|
Post by talysman on Feb 1, 2020 16:34:46 GMT -6
Anyone else think the reversed (anti-cleric) versions of the Cure Light Wounds and Cure Serious Wounds spells are actually underpowered? If you treat it as the precise reverse of Cure Light Wounds, the effect of the anti-cleric spell Cause Light Wounds would be: Ignoring the question of whether this is immediate damage vs. damage after one turn (the topic of peterlind 's thread Clerics and Cure Light Wounds,) at the very least, it seems no better than a single-shot short range weapon like a thrown dagger. And that's if you don't add the later Touch Only restriction you see in AD&D. - Anti-cleric casts the spell,
- Rolls for a touch attack,
- Do one point more damage than if the anti-cleric used a mace.
It seems like the waste of a spell slot. How would you fix this? Or are you running it differently?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 1, 2020 17:37:05 GMT -6
Officially speaking:
Grippe: Simply a blanket term to cover such minor annoyances as colds, flu, belly aches, etc. Optionally, it can be used as the Chaotic reverse of a Cure Light Wound or Bless spell.
Supplement II p52
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Feb 1, 2020 18:19:25 GMT -6
Does cure light wounds specify a touch is required (in your copy of M&M)? Cause light wounds might be more like a star-wars force choke!
|
|
|
Post by linebeck on Feb 1, 2020 18:37:20 GMT -6
As I read it there is no range (not limited to touch). Which means it’s a very powerful way to kill a normal man from far away. I’m reminded of fairy tales where the king has a magical wasting sickness.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Feb 1, 2020 19:55:50 GMT -6
Officially speaking: Grippe: Simply a blanket term to cover such minor annoyances as colds, flu, belly aches, etc. Optionally, it can be used as the Chaotic reverse of a Cure Light Wound or Bless spell. Supplement II p52 Doesn't work for me, since I don't like the Blackmoor disease rules and made my own. How would you fix this? Or are you running it differently? I run the cure spells and their reverse as instantaneous and I've altered them. CLW heals d 6 + level wounds, CSW heals 2d6 + (level X 2) wounds. Level, I should be clear, is caster level. Even without the level bonus, the double damage compared to Cure Light Wounds seems like a reasonable way to beef up the spell. What I'm considering as my solution is to deal 2 to 7 damage, but it becomes incurable by natural healing. That might be a bit severe, however. Perhaps slowed natural healing would be better. Does cure light wounds specify a touch is required (in your copy of M&M)? ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) No. As far as I know, no printing of M&M specifies that Cure/Cause Wounds requires touch. I thought this was added by the AD&D PHB, but I just checked Holmes and it specifies a Range of 0 and explicitly adds that this means the cleric must touch the target. Now, whether Holmes himself assumed a Range of 0 or Gygax added this as part of the reconciliation with AD&D, I don't know. One of the people with access to the Holmes manuscript could check that, I suppose. My assumption is that the "by the book" range for the spell would be melee range (30 feet,) which is why I suggested it's the equivalent of a thrown dagger. I suppose it does have the benefit of not requiring an attack roll, but that does mean that the Holmes/AD&D version is seriously nerfed, especially if the spell allows a save.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 1, 2020 20:09:48 GMT -6
FWIW, S&S p14 (Spell Chart): Cure Light Wounds is listed with a range: touch.
|
|
|
Post by paleologos on Feb 2, 2020 20:33:10 GMT -6
I toyed with the idea of using cause light wounds as a ranged spell when I ran B2, a while back, but got some push back in a thread on DF in 2014
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 2, 2020 21:33:11 GMT -6
That is indeed an instructive quote from Gary himself. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Feb 2, 2020 22:41:36 GMT -6
I toyed with the idea of using cause light wounds as a ranged spell when I ran B2, a while back, but got some push back in a thread on DF in 2014I'm thinking that, to be viable, Cause Light Wounds ought to be at least short range instead of touch. So this does seem like a good idea. However, I still think it ought to be a little better. It's true that clerics normally have no ranged attack, so a ranged damage spell for anti-clerics is a bit of an upgrade. Maybe no saving throw would make a good addition? None is mentioned in M&M, so it doesn't seem out of the question.
|
|
|
Post by paleologos on Feb 2, 2020 23:01:40 GMT -6
I don't see why not - there's no saving throw for sleep, and it's also a first level spell.
Plus, there's no mention of a saving throw in the combat example given by Gary, above, so I'd say you've got precedent.
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Feb 5, 2020 23:26:44 GMT -6
I effectively allow it to auto hit, but the victim gets a save vs death to negate.
It thus works great against lower level foes (who have poor saves) or foes in heavy armor (hard to hit), and isn't totally useless.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 6, 2020 4:14:25 GMT -6
paleologos I didn't know this quotation - thank you! So the reversed "Cure Light Wounds" is a kind of a magic missile, maybe the same death magic as "The Finger of Death"? Allowing a save is a good idea, far better than making the Anti-Cleric to actually "hit" the target. Also: 1. Cure light wounds / Cause light wounds 2. Cure serious wounds / Cause serious wounds 3. Raise dead / The finger of death What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by gemini476 on Feb 6, 2020 7:26:58 GMT -6
Light Wounds is obviously strictly better than a thrown dagger on account of Anti-Clerics seemingly also being forbidden from using edged weaponry for some reason (don't worry, though, Magic-Users get the sacrificial daggers).
More seriously, though, using a Save vs. Spells rather than hit roll is a huge bonus. Fighter 1-3 is a 25% to save, Fighter 4-6 is 35%. The latter is what a 5th-8th level Cleric gets in melee against AC9, while the former is closer to what a 9th-12th level Cleric gets against AC8.
Basically, Cause Light Wounds lets the second-level Anti-Cleric pretend that they're seven levels higher attacking an unarmored opponent. It's useful whenever the later auto-hit Magic Missile would have been useful.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Feb 6, 2020 11:53:48 GMT -6
The nature of the spell suggests that a Save vs Death Ray is more appropriate than a Save vs Spells because of the similarity to Cause Serious Wounds/ Finger of Death (the pointed finger in the Gygax example supports this concept).
Since a Save vs Death Ray is easier to make than a Save vs Spells, Cause Light Wounds is only moderately better than a regular attack against unarmored targets; against armored targets it is considerably better than a standard attack.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Feb 6, 2020 19:35:47 GMT -6
Officially speaking: Grippe: Simply a blanket term to cover such minor annoyances as colds, flu, belly aches, etc. Optionally, it can be used as the Chaotic reverse of a Cure Light Wound or Bless spell. Supplement II p52 That's a great find, thanks for recollecting that. I think like talysman I find those disease rules very thought-provoking but not super usable. Interesting to reflect on what the exact immediate effect in combat of that would be. My best reading is, assuming failed saving throw: 1.8 lost Strength points (18/10; which might not be any effect, esp. under LBB rules), and a morale/loyalty check for an NPC?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 21:18:59 GMT -6
Perhaps it depends on the cleric's idiom. In Howard's Hour of the Dragon, the priests of Set had death palm strikes; not clear whether armor affected these. These attacks seem most like AD&D 1e's Harm spell; or palm (finger) of death.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Feb 7, 2020 3:25:57 GMT -6
It's always been a problem in Holmes, where cure light wounds has a range of zero and spells can't be cast while engaged in combat. Zero range is further clarified as needing a touch. That makes the reverse cause light wounds pretty useless except in very specialised situations. It would certainly make far more sense as a ranged spell.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 7, 2020 15:04:34 GMT -6
Given the limitations of the original spell, and the fact that reversing it would be for combat purposes, I would be ok with it either doing 1d6+1 as a spell in compliance with whatever range is listed, or as spell that fires off alongside a successful melee attack, causing 1d6 from weapon and an additional 1d6+1 from cause light wounds.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 7, 2020 18:18:22 GMT -6
talysman, IMC, I allow clerics to call spells on the fly, so long as they have access to that level and own the spell books. I require a turn, outside of combat for heal light and heavy wounds. Raise dead requires more time and can only be cast once a week per cleric. I allow inflict light wounds to be cast in combat. The victim must be visible to the cleric casting. The victim saves for half damage. Finger of death is also called on the fly, the cleric points at a target victim with visibility. Victim saves to negate. This is just one of those cases where evil is koool. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilIsCoolIt tempts or infuriates players and that is kind of the point. The thing is, everyone hates evills people in my campaign world so the advantages are balanced by the fact that the villagers will likely kill you in your sleep.
|
|
andras
Newly-Registered User
Posts: 4
|
Post by andras on Feb 8, 2020 18:44:47 GMT -6
An idea came to me: maybe it heals the anti-cleric, while cause hits to somebody else. One should be d6+1, the other is 1 hp, the caster chooses.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 9, 2020 9:03:52 GMT -6
An idea came to me: maybe it heals the anti-cleric, while cause hits to somebody else. One should be d6+1, the other is 1 hp, the caster chooses. This is not clear to me. Could you expound?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 9, 2020 9:09:44 GMT -6
I toyed with the idea of using cause light wounds as a ranged spell when I ran B2, a while back, but got some push back in a thread on DF in 2014Thanks for reminding me about that article; I've been meaning to post the notes I wrote there on my blog. The image of the evil cleric inflicting damage with the flick of a finger from safety behind the ranks of his minions is such a great image, it'd be a shame not to use it! I think strict adherence to having the "Evil" spells have the same duration/range as the "Good" versions is a bit of a shame. After all, it should be easier to inflict an injury than to heal it, the same as the difference between weapon damage (in a instant) versus natural healing (over days). Also, "dark side" powers should be easier to use and tempting. It's always been a problem in Holmes, where cure light wounds has a range of zero and spells can't be cast while engaged in combat. Zero range is further clarified as needing a touch. That makes the reverse cause light wounds pretty useless except in very specialised situations. It would certainly make far more sense as a ranged spell. The evil cleric spells in Holmes are not defined beyond their names and being reversed, so I'd be fine with allowing Cause Light Wounds to work at a range while Cure requires touch. After all, the reverse of "0" range should be a "long range". ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Feb 9, 2020 12:00:13 GMT -6
The image of the evil cleric inflicting damage with the flick of a finger from safety behind the ranks of his minions is such a great image, it'd be a shame not to use it! I think strict adherence to having the "Evil" spells have the same duration/range as the "Good" versions is a bit of a shame. After all, it should be easier to inflict an injury than to heal it, the same as the difference between weapon damage (in a instant) versus natural healing (over days). Also, "dark side" powers should be easier to use and tempting. It's always been a problem in Holmes, where cure light wounds has a range of zero and spells can't be cast while engaged in combat. Zero range is further clarified as needing a touch. That makes the reverse cause light wounds pretty useless except in very specialised situations. It would certainly make far more sense as a ranged spell. The evil cleric spells in Holmes are not defined beyond their names and being reversed, so I'd be fine with allowing Cause Light Wounds to work at a range while Cure requires touch. After all, the reverse of "0" range should be a "long range". ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) On the other hand, why restrict the range of the Cure versions of the spell more than the reversed versions? Normally, you reduce the range of a spell to balance it. What's unbalancing about being able to heal from a distance, especially if it's a short distance like "melee range"? The main reason why I'd keep the ranges the same for both the normal and reversed versions of the spell is because I prefer not to look up the differences. One of my goals when I rewrite spells is to standardize the ranges, areas, and durations of broad spell types, so that I know all 1st level attack and defense spells have a 30 foot range (for example) without having to look up individual spells. It also saves space on a potential "condensed spell description" list.
|
|
|
Post by paleologos on Feb 9, 2020 16:10:39 GMT -6
An idea came to me: maybe it heals the anti-cleric, while cause hits to somebody else. One should be d6+1, the other is 1 hp, the caster chooses. I'm not sure what you meant by this, but I like the idea of Cure Light Wounds only working on recipients of the caster's alignment, and the reverse only working on recipients of the opposite alignment. After all, the reverse of "0" range should be a "long range". ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) A very long range, indeed!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 9, 2020 17:01:01 GMT -6
talysman , I guess this is a case, for me, of wanting my campaign world to match the literature. I can't think of any instantaneous long-distance healing in the legendaria. What I imagine is folks laying on hands, perhaps applying talismans and herbs, etc. But EEVIL clerics obviously utter curses and people clutch their hearts and keel over. That kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Feb 9, 2020 19:30:56 GMT -6
After all, the reverse of "0" range should be a "long range". ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) LOL, and off we don't go on a non-Bizarro curve of not-thought.
|
|
andras
Newly-Registered User
Posts: 4
|
Post by andras on Feb 10, 2020 7:44:54 GMT -6
An idea came to me: maybe it heals the anti-cleric, while cause hits to somebody else. One should be d6+1, the other is 1 hp, the caster chooses. This is not clear to me. Could you expound? The evil version of CLW cures somebody and at the same time damages an other person, so it becomes some kind of life drain.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Feb 11, 2020 0:43:39 GMT -6
After all, the reverse of "0" range should be a "long range". ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) And the reverse of Light would be Dark, and the reverse of Wounds... Health?
So a Cure Light Wounds reversed could be Inflict Dark Health, meaning that instead of healing powers restoring the body of another, dark chaotic energy might give live to something inside the body. Like Chaos Maggots, growing into beacons of unholy light, guiding chaotic creatures towards the afflicted or making the infected vulnerable for chaotic spells.
Ah, my mind is racing but I should wake up and get a coffee... ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Feb 11, 2020 13:23:44 GMT -6
A consideration being left out here, is that it's 2 - 7 points of magic damage. I am also of the camp of instantaneous damage at range, while the healing takes a turn of fauning over the body, making sure things set together properly.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Feb 11, 2020 14:26:42 GMT -6
And the reverse of Light would be Dark, and the reverse of Wounds... Health? So a Cure Light Wounds reversed could be Inflict Dark Health, meaning that instead of healing powers restoring the body of another, dark chaotic energy might give live to something inside the body. Like Chaos Maggots, growing into beacons of unholy light, guiding chaotic creatures towards the afflicted or making the infected vulnerable for chaotic spells. Mmmm... bacons of unholy light. [:gargle:] A consideration being left out here, is that it's 2 - 7 points of magic damage. I am also of the camp of instantaneous damage at range, while the healing takes a turn of fauning over the body, making sure things set together properly. Not sure what you mean by "magic damage" here, unless you have a house rule that magic damage has some special effect. Why is it significant that it's magic damage?
|
|