Director of Game Development
|
Alright, I know that evil (and a few neutral) clerics do not spontaneously cast cure spells, but rather inflict. But what about acess to healing spells? Is a negative channeler barred from casting healing spells?
I remember that was the case back in 2nd Ed, but since then I have played with different groups, although it has never come up as a big issue, I believe that each was handling it differently. I can't find anything written on it (or I'm not looking in the right place), and thought I'd get some of that Paizo-an help.
|
Clerics who rebuke undead and may spontaneously cast inflict spells may still prepare and cast cure spells; the difference is they have to prepare them, so once those are used up they're out of healing.
An interesting concept along these lines would be a neutral cleric who has access to the "Healing" domain, and chooses to rebuke undead (perhaps has healing and death domains?) Probably not a character concept seen often (or at all), but one who'd have a little more healing ability than most negative-energy users.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That'd fit my Surgeon character idea I have had squishing around in my head for a while. Although I didn't specify in my first post, could ya'll provide a place I could point a naysayer to validate the point.
I'd say the burden is on the naysayer to point where in the rules it says that evil clerics can't cast cure spells. You're not going to find a rule that doesn't exist.
That being said, a source of circumstancial evidence is damn near every module ever written that includes a cleric as a villian. I guarantee you'll see that they have healing spells memorized.
Edit: Here's a chaotic evil cleric with cure minor wounds, cure serious wounds, and cure critical wounds on the D&D website.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20010622a
|
I pulled a nasty trick on my players with an evil cleric once. They were combating a dracolich from one side, while on the other side an evil cleric was healing the beast with negative energy (Inflict spells) under the cover of Improved Invisibility. After finally discovering the problem, an Insect Swarm solved it nicely. (the spaces were fairly tight in the dracolich's lair, mostly to benefit its breath weapon).
It was indeed in 2nd Ed that evil clerics could not cast cure spells. In 3.x they can memorize them.
The ability to spontaneously cast inflict spells seems to me to be less useful than spontaneously casting cure spells - what is worth more, healing yourself or people you are working with, or having the chance to touch a hostile combatant who gets a save against the inflict effect ?
This could be interpreted as evidence for the theory someone formulated in a different thread: D&D is a system leaning towards the good heroes...
Stefan
This could be interpreted as evidence for the theory someone formulated in a different thread: D&D is a system leaning towards the good heroes...
Someone formulated that? I thought all gamers already knew! Seriously, whenever there is good v. evil in D&D the good is always better able to kick ass; metallic v. chromatic, half-celestials & aasimar v. half-fiends & tieflings, cure v. inflict...the list goes on. Mostly it's subtle, but an experienced gamer would have to be incredibly naive to not see D&D's favoritism toward the good guys!
|
If you want to see a spontaniously inflicting cleric who can hold his own pretty well you can just build him as a necromancer type and give him the tomb tainted soul trait. I think thats from heroes of horror but it might have been libris mortis. Either way it means he can heal himself and his undead allies while still using his spontanious inflicts to damage the opposing team.
Given its harder to hit someone with a spontanious inflict rather then a prepped one because of the full round casting time, but if all his allies are undead then that means he doesn't need to prep any cure or inflict spells at all and is still able to restore his own side and hurt the other side. That leaves alot of slots for other spells that he can use or burn at his choosing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It was indeed in 2nd Ed that evil clerics could not cast cure spells.
Stefan
Stebehil - are you sure about that? You're closer to the ground than I am with regards to 2e, but I don't remember that restriction at all. The only place I've ever seen it arise was in one of the gold box D&D computer games (I want to say Champions of Krynn). In that game, good clerics could not memorize inflict spells and evil clerics could not memorize cure spells. However, that game was under 1e rules.
Seriously, whenever there is good v. evil in D&D the good is always better able to kick ass; metallic v. chromatic, half-celestials & aasimar v. half-fiends & tieflings, cure v. inflict...the list goes on. Mostly it's subtle, but an experienced gamer would have to be incredibly naive to not see D&D's favoritism toward the good guys!
I don't know... if you compare the Book of Vile Darkness' rules regarding Sacrifice with the Book of Exalted Deeds, evil gets a pretty serious advantage. A few evil clerics running a bunny farm could build a super-weapon in not very long at all. (Though Thanis and I still can't figure out how Sanctify the Wicked is a good spell, it being a year's imprisonment and brainwashing)
Similarly (and this is actually a long-running irritation of mine) any necromancer with an intelligence score high enough to discover the process for turning into a Lich would realistically realize that working Nystul's Magic Aura and Obscure Object into his Phylactery will render it immune to scrying and negate its aura, rendering it pretty well undetectable. For Discern Location to find an object, the caster must have touched it first, and the lower level Locate Object only works at close range and even then you must have seen the object first-hand. It would be relatively cheap to incorporate those spells, costing at most an extra 13500 gp and 1080 xp, and if you craft a nontraditional phylactery (say, a tiara, or a figurine of a puppy) any PCs who find it will (unless they're in the habit of casting Identify on supposedly nonmagical items) think it's just an "Art Object", and ignore it or sell it as they see fit.
It's like how vampires never use their domination gaze to send small children (or friendly NPCs) to attack the party Paladins, or how the NPC Assassins rarely (if ever) sneak into camp invisibly and slit the wizard's throat while he's asleep. Sure, the deck is stacked somewhat in the favor of the forces of Good, but a lot of it is that evil (in my experience) generally gets played as being... tactically challenged.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's like how vampires never use their domination gaze to send small children (or friendly NPCs) to attack the party Paladins, or how the NPC Assassins rarely (if ever) sneak into camp invisibly and slit the wizard's throat while he's asleep. Sure, the deck is stacked somewhat in the favor of the forces of Good,...
I've had a tribe of trolglodytes send out their young with fire trapped boxes as (unwitting) suicide bombers against the players. Just approach the party, open the box, and you have a divine delayed blast fireball.
Stebehil - are you sure about that? You're closer to the ground than I am with regards to 2e, but I don't remember that restriction at all. The only place I've ever seen it arise was in one of the gold box D&D computer games (I want to say Champions of Krynn). In that game, good clerics could not memorize inflict spells and evil clerics could not memorize cure spells. However, that game was under 1e rules.It was indeed in 2nd Ed that evil clerics could not cast cure spells.
Stefan
actually, if memory serves in 2nd. ed. it wasn't about "good" or "evil" clerics but what "spheres" (daddy to the domains) your cleric's/priest's patron god(s) provided...if your god didn't give you access (minor or major) to the Healing Sphere then you didn't have healing spells, and the basic cleric (not the speciality priest) recieved major access to the healing sphere
and in 1st Ed. it was basically the same, only "cleric" spells and "druid" spells...question: was it the 1st Ed. Dragonlance Hardcover that invented spheres?
The idea was to cast "cause light wounds" was an evil act and "cure light wounds" was mostly relative as in 2nd. Ed. there was not a clear "cure is positive/good energy and " and "cause is negative/evil energy" 3rd had...mostly cause it would be counter-productive for an evil diety not to allow their followers and servents to heal themselves...even gods of death, entropy and destruction (as loss of followers meant loss of power)
another question: a diety of entropy or destruction won't let living followers heal themselves, would the diety then allow undead followers to "heal" themselves with negative energy?
I've had a tribe of trolglodytes send out their young with fire trapped boxes as (unwitting) suicide bombers against the players. Just approach the party, open the box, and you have a divine delayed blast fireball.
I did that too, but with charmed human villagers, and also with kobalds suicide troops...
always thought firetrap was a little broken..
Given its harder to hit someone with a spontanious inflict rather then a prepped one because of the full round casting time...
Actually, that's not the case. Converting & casting a prepared spell to a cure/inflict spell is only a standard action. It only takes a full-round action for a cleric to spontaneously cast a cure/inflict spell if they're applying a metamagic feat that they know to it on the fly.
|
|
Wow, you are right. The SRD doesn't say anything about it becoming a full round to cast. We have one player who has always played as the groups cleric in pretty much every game we have done. He must have gotten that wrong and we all just went with it because we figured he knew clerics better then we did.
He will be happy to hear this. Thanks for the correction.
question: was it the 1st Ed. Dragonlance Hardcover that invented spheres?
I beleive it was indeed the DLA that introduced spheres, although they were tweaked a bit, since orignially you either had a sphere or you didn't, no major or minor spheres. BTW, before 2nd edition officially came out, Greyhawk Adventures also had some information on clerics that used spheres, and until the 2nd edition books came out, my friends and I used the spheres as presented in the DLA.
Also, wizards having limited access to different schools was first introduced in the section on Wizards of High Sorcery, which led to the rules on specialist wizards in 2nd edition. The DLA was a test bed for a lot of 2nd edition ideas.
Stebehil - are you sure about that? You're closer to the ground than I am with regards to 2e, but I don't remember that restriction at all. The only place I've ever seen it arise was in one of the gold box D&D computer games (I want to say Champions of Krynn). In that game, good clerics could not memorize inflict spells and evil clerics could not memorize cure spells. However, that game was under 1e rules.It was indeed in 2nd Ed that evil clerics could not cast cure spells.
Stefan
Good Call, Sebastian. I had mixed that up. Casting Inflict spells is an evil act under 2nd Ed., so good priests should think thrice before using them, but they are not generally forbidden to do so. Evil priests have oftentimes the restriction that their gods only grant healing (rev) as sphere.
I just looked into the From the Ashes Box, and ALL evil gods in there have this restriction. But it is not a rule per se. In game play, it comes down to "good priests don´t cast inflict" and "evil priests can´t heal", but it is not founded in the rules.
The fact that evil priests can´t heal is mentioned in Iuz the Evil. It is mentioned that the forces of Iuz are at an overwhelming numerical advantage compared to the forces of Furyondy, and one reason they didn´t win easily is the inability of Iuz´ priests to heal. Perhaps I remembered this and wrongly assumed that it is a rule without looking it up.
So here the change in rules has an (admittedly minor) effect on the setting.
Stefan
Where the 3.5 edition of the rules are concerned, there is still more to be discussed related to this topic. Specifically (modified version of earlier question):
We know that good (and a few neutral) clerics do not spontaneously cast INFLICT spells, but rather CURE spells. But what about their access to inflict spells? Is a good (Chaotic Good, for example) barred from casting INFLICT spells?
My DM says 'yes, they are barred' due to the fact that it is channelling negative energy. But if you check the spell discriptors in the PHB, 'Evil' is not designated under the Inflict spells' descriptions (as it is with a spell such as 'Death Knell').
My question: Can a good cleric prep and cast Inflict Light Wounds for example?
I really need rules references if I'm going to convince my DM.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Where the 3.5 edition of the rules are concerned, there is still more to be discussed related to this topic. Specifically (modified version of earlier question):
We know that good (and a few neutral) clerics do not spontaneously cast INFLICT spells, but rather CURE spells. But what about their access to inflict spells? Is a good (Chaotic Good, for example) barred from casting INFLICT spells?
My DM says 'yes, they are barred' due to the fact that it is channelling negative energy. But if you check the spell discriptors in the PHB, 'Evil' is not designated under the Inflict spells' descriptions (as it is with a spell such as 'Death Knell').
My question: Can a good cleric prep and cast Inflict Light Wounds for example?
I really need rules references if I'm going to convince my DM.
Again - your DM is wrong and you won't find a rules reference. You will find a million anecodtal instances as I pointed out above. Tell your DM to show you where it says good clerics can't cast inflict spells. There is a reason he can't point that place out.
There is no ambiguity, there is no grey area with respect to the rules.
|
My DM says 'yes, they are barred' due to the fact that it is channelling negative energy. But if you check the spell discriptors in the PHB, 'Evil' is not designated under the Inflict spells' descriptions (as it is with a spell such as 'Death Knell').
My question: Can a good cleric prep and cast Inflict Light Wounds for example?
The standard rule is that if it isn't mentioned, don't make up a rule about it.
The only rule about limits on clerics and spellcasting has to do with the alignment descriptor on spells. (That clerics cannot cast spells with an alignment descriptor that is in opposition to their own.)
There was a nice little blurb in Book of Exalted Deeds related to this. The question was a little opposite from this -- it asked why healing spells weren't labeled with the "Good" descriptor. The answer is that the writers try and limit spells with alignment descriptors that cannot be used contrary to their descriptor. For example, healing a blackguard might be considered an evil act while inflicting damage on a blackguard might be considered a good act.
I don't know that you will find a specific rules reference for what you are looking for -- at the same time, I don't think that there is a rules reference that supports what your DM is saying either.
Hope that this helps.
Thanks for both of your replies.
I think the key at this point is that I must convince my DM that negative and positive energy are neutral.
Bill, your quote from the Book of Exhaulted Deeds is an excellent one in this direction. I will read more from that text.
Where the 3.5 edition of the rules are concerned, there is still more to be discussed related to this topic. Specifically (modified version of earlier question):
We know that good (and a few neutral) clerics do not spontaneously cast INFLICT spells, but rather CURE spells. But what about their access to inflict spells? Is a good (Chaotic Good, for example) barred from casting INFLICT spells?
My DM says 'yes, they are barred' due to the fact that it is channelling negative energy. But if you check the spell discriptors in the PHB, 'Evil' is not designated under the Inflict spells' descriptions (as it is with a spell such as 'Death Knell').
My question: Can a good cleric prep and cast Inflict Light Wounds for example?
I really need rules references if I'm going to convince my DM.
Following your DM's logic, a good cleric wouldn't be able to cast any necromantic spells, as it could be construed as "negative energy." (This would include spells such as false life, undeath to death, speak with dead, cause fear, chill touch, bestow curse, gentle repose...)
As long as the spell you're casting doesn't include the Evil descriptor (or if it's one of the multi-aligned spells, such as Summon Monster, used for Good), I would rule in your favor and allow a good cleric to cast the Inflict spells. Besides, your duty as a cleric of a good deity is to go forth and smite the enemy! Be it with spells or with weapons! Would a good deity not grant his servitor with the ability to damage his foes? (If he wouldn't, then why is there flame strike, storm of vengeance, cometfall, destruction...)
There is nothing written in the SRD that a good cleric can't cast inflict spells, as inflict spells don't have a descriptor attached to them - he just can't cast spells of an alignment that opposes his deity's.
Anyway, my two copper on the subject. :D
I think the key at this point is that I must convince my DM that negative and positive energy are neutral.
You could bring up the fact that a creature that stays too long on the Positive Energy Plane explodes. (Too many temporary hit points for its meager frame.) Same thing happens to undead in the Neg Plane, I think.
That doesn't sound so nice to me.
While we're on the subject of clerics, I recently observed a DM using a 14th level cleric, using the Divine Metamagic (Quicken) Feat, to cast a Word of Chaos Spell (Quickened) a 7th level spell, followed by a Blasphemy (also 7th level). Am I correct that although the Divine Metamagic feat (with Quicken spell chosen as the feat) may in theory allow the 14th level cleric to quicken a spell, a 7th level spell selected + the 4 level add-on (and Turn attempts) for Quicken Equals an (effectively) 11th level spell. Is it legal for a cleric to cast an equivalent spell of a higher level than he can normally cast??????
By the rules, yes, if you have something that lets you add metamagic without adding level increase, you can cast a spell that would normally be impossible to prepare. For example, if I'm a 20th level cleric, I can use a Metamagic Rod of Quickening to cast miracle, even though that would normally take a 13th level spell slot to prepare.
Interestingly with regard to the topic, I noticed a while ago that a good-aligned cleric could cast desecrate but not deathwatch.
Interestingly with regard to the topic, I noticed a while ago that a good-aligned cleric could cast desecrate but not deathwatch.
How do you figure? Both spells carry the evil descriptor, according to the PH. (I'm not sure that deathwatch performs an inherently evil function, since it could be used to aid tactical decision-making for a good character as well as an evil one, but it does "use the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife," which is presumably why it has the descriptor.)
This could be interpreted as evidence for the theory someone formulated in a different thread: D&D is a system leaning towards the good heroes...Stefan
As it should be IMO. No point in encouraging players to be alignments that make the DMs job harder. Better to reward them for taking PCs that want to save the village just because saving villages is the sort of thing they do.
By the rules, yes, if you have something that lets you add metamagic without adding level increase, you can cast a spell that would normally be impossible to prepare. For example, if I'm a 20th level cleric, I can use a Metamagic Rod of Quickening to cast miracle, even though that would normally take a 13th level spell slot to prepare.
Interestingly with regard to the topic, I noticed a while ago that a good-aligned cleric could cast desecrate but not deathwatch.
Thanks, Mr. Drain. The example of the metamagic Rod of Quickening spelled it all out clearly.
Wizard's text The Manual of the Planes says this regarding Inner plane (including the Negative Energy plane) traits:
"The Inner Planes (Chapter 6): This chapter explores the raw elements and energies that make up your cosmology. They are the most hostile of the planes, and powerful elementals call them home. They are raw power without direction."
"...the Inner Planes share the following traits:
6. Mildly Neutral-Aligned: Within the D&D cosmology, the Inner Planes have no affinity to particular alignments, though specific locations may have them. But regardless of alignment, the natives of the plane tend to be hostile to uninvited visitors."
No where in this text is the Negative Energy plane characterized as being evil. All of the inner planes (Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Positive, Negative), rather, are characterized as being made of 'raw nature'. Quote: "Given the raw nature of the Inner Planes,..."
The positive and negative planes are considered opposing 'energies', whereas other inner planes, such as the plane of fire and the plane of water are opposing 'elements'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In The Book of Exalted Deeds, the following is written regarding Good spells:
"GOOD SPELLS
Not many spells in the Player’s Handbook have the good descriptor, but this book includes many more. Spells have the good descriptor because they do one or more of the following things:
• Good spells call upon good deities or energies.
• Good spells summon or improve celestials or other good creatures.
• Good spells involve a personal sacrifice to help another.
• Good spells inspire hope, joy, or similar positive emotions, or they alleviate suffering.
WHAT’S GOOD?
Is casting a healing spell a good act? Often, it is: it relieves the suffering of another creature, promoting the life and well being of that creature. Healing spells do not carry the good descriptor, however, because their moral weight depends heavily on circumstances. Healing a blackguard so he can continue to fight a good party is not a good act at all. Like most spells, healing spells can be used for good or evil purposes, so they are not inherently good. As a variant rule, consider the following spells from the Player’s Handbook to have the good descriptor: good hope and shield other."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In The Book of Vile Darkness, the following is written regarding Evil Spells:
"EVIL SPELLS
Only a few spells in the Player ’s Handbook have the evil descriptor, but almost all the spells in this book have the evil descriptor. Spells have the evil descriptor because they do one or more of the following things.
• They cause undue suffering or negative emotions.
• They call upon evil gods or energies.
• They create, summon, or improve undead or other evil monsters.
• They harm souls.
• They involve unsavory practices such as cannibalism or drug use.
WHAT’S EVIL?
Some would point out that a fireball spell is likely to cause undue suffering, and it could be used to kill a group of orphans. Does that make fireball an evil spell? Fireball, by itself, simply creates a blast of fire. Fire can be used for evil purposes, but it is not inherently evil. Contrasted with a spell such as shriveling, whose only purpose and only possible use is to wither the flesh of another living creature in a painful and debilitating fashion, it becomes easier to see why shriveling is an evil spell. The judgment cannot be based solely on effect. Your campaign could, for example, have a spell called vitality leech that calls upon a demon that drains Strength points from a target for a short time. The spell’s effect is only slightly different from ray of enfeeblement [a Necromancy spell], but the approach and execution are very different. Vitality leech is an evil spell, while ray of enfeeblement is not. Although the ultimate game effect is the same, the character in the game world faced with the two spells undoubtedly regards them differently. Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be. By this definition, as a variant rule, the following spells from the Player’s Handbook should be considered evil and have the evil descriptor: contagion, deathwatch, desecrate, doom, and trap the soul."
My DM says 'yes, they are barred' due to the fact that it is CHANNELING negative energy.
Channeling positive or negative energy means turn/rebuke, not casting a spell. Casting a spell, even if it is nothing but negative energy, is a completely different thing that a good or evil cleric is not prohibited from.
Jon O'Guin: there is nothing in the description of the major negative energy dominant trait for a plane that states that an undead is at risk from exploding like a creature on a major positive energy dominant plane is.
Interestingly enough, there is no rule for the reverse of what happens to an undead who finds itself on a positive energy dominant plane. Do they take damage every round, or simply save or be destroyed?
Also, the whole affinity of "Positive energy means good/Negative energy means bad" comes, I think, mainly from the fact that positive energy is the stuff of life and growth, healing and continuation. Negative energy is a force of entropy and destruction, fuel only for the unliving, which are almost universally evil.
As a side note about that "almost universally evil", (rant warning) what's the deal with the "deathless" type? THEY ARE UNDEAD.
"But, undead are evil!" Not all of them. Granted, every one in the PHB is evil, with the possible exception of the ghost- proving that undead can be good and still powered by negative energy. Given that, the Deathless type is completely useless, redundant, and a waste of page space to include in any book. Just say "good undead." It will be fine! So, they are still vulnerable to cure spells as weapons and rebuke attempts? Tough! That's the price of continuing to do stuff after you die! Gah!!!
(/end rant)
Channeling positive or negative energy means turn/rebuke, not casting a spell. Casting a spell, even if it is nothing but negative energy, is a completely different thing that a good or evil cleric is not prohibited from.
As much as I'd like to agree with you Saern, I think you are incorrect on this point. Some spells (...specifically the one I want to use) are exactly channeling negative energy. Refer to the PHB's description of 'Inflict Light Wounds':
"When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level"
Regardless, I still believe the rules intend that negative energy be considered neutral ... so 'channeling' it should be alignment neutral. How you use it is the key to whether it's use is good or bad (...as outlined in the example of healing a blackguard).
Hmm, I had indeed overlooked that. I was going on the premise that, every time I had heard the term (other than this one) it was in reference to turn/rebuke abilities. Thus, as annoying as it is, I'd chock it up to internal inconsistency: I would rule that "channel" in this instance is simply a description, not an actual terminology, though that is completely an opinion and not based on any realy evidence in the rules that I'm aware of.
It's all kind of semantics, anyway. Any (well-written) rule should state clearly whether or not they simply mean "use a spell that manipulates negative energy" or "use a turn/rebuke attempt."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Channeling positive or negative energy means turn/rebuke, not casting a spell. Casting a spell, even if it is nothing but negative energy, is a completely different thing that a good or evil cleric is not prohibited from.
As much as I'd like to agree with you Saern, I think you are incorrect on this point. Some spells (...specifically the one I want to use) are exactly channeling negative energy. Refer to the PHB's description of 'Inflict Light Wounds':
"When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level"
Regardless, I still believe the rules intend that negative energy be considered neutral ... so 'channeling' it should be alignment neutral. How you use it is the key to whether it's use is good or bad (...as outlined in the example of healing a blackguard).
Out of curisoity, how is your DM dealing with the many examples of evil casters with clw memorized as I pointed out above? Does he think that he knows the rules better than WotC/Paizo?
How do you figure? Both spells carry the evil descriptor, according to the PH. (I'm not sure that deathwatch performs an inherently evil function, since it could be used to aid tactical decision-making for a good character as well as an evil one, but it does "use the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife," which is presumably why it has the descriptor.)
Actually, I think the "foul sight granted by the powers of unlife" text was actually added in the revision of third edition to justify the Evil descriptor. It doesn't make any sense to me. What's so evil about knowing which enemies or allies are in the most trouble?
I think they added the Evil descriptor to desecrate in the 3.5 revision; I recall finding it amusing that I could prepare it despite it being something only an evil necromancer would use.
My DM contacted WOTC and here is their answer:
Thank you for contacting us.
A good cleric may not cast a spell with the evil descriptor, and it says as much on page 32 of the Player's Handbook. A neutral (with respect to good and evil) has no such restriction however. This restriction is for spells with alignments attached to them only. A necromancy spell that isn't aligned can be cast by any cleric.
I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
Just pointing out that there's a new deity in Races of Destiny called Glautru the Seer who has both the Death and Healing domains and is of neutral alignment. Kinda proves beyond all resonable doubt that it's possible to cast both types of spells.