Wolf's quote does not say regaining hit points is the only way to end the unconcious condition, the rules technically do not send whether or not you cease to be unconcious if your hit points 8ncrease above zero from a means other than regaining them but I think it is inferred that you do.
TheRulesDon'tSayICan't? No, the rules tell you what does a thing, not all the things that don't.
Aid may not be healing, but if so then you really should treat it so, and not treat it however you want when it is convenient. Either it's healing or it isn't.
Wolf's quote does not say regaining hit points is the only way to end the unconcious condition, the rules technically do not send whether or not you cease to be unconcious if your hit points 8ncrease above zero from a means other than regaining them but I think it is inferred that you do.
TheRulesDon'tSayICan't? No, the rules tell you what does a thing, not all the things that don't.
Aid may not be healing, but if so then you really should treat it so, and not treat it however you want when it is convenient. Either it's healing or it isn't.
Admittedly, aid is very similar to healing and should probably be considered as such to stop being confusing. I would certainly just treat it as healing and would apply disciple of life, but I can't say that is RAW, so I won't.
Wolf's quote does not say regaining hit points is the only way to end the unconcious condition, the rules technically do not send whether or not you cease to be unconcious if your hit points 8ncrease above zero from a means other than regaining them but I think it is inferred that you do.
TheRulesDon'tSayICan't? No, the rules tell you what does a thing, not all the things that don't.
Aid may not be healing, but if so then you really should treat it so, and not treat it however you want when it is convenient. Either it's healing or it isn't.
Admittedly, aid is very similar to healing and should probably be considered as such to stop being confusing. I would certainly just treat it as healing and would apply disciple of life, but I can't say that is RAW, so I won't.
Ok guys... In this plataform (dndbeyond) Aid not work with disciple of life and I get it from all of you. But, Revivify neither and why is that?
Revivify doesn't heal the target or the creature, because you target a corpse (which generally has 3 or 10 hit points for a Small corpse and 4 or 18 hit points for a Medium corpse) and replace the corpse with a creature that, before the spell was cast, did not exist and hence did not have a number of hit points (it did not have 0, 1, or 2 - it had no hit point total due to not existing) and after the spell is cast has 1 hit point.
Another spell with an identical mechanic (you target an object and get a creature) is True Polymorph, which is generally not regarded as healing the target when you cast it on an object, either. A third is Animate Objects. Would you consider either of them to be healing the creature? You can, in fact, kill 3 rabbits and cast Revivify on the first, True Polymorph on the second, and Animate Objects on the third, and get 3 creatures that look a lot like living rabbits (the first two will get you a Beast, the third will get you a Construct).
What you're actually saying is that no matter what healing or damage you receive during the spell, at the end of the duration of aid, you lose 5 actual hit points. I don't play that spell that way.
You are at 0 HP. Does aid heal you? or do you remain unconscious?
Generally, if the duration of aid ends when the target has less than 5 hp, do they go unconscious?
If you have 5 HP, then are affected by aid (10HP total), then take 9 damage (1HP), and then are healed by 3 (4HP), when aid ends are you unconscious, even though you've received healing?
The wording of the aid is clear, "Each target's hit point maximum and current hit points increase by 5 for the duration."
So when the spell ends, the 5 that were added need to be removed.
I don't think applying DoL to Aid is consistent with removing the HP at the end-- so you shouldn't do both. At least according to the rulings everyone else is making that I agree now is RAW.
I don't think applying DoL to Aid is consistent with removing the HP at the end-- so you shouldn't do both. At least according to the rulings everyone else is making that I agree now is RAW.
Yeah. Either the increase to current HP is healing and DoL applies or it isn't and it is lost when the spell ends, not both.
I believe spells that increase hit points or bring you back to life are not healing spell that restore hit points necessarily. In any doubt, i may look at the spell's school to determine what qualify for Disciple if Life since its usually evocation spells that are known to channel positive energy to heal wounds.
I think the reason it wouldn't work with aid is that this spell doesn't really restore hit-points, it gives you additional ones that you don't normally have, so you're not regaining hit-points you previously had you're gaining 5 shiny extra points to fill your newly increased hit-point maximum.
Revivify is trickier because if you were dead then you didn't really have hit-points anymore so whether or not any are being restored is a bit vague. The language doesn't specifically say they regain hit-points or such, it just says "returns to life with 1 hit point". I don't think it would be broken to apply the bonus to this, but I'm also not sure it's supposed to apply.
The healing rules are super vague though; it sort of implies that maybe any gain in hit-points is "healing" but it never actually states this so it's unclear.
I believe spells that increase hit points or bring you back to life are not healing spell that restore hit points necessarily. In any doubt, i may look at the spell's school to determine what qualify for Disciple if Life since its usually evocation spells that are known to channel positive energy to heal wounds.
That's interesting because aura of life, regenerate, and healing spirit should all work with DoL and none of those are evocation (not to mention a couple of necromancy damage you/heal me spells). Besides that, healing spirit is one of the few healing spells that actually uses the same verb as DoL (goodberry being the only other I've seen so far).
Sure, many healing spells fall into the unusefully vague description of evocation, but healing is fairly described by about 3-4 other schools -- which happen to be represented in the spells above. If it weren't for the two example sentences tacked on, evocation's description would be utterly useless. And even with those tacked on sentences, you could still argue that every spell is manipulating energy to produce an effect, those examples don't really limit evocation to be any particular subset of spells.
I believe spells that increase hit points or bring you back to life are not healing spell that restore hit points necessarily. In any doubt, i may look at the spell's school to determine what qualify for Disciple if Life since its usually evocation spells that are known to channel positive energy to heal wounds.
That's interesting because aura of life, regenerate, and healing spirit should all work with DoL and none of those are evocation (not to mention a couple of necromancy damage you/heal me spells). Besides that, healing spirit is one of the few healing spells that actually uses the same verb as DoL (goodberry being the only other I've seen so far).
Sure, many healing spells fall into the unusefully vague description of evocation, but healing is fairly described by about 3-4 other schools -- which happen to be represented in the spells above.
Those spells aren't giving any doubts though even if the conjure something or heal in addition to other effects. Thats why i said in any doubt i'd look at the school as evocation is the only school to specify it specifically at least for spell that wouldn't create other effects as well to explain it.
No i didn't say that at all. If i have any doubt if a spell heals or not, all i say is that the evocation school usually are the one that heals so i'd look at the school as well to help my décision.
I don't understand at all when it would be helpful from what you've said then. I gave a hypothetical example (one of the spells this thread is about) where there is a question, and asked if you'd actually use the spell school to help you make a different ruling than the one people seem to agree on. You just said no. When does the spell school help?
I don't understand at all when it would be helpful from what you've said then. I gave a hypothetical example (one of the spells this thread is about) where there is a question, and asked if you'd actually use the spell school to help you make a different ruling than the one people seem to agree on. You just said no. When does the spell school help?
An example would make things clearer.
That is not what you asked me when i said no you are asking " You're saying that if Aid were evocation, you'd allow it?" No i didn't say that at all.
When would it help? When in doubt.I f i don't have any doubt if a spell actually heals, i wouldn't look the school. But in doubt, i'd also look at school to help inform my decision one way or another. That's just me and you are free to disagree.
I don't understand at all when it would be helpful from what you've said then. I gave a hypothetical example (one of the spells this thread is about) where there is a question, and asked if you'd actually use the spell school to help you make a different ruling than the one people seem to agree on. You just said no. When does the spell school help?
An example would make things clearer.
That is not what you asked me when i said no you are asking " You're saying that if Aid were evocation, you'd allow it?" No i didn't say that at all.
When would it help? When in doubt.I f i don't have any doubt if a spell actually heals, i wouldn't look the school. But in doubt, i'd also look at school to help inform my decision one way or another. That's just me and you are free to disagree.
I'm not just trying to disagree, I'm trying to find out if it is even possible to agree. You aren't giving any indication as to any difference your idea would make. All I asked for is any indication where it would; I even provided a hypothetical.
I can only ever think of instances where the spell description is the bit that is going to be the difference. What would be a case where the school would matter?
It would depend of the wording if i had doubt a spell actually heals or not and its school was evocation it could potentially inflluence my decision in some case but since these aren't the point ia moot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
TheRulesDon'tSayICan't? No, the rules tell you what does a thing, not all the things that don't.
Aid may not be healing, but if so then you really should treat it so, and not treat it however you want when it is convenient. Either it's healing or it isn't.
Admittedly, aid is very similar to healing and should probably be considered as such to stop being confusing. I would certainly just treat it as healing and would apply disciple of life, but I can't say that is RAW, so I won't.
Ok guys... In this plataform (dndbeyond) Aid not work with disciple of life and I get it from all of you. But, Revivify neither and why is that?
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
- Emmanuel Kant
I actually think I agree now. With both parts.
Revivify doesn't heal the target or the creature, because you target a corpse (which generally has 3 or 10 hit points for a Small corpse and 4 or 18 hit points for a Medium corpse) and replace the corpse with a creature that, before the spell was cast, did not exist and hence did not have a number of hit points (it did not have 0, 1, or 2 - it had no hit point total due to not existing) and after the spell is cast has 1 hit point.
Another spell with an identical mechanic (you target an object and get a creature) is True Polymorph, which is generally not regarded as healing the target when you cast it on an object, either. A third is Animate Objects. Would you consider either of them to be healing the creature? You can, in fact, kill 3 rabbits and cast Revivify on the first, True Polymorph on the second, and Animate Objects on the third, and get 3 creatures that look a lot like living rabbits (the first two will get you a Beast, the third will get you a Construct).
The wording of the aid is clear, "Each target's hit point maximum and current hit points increase by 5 for the duration."
So when the spell ends, the 5 that were added need to be removed.
So if you applied DoL to Aid, you would get 9 HP (5 Aid, 4 DoL) and once the duration ends you would loose 9 HP? Or does the 4 HP from DoL stay?
Just curious if you decide to let it work with Aid
I don't think applying DoL to Aid is consistent with removing the HP at the end-- so you shouldn't do both. At least according to the rulings everyone else is making that I agree now is RAW.
Yeah. Either the increase to current HP is healing and DoL applies or it isn't and it is lost when the spell ends, not both.
I believe spells that increase hit points or bring you back to life are not healing spell that restore hit points necessarily. In any doubt, i may look at the spell's school to determine what qualify for Disciple if Life since its usually evocation spells that are known to channel positive energy to heal wounds.
I think the reason it wouldn't work with aid is that this spell doesn't really restore hit-points, it gives you additional ones that you don't normally have, so you're not regaining hit-points you previously had you're gaining 5 shiny extra points to fill your newly increased hit-point maximum.
Revivify is trickier because if you were dead then you didn't really have hit-points anymore so whether or not any are being restored is a bit vague. The language doesn't specifically say they regain hit-points or such, it just says "returns to life with 1 hit point". I don't think it would be broken to apply the bonus to this, but I'm also not sure it's supposed to apply.
The healing rules are super vague though; it sort of implies that maybe any gain in hit-points is "healing" but it never actually states this so it's unclear.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
That's interesting because aura of life, regenerate, and healing spirit should all work with DoL and none of those are evocation (not to mention a couple of necromancy damage you/heal me spells). Besides that, healing spirit is one of the few healing spells that actually uses the same verb as DoL (goodberry being the only other I've seen so far).
Sure, many healing spells fall into the unusefully vague description of evocation, but healing is fairly described by about 3-4 other schools -- which happen to be represented in the spells above. If it weren't for the two example sentences tacked on, evocation's description would be utterly useless. And even with those tacked on sentences, you could still argue that every spell is manipulating energy to produce an effect, those examples don't really limit evocation to be any particular subset of spells.
Those spells aren't giving any doubts though even if the conjure something or heal in addition to other effects. Thats why i said in any doubt i'd look at the school as evocation is the only school to specify it specifically at least for spell that wouldn't create other effects as well to explain it.
You're saying that if Aid were evocation, you'd allow it?
No i didn't say that at all. If i have any doubt if a spell heals or not, all i say is that the evocation school usually are the one that heals so i'd look at the school as well to help my décision.
I don't understand at all when it would be helpful from what you've said then. I gave a hypothetical example (one of the spells this thread is about) where there is a question, and asked if you'd actually use the spell school to help you make a different ruling than the one people seem to agree on. You just said no. When does the spell school help?
An example would make things clearer.
That is not what you asked me when i said no you are asking " You're saying that if Aid were evocation, you'd allow it?" No i didn't say that at all.
When would it help? When in doubt.I f i don't have any doubt if a spell actually heals, i wouldn't look the school. But in doubt, i'd also look at school to help inform my decision one way or another. That's just me and you are free to disagree.
Good question to which even the Dev didn't clearly have an answer https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-the-spell-aid-stabilize-downed-players/amp/?
I'm not just trying to disagree, I'm trying to find out if it is even possible to agree. You aren't giving any indication as to any difference your idea would make. All I asked for is any indication where it would; I even provided a hypothetical.
I can only ever think of instances where the spell description is the bit that is going to be the difference. What would be a case where the school would matter?
It would depend of the wording if i had doubt a spell actually heals or not and its school was evocation it could potentially inflluence my decision in some case but since these aren't the point ia moot.