Community

Listen, Molecule, this is going to sound insulting, no offense is intended.

But you are the only person in the entire world who thinks your counter-argument makes any sense.

May 8, 2010 -- 9:43PM, Ramius613 wrote:

Um, no, a thousand times no.  This comes down to resource management.  For every expenditure of resources (ie feats, powers, items, etc) there is a benefit given.  You spend a feat that gives you a saving throw when you spend a healing surge.  That resource (the feat) was spent to give you a benefit when the criteria were met.  If you did not spend the surge, you don't get the saving throw.

The same goes for Cure X Wounds, and many people have said this, along with the clarification of a dev.  Did you spend a surge when the cleric used Cure X? No, and HL does not apply. Did you gain HP? Yes because of the resource spent by the cleric to give me that benefit.

I go to a Sub shop (called The Cleric's Subs), and order a sub.  The guy tells me that since I bought a sub I get a free bag of chips.  I go back and ask for a sub, the guy tells me "Here, have this one no charge."  I say "Do I get a bag of chips?"  Replies "No, because you didn't buy the sub."  Me: "But I have a Sub, so its as if I bought one.  I want my chips."  Him: "Get out!" 

Ramius

Then with your logic, if I have implement expertise for the orb Orb (see below), and if I use a longsword as if it were an orb (correlon's Implement feature phb 171), I wouldn't gain the +1/+2/+3 bonus to my attack rolls. This type of logic is absurd.
Quoted from the Update Document for the PHB 2.
"Benefit: Choose a type of implement. You gain a +1 feat bonus to attack rolls with any implement power you use through that type of implement. The bonus increases to +2 at 15th level and +3 at 25th level."

Any time I use the longsword as an orb, be it holding or attacking with it, it will benefit from any specific game element that an orb would benefit from. Meaning I also would be able to use the wizard orb of imposition class feature while using the longsword as an orb. 

This same logic applies to any resource or game element with the "as if" clause (which is pretty much the same as the "treat as", "count as", "used as", "considered as",etc). For example, the bard's power Forceful conduit's (PHB2 p.72) hit and miss clause allows an ally within 10 squares can make implement attacks during his or her turn as if occupying the target's space. Sure they aren't actually in the square, but for all intents and purposes, they are considered to be in that enemy's space when they make that implement attack.

Ranger's Two-blade fighting style PHB 104 "You can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an off-hand weapon." Under normal circumstances, a ranger who wanted to use the twin strike power and make the two melee attacks, would need to have a weapon with the off-hand property (such as a dagger, shortsword,etc) to make that off-hand attack. Are you implying that a ranger with this style can't wield a bastard sword or a longsword or a battleaxe in his off-hand and use twin strike because the "as if" clause doesn't make it one? 
 Or a ranger can't use a battleaxe in his off hand to use the two-weapon opening feat from the phb 2 (p.192) "When you are wielding two melee weapons and you score a critical hit with your main weapon, you can make a melee basic attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target as a free action. "
Are you really going to say that "sorry that battleaxe is not an off-hand weapon even though this ranger can use it as if it were one?"

What about the boots of bounding AV2 p57? "You make an athletics check to jump as if you had a running start."
Or the Long Jumper feat in phb1 (p.198) "Benefit: You make all long jumps as if you had a running start."
The fact is, the "as if" clause lets you make that long jump as if you had a running start, even if you didn't actually move those two squares beforehand. To even consider that the same logic for all these examples suddenly does not apply to healer's lore with the wording "as if you spent a healing surge" for no particular reason is downright nonsensical.

I said it before, RAI has already been established by the update document's explanation and gregB. And that's how I'll probably be running it in my games (just like storm pillar's damage shouldn't trigger off forced movement, yet it still can) However the RAW does not support that current interpretation fully as it does not specify an exception to "as if" spending of healing surges. The raw must specify that healer's lore does not function with surgeless healing to actually accomplish that goal. But until then, we'll have to wait to see if the update team actually gets around to doing it.

I think his counter-argument makes sense because of its lack of sense because he's trying to point out an interpretation that is illogical.

Regardless, I think his actual argument, that 'as if' is referencing the target's healing surge value independent of the Cleric, makes perfect sense since it's basically the argument I made pages ago. So, yeah, I wouldn't be so quick to say people don't agree with his arguments.