Close Wounds Official Change? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Close Wounds Official Change? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
CelestialBarbarian
07-02-06, 12:57 AM In my D&D game last night I went to have an NPC cleric cast the close wounds spell. I looked up the spell in Miniatures Handbook while one o my players looked it up in Spell Compendium. Apparently while Miniatures Handbook has the spell at 3rd level doing 2d4 points of healing, Spell Compendium has the spell at 2nd level doing 1d4, +1/level (max +5). Is this an official revision of the spell? If so, I can see replacing the second d4 with +1/level, making the spell scale with level as do most of the spells that heal hit point loss, but why reduce the spell from 3rd to 2nd level? Does the new version change anything else, like reduce the range from Close to Touch, or the casting time from a swift action to a standard action?

Thanks. :D
cwslyclgh
07-02-06, 02:05 AM Close Wounds has a casting time of 1 immediate action, so you can even use it when it isn't your turn. Range is still close.

My guess is they just changed it to level two, because they thought it was underpowered at level 3.
DarknessEternal
07-02-06, 03:13 AM Yes, this is an official revision to the spell.
Lotus Crane
07-02-06, 03:27 AM Actually, if you think that's a major change, consider how improvisation changed from a 5th level bard spell in Complete Adventurer, to a 1st level bard spell in Spell Compendium.
CelestialBarbarian
07-02-06, 03:31 AM Actually, if you think that's a major change, consider how improvisation changed from a 5th level bard spell in Complete Adventurer, to a 1st level bard spell in Spell Compendium.

Heh. I don't have the same interest in bard spells. :D
CelestialBarbarian
07-02-06, 04:53 PM Yes, this is an official revision to the spell.
I had no idea that Spell Compendium would make changes to spells. Did Wizards put any explanation for the changes anywhere? At least when they changed haste and other spells between 3.0 and 3.5, they explained the changes in Dragon. I would like to see an explanation of the changes they made in Spell Compendium.
cwslyclgh
07-02-06, 05:01 PM spells that have gotten reprinted in other books often include minor changes based upon how WotC feels that the spells need tweaking since they were first released.

WotC does not seem to feel the need to explain why specific changes have been made, and do not feel the need to update the errata or anything of the previous books, invoking the clause that more recent printings of anything superced printings in previous sources as far as official versions go.
CelestialBarbarian
07-02-06, 06:23 PM spells that have gotten reprinted in other books often include minor changes based upon how WotC feels that the spells need tweaking since they were first released.

WotC does not seem to feel the need to explain why specific changes have been made, and do not feel the need to update the errata or anything of the previous books, invoking the clause that more recent printings of anything superced printings in previous sources as far as official versions go.
Alas, I'm afraid that you're all to correct. :(
Layne
07-02-06, 07:54 PM As for Spell Compendium Changes, check out Bolt of Glory. It went from 1d6/two levels and 1d6/ level vs evli outsiders and undead to D12's. My GM almost had a stroke as he is big on the "Most recent version supercedes previous versions" idea. :D
CelestialBarbarian
07-02-06, 08:06 PM As for Spell Compendium Changes, check out Bolt of Glory. It went from 1d6/two levels and 1d6/ level vs evli outsiders and undead to D12's. My GM almost had a stroke as he is big on the "Most recent version supercedes previous versions" idea. :D
Heh. I used to be bigger on house rules and in fact have a file of my own, but after playing intensively--six different groups all at the same time for about a year in the recent past--I really got fed up with house rule. Every DM thinks he knows better than the rules as written, when half of them don't even know the rules as written even in some of the obvious areas. Of course virtually no DM will allow the house rules of any other DM, so you end up playing all sort of annoyingly different variations and you can never take a character from one campaign intake into another campaign. So my trend in the past year has been to follow RAW more or less, except where it's absolutely nonsensical or self-contradictory. So my inclination too is to roll with the official changes.

Take the close wounds spell. There's not really that big a difference between having it at 2nd and having it at third, (especially for the group I'm DMing which has reached 18th/19th levels) or between 2d4 or 1d4, +1/level. It's not to hard to roll with that change (although in the middle of combat I wasn't going to redo the NPC's spells). I might redo the spells if I get around to printing out a whole new clerical spell sheet; until then I'll probabably keep the spell where it is. (I actually like the spell as it tends to reduce the lethality of the game, especially at low levels, so thinking about it, I actually like the reduction from 3rd to 2nd, or would, if I were running either a low-level character or a low-level campaign.)

But bolt of glory now does twice as much damage? I'd really like to see an explanation on that one. Since nobody's using it in my campaign, however, I'm not having your DM's aneurism. ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CelestialBarbarian 07-02-06, 12:57 AM	In my D&D game last night I went to have an NPC cleric cast the close wounds spell. I looked up the spell in Miniatures Handbook while one o my players looked it up in Spell Compendium. Apparently while Miniatures Handbook has the spell at 3rd level doing 2d4 points of healing, Spell Compendium has the spell at 2nd level doing 1d4, +1/level (max +5). Is this an official revision of the spell? If so, I can see replacing the second d4 with +1/level, making the spell scale with level as do most of the spells that heal hit point loss, but why reduce the spell from 3rd to 2nd level? Does the new version change anything else, like reduce the range from Close to Touch, or the casting time from a swift action to a standard action? Thanks. :D
cwslyclgh 07-02-06, 02:05 AM	Close Wounds has a casting time of 1 immediate action, so you can even use it when it isn't your turn. Range is still close. My guess is they just changed it to level two, because they thought it was underpowered at level 3.
DarknessEternal 07-02-06, 03:13 AM	Yes, this is an official revision to the spell.
Lotus Crane 07-02-06, 03:27 AM	Actually, if you think that's a major change, consider how improvisation changed from a 5th level bard spell in Complete Adventurer, to a 1st level bard spell in Spell Compendium.
CelestialBarbarian 07-02-06, 03:31 AM	Actually, if you think that's a major change, consider how improvisation changed from a 5th level bard spell in Complete Adventurer, to a 1st level bard spell in Spell Compendium. Heh. I don't have the same interest in bard spells. :D
CelestialBarbarian 07-02-06, 04:53 PM	Yes, this is an official revision to the spell. I had no idea that Spell Compendium would make changes to spells. Did Wizards put any explanation for the changes anywhere? At least when they changed haste and other spells between 3.0 and 3.5, they explained the changes in Dragon. I would like to see an explanation of the changes they made in Spell Compendium.
cwslyclgh 07-02-06, 05:01 PM	spells that have gotten reprinted in other books often include minor changes based upon how WotC feels that the spells need tweaking since they were first released. WotC does not seem to feel the need to explain why specific changes have been made, and do not feel the need to update the errata or anything of the previous books, invoking the clause that more recent printings of anything superced printings in previous sources as far as official versions go.
CelestialBarbarian 07-02-06, 06:23 PM	spells that have gotten reprinted in other books often include minor changes based upon how WotC feels that the spells need tweaking since they were first released. WotC does not seem to feel the need to explain why specific changes have been made, and do not feel the need to update the errata or anything of the previous books, invoking the clause that more recent printings of anything superced printings in previous sources as far as official versions go. Alas, I'm afraid that you're all to correct. :(
Layne 07-02-06, 07:54 PM	As for Spell Compendium Changes, check out Bolt of Glory. It went from 1d6/two levels and 1d6/ level vs evli outsiders and undead to D12's. My GM almost had a stroke as he is big on the "Most recent version supercedes previous versions" idea. :D
CelestialBarbarian 07-02-06, 08:06 PM	As for Spell Compendium Changes, check out Bolt of Glory. It went from 1d6/two levels and 1d6/ level vs evli outsiders and undead to D12's. My GM almost had a stroke as he is big on the "Most recent version supercedes previous versions" idea. :D Heh. I used to be bigger on house rules and in fact have a file of my own, but after playing intensively--six different groups all at the same time for about a year in the recent past--I really got fed up with house rule. Every DM thinks he knows better than the rules as written, when half of them don't even know the rules as written even in some of the obvious areas. Of course virtually no DM will allow the house rules of any other DM, so you end up playing all sort of annoyingly different variations and you can never take a character from one campaign intake into another campaign. So my trend in the past year has been to follow RAW more or less, except where it's absolutely nonsensical or self-contradictory. So my inclination too is to roll with the official changes. Take the close wounds spell. There's not really that big a difference between having it at 2nd and having it at third, (especially for the group I'm DMing which has reached 18th/19th levels) or between 2d4 or 1d4, +1/level. It's not to hard to roll with that change (although in the middle of combat I wasn't going to redo the NPC's spells). I might redo the spells if I get around to printing out a whole new clerical spell sheet; until then I'll probabably keep the spell where it is. (I actually like the spell as it tends to reduce the lethality of the game, especially at low levels, so thinking about it, I actually like the reduction from 3rd to 2nd, or would, if I were running either a low-level character or a low-level campaign.) But bolt of glory now does twice as much damage? I'd really like to see an explanation on that one. Since nobody's using it in my campaign, however, I'm not having your DM's aneurism. ;)