshi 03-09-07, 12:14 AM	I don't like the idea of critting with cure spells since it opens up a whole can of worms. Critting with heal spells? And if you allow this, you have to allow a rogue to heal extra by sneak attacking with his wand of cure minor wounds, since they both operate off the same logic. ... dude, just the image of a rogue sneaking up behind the fighter to hit him on the head with the wand XD fighter: What the hell?! Why'd you have to do it that way! Rogue: ... works better when you don't know it's coming >>;
Otherguy 03-09-07, 12:39 AM	He he he. Personally, as a house rule I'd just not allow crits on magic. Crits, in my opinion, are one of the equalizers between regular damage and damage from magic. Weapon damage doesn't rise with your character level (in most cases) even though BAB does. Even at lower levels, a sorcerer w/magic missle finds that spell increasing in damage much faster than a fighter w/ a great sword. Granted, that spell isn't the strongest, and likely the great sword will do more damage, but you see my point. Add to that save or die spells at higher levels and you see my point. Sure, there are rules for death from massive damage are there, but first you have to achieve massive damage.