Cause Light Wounds, and other reversed healing spe

[apeloverage]

How do other people handle these?

I'd be inclined to say that they work in the same way as the healing version: they don't require a to-hit roll and the target doesn't get a save, but the Hit Point total can't be reduced below 1 (just as healing can't take Hit Points above the initial amount).

[Finarvyn]

That's pretty much how I handle them -- just like the originals only with reversed effects. If a spell allows a save or to-hit roll, so does the reverse.

[snorri]

The "no less than one" is specious, but fits with the idea it's a "wound" spell abnd not a "death" one.

No save is rather part of a more general question about saves in od&d. Who and when roll for a save?

The main question is, as CLW is clearly stated as a preventive effect, working during the turn after being cast, and not as a curative effect, how to "reverse" this ? A weird sorcery version would be to get 1 point of damage each round during a number of rounds equal to the total spell damage. With a description of rotting flesh, it would be impressive.

[coffee]

See, if you approach someone in melee with the intention of causing them harm, I'd call that an attack. So I'd make the Anti-Cleric roll to hit.

But I could also see using a CLW on a comrade who is actively in melee -- in which case, that Cleric would also have to roll to hit.

But out of combat, neither would -- because the target of the spell wouldn't be actively defending himself.

[James Maliszewski]

I treat cause light wounds no differently than I treat magic missile. In or out of combat, it automatically has an effect on its target.

[snorri]

Part of the (delicious) ambiguity is that Cure light wound has no range. Does it mean that it's a 'touch' spell? Maybe. maybe not. If it is, uyou're right, Cofee, it needs a hit in a fight. If not, that's another matter.

[coffee]

Well, if it isn't a touch spell and doesn't require a roll to hit, then neither does Cure Light Wounds.

Which makes both of them much more effective.

[thegreyelf]

I guess I'm different. I require a to hit roll for Cause wounds spells, but I do not factor armor into the equation (ie. the target is considered unarmored for hitting with the spell).

But then, I treat cure the same way. It's just that generally, players aren't trying to get out of the way of a healing spell, so a to hit roll is extraneous and pointless. Should, however, the target of a cure spell decide he doesn't want to receive the spell, he could state so and then the spell would require a to hit roll.

[Arminath]

For any touch-range spell I require a 'to hit' roll with a +2 bonus to show the attacker is merely trying to touch the target. Of course, the target can allow himself to be struck, in the case of recieving a Cure spell in the middle of battle (better hope that Cleric isn't actually an agent of Evil that has been biding his time...)

[coffee]

Here's another thought: In later editions, Cure Light Wounds can cause damage to undead. Do you do that in OD&D? And if so, would that require a hit roll?

[Arminath]

I don't. Later editions consider that Healing spells access positive energy and Harming spells access negative energy.

I consider that the spells access Divine power for the purpose of repairing damage or inflicting damage, so IMC healing spells treat living and undead the same - they fix damage to the physical form regardless of the power animating it. Reversed healing spells inflict their damage in the same manner.

[EdOWar]

Jul 18, 2010 13:04:48 GMT -6 Arminath said:

I don't. Later editions consider that Healing spells access positive energy and Harming spells access negative energy.

I consider that the spells access Divine power for the purpose of repairing damage or inflicting damage, so IMC healing spells treat living and undead the same - they fix damage to the physical form regardless of the power animating it. Reversed healing spells inflict their damage in the same manner.

But aren't undead supposedly animated or 'powered' by negative energy? If so, when you apply positive energy (i.e. cure light wounds) to a negative energy being like the undead, plausibly you could argue that the opposite nature of the energy damages the undead creature instead of healing it. Conversely, that negative energy from a harmful spell actually heals a negative energy being.

Also, with most undead the physical body is just a dead husk animated through magic. I wonder if a cure wounds would actually repair dead flesh? It's one of those interesting theoretical side-alley questions that sometimes come up in D&D.

[Arminath]

Jul 18, 2010 14:01:50 GMT -6 EdOWar said:

Jul 18, 2010 13:04:48 GMT -6 Arminath said:

I don't. Later editions consider that Healing spells access positive energy and Harming spells access negative energy.

I consider that the spells access Divine power for the purpose of repairing damage or inflicting damage, so IMC healing spells treat living and undead the same - they fix damage to the physical form regardless of the power animating it. Reversed healing spells inflict their damage in the same manner.

But aren't undead supposedly animated or 'powered' by negative energy? If so, when you apply positive energy (i.e. cure light wounds) to a negative energy being like the undead, plausibly you could argue that the opposite nature of the energy damages the undead creature instead of healing it. Conversely, that negative energy from a harmful spell actually heals a negative energy being.

Also, with most undead the physical body is just a dead husk animated through magic. I wonder if a cure wounds would actually repair dead flesh? It's one of those interesting theoretical side-alley questions that sometimes come up in D&D.

Only if you consider all of this positive/negative energy stuff. Healing in its simplest form repairs injuries and makes whole what isn't. I consider Unlife as a form of life IMC (animate dead allows the simplest of evil entities to inhabit skeletons and zombies, thus they possess rudimentarty Intelligence) and thus healing/harming works as described, to repair what is damaged.

[James Maliszewski]

Jul 16, 2010 10:34:14 GMT -6 snorri said:

Part of the (delicious) ambiguity is that Cure light wound has no range. Does it mean that it's a 'touch' spell? Maybe. maybe not. If it is, uyou're right, Cofee, it needs a hit in a fight. If not, that's another matter.

FWIW, Holmes clarifies that "range 0" means the cleric must touch the person to be healed by the spell. He does not require a hit roll, though, nor does he mention that the reverse requires one. In AD&D, this is clarified further in favor of a hit roll needed for cause light wounds to take effect.