Faith Healing

[Lothoir]

My cleric only adventures with others of his faith, so his lvl 1 slot is nothing but Faith Healing, because then I don't need to waste my higher level slots on cure moderate or cure serious. The lvl 1 buffs need to be extended anyways so they end up in the lvl 2 slot. He also has a bunch of Recitations always memorized.

EDIT: Would also like to point out that my cleric uses Faith Healing as part of the initiation ritual for those that want to join his little cult, and they always occur at night. Additionally, he never buffs or aids any characters he knows to serve gods opposed to his own.

[GodBeastX]

My cleric only adventures with others of his faith, so his lvl 1 slot is nothing but Faith Healing, because then I don't need to waste my higher level slots on cure moderate or cure serious. The lvl 1 buffs need to be extended anyways so they end up in the lvl 2 slot. He also has a bunch of Recitations always memorized.

Well, there you go I was speaking purely NPC, PC's have their own maniacal ideals.

[Lothoir]

So, would the use of Faith Healing as a test be allowed? In the original case, my cleric was less than pleased by a certain cleric (whom he did not know was a cleric, or even a follower of that god) and so jumped them as they were preparing for prayer. As they collapsed the player emoted dropping a holy symbol, so my character responded by casting Faith Healing, nothing happened and then the debate arose.

Also, is it alright to use it as part of the initiation ritual to join a cult? Inflict Light Wounds + Faith Heal?

[cdnspr]

now, i don't actually play d&d, i just play nwn2 (and read a couple d&d novels as a kid), so I realise that my opinions may not be the truest to canon, but here's my thoughts nonetheless.

Faith Healing is intended as a healing spell. The dependence on the recipient's religion is a limitation on the spell. In my opinion, casting a spell for the sole purpose of observing its limitation goes against the spirit with which the spell was originally intended, and seems exploitive. Also, notice how it's a conjuration spell, and doesn't draw on the divination school.

Now, if a cleric casted it on another with the genuine intention of healing them, then notices the spell fails to do so, that would seem like a legitimate reason for the cleric to say to himself "hey, something's wrong here", and perhaps even raise some suspicion. Should it be treated as a litmus test for determining another's faith? Probably not, since the spell's failure could simply be because the recipient (or even the caster for that particular while) does not currently have the deity's favour, or maybe the deity is busy channeling all its juice through another cleric a few thousand klicks away.

[Lothoir]

Faith Healing is intended as a healing spell. The dependence on the recipient's religion is a limitation on the spell. In my opinion, casting a spell for the sole purpose of observing its limitation goes against the spirit with which the spell was originally intended, and seems exploitive. Also, notice how it's a conjuration spell, and doesn't draw on the divination school.

Now, if a cleric casted it on another with the genuine intention of healing them, then notices the spell fails to do so, that would seem like a legitimate reason for the cleric to say to himself "hey, something's wrong here", and perhaps even raise some suspicion.

Do you not see how these two statements are at odds with each other? If you have a mechanism, in this case a spell, that has an observable and known reaction why should it matter what the intention was?

I would consider the spell metagaming if the subject was uninjured and upon casting the spell you get a text box that says "Target does not share your patron" as opposed to "Target healed 0 hp". Or if there was a spell that gives those of your faith an AC bonus, but you notice there is no AC bonus icon next to their portrait. Those are all examples of using player information to dictate character actions, which is the definition of metagaming.

But this is not the case. If you cast Faith Healing on a person that does not hold your god to be their patron nothing happens. If you cast it on someone that does their wounds are magically bound, bleeding stops and bones are mended. Why wouldn't an intelligent person use that highly observable spell to test the faith of those that want to join a highly secretive cult of assassins?

Would you also argue that Kelemvorites uprooting a vampire infiltration shouldn't go about casting Cure spells on villagers, even though they know that spell will heal the living and burn the unliving?

I do have one more thing that I don't quite understand: Why do you assume that because a spell is not classified as a 'divination' spell your character is unable to understand basic cause and effect? Divination spells magically pop information into your head. That's it. If you don't cast a divination you don't get any magical insights, but you can use basic logic and knowledge of what has transpired to figure things out.

Let's say I cast fireball at an enemy wizard, they had energy immunity up and take no damage. I just 'divined' they are immune to fire damage. Am I going to lob another fireball, or should I switch it up and try an acid arrow or lightning bolt? Or should I ignore the fact that other than a laugh nothing happens when I create an explosion in his face?

Or I see an illusionary wall of stone, so I cast Stone to Mud on it (Pen and Paper, Transmutation). Nothing happens. Do I now pretend nothing happened? Or can I 'divine' that the wall in front of me is not in fact stone and yet it appears stone. Perhaps it is an illusion!

None of the above examples involve divination spells, but they all make complete sense, from an IC or OOC standpoint.

[GodBeastX]

It's not against it's intended use at all. Let me show you:



The idea is you know someone is falsely claiming to be of your deity. Of course, faith healing SPELL doesn't stun people. So you have to actually harm them first or they must already be injured in order for you to tell. If they aren't then it'd be metagaming to assume such. A good aligned god would never be okay with an initiation that involves harming then healing with faith healing, and a L/N would be god dependant. For example, Helm, god of protection, would not be okay with harming then healing, where as Jergal might.

Bane would definitely be okay with this, especially since he actually tortures members of his church to ensure obedience. So I would say if you intend to test someone in that means it should be overseen by a DM to ensure that it isn't metagaming, especially when healing is concerned because injuries aren't always visible to know the effects of healing. I mean, a guy with 200 hp missing 8 and you heal for 8, can a person know the difference visually? Of course, a clever victim might be able to fake the healing and act like it worked so it's not a certain method of testing someone. So if you intend to "test" people I would say you need a DM to oversee it.

The above clip is from Forgotten Realms - Campaign Setting, P48 or so under the Heirophant.

[Lothoir]

The way I've been going about it is ritually cutting their hand or arm, then healing it. If the wound doesn't close up then something is up.

[GodBeastX]

Faerun is polytheistic, however everyone chooses a patron deity they pay special homage to because it is common knowledge that without one they will spend an eternity writhing in the Wall of the Faithless. In fact, if someone does not have a patron deity it is impossible for them to be brought back to life by any spell short of a Miracle or Wish spell in which case the caster's god must directly intervene to restore the fallen character to life.

This is not true. A person does not have to have a patron deity, only divine powered classes have to. A person goes to the afterlife of the deity's tenants they followed the most, not the one they worshipped the most unless they are a divine class or a church person, etc. Here's the summary:



As you can see, some people don't have patron gods and are fine, some do, some worship only one god. Only people who DENY the gods are faithless. They are the wall goers.

[GodBeastX]

The way I've been going about it is ritually cutting their hand or arm, then healing it. If the wound doesn't close up then something is up.

It's not up to you to decide what is up. And ritualistically cutting a hand can still be considered bad to some deities. You don't make policy, the god does. That's the point I was trying to make. A DM should oversee anyone attempting to discern a person as a false worshipper in this method unless the other player agrees to it of course.

[cdnspr]

i think the jist of my message may have been overlooked. using your own example, lothoir, a wizard doesn't cast stone to mud on an illusionary wall for the purpose of determining whether or not it's an illusion, he does so in order to remove it. on seeing no effect, its illusory nature might then be gleaned.

[Lothoir]

I was going off of the information in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting:

i think the jist of my message may have been overlooked. using your own example, lothoir, a wizard doesn't cast stone to mud on an illusionary wall for the purpose of determining whether or not it's an illusion, he does so in order to remove it. on seeing no effect, its illusory nature might then be gleaned.

Then what of my other points? Should an intelligent person not be able to use the information and tools he knows exist? It doesn't make sense that a spellcaster would0 be unable to use basic logic and an intimate knowledge of his craft to come to simple conclusion.

I can completely understand a DM wanting to be present at an initiation to be sure the cleric isn't going against the ethos of their god, and I'll be sure to do that in the future. But what I just can't wrap my head around is the belief if you don't cast a divination spell you can't gain any information from that spell. And if you can gain information, why would you only be able to learn things on accident instead of deliberately doing using it for that purpose? It is a completely in character spell with known, in character results. Why shouldn't our characters be allowed to exercise their high int and think creatively?

[GodBeastX]

Mine was from the same book. Likely PCs follow different rules than NPCs since you don't create a character sheet. Given the description of both statements, I imagine a PC who is polytheistic likely just switches patrons often for mechanics reasons or might write the god they spent the most worship with in their actions.

Either way it's not important since NWN2 forces a patron. Even the part on petitioners shows people don't have to worship the god to be a petitioner in their plane.

[GodBeastX]

Ugh, I miss the old days when clerics couldn't cast specific spells. They prayed for an effect from the gods and a DM picked the resulting spell. Turning clerics into wizards was a bad move IMO.

Edit: Of course, if it was me I'd just go "Oh man! My faith must be waning, I admit I'm losing belief in the god. Why don't you help me get my faith back?" hahah!

[Lothoir]

Edit: Of course, if it was me I'd just go "Oh man! My faith must be waning, I admit I'm losing belief in the god. Why don't you help me get my faith back?" hahah!

Which is why I do that as the first test. I would have no problem with a character that tries to infiltrate the church by asking to be taught, so he can take my god into their heart sincerely, or even someone if they posed to be a follower of a god allied with my god, especially as many of my god's allies don't have clerics on Sundren. Your character wouldn't be privy to the same information as the truly devout, but you'd meet the other worshipers and could possibly wheedle information out of them. Just because you can't do something in one specific way doesn't mean you can't do it at all. Like Dr. Paush said in his last lecture, "Brick walls are there to stop the other people."

[cdnspr]

hey lothoir. these days i try not to refute every single point another player writes in their post. it tends to put them on the defensive, and i found that when you do that, you're no more likely to sway them to your way of thinking, and then every counter-point gets a counter which is then in turn countered, and so on and so forth. instead i try to just stick to the overall message.

and nah, i'm not trying to say its wrong to gain information from seeing whether or not a spell works on someone (like your example of a wizard with his fireball spell). i didn't write that anywhere. making intelligent assumptions based on observations is fine, reasonable, and to be expected; my problem is with making conclusive statements about what is written on someone else's character sheet. (At least without using magic that is specifically designed for that purpose, ie divination)

i really don't care to engage in mechanics-lawyering ("this didn't work on you therefore i know beyond any uncertainty you are that"). i think it really goes against the spirit of roleplaying.