Talk:Cure Wounds (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

	Dragonexx is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	This doesn't really seem to fix the problem, and actually kinda inverts it. Now healing spells are mostly useless at lower levels and better at higher levels.

This point is relevant. How about making it 1d8 per Spell Level + CL in HP healed, or 10% per Spell Level, whichever is higher? That way, it's never strictly worse than the default CW line. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This is fair. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

	Spanambula favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	I like this idea a lot, and plan to implement it in my games.

Save for Half?

How do you feel about making it save negates? As it is, if 20 level 1 clerics can touch an undead monster somehow (were in a huge bag of holding or... whatever), the monster insta-dies. Plus, automatically reducing a BBEG to 50% health with a single spell on a *save* sounds wonky for the Inflict version, even at high levels. --Ghostwheel (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I rather keep it save half, though for the first case, I consider it similar to a situation akin to having X 1st level sorcerers with magic missile; no save instant death (except for SR, which applies for cure/inflict as well). Since it's not practically viable, I haven't worried about it. On the other half though I was thinking that. For 9th level it's 90%, so 45% on a save, very tough. I compared it to Harm though. 150 damage with a save for 75 can kill a lot of people. While not directly equatable since its percentage based, I didn't think the damage is too far off what you should get from a 9th level spell.

With that said, if you think its too much damage for a 9th level touch, I think the easiest fix is the "it can't kill you/leaves you with 1 hp" text 3.0 Harm had. That gives an extra moment of not-dead-yet. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think even 50 1st-level sorcerers are going to be able to insta-kill anything of half-decent level, so I don't think that the analogy holds too true :-/

Apart from that, if you do it the second way, then any magic missile or stray fireball, even when it saves, will kill the target.

Putting aside the bag of clerics deal though... I dunno, it just feels wrong-ish that you can almost-kill any enemy in 2 rounds with an H-level spell, even if they save, y'know? What if the maximum damage from a failed save was 5-10% of max health? It would still do something, and that can be a decent chunk of a BBEG's health, but it doesn't mean that on a save they still lose half their health. --Ghostwheel (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Necromancy?!?

I get that necromancy involves manipulating life energy, but I'm pretty sure the healing subschool is attached to the Conjuration school. (Why, I'm not entirely sure. My best guess is that healing spells work by conjuring matter to replace the matter a living creature loses by being wounded... or something like that.) Technically, necromancy is the manipulation of death more than it is the manipulation of life, so doesn't that make positive energy effects a bit out of place for it? --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Healing is under Conjuration, and I always disagreed with it. Healing was clearly either necromancy, or evocation, and was obviously WotC doing what WotC does best. Amusingly I hear healing is properly under evocation in... 4? 5e? One of them. Personally I attribute it to necromancy but I can understand evocation. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I could see it as any of em. Necromancy: Life and death. Summon life and banish life. Conjuration: Conjure motes of essence from the Positive Energy Plane and imbue them in someone. Evocation: Create positive energy directly out of nothing, rather than summoning it from the plane. That said, since clerics don't really use schools... I don't think it matters very much. --Ghostwheel (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For me it's weird because in 2e, healing was Necromancy and Fear stuff was Enchantment. Which... Honestly makes sense. Truthfully I' more of a science man when it comes to magic; Heal and Inflict don't make a lot of sense. You'd think both would be Transmutation, rending flesh or weaving it back together, but that would make Inflict spells just be physical spells, so idk. Then again, I'm somewhat against arcane casters not getting healing anyway; I'd make it so they have to have medical knowledge - Making a Heal check as part of the casting - And wouldn't make it do as much as Clerics (Since Clerics are literally going "Hey, deity, you know how to heal this guy better than I do so?").

Honestly Necromancy is a weird school because animating the body like a flesh golem would be Transmutation, and summoning a spirit to a body - Either to power the animation and control the body, or to possess the target - Would really be Conjuration.

Then again, my opinions on magic are also a bit skewed by Shadowrun. Zhenra-Khal (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2017 (MDT)

A better way?

When I think about it, I thought of a way I like possibly even better than this.

Recover 1d8 + 1 per HD of your target. Make it caster level agnostic. With higher levels of cure, it's +2, +3, to +9 at 9th.

The former recovers a fair amount at low levels and a small but decent chunk at higher levels, being 20~.

A high level one is likely to almost or entirely fully restore you. Actually with people doing non-max hp, it probably is.

I could lower it further, being scaling at 2d8+1, then 2d8+2, then 3d8+1, then 3d8+2, etc.

I dunno. I'm thinking on it. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The question is, how much of an enemy's turn do you want to negate?

Monsters of a challenge rating appropriate for a PC of a given level don't tend to one-turn kill most PCs. It usually takes them 2-3 turns, even if the PC doesn't have too many defensive abilities.

Making the spell do that much healing can negate multiple turns of an enemy's work, which is a better way of looking at it IMO. --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)