Negative vs Postive spells

[dergon darkhelm]

I am going to respect Ronan's wishes on not discussing Spontaneous clerical healing vs. Spontaneous inflicting in his thread ........so I thought I'd start my own.

First, a disclaimer: I have very little to no experience with most of these issues from a NWN engine perspective. My comments are mostly the result of discussions and arguments from a couple of PnP games.


Now, the statement:

There is an inherent imbalance in favor of healing spells (and what I will henceforth refer to as clerical "buffs") over negative energy spells (and clerical "attack spells").

The reason is simple. Spells cast upon yourself or a willing partner ( healing and buffs) are a guarantee of success while spells cast upon someone else with intent to hurt them are not. A cure light wounds on your own second lvel cleric will guarantee healing. An inflict light wounds spells cast on an opposing second level cleric requires both a succesful touch attack (lets call it a 50/50 chance) to do anything at all followed by an opponentw will save to halve the damage (another approxiamately 50% chance). That makes the net effectiveness of the spell much lower.

That is why PCs (and the NPCs that I play) lean toward

Bless> Bane
Aid > Doom
Haste > Slow (well this isn't clerical but I needed antoher example to help my point)

the only one that was equivalent in 3.0 was

Heal = Harm .........and everyone freaked out that harm was overpowered.


Anyway ........it was this reason that as a PnP DM I allowed my NPC evil clerics to spontaneously heal (no PCs involved b/c they are all good aligned) as did the DM in the other game in which I regularly play.



It is the same reason I would favor continuing to allow said Spontaneously healing, unrestricted by alignment, in NWN2.






ps--that's probably how the default engine will have it anyway.

[Ronan]

There is an inherent imbalance in favor of healing spells (and what I will henceforth refer to as clerical "buffs") over negative energy spells (and clerical "attack spells").

Agreed, and you forgot the point of how much more difficult it (usually) is to damage a PC in the first place, due to higher AC (especially in ALFA). That means that healing a PC is usually more effecient than damaging a monster, even if the spells always healed/damaged an equal amount of HP. Of course the opposite is true for boss-type encounters, but those are less common in NWN-style combat.

IMO its too horribly OOC to allow things like clerics of Shar to spontaneously cast healing spells. I'd rather stick with the PnP mechanics and maybe buff inflicts a bit. Of course people may say, well, just don't cast spontaneous healing if your a cleric of Shar, thats just bad RP! And it probably is, but people will do it. Some won't know better, and some will be forced into situations where it is required in order to survive by DMs who don't know better. One slip quickly becomes a habit. Its the same issue with tower shields and running about in plate armor: Some people think they are bad RP to use in the way they are, while some see it as another change in NWN over PnP. The result is that some PCs purposefully nerf themselves below what NWN allows for the sake of RP. Now, there is nothing wrong with this, but it puts them at a disadvantage when compared to others who do not do these things. If we can enforce rules in the engine, we can take the ambiguity out of how things should be RPed. Resting is another good example, on some servers or with some DMs resting seems to be treated as a short "nap", while on others its treated as the full 8-hours. The difference can easily mean death if one PC isn't willing to rest on an adventure where everyone else is.

If we can't enforce this stuff in the engine, or if enforcing of it causes too much annoyance (can you imagine actually spending 8 IG hours to rest?), we won't. We'll have to educate instead. But if its possible to do in the engine without any other drawbacks, thats the best way IMO.

[HEEGZ]

I don't really see the reason to change things from the core rules on this. If you want the spontaneous heals, don't play an evil cleric. If you just have to play an evil cleric, I agree with Ronan that allowing spontaneous healing would be totally OOC. Also, any efforts spent implementing a change from what ships would be better spent on something more important IMO. I just don't see a compelling argument to change other than a preference for healing spells over infliction; and I share your preference, that's why I don't play evil clerics.

[Ronan]

Also, any efforts spent implementing a change from what ships would be better spent on something more important IMO.

Most likely, the game won't ship with anything distinguishing spontaneous heals from inflicts, or rebuking undead. These will probably be things we will have to add.

[Mayhem]

Heh - having been on the receiving end of inflict spells from many a Grak Goblin and Ogre Magi, I dispute their ineffectiveness

And the high AC issue isn't such a huge issue with *touch* spells, as a person in Plate isn't going to have a huge AC vs touch.

But I can see where you are coming from.

My purely off-the-cuff thought on balancing it would either be to make inflict a ranged touch spell, so that whilt they can still miss you are not so much at risk, or to make spontaneous inflicts not cause an AoO so that they are a little bit more reliable in a combat situation.

[MShady]

Yeah, melee touch spells... most of your AC will not help you in that case.
Fun times.

Mike

[dergon darkhelm]

Yeah, melee touch spells... most of your AC will not help you in that case.

I'm gonna guess a PC average across the board of AC touch 12-13 maybe?

The average cleric isn't so good ranged b/c generally have a poor dex.----likely an average of +0 to attack bonus.


So ......at cleric level 5 a base attack of +3 ranged ------ that's approximately a 50/50 chance of hitting (then comes the will save)


you can argue a point here or a point there ..........but until higher levels the "ranged touch attack" ain't a gimme.

[Mayhem]

Its still an improvement over having to stand next to the guy with the big sword, surely?

[dergon darkhelm]

Its still an improvement over having to stand next to the guy with the big sword, surely?

Indeed it is ..............add in the AoO of actually having to make a touch attack on your opponent and ..................



Now, about the difference between Spontaneous Inflict and Spontaneous Heal:
Just to highlight the difference, try this little simulation:

5 5th level evil clerics of Bane step into a 40x40 foot room that just so happens to be inhabited 5 5th level clerics of Lathander.

They all have identical statistics as per the DMG NPC cleric. (assume no difference in domain spells).

The only difference: the Banites have no spontaneous Healing. Of course, they plan to tend their own wounds so let's say they have allocated one healing spell per level.

Now play out the battle......................i think you will find that the spontaneous healing access on the part of the Lathandrites is a *huge* advantage (especially late in the fight). The Inflict spells (even if they *do* hit and even if the good clerics fail a will save) are more than counterbalanced by the healing availability.


We did a similar test (while arguing and quite stoned ) in my PnP group not long after 3.0 came out.

We ended up making changes to both our games (the one I run and the one the other guy runs) reasoning that healing is not necessarily a "good", in an alignment sense, thing. Many evil priests would have their own evil ends served by healing themselves and their non-expendable allies. In the same way that D&D has "good" characters often killing without hesitation or remorse, evil characters can heal out a sense of selfishness.

That was the logic then and i still find it valid now.

[AcadiusLost]

Logic and imbalance-against-healing aspect aside, when you add range to the spontaneous casting of Inflict spells, you take evil-aligned clerics, and turn them into a higher-AC, higher-AB, higher-HP version of the sorceror: basically a ranged artillery battery, with perhaps a larger payload as well, given the extra slots clerics get in place of domain slots. These spells are available at every spell level, aren't subject to any elemental protections or resistances either.

There is absolutely no grounding for this in canon, and it would represent a major change in the role of the cleric class.

IMHO, the AoO and need to be right next to the opponent are the balances to an otherwise very powerful ability (spontaneous inflict casting). The cleric already has the advantage of armor and shield as well, so it's not like a mage trying a Shocking Grasp spell. The engine doesn't even make you unequip your weapon to get a "free hand" for the casting, so to my mind, there is little to complain about.

Not seeing any reasonable way this would ever be allowed. As an aside, which do neutral clerics get by our system? Both, neither?

[Ronan]

As an aside, which do neutral clerics get by our system? Both, neither?

Neutral clerics would have to follow the wishes of their deity, or if their deity allows both, they get a choice at character creation.

[AlmightyTDawg]

There is an inherent imbalance in favor of healing spells (and what I will henceforth refer to as clerical "buffs") over negative energy spells (and clerical "attack spells").

The reason is simple. Spells cast upon yourself or a willing partner ( healing and buffs) are a guarantee of success while spells cast upon someone else with intent to hurt them are not. A cure light wounds on your own second lvel cleric will guarantee healing. An inflict light wounds spells cast on an opposing second level cleric requires both a succesful touch attack (lets call it a 50/50 chance) to do anything at all followed by an opponentw will save to halve the damage (another approxiamately 50% chance). That makes the net effectiveness of the spell much lower.

That is why PCs (and the NPCs that I play) lean toward

Bless> Bane
Aid > Doom
Haste > Slow

Basically, Acadius got the main point of it in dismissing the ranged touch idea, but I want to go back to the more fundamental quesiton.

Spontaneous cast is, more or less, a lesser function of clerical power. It responds to an immediate need, but statistically speaking, is not a terribly powerful benefit compared to most other buffs. It's a power of flexibility and should probably be treated as such. Lacking it, I think you wouldn't find clerics memorizing all cures, but instead maybe 33 percent healing or such. Up front buffs are generally superior to handling challenges than something on the back end, but they are decent hedges against statistical variations.

But just as spontaneous cure has its function, so does spontaneous inflict. When you look at a lot of high CR mobs with killer special abilities, don't be terribly surprised when you find a lot of low touch ACs (natural armor) and mediocre hit points. The value of those mobs is their "pain rate" as I call it, their ability to do fantastically bad things to you in a hurry. Having healing in your back pocket is typically not terribly effective, either because the attack forms aren't purely damage related or because the mob just churns out so much at a time. Having quick and powerful convertable damage, however, is very effective.

So while numerically, they are not equal, their relative use in particular situations does tend to even out much better. It's often been the case that protection and healing tend to be worth more "cards" in a Magic the Gathering sense, as a single spell can defend against a number of others (one Minor Globe for example can block 50 spells from an army of mage apprentices). It's just the nature of the beast that hostile means saves. It's impossible to compare them except over the body of work of an entire PC. For the purposes of comparing the two spontaneous cast forms, I don't know that there's enough there to elevate one over another.

Something I had suggested was adding +1/+2/+3/+4 or +2/+3/+4/+5 to the inflict line of spells, but I think only a minor minor tweak is necessary if any.

Similar lines of thought go to the other comparisons made. For example, while Bless is more reliable than Bane, the question really is which one makes a better stab at "hit rate" or to a lesser extent "fear rate." For example, if opponents hit PCs on a 19 only, and you Bane them, you've just halved the damage to your PCs against mobs failing a save. If your PCs hit them on say an 8, then your hit rate improvement is only a few percent. Even at poor save throws, Bane is the smarter play in that instance. Of course the situation can be reversed (high AC, low hit rate mob) but those are generally less plentiful. More often as CR goes up, "pain rate" increases well past AC. That won't always be the case, but that's the joy of picking which spells to memorize.

What beneficial spells do for you is have greater reliability. The stepwise potential of harmful spells though, even at the risk of a save, is often far greater. Always have to watch for metagamers and statisticians in the crowd, of course, but even subtle differences like that can dramatically shift what a party can do.

Of course... your dice could stink and it all goes to pot. But I guess if you're evil, your god doesn't really care about you anyway.

[HEEGZ]

... But I guess if you're evil, your god doesn't really care about you anyway.

So let's just leave it as is, m'kay?

[GFWD]

Not sure if it is in the core rules, a Sage Advice, or on Monte Cook's website, but attacking someone with an inflict spell does not provoke attacks of opportunity, they count as an armed attack.

Of course, this may also be a house rule and I have simply forgotten that I made it up as a DM. I will give some books a look if I get the chance.

[Spider Jones]

The touch attack in a touch spell does not draw AoO, it counts as an "armed" strike, however, the casting of the spell does still draw AoO.