Close Wounds in Spell Compendium [Archive] - Wizards Community

Close Wounds in Spell Compendium [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ihavproof
09-15-06, 03:19 AM I was wondering if anyone else has had a problem with this spell. One of my players got into an argument with the translation of this spell. It is an immediate action meaning you can cast it at any time. The description reads as follows:

"This spell cures 1d4 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).
If you cast this spell immediately after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage. It would keep alive someone who had just dropped to -10 hit points, for example, leaving the character at negative hit points but stable.
Used against an undead creature, close wounds deals damage instead of curing the creature (which takes half damage if it makes a Will saving throw."

His argument is the second paragraph. He says that this is seperate from the 1d4 +1 and it prevents all of one single amount of damage. I believe that the 9 hp limit still applies. Who is right? This is far too powerful for a 2nd level spell if it can heal a 40 hp wound in my humble opinion. Especially if it's an immediate action.

Thoughts? Whose right?
Millenia
09-15-06, 03:24 AM The "effectively" is the main point of contention between RAW-based interpretations, I believe. I do not claim to pretend to know what the designers thought, but I -think- that, rules as intended, it only "effectively" prevents up to 1d4 points of damage + 1 per caster level (up to 5), which means anywhere from 2 to 9 HP.

Hope that helped. ^^;
Pindar
09-15-06, 03:29 AM I was wondering if anyone else has had a problem with this spell. One of my players got into an argument with the translation of this spell. It is an immediate action meaning you can cast it at any time. The description reads as follows:

"This spell cures 1d4 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).
If you cast this spell immediately after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage. It would keep alive someone who had just dropped to -10 hit points, for example, leaving the character at negative hit points but stable.
Used against an undead creature, close wounds deals damage instead of curing the creature (which takes half damage if it makes a Will saving throw."

His argument is the second paragraph. He says that this is seperate from the 1d4 +1 and it prevents all of one single amount of damage. I believe that the 9 hp limit still applies. Who is right? This is far too powerful for a 2nd level spell if it can heal a 40 hp wound in my humble opinion. Especially if it's an immediate action.

Thoughts? Whose right?

You are right. Really all this spell is, is a ranged cure light wounds, that's why it heals less.

The part he is misinterpreting means it acts like an instant buffer absorbing the damage before it hits its intended target.

So if someone got hit for 20 damage knocking them to -13 and someone cast this on them for 5 they would only take 15 damage. and be on -8.

If someone normally was knocked to -13 and then died cure light wounds would not help them.

This isn't healing damage taken but preventing damage from hitting you.
journeyman777
09-15-06, 03:33 AM You are. Healing can only cancel an equal amount of damage, the only change here is timing. Immediate actions interupt the normal flow of actions and are capable of occuring at the same time other things are happening. In this case, the healing is simultaneous to the damage, thus preventing the negative side effects damage (such as dying) up to the amount of the healing. Hope that helps.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ihavproof 09-15-06, 03:19 AM	I was wondering if anyone else has had a problem with this spell. One of my players got into an argument with the translation of this spell. It is an immediate action meaning you can cast it at any time. The description reads as follows: "This spell cures 1d4 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). If you cast this spell immediately after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage. It would keep alive someone who had just dropped to -10 hit points, for example, leaving the character at negative hit points but stable. Used against an undead creature, close wounds deals damage instead of curing the creature (which takes half damage if it makes a Will saving throw." His argument is the second paragraph. He says that this is seperate from the 1d4 +1 and it prevents all of one single amount of damage. I believe that the 9 hp limit still applies. Who is right? This is far too powerful for a 2nd level spell if it can heal a 40 hp wound in my humble opinion. Especially if it's an immediate action. Thoughts? Whose right?
Millenia 09-15-06, 03:24 AM	The "effectively" is the main point of contention between RAW-based interpretations, I believe. I do not claim to pretend to know what the designers thought, but I -think- that, rules as intended, it only "effectively" prevents up to 1d4 points of damage + 1 per caster level (up to 5), which means anywhere from 2 to 9 HP. Hope that helped. ^^;
Pindar 09-15-06, 03:29 AM	I was wondering if anyone else has had a problem with this spell. One of my players got into an argument with the translation of this spell. It is an immediate action meaning you can cast it at any time. The description reads as follows: "This spell cures 1d4 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). If you cast this spell immediately after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage. It would keep alive someone who had just dropped to -10 hit points, for example, leaving the character at negative hit points but stable. Used against an undead creature, close wounds deals damage instead of curing the creature (which takes half damage if it makes a Will saving throw." His argument is the second paragraph. He says that this is seperate from the 1d4 +1 and it prevents all of one single amount of damage. I believe that the 9 hp limit still applies. Who is right? This is far too powerful for a 2nd level spell if it can heal a 40 hp wound in my humble opinion. Especially if it's an immediate action. Thoughts? Whose right? You are right. Really all this spell is, is a ranged cure light wounds, that's why it heals less. The part he is misinterpreting means it acts like an instant buffer absorbing the damage before it hits its intended target. So if someone got hit for 20 damage knocking them to -13 and someone cast this on them for 5 they would only take 15 damage. and be on -8. If someone normally was knocked to -13 and then died cure light wounds would not help them. This isn't healing damage taken but preventing damage from hitting you.
journeyman777 09-15-06, 03:33 AM	You are. Healing can only cancel an equal amount of damage, the only change here is timing. Immediate actions interupt the normal flow of actions and are capable of occuring at the same time other things are happening. In this case, the healing is simultaneous to the damage, thus preventing the negative side effects damage (such as dying) up to the amount of the healing. Hope that helps.