Cure disease

kubera wrote:

I would argue the statement that cure disease is too powerful, few diseases kill instantly , but poison does , therefore neut poison is one level higher, if all else fails raise dead is once again 1 level higher.

Excellent point.

kubera wrote:

[...] after casting it takes 1-10 days for people to be fully recovered [...] it takes 1-10 days for damage to be corrected and full function to return. There fore 95% of this spell's use is not during adventuring but part of the normal priestly duties.

The 2nd ed. PH says the cure takes from 1 turn to 10 days, so in fairness to the perspective that the spell is too powerful, we must consider that its effects can be almost immediate.

kubera wrote:

P.s. The ad hoc argument does not work for my situation because it is a granted spell I don't have to PICK.. It's also only 1 a week, which makes it many times less available than it would be for a priest with access to it.

Not sure what you mean by "pick". In the ad hoc system employed by Jonathan, one may cast any known spell at any time, subject to other casting limits. In this sense, spells are picked in the sense of being selected for casting. In the AD&D rules, picking is the process of selecting a slate of spells for memorization, no?

kubera wrote:

I don't think the complaint about the spell is based so much on it being too powerful but rather the way in which I proposed to use it as a means to grow notaritiety and gain the loyalty of people I might like to entice into employ or attact as henchmen or as church follower

I don't understand the substance of the complaint, then.

kubera wrote:

Isnt this what faith healers have done for ages? I think its a normal and rational use of the power. That I'm the first and only Pc in any of our games who actually wants to build a flock and improve the faith, rather than my own pocket book, should not be held against me.

Agreed.

A key difference between real-life "faith healing" and "actual" healing in a fantasy setting is that the latter is real and provable and therefore everyone (potentially) will come to know of its efficacy; real-life "faith healing" can only convince the gullible and is therefore of limited use to the proselytizer.

Quote :

kubera wrote:
[...] after casting it takes 1-10 days for people to be fully recovered [...] it takes 1-10 days for damage to be corrected and full function to return. There fore 95% of this spell's use is not during adventuring but part of the normal priestly duties.

The 2nd ed. PH says the cure takes from 1 turn to 10 days, so in fairness to the perspective that the spell is too powerful, we must consider that it's effects can be almost immediate.

Ok this was my misread but its also a reasonable fix.

allow the spell to work but make it 1-10 days, mummy rot would be stopped instantly in a dungeon but very likely the victim is out of the battle line for the remainder of the adventure.

Quote :

Not sure what you mean by "pick". In the ad hoc system employed by Jonathan, one may cast any known spell at any time, subject to other casting limits. In this sense, spells are picked in the sense of being selected for casting. In the AD&D rules, picking is the process of selecting a slate of spells for memorization, no?

The point is my paladin spell is not affected by the change of house rules from taking a selection of predetermined spells into an encounter , vs. using spell points usable however. In my case it is a granted power, usable rarely, So I have gained no undue advantage from the ability to choose spells ad HOC.

Quote :

kubera wrote:
I don't think the complaint about the spell is based so much on it being too powerful but rather the way in which I proposed to use it as a means to grow notaritiety and gain the loyalty of people I might like to entice into employ or attact as henchmen or as church follower
Steve:
I don't understand the substance of the complaint, then.

The complaint about cure disease was not made by me ,, I just brought if up for general discussion when Jonathan said the spell was too powerful.

My beef is mostly that had I only wanted to use the spell in combat like all other pcs do, there would have been no complaint about it being too powerful. Rather it was sparked by my intended use to curry favour and win the loyalty of retainers, something that was actually suggested in the castle guide as why people working for a Paladin would be extra motivated.

Ok. So why are we debating this again?

What is the problem with a powerful cure disease spell? I don't have a problem with it. I think it would be interesting to watch how the traveling holy healer would be roleplayed. It would be interesting to see how the other priesthoods, the local authorities, and the sickly masses would react. It could make for some really interesting stories. Priests might try to repress us, powerful men might covet our abilities for their own gains, and the masses might smash in our doors and demand our services. I don't see a problem with the cure disease; I hope I do see some concequences for it's use.

Sigh...

I'm with Craig on this.

Let's talk about spells that are too powerful...

Evard's Black Tentacles
Ice Storm
Entangle (we've used facilitate the demise of dozens of people lately and it's 1st level)
Rock to Mud
Feather fall (defying gravity at 1st level is extreme)
Rope Trick
Animate Dead
I can go on...

Cure disease fits well with the other 3rd level Cleric spells like Cure Blind, Dispel Magic and Remove Curse.

Quote :

Ok. So why are we debating this again?

1. Because I have nothing to do

2. I'm generaly argumentative

3 I'm still waiting on a ruling that will define how I play Rild

Pick any 3 of the above.

Quote :

Priests might try to repress us, powerful men might covet our abilities for their own gains, and the masses might smash in our doors and demand our services. I don't see a problem with the cure disease; I hope I do see some concequences for it's use.

All posible as would be the other priest hoods being pissed off if I under cut their gravy train by healing the rich free or cheaply. We've run into the occasion priest in many campaigns that will do a favour or were commanded by rulers to aid us, but we've also had many cases where we've paid through the teeth for a spell.

What is the cultural norm, how many priest are indeed charitable and how many are just making a living?

My vision is that charitable healing or payment based on means would be the mainstay of building the faith, especially in a crowed market like the Multi pantheistic world of grey hawk.

my vision also sees that the vast majority of priest would never get spells like raise dead, or cure disease. What a sucessful adventuring priest would gain in power in 3 years would take a small town priest 2 life times to gain.
Those higher spells would be quite coveted and would either inspire great loyalty and gratitude from those recieving them or garner the priest great riches should he sell his services. The masses would probably not demand those greater powers knowing that they are not worthy or knowing that the penalty of coercing a priest, in both this life and the next might be too high.

Try forcing a priest who just cast blade barrier around himself to do what you want before the flame strike cremates you


One thing you can say about doing these acts charitably it not only proves to the masses that devine beings are real but also that there are concrete advantages to being devote. Look at the level of zealotry in our world with no proof. How much more so if they could see its real.

And think of the unscrupulous, profit taking, priests casting animate dead whilst claiming it was a raise dead.

Everything would be fine right up until your loved one arrived home and started behaving erratically...

Perhaps a source for new talent for the Zombie Rowing team.

Braims ...

Bruzynski wrote:

Ok. So why are we debating this again?

What is the problem with a powerful cure disease spell? I don't have a problem with it. I think it would be interesting to watch how the traveling holy healer would be roleplayed. It would be interesting to see how the other priesthoods, the local authorities, and the sickly masses would react. It could make for some really interesting stories. Priests might try to repress us, powerful men might covet our abilities for their own gains, and the masses might smash in our doors and demand our services. I don't see a problem with the cure disease; I hope I do see some concequences for it's use.

Sigh...

I nominate this for post of the season.

Carter:
Seems reasonable. And if religious institutions could fund themselves by selling magical services, they'd be more like businesses. They wouldn't "need" to be manorial overlords squeezing the local serfs. What a different society it would be!

Craig:
I like your thinking regarding possible cure disease scenarios, but it seems unlikely that any but the most wicked, pro-union clergymen would be annoyed if clerics of another god cast cure disease (et al) spells on the laity. After all, they too have the ability to cure disease (a more important question might be: Why aren't they curing disease?).

This raises the question of the relationships between the various religious groups. Assuming that everyone in the fantasy world knows and agrees that the gods are real and that the various clerics are genuine representatives of their divine patrons, it would seem that conflicts between religions would be motivated by how the gods themselves regard each other, not, as in real-life monotheistic religions, by claims that one's own doctrine is true.

Quote :

I like your thinking regarding possible cure disease scenarios, but it seems unlikely that any but the most wicked, pro-union clergymen would be annoyed if clerics of another god cast cure disease (et al) spells on the laity. After all, they too have the ability to cure disease (a more important question might be: Why aren't they curing disease?).

all very interesting and an opportunity for some real stories and roleplaying--something interesting to explore in game.

its quite obvious that gods feed on the anguish and pain of their followers. To heal all the humans and make them happy would weaken the gods.

Only in dangling the prize while letting them suffer gives them the right combination of mental energy to feast apon. A pained soul is a tasty soul!

kubera wrote:

its quite obvious that gods feed on the anguish and pain of their followers. To heal all the humans and make them happy would weaken the gods.

Only in dangling the prize while letting them suffer gives them the right combination of mental energy to feast apon. A pained soul is a tasty soul!

Gods evil? Nah.