Warpriest Rules question

[Farmerbink]

So, Fervor allows you to use a swift action to self-cast a prepared spell, targeting yourself only.

Spontaneous casting allows you to swap out a prepared spell for a cure.

Is it against the rules to swift-cast a cure spell, exchanged from a prepared spell via spontaneous casting, or is that intended to work?

[Trekkie90909]

I would rule that it works, but by strict RAW it does not since the spontaneous casting is not of the prepared spell. If you prepared a healing spell it would work regardless.

[Melkiador]

I'd allow it, but it's usually not a great use of resources. You can either expend a point of fervor plus a spell to get a spell's worth of healing,or you can expend just the point of fervor to get healed for just a few points less than the spell. If you really need to be healed so bad, you should just fervor heal and then spontaneously cast the cure spell on yourself as a standard.

[Farmerbink]

In general, that's what I would do. In this specific case, the following qualifier is extremely important:

"Spells cast in this way don't require somatic components and do not provoke attacks of opportunity."

Surrounded by foes, and at extremely low HP. The ability to drop a heal without provoking AoOs at swift speed was (I thought) unique to the warpriest. I guess it's not quite as unique as I originally thought, since RAW doesn't support it (unless you prepare a cure, which raises questions about the value of spontaneous casting, IMO) in the first place. :-P

Thanks for your input, guys.

[Vrischika111]

you can't spontaneously convert a prepared spell to cast heal.
cure major wounds yes.

however, you can fervor a prepared heal .

[Melkiador]

Rather than healing, I would try to keep a sanctuary type spell memorized for those dire situations.

[CraziFuzzy]

I really don't see a reason to use Fervor to cast a cure spell. Just use Fervor to heal directly, and save the spell.

[Deadmanwalking]

CraziFuzzy wrote:

I really don't see a reason to use Fervor to cast a cure spell. Just use Fervor to heal directly, and save the spell.

Eh, it can be a big difference as you go up in level. I mean, at 8th, it's 3d6 (10.5 HP) vs. 3d8+8 (21.5 HP) for more than double, and sorta goes up from there.

[Diachronos]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

CraziFuzzy wrote:

I really don't see a reason to use Fervor to cast a cure spell. Just use Fervor to heal directly, and save the spell.

Eh, it can be a big difference as you go up in level. I mean, at 8th, it's 3d6 (10.5 HP) vs. 3d8+8 (21.5 HP) for more than double, and sorta goes up from there.

Even cure moderate wounds has a consistently better average healing than fervor until you reach 6d6 at level 17.

[CraziFuzzy]

Oh, I get that, but it's a huge resource hog to burn a fervor just to cast a cure spell, when the fervor itself would provide a pretty good chunk of healing.

[Starbuck_II]

Melkiador wrote:

Rather than healing, I would try to keep a sanctuary type spell memorized for those dire situations.

Wouldn't Protection Blessing be better: you can attack and keep it up.

[Melkiador]

Starbuck_II wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

Rather than healing, I would try to keep a sanctuary type spell memorized for those dire situations.

Wouldn't Protection Blessing be better: you can attack and keep it up.

Yes, and it also has a better scaling DC. But a lot of warpriests will want or need to choose other blessings.