"Cure" and "Inflict" Spells, Why do they allow a save?

[Kalyth]

This is mainly directed at the Inflict Line of Spells but also applies to the Cure spells when used on Undead.

Also I even had this viewpoint in 3.5 before Pathfinder but Pathfinder kind of amplified my oppinion on this matter.

The Inflict line of spells is greatly underpower compared to other spells of an equivalent level. They are melee touch attacks and allow a saving throw. Even when weighed against other cleric spells they seem to fall behind.

Compare Inflict Critical Wounds to Searing Light.

Searing Light does 1d8 damage per 2 levels is a Ranged touch attack and allows no saving throw.

ICW: does 3d8+1 per caster level.

At 5th level when both of these spells come availible they seem closer to balanced. Searing light would inflict 2d8(2-16) damage while ICW would do 3d8+5 (8-29). However just adding one more level (6th) gives us this
6th Searing Light: 3d8 (3-24) ICW: 3d8+6 (9-30)
8th Searing Light: 4d8(4-32) ICW: 3d8+8 (11-32)
15th Searing Light: 5d8 (5-40)ICW: 3d8+15 (18-39)

At some points ICW does have a bit of a damage advantage over Searing Light and always has a higher minimum damage. I left out the aspect of Searing Light doing increased damage to undead and less damage to constructs, etc.. But the fact that ICW allows a save and is melee touch seems to drop it way below Searing light in my opinion.

Inflict Light Wounds also seems lack luster as a spell. Lets compair it to Shocking Grasp. I know arcane spells should inflict more damage than divine spells on average but the gap here seems a bit to much.
Both are Touch Spells but shocking grasp allows no save.

1st SG (1-6) ILW (2-9)
2nd SG (2-12) ILW (3-10)
3rd SG (3-18) ILW (4-11)
4th SG (4-24) ILW (5-12)
5th SG (5-30) ILW (6-13)

If you look at the Mass Inflict spells its a bit more extreme.

Inflict Light Wounds Mass (1d8+1/level max +25)

So at 15th we would be doing 1d8+15 (16-23) damage to all targets.
Flame strike cast by a 5th level cleric would inflict 15d6 (15-90) damage. Both allow a save. The only advantage ILW Mass has is that you can select the targets. Its damage is a joke compared to Flamestrike. Eif ven the target saves vs the flamestrick they are still likely to take more damage than if they fail the save vs ILW Mass.

Thematically I see these spells as the clerics ability to smite opponents with the might of their gods. People have said the reason the inflict spells exist is so that evil clerics have something to spontaneously cast in emergencies, etc...Most clerics can melee for close to the damage that they get from the inflict line of spells by using Divine Favor/Divine Power and inflict that damage over multiple rounds. They are running into melee anyway.

I simply think the Inflict spells should not allow a saving throw, that in my oppinion would atleast give them some use outside of....

"Crap I lost my weapon, Im out of Channel Neg Energy uses, burned through all my useful spells and have a crap utility spell prepared that I should have just prepared a better spell in that slot anyway. Well I have nothing better to do than Inflict Moderate Wounds.

There should be a reason to prepare a spell even if only limited use. Really I see no reason why anyone would prepare one of the Inflict spells and can hardly see any situation where an evil cleric would burn a slot to spontaneouslly cast one unless things had gone horribly wrong and he had for some odd reason prepare an utterly useless spell in the slot he was burning.

If they didnt allow a save I would say the Inflict spells were at least somewhat appealing as a choice for a direct damage spell.

[LoreKeeper]

You raise a good point. I'd like to hear rationale from the higher ups on this too then.

The only cave-at I could add, is that the inflict/cure spells could be performed spontaneously; whereas Searing Light would make use of a fixed, definite spell slot.

[Kalyth]

LoreKeeper wrote:

You raise a good point. I'd like to hear rationale from the higher ups on this too then.

The only cave-at I could add, is that the inflict/cure spells could be performed spontaneously; whereas Searing Light would make use of a fixed, definite spell slot.

To counter the spontaneous casting portion for Inflict spells; unless you just prepared a pretty useless spell in that slot, you would generally be better off just casting the spell you had prepared or saving it and meleeing without expending the spell slot.

[Charlie Bell]

Mass inflict spells are fun for undead spellcaster foes. Throw one to hurt the living and heal all your minions, too.

They also work pretty well in spell storing weapons once you get to IMW and ISW.

[Kalyth]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Mass inflict spells are fun for undead spellcaster foes. Throw one to hurt the living and heal all your minions, too.

They also work pretty well in spell storing weapons once you get to IMW and ISW.

I have an issue with a spell that is only useful for a specific class of bad guy or that only finds use if paired with a special magic item.

I just feel that the saving throw on top of the low damage (and melee range for non-mass versions). Makes the spells useless in their intended role. Inflicting damage on a target. They only seem to have use when paired with a specific situation or item or when all better options have been exhausted.

[Charlie Bell]

I agree. I'd hardly ever use them except in those two situations I mentioned.

[Nebelwerfer41]

I think the spells are fine as-is. Their biggest benefit is utility (can heal or harm depending on the oppoenent) and they can be cast spontaneously. To compare it against searing light isn't a good comparison because you can never use searing light to heal damge on any creature. Shocking grasp is a better comparison, but you could only heal damage in a much more limited context.

Also, not all spells have to be balanced, as pointed out in many optimization guides, some spells just suck.

[DM_Blake]

Kalyth wrote:

Searing Light does 1d8 damage per 2 levels is a Ranged touch attack and allows no saving throw.

Just an FYI:

This means that the damage is as follows:

Level 1-2: 1d8
Level 3-4: 2d8
Level 5-6: 3d8
Level 7-8: 4d8
etc.

(yes, I know, you can't cast it at levels 1-4, I only included them to show the progression)

I bring this up because in your example you said the damage would be 2d8 at level 5 and 3d8 at level 6 which isn't quite right.

[Kalyth]

DM_Blake wrote:

Kalyth wrote:

Searing Light does 1d8 damage per 2 levels is a Ranged touch attack and allows no saving throw.

Just an FYI:

This means that the damage is as follows:

Level 1-2: 1d8
Level 3-4: 2d8
Level 5-6: 3d8
Level 7-8: 4d8
etc.

(yes, I know, you can't cast it at levels 1-4, I only included them to show the progression)

I bring this up because in your example you said the damage would be 2d8 at level 5 and 3d8 at level 6 which isn't quite right.

The damage is listed as "1d8 per two caster levels." It would seem to me that it would only be 2d8 at 5th level and raise to 3d8 at 6th once you gained two caster levels above 4th. 3.5 (and I dont think PF changed this) always rounds down. It's not granting 1d8 per odd level but 1d8 per two levels of the caster.

But using your take on it makes Inflict Critical Wounds suck even more compared to Searing Light

[Zurai]

DM_Blake wrote:

Kalyth wrote:

Searing Light does 1d8 damage per 2 levels is a Ranged touch attack and allows no saving throw.

Just an FYI:

This means that the damage is as follows:

Level 1-2: 1d8
Level 3-4: 2d8
Level 5-6: 3d8
Level 7-8: 4d8
etc.

(yes, I know, you can't cast it at levels 1-4, I only included them to show the progression)

I bring this up because in your example you said the damage would be 2d8 at level 5 and 3d8 at level 6 which isn't quite right.

Incorrect. You always round down unless otherwise specified. It's right there in the book. That means level 5 yields 5/2 = 2.5 = 2 d8.

[Kalyth]

Nebelwerfer41 wrote:

Also, not all spells have to be balanced, as pointed out in many optimization guides, some spells just suck.

If some classes just sucked there would be an issue? And people woudl say that the class needs rebalanced, etc..

If the spells just suck then why even have them? The spells should have a use as something other than giving evil clerics something to spontaneously cast.

[Name Violation]

well it starts with the fact they've been adapted from 1st and 2nd ed, where hp was a lot lower.

also it helps balance the lack of positive/negative energy resistance.

also would you like it if enemies could cast harm on you with no save? at least harm isnt "opponent loses all but 1d4 health" any more. dual weildin glerics would slaughter touch, you have 1d4hp, *whack* and you drop.

[Me'mori]

If you remove the "inflict" spells, then you have to remove the "cure" spells.

I would say that those two spells serve as a "natural state" (if I can use those words) of the type of energy that represents the deity that they choose to serve. Good heals, Evil harms. While preparing those spells is not necessary, the spells have to exist if just to show what the class can convert or "relax" the stored spell energy into. Part and parcel of being a cleric of the deity. The higher the level of spell, the more power the natural state of those spells carry.

Kalyth wrote:

If some classes just sucked there would be an issue? And people woudl say that the class needs rebalanced, etc..

Well, the classes have been unofficially ranked in tiers. How many monk players do you know compared to Wizards or Fighters or Rogues?

[Kalyth]

In 1st and 2nd edition the reverse of the "Cure" Spells, "Cause Wounds" did not allow a save nor did the Cure spells when used on undead. The save was add in 3.0. Not sure why but it was.

Also there was at one time an official or unofficial rule that if a spell required a to hit roll it generally did not allow a save. There were various exceptions to this rule.

As for Harm, the damage that harm does warrents that it allows a saving throw. It's damage is suffecient to justify its preparation and use.

Using a 4th level spell slot to inflict 4d8+7 (11-39) damage with a melee touch and no save I think is ok and might be an option. But with a saving throw for half it becomes an option no one would use unless all other options were void (no melee weapon in hand, out of all other SLA and prepared spells, etc...)

[knightofstyx]

Kalyth wrote:

In 1st and 2nd edition the reverse of the "Cure" Spells, "Cause Wounds" did not allow a save nor did the Cure spells when used on undead. The save was add in 3.0. Not sure why but it was.

Also there was at one time an official or unofficial rule that if a spell required a to hit roll it generally did not allow a save. There were various exceptions to this rule.

As for Harm, the damage that harm does warrents that it allows a saving throw. It's damage is suffecient to justify its preparation and use.

Using a 4th level spell slot to inflict 4d8+7 (11-39) damage with a melee touch and no save I think is ok and might be an option. But with a saving throw for half it becomes an option no one would use unless all other options were void (no melee weapon in hand, out of all other SLA and prepared spells, etc...)

One thing you failed to hit upon is that if you miss with the melee touch attack of the Inflict spell, the charge remains and you can try again next round if you wish. You cannot do this with searing light.

[Kalyth]

Me'mori wrote:

If you remove the "inflict" spells, then you have to remove the "cure" spells.

I would say that those two spells serve as a "natural state" (if I can use those words) of the type of energy that represents the deity that they choose to serve. Good heals, Evil harms. While preparing those spells is not necessary, the spells have to exist if just to show what the class can convert or "relax" the stored spell energy into. Part and parcel of being a cleric of the deity. The higher the level of spell, the more power the natural state of those spells carry.

Kalyth wrote:

If some classes just sucked there would be an issue? And people woudl say that the class needs rebalanced, etc..

Well, the classes have been unofficially ranked in tiers. How many monk players do you know compared to Wizards or Fighters or Rogues?

Exactly my point, if one class is under-performing then there is an issue that should be addressed.

Im not calling for an overhaul of the system just that the Inflict and Cure line of spells not grant a saving throw.

Look at Inflict Critical Wounds, Mass 4d8+15 (15th level being the level clerics gain access) that inflicts 19-47 points of damage, save for half (9-23). Compare that damage to other 8th level spells and really using an 8th level spell slot on that is kind of a waste in almost any situation.

[Kalyth]

knightofstyx wrote:

One thing you failed to hit upon is that if you miss with the melee touch attack of the Inflict spell, the charge remains and you can try again next round if you wish. You cannot do this with searing light.

True. That is one advantage.

Total Side Note: Is there no 9th level spell that clerics can cast spontaneously as Cure/Inflict. I just realized the lack of one.

[Nebelwerfer41]

Kalyth wrote:

Me'mori wrote:

If you remove the "inflict" spells, then you have to remove the "cure" spells.

I would say that those two spells serve as a "natural state" (if I can use those words) of the type of energy that represents the deity that they choose to serve. Good heals, Evil harms. While preparing those spells is not necessary, the spells have to exist if just to show what the class can convert or "relax" the stored spell energy into. Part and parcel of being a cleric of the deity. The higher the level of spell, the more power the natural state of those spells carry.

Kalyth wrote:

If some classes just sucked there would be an issue? And people woudl say that the class needs rebalanced, etc..

Well, the classes have been unofficially ranked in tiers. How many monk players do you know compared to Wizards or Fighters or Rogues?

Exactly my point, if one class is under-performing then there is an issue that should be addressed.

Im not calling for an overhaul of the system just that the Inflict and Cure line of spells not grant a saving throw.

Look at Inflict Critical Wounds, Mass 4d8+15 (15th level being the level clerics gain access) that inflicts 19-47 points of damage, save for half (9-23). Compare that damage to other 8th level spells and really using an 8th level spell slot on that is kind of a waste in almost any situation.

Then use "Rule 0" and be done with it.

[LazarX]

I imagine that among other reasons it's because when it comes to the Inflict spells, most of the time they're used it will be the PCs that are the target.

They're bad news for Rogues who don't typically have good will saves, have fewer hit points than fighters, and can't use thier evasion to escape the damage.

[ghettowedge]

LazarX wrote:

I imagine that among other reasons it's because when it comes to the Inflict spells, most of the time they're used it will be the PCs that are the target.

They're bad news for Rogues who don't typically have good will saves, have fewer hit points than fighters, and can't use thier evasion to escape the damage.

+1

With a will save a 1st level wizard has a chance of surviving ILW.

[Kolokotroni]

The comparison is not valid. The spells do different things. Inflict and cure spells are both healing AND damage spells depending on circumstances. they can also be cast spontaneously by their respective clerics. This makes them better then a spell that just did equivalent damage with no other added bonuses.

Look at vampiric touch for instance. it doesnt do as much damage as a fireball because it doesnt just do damage.

[KaeYoss]

Those spells are "remove damage" spells with some utility in the right circumstances. I don't have a problem with them not being super-effective as offensive spells.

We don't need cure/inflict spells with a strong offence in the same way I don't need defibrillators that replace assault rifles for soldiers ;-)

[Nebelwerfer41]

KaeYoss wrote:

Those spells are "remove damage" spells with some utility in the right circumstances. I don't have a problem with them not being super-effective as offensive spells.

We don't need cure/inflict spells with a strong offence in the same way I don't need defibrillators that replace assault rifles for soldiers ;-)

+5

[Jeremiziah]

KaeYoss wrote:

Those spells are "remove damage" spells with some utility in the right circumstances. I don't have a problem with them not being super-effective as offensive spells.

We don't need cure/inflict spells with a strong offence in the same way I don't need defibrillators that replace assault rifles for soldiers ;-)

Battlefield Bad Company 2. I have quite a few kills with defib units. :-p

[Robert Brambley]

knightofstyx wrote:

One thing you failed to hit upon is that if you miss with the melee touch attack of the Inflict spell, the charge remains and you can try again next round if you wish. You cannot do this with searing light.

But you can with other touch spells like Shocking Grasp which the OP was using for comparison.

One of the reasons I think the spells need to have a save to balance them with other magic is that the damage they deal is generally less resisted than say magic that is of an element type.

It's generally pretty easy to obtain resistances to most damage type. Resistance to "inflict" spells is far less common - though I recognize that it does exist.

Robert

[Robert Brambley]

Jeremiziah wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

We don't need cure/inflict spells with a strong offence in the same way I don't need defibrillators that replace assault rifles for soldiers ;-)

Battlefield Bad Company 2. I have quite a few kills with defib units. :-p

And I'm sure it's a lot more pragmatic and effective that say....an assault rifle w/ underbelly grenade launcher. :-)

Robert

[Maveric28]

DM_Blake wrote:

Kalyth wrote:

Searing Light does 1d8 damage per 2 levels is a Ranged touch attack and allows no saving throw.

Just an FYI:

This means that the damage is as follows:

Level 1-2: 1d8
Level 3-4: 2d8
Level 5-6: 3d8
Level 7-8: 4d8
etc.

(yes, I know, you can't cast it at levels 1-4, I only included them to show the progression)

I bring this up because in your example you said the damage would be 2d8 at level 5 and 3d8 at level 6 which isn't quite right.

Maybe I'm wrong about this but I kinda always thought that you drop odd numbered levels for these equations. Nitpicking, I know, but "1d8 per 2 levels" means 5th level/2 = 2 1/2d8, drop the half. Five divided by two is not 3. Is there something in the PDF corebook that says we are meant to round up instead of down?

Incidentally, just to comment on the actual thread question, both Searing Light and Inflict Critical Wounds are horrible, horrible uses for a 3rd level divine spell slot. I recommend looking at the spell list and picking almost anything else as the average damage you inflict isn't going to be worth a 3rd-level slot... Maybe if you picked Searing Light expecting to use it against undead that day. That's about the only way that spell is going to be worth the slot expenditure.

[Maveric28]

Kalyth wrote:

In 1st and 2nd edition the reverse of the "Cure" Spells, "Cause Wounds" did not allow a save nor did the Cure spells when used on undead. The save was add in 3.0. Not sure why but it was.

In 1st and 2nd edition, a 4th-level Fighter required a 16 on d20 to save vs. Polymorph or Petrification, no matter what the target's Con score was or whether the spell/spell-like effect was being caused by a lowly 4HD cockatrice or an 18th level archmage. 1st/2nd Ed. D&D was a completely different ballgame with entirely different rules and justifications of those rules. There's no comparison between them and the current incarnation of our beloved hobby... It's evolved into an entirely different animal.

[Maveric28]

LazarX wrote:

I imagine that among other reasons it's because when it comes to the Inflict spells, most of the time they're used it will be the PCs that are the target.

They're bad news for Rogues who don't typically have good will saves, have fewer hit points than fighters, and can't use thier evasion to escape the damage.

True, the rogue may have a lousy Will save, but he will typically have a much better touch AC than most other character classes of his level thanks to a higher DEX score and lower armor penalties for DEX. So there is balance in the universe!

[carborundum]

And with d8 you could always roll low on the damage and the rogue may yet survive.

[Shieldknight]

I'm just guessing here, but I think that our OP is probably upset because they play a negative channeling cleric and the spontaneous casting ability isn't really that effective for a party of "good" PC's.

At least I know with my neutral cleric of Zon-Kuthon, because he channels negative energy, most times it feels like the clerics spontaneous casting ability isn't really worth it. If I channeled positive energy, then it would be a different story. At lest then I could use unspent spells to heal the party, as is, I have to memorize them or have a wand or scrolls on hand.

[james maissen]

Shieldknight wrote:

I'm just guessing here, but I think that our OP is probably upset because they play a negative channeling cleric and the spontaneous casting ability isn't really that effective for a party of "good" PC's.

No, I think we should take it on face value. Channeling negative energy simply isn't as useful as positive as the spells you can spontaneously convert just aren't useful.

I would suggest that the OP allow his/her group to use inflict spells as deliverable through weapons (kind of like a spellstoring weapon). You would need to hit the full AC (rather than just touch) much the way that you would need to do so with an unarmed strike.

This might give the spells more umph. I know back in 1st ed we allowed this and it seemed useful.

-James

[Evil Lincoln]

Hmmm...

If they were as good as attack spells of that level... wouldn't the ability to default to these spells be extremely powerful?

[Charender]

Shieldknight wrote:

I'm just guessing here, but I think that our OP is probably upset because they play a negative channeling cleric and the spontaneous casting ability isn't really that effective for a party of "good" PC's.

At least I know with my neutral cleric of Zon-Kuthon, because he channels negative energy, most times it feels like the clerics spontaneous casting ability isn't really worth it. If I channeled positive energy, then it would be a different story. At lest then I could use unspent spells to heal the party, as is, I have to memorize them or have a wand or scrolls on hand.

I was playing a PE cleric of Gorum. When faced with undead, It was much more efficient to smack them with my greatsword than to use a cure spell.

On top of that, channeling positive energy was generally much better for healing the party than spontaneous cures. 3d6 for everyone vs 3d8+5 to one target. By the time I get mass cure light and level 9 for 1d8 + 9, my CPE is up to 5d6.

I only use my spontaneous cure spells once I have run out of channels or in the rare cases where only 1 person is injured.

Channel positive energy > Spontaneous cures
Channel negative energy >> Spontaneous inflict

I would almost like to see the spontaneous cure/inflict go away, and instead you can spontaneously cast domain spells.

[Charender]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Hmmm...

If they were as good as attack spells of that level... wouldn't the ability to default to these spells be extremely powerful?

How so? Druids can spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally, which is a fairly powerful spell.

If you are spontaneously casting inflict light wounds, then you just gave up a divine favor or a cure light wounds.

[Jeremiziah]

Robert Brambley wrote:

And I'm sure it's a lot more pragmatic and effective that say....an assault rifle w/ underbelly grenade launcher. :-)

Pragmatic? No. Effective? Hardly. Leads to bigger lols? Most definitly!!

[james maissen]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Hmmm...

If they were as good as attack spells of that level... wouldn't the ability to default to these spells be extremely powerful?

As powerful as the ability to switch to a summon nature's ally or a cure wounds spell, which is the point.

-James

[Kalyth]

Ok just to clear up a few points.

I dont play clerics currently and havent in a while. Im my current game no one is even playing a cleric.

My point is no one would ever actually prepare an Inflict Wounds spell in their current state. Not a neutral cleric nor a good cleric. Evil clerics would only use them spontaneously in two situations; they are using Undead minions that need the "HEALING" or all other combat options have been removed (no melee weapon, out of other useful spells etc....

The spells should be good at what they are supposed to do "Inflicting Wounds". They are not.

One poster pointed out that the save gives wizards a chance to survive an Inflict Light Wounds. Well the Orcs Long Sword doesnt grant a save and that's doing 1d8+1 damage and the orc can swing that thing all day and is not limited to 2-4 uses per day. A first level wizard doesnt have much of a chance of surviving most attacks (spells or otherwise).

The spells are underpowered for their primary fucntion "Inflicting Wounds". That's really the point I'm trying to make. The saving throw on a melee touch attack spell just seems to kill them in their primary function. The amount of damage the Cure/Inflict spells deal doesnt warrent a saving throw in my opinion.

If I'm an evil cleric and using Undead minions. The last thing I would waste a 3rd level spell on would be healing one of my minions when I can just cast Animate Dead again and get more minions with full hitpoints.

[Starbuck_II]

I agree. They are much too weak for the save requirement.

Now if you increase the damage the save would be warranted.

Mostly, sacred cow from 3.0.

[DragonBringerX]

on the OPs question. while I do agree that they need to have the save removed entirely, I do want to point out that other "damaging" spells are elemental in nature (as is can be resisted by other means or some are simply immune altogether), while the inflict spells have no such element. you cannot for example, have resist negative energy 5, or immune to positive energy. the arcane spell disintegrate follows the same logic...touch + save

[Kierato]

Kalyth wrote:

If I'm an evil cleric and using Undead minions. The last thing I would waste a 3rd level spell on would be healing one of my minions when I can just cast Animate Dead again and get more minions with full hit points.

Animate dead requires a corpse and a 50 Gp black onyx per hit die, Inflict spells don't (remember you cannot animate the same body more than once).

Also, clerics are not meant to be boom casters, they are support and combat.

[MicMan]

Neither Cure nor Inflict spells are terribly powerful.

However Inflict without save would make for some real good NPC damage while helping PCs only marginally.

Not sure that is what the OP wanted.

[Kalyth]

Kierato wrote:

Kalyth wrote:

If I'm an evil cleric and using Undead minions. The last thing I would waste a 3rd level spell on would be healing one of my minions when I can just cast Animate Dead again and get more minions with full hit points.

Animate dead requires a corpse and a 50 Gp black onyx per hit die, Inflict spells don't (remember you cannot animate the same body more than once).

Also, clerics are not meant to be boom casters, they are support and combat.

I know clerics are not meant to be boom casters, but the damage that the inflict spells put out and the fact that they are touch range in my opinion doesnt warrent allowing a saving throw even considering that they are not resistable as elemental damage types are.

[Name Violation]

having a save keeps a 1st level cleric from being able to drop most character at level 1. if a cleric rolls max damage on an inflict the can take out almost any non-fighter, pally,barbarian, or ranger at level 1.

[Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus]

DragonBringerX wrote:

on the OPs question. while I do agree that they need to have the save removed entirely, I do want to point out that other "damaging" spells are elemental in nature (as is can be resisted by other means or some are simply immune altogether), while the inflict spells have no such element. you cannot for example, have resist negative energy 5, or immune to positive energy. the arcane spell disintegrate follows the same logic...touch + save

Very good point!

With that said I am defiantly leaning to keeping the save. An evil cleric all of a sudden appears next to your rogue. *Inflict Serious Wounds* oh rogue is dead now...

[xAverusx]

Name Violation wrote:

having a save keeps a 1st level cleric from being able to drop most character at level 1. if a cleric rolls max damage on an inflict the can take out almost any non-fighter, pally,barbarian, or ranger at level 1.

Following this logic, I suppose all creatures should get some kind of save against fighter-type wielding greatswords at level 1.

Characters are fragile at level one, regardless of circumstance. A charging orc wielding a greataxe or a cleric's ILW.

I don't think that dealing 1d8+1 at 1st level with a touch attack is that much more deadly than a greatsword dealing 2d6+strength-and-a-half.

Any time a creature rolls max on damage, bad stuff can happen.

My point is that this isn't a good reason to keep the save.

The "no resistance" argument is much better. If something can't be resisted, then it shouldn't be as powerful.

[Charender]

xAverusx wrote:

Name Violation wrote:

having a save keeps a 1st level cleric from being able to drop most character at level 1. if a cleric rolls max damage on an inflict the can take out almost any non-fighter, pally,barbarian, or ranger at level 1.

Following this logic, I suppose all creatures should get some kind of save against fighter-type wielding greatswords at level 1.

Characters are fragile at level one, regardless of circumstance. A charging orc wielding a greataxe or a cleric's ILW.

I don't think that dealing 1d8+1 at 1st level with a touch attack is that much more deadly than a greatsword dealing 2d6+strength-and-a-half.

Any time a creature rolls max on damage, bad stuff can happen.

My point is that this isn't a good reason to keep the save.

The "no resistance" argument is much better. If something can't be resisted, then it shouldn't be as powerful.

No resistance hmm?

Spoiler:

Death Ward

The subject gains a +4 morale bonus on saves against all death spells and magical death effects. The subject is granted a save to negate such effects even if one is not normally allowed. The subject is immune to energy drain and any negative energy effects, including channeled negative energy.

This spell does not remove negative levels that the subject has already gained, but it does remove the penalties from negative levels for the duration of its effect.

Death ward does not protect against other sorts of attacks, even if those attacks might be lethal.

There is resistance to elemental damage, but there are very few spells out there that make you outright immune to elemental damage.

Deathward on the other hand protects you from a lot of nasty stuff, and makes you immune to all inflict spells as a bonus.

Also, there is no reason you couldn't research a negative/positive energy version of resist energy.

[KaeYoss]

Jeremiziah wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Those spells are "remove damage" spells with some utility in the right circumstances. I don't have a problem with them not being super-effective as offensive spells.

We don't need cure/inflict spells with a strong offence in the same way I don't need defibrillators that replace assault rifles for soldiers ;-)

Battlefield Bad Company 2. I have quite a few kills with defib units. :-p

I have killed with them in BF2142, too. You can kill with those, but they're not as good as the more classical weapons, like assault rifles, machine guns, shotguns, and so on. And they should not they be.

[Mojorat]

Ive been playing a Witch in a Second Darkness Campaign, through alot of the earlier levels i used the inflict spells supported by Spectral hand.

When the target doesnt save i find the damage is alot more consistant than spells like shocking grasp etc because of the non random portion of the spells.

In One of the fights against a Vrock i Crit him for 42 i think it was then followed up with 23 the next round.

Now ive shifted away from this style but that was more due to all the spell resistance than the inflict spells specifically.

[Kalyth]

xAverusx wrote:

I don't think that dealing 1d8+1 at 1st level with a touch attack is that much more deadly than a greatsword dealing 2d6+strength-and-a-half.

Heck a cleric with a heavy mace and a Str of 12 can inflict 1d8+1 points of damage at will, every round, no save and it doesnt even take a spell slot. Against a 1st level wizard its pretty much touch AC to hit also.