Infernal Healing an Eidolon?

[DrakeRoberts]

Question (please feel free to FAQ): Can an eidolon benefit from Fast Healing granted by a source other than an evolution?

Specifics: Infernal Healing grants a creature Fast Healing. Fast Healing says that it "is just like natural healing". An eidolon "does not heal naturally". Does this mean that Infernal Healing will not work on an eidolon?

Background: This question came up at a local PFS game and research has not lead to a clear-cut answer. Something official would be awesome, hence the call for an FAQ, but anything definitie RAW-wise would be greatly appreciated too.

Thanks!

[Kazaan]

I'm gonna have to go with 'no'. If an Eidolon doesn't heal naturally, it stands to reason that giving it accelerated natural healing is no different than casting Infernal Healing on, say, a construct (which also doesn't heal naturally).

[VRMH]

So the question is: Does the phrase "is just like natural healing" mean "is just like natural healing for the target creature" or "is just like natural healing in general".

[Grick]

Argument: "The eidolon does not heal naturally" is referring to Natural Healing, which is recovering hit points with a full night's rest.

Evidence:

Fast Healing (Su): "An eidolon's body gains the ability to heal wounds very quickly, giving it fast healing 1. The eidolon heals 1 point of damage each round, just like natural healing."

Magical Healing is listed separately from Natural Healing in the Healing section.

Conclusion: A magical effect that works like natural healing is still considered magical healing, not natural healing.

[DrakeRoberts]

Grick wrote:

Conclusion: A magical effect that works like natural healing is still considered magical healing, not natural healing.

Which is why the evolution works. However, there's also a whole thread arguing whether Infernal Healing grants you the EX ability of Fast Healing, or if the healing is also magical healing.

My gut reaction is that this is the crux of the question. That EX-based Fast Healing will not work, whereas SP- or SU-based Fast Healing would. But that's purely a gut reaction, not RAW. Afterall, even the SU-based evolution has the "just like natural healing" clause. It is, in fact, the inclusion of that clause that really has me going back and forth on this one.

[DrakeRoberts]

Anyone else? Does the gut reaction seem right (and thus the real question should be is the FH from Infernal Healing EX or not?), or does the no natural healing clause refer specifically to healing gained from resting? Or... well... any other options?

[Harita-Heema]

I'd say the FH from IH (or any other spell) is SU because it can be suppressed by an antimagic field, and EX abilities cannot.

[Artanthos]

Fast Healing is not Natural Healing. EX or SU, it does not matter. They are different explicitly defined abilities.

Natural Healing wrote:

Natural Healing: With a full night's rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night.

Fast Healing wrote:

Fast Healing (Ex) A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptional rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature's entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached. Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediately

[DrakeRoberts]

Artanthos wrote:

Fast Healing is not Natural Healing. EX or SU, it does not matter. They are different explicitly defined abilities.

Natural Healing wrote:

Natural Healing: With a full night's rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night.

Fast Healing wrote:

Fast Healing (Ex) A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptional rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature's entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached. Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediately

So you're saying that "..just like natural healing" is not the same as "natural healing" and therefore the eidolon's lack of natural healing /only/ applies to the healing received from a night's sleep? This seems to be Grick's argument too.

Is this general consensus then?

[Artanthos]

DrakeRoberts wrote:

So you're saying that "..just like natural healing" is not the same as "natural healing" and therefore the eidolon's lack of natural healing /only/ applies to the healing received from a night's sleep? This seems to be Grick's argument too.

It is the exact same argument that occurred regarding spell combat. It was argued that spell combat did not benefit from haste due to being its own unique action, even though the ability references two-weapon fighting as the action it was derived from.

A reference to another ability does not imply the referencing ability is treated the same way.

[Avatar-1]

The only comparisons that should be being made here are:

• Rejuvenate Eidolon vs Infernal Healing
  
• Fast Healing evolution vs Infernal Healing
  

"Does not heal naturally" probably also refers to why cure wounds spells don't work on an eidolon. But we're talking specifically about Fast Healing here, not other types of healing.

[DrakeRoberts]

Avatar-1 wrote:

"Does not heal naturally" probably also refers to why cure wounds spells don't work on an eidolon. But we're talking specifically about Fast Healing here, not other types of healing.

Cure wounds spells /do/ work on eidolons. They /don't/ work on synthesist eidolons because a synthesist's eidolon grants temporary hit points, and cure light wounds doesn't 'heal' temporary hit points. Rejuvenate Eidolon was allowed to explicitly do so. But normal eidolons can totally be healed by magical means other than Rejuvenae Eidolon, such as Cure Light Wounds or Channel Energy or what have you.

I totally agree we need to consider Fast Healing evolution vs Infernal Healing, though. I don't know if that's the only thing to consider, but it's certainly a big one. Rejuvenate Eidolon, on the other hand, doesn't really enter into the equation.

[Avatar-1]

Ooops, you're right DrakeRoberts. Looks like Rejuvenate just exists so that the summoner has a means of quick-healing his own eidolon. Can't believe I never noticed that.

[DrakeRoberts]

Avatar-1 wrote:

Ooops, you're right DrakeRoberts. Looks like Rejuvenate just exists so that the summoner has a means of quick-healing his own eidolon. Can't believe I never noticed that.

It happens. A lot. In fact, it was a disagreement over that rule that lead to this question originally :)

[DrakeRoberts]

So then, /is/ there a difference between what the evolution and the Infernal Healing spell grant? I would say no upon reading it. Both grant Fast Healing 1. If one were to argue that the spell granted an EX ability, the same argument should work for the evolution (being an SU ability that granted you an EX ability... which imho would be pretty silly).

With that, I would say that Infernal Healing works as the evolution and thus /does/ heal the eidolon. Is there any dissent to this? Its for a PFS game, so I'm trying to get this as iron clad as possible.

[Grick]

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Its for a PFS game, so I'm trying to get this as iron clad as possible.

Good luck and expect table variation.