The anti-paladin's touch of corruption is described as creating an infernal flame, which in turn can harm those around him or alternatively it can heal the undead. Last night my group was stumped on this when the resident anti-paladin (don't ask) tried to use touch of corruption to injure a vampire. The initial assumption was no, it was negative energy being channeled for the effect, but on reading the description the power doesn't refer to negative or positive energy being channeled, and the damage effect doesn't exclude anything from being affected (including undead).
As GM I ruled he could use it to damage the undead as well as heal, if only because what self-serving anti-paladin wouldn't use such a power to both benefit his undead minions and keep them in check with the threat of destruction? But despite my spot rule for it, I am wondering if there is an official interpretation on this, some errata I am unaware of, or other clarification.
|
The anti-paladin's touch of corruption is described as creating an infernal flame, which in turn can harm those around him or alternatively it can heal the undead. Last night my group was stumped on this when the resident anti-paladin (don't ask) tried to use touch of corruption to injure a vampire. The initial assumption was no, it was negative energy being channeled for the effect, but on reading the description the power doesn't refer to negative or positive energy being channeled, and the damage effect doesn't exclude anything from being affected (including undead).
As GM I ruled he could use it to damage the undead as well as heal, if only because what self-serving anti-paladin wouldn't use such a power to both benefit his undead minions and keep them in check with the threat of destruction? But despite my spot rule for it, I am wondering if there is an official interpretation on this, some errata I am unaware of, or other clarification.
The text makes me think that it does not harm undead. Specifically this part: "causing terrible wounds to open on those he touches". I don't believe that undead suffer any negative repercussions from being wounded. They kind of just...get hit. Open up a wound on a vampire and what happens? There's no blood left in their veins (vampires drink blood, which means it's all in their stomachs and they no longer have beating hearts to pump it through their body). Vampires do not have active nervous systems, so I doubt they would feel any pain from their skin being ripped.
I think of undead as basically souls that are able to control a corpse as if they were a human with a video game controller playing a first person shooter. Though the soul technically "inhabits" the body, it is not attached to it, and thus cannot feel pain or anything else from the body.
Hmmm.....good interpretation on the undead. I must ponder this!
|
|
However, undead can still be destroyed. This happens by physically destroying the corpse the undead is inhabiting. So the question becomes: does wounding a corpse contribute to its destruction?
Standing by my previous statement that undead are not able to bleed, I believe that the Touch of Corruption ability would not meaningfully contribute to a corpse's destruction, to the point that it would cause hit point damage to an undead.
However, this is open to other interpretations.
I suppose a sufficiently grievous wound could damage muscle tissue and the "structural integrity" of an undead body, leading to its loss of function or collapse....so perhaps the touch of corruption could be damaging in that way. A middle-of-the-road houserule could suggest that the touch of corruption deals more damage to the living than the dead, since a wound that hurts the living is going to be less debilitating to the undead, though.
The short answer is, no. Touch of Corruption, to the best of my memory, is a negative-energy effect. Negative energy does not harm undead creatures, it instead restores damage inflicted upon them. It's the inverse of positive energy, which does not harm living creatures - it heals damage inflicted upon them, but never heals undead creatures and instead inflicts damage to them.
The short answer is, no. Touch of Corruption, to the best of my memory, is a negative-energy effect. Negative energy does not harm undead creatures, it instead restores damage inflicted upon them. It's the inverse of positive energy, which does not harm living creatures - it heals damage inflicted upon them, but never heals undead creatures and instead inflicts damage to them.
Even though it's not explicitly stated that ToC is negative energy, it would only make sense to assume that it is because a Paladin's Lay on Hands ability (which is what ToC 'reverses') is explicitly stated here as using positive energy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The short answer is, no. Touch of Corruption, to the best of my memory, is a negative-energy effect. Negative energy does not harm undead creatures, it instead restores damage inflicted upon them. It's the inverse of positive energy, which does not harm living creatures - it heals damage inflicted upon them, but never heals undead creatures and instead inflicts damage to them.
First, Touch of Corruption is never specified as being Negative Energy.
Second, Negative Energy and Positive Energy are damage types. I have to explain this a lot on these boards, but there is no general rule in which all negative energy heals undead or all positive energy heals the living.
Only negative energy abilities that specify they heal undead actually heal them. Other sources of negative energy damage them. For example, the touch of a wraith deals negative energy. Do you really think this is an infinite source of self healing?
|
The anti-paladin's Touch of Corruption is the inverse of the paladin's Lay On Hands. Lay on Hands uses positive energy, as stated in this FAQ Paladin: Does a paladin's lay on hands use positive energy?. Therefore, the antipaladin's touch of corruption uses negative energy, with all that entails in that it harms living creatures or heals undead, just as lay on hands can either heal living creatures or harm undead. Neither have exceptions written into them.
EDIT.
|
The short answer is, no. Touch of Corruption, to the best of my memory, is a negative-energy effect. Negative energy does not harm undead creatures, it instead restores damage inflicted upon them. It's the inverse of positive energy, which does not harm living creatures - it heals damage inflicted upon them, but never heals undead creatures and instead inflicts damage to them.First, Touch of Corruption is never specified as being Negative Energy.
Second, Negative Energy and Positive Energy are damage types. I have to explain this a lot on these boards, but there is no general rule in which all negative energy heals undead or all positive energy heals the living.
Only negative energy abilities that specify they heal undead actually heal them. Other sources of negative energy damage them. For example, the touch of a wraith deals negative energy. Do you really think this is an infinite source of self healing?
But from what I understand besides negative energy there really is no way to heal an undead. If the ToC specifys that it can heal undead I would think it is safe to assume that it uses negative energy as the source of the magic even though it is not specificly stated.
Second, Negative Energy and Positive Energy are damage types. I have to explain this a lot on these boards, but there is no general rule in which all negative energy heals undead or all positive energy heals the living.
No one said "all" of whatever. The question is about something whose effect is explicitly stated to deal a certain number of hit points' worth of either damage or healing.
Only negative energy abilities that specify they heal undead actually heal them.
Any negative energy effect that deals hit point damage should heal undead, as per the Undead monster type. While we're at it, the Dhampir race specifically states that they deal with positive/negative energy as undead, then explicitly states that positive energy harms them, but negative energy heals them. Again, we're talking about things whose effect is measured in terms of hit points.
Other sources of negative energy damage them. For example, the touch of a wraith deals negative energy. Do you really think this is an infinite source of self healing?
Are you saying that a Wraith who touches itself with its touch attack takes ability drain?
But from what I understand besides negative energy there really is no way to heal an undead.
Any effect that heals without specifying that it only heals living creatures, or effects that specifically mention healing undead work.
For example, a Life Oracle's Life Link or the spell Infernal healing (or really any source of Fast Healing) can heal undead just fine.
Lay on Hands, in fact, can heal undead.
"Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability."
At no point does it mention that the targeted creature must be living. The fact that a Lay on Hands uses positive energy is irrelevant, because it heals anyone. It can alternatively be used to harm undead, yes, but nothing excludes them from the healing.
In the same way, even if the Anti-Paladin's ToC was negative energy, and I do believe it is, it would still be able to harm undead for the same reason the Paladin's LoH is able to heal undead.
If the ToC specifys that it can heal undead I would think it is safe to assume that it uses negative energy as the source of the magic even though it is not specificly stated.
And I agree that it is negative energy, but that does not mean it can't harm undead.
Any negative energy effect that deals hit point damage should heal undead, as per the Undead monster type.
The undead type says:
"Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score."
Nowhere does it say anything even close to, "All sources of negative energy always heal undead no matter what." It only says that they can heal undead. The issue is exclusivity. Some sources of negative energy heal undead--but those sources heal undead because it specifically says that it does, not because it's negative energy.
While we're at it, the Dhampir race specifically states that they deal with positive/negative energy as undead, then explicitly states that positive energy harms them, but negative energy heals them. Again, we're talking about things whose effect is measured in terms of hit points.
Yes, exactly, the Dhampir reacts as if undead. So if an effect specifically calls out a special effect for undead, it affects Dhampirs in that same way.
How does any of this prove that all negative energy always heals undead and all positive energy always harms undead?
Are you saying that a Wraith who touches itself with its touch attack takes ability drain?
No, undead are immune to physical ability damage AND to effects that require a Fort save, so they're doubley immune to that part of it. They would take 1d6 points of damage, however, because nothing about the Wraith's touch says that it heals undead.
|
|
Have you read the FAQ regarding negative energy affinity? If not, then perhaps you should because I don't think what you think NEA means is actually what it means.
Negative Energy Affinity: How is this ability (Bestiary 2, page 299) supposed to work?
Since it specifically says that 'The intent of this ability is that the creature is healed by negative energy (like an undead) and harmed by positive energy (like an undead); this is automatic and has nothing to do with the intent of the target or the energy-wielder.', I think it's pretty clear that, by RAW, the antipaladin's ToC is a negative energy effect and cannot be used to harm undead. The user's intent does not matter, because there is no exception that allows for that to be so no matter how much people may want it to be that way. That said, what you do in your game is your business; if you choose to run it in a way that runs contrary to this, then that's fine. That's your choice. The rules exist as guidelines, after all. However, if this question was for a game where the DM is a stickler for the rules or Pathfinder Society, then that's a horse of a different color; no point trying to lead it to water.
(Wow! I worked in a reference to The Last Dragon...)
Words
Your entire argument comes down to "it doesn't say it can't work on undead, so it can". This is not supported by actual rules, only your assertion that the omission of the phrase means you are correct. No amount of repeated "proof by assertion" makes it true. There is literally nothing but your say-so and your misinterpretation of rules - really, misinterpretations of basic grammar - that supports you, and pages upon pages of examples of positive energy abilities only ever listing the possibility of harming undead with them.
Like Blayde mentioned, the wording in Negative Energy Affinity makes it clear - on undead, the only effect of negative energy is healing, and the only effect of positive energy is harming. Inflict even uses this language:
Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it.
That means that undead are healed by negative energy. Not just "that spell". The phrasing of the text literally means "this spell heals undead because undead are healed by negative energy". Like I said, that's not even a personal interpretation of game mechanics, just grammar.
You're reading what you want to into the rules, and being condescending about it as well. You said you've "had to explain" this multiple times on the boards - please stop. You're incorrect.
|
|
mplindustries
Lay on Hands, in fact, can heal undead.
I don't think so
Harita-Heema
Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it.
I have to agree with Harita, just because it simply does not say "Lay on hands only heals living creatures" and ToC "only heals undead" does not mean it goes both ways. the Undead are created and live because they are infused with negative energy and thats why it heals them. Using lay on hands to heal undead is pouring a positive engergy bucket of water on a negative energy bonfire. They simply do not mix.
Like Blayde mentioned, the wording in Negative Energy Affinity makes it clear - on undead, the only effect of negative energy is healing, and the only effect of positive energy is harming. Inflict even uses this language:
Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it.That means that undead are healed by negative energy. Not just "that spell". The phrasing of the text literally means "this spell heals undead because undead are healed by negative energy". Like I said, that's not even a personal interpretation of game mechanics, just grammar.
Ok, so if your argument involves the text of Inflict X, which is copy/pasted from 3rd edition, then am I permitted to use 3rd edition sources? Because that just makes it easier.
There was a creature called a Xag-Ya (a type of Energon) that was essentially a positive energy elemental. Its attacks dealt positive energy damage, and while it had an ability to heal living creatures or harm undead extra, at base, it still could deal 1d8 positive energy damage to a living creature. If all positive energy healed living creatures, this would not be possible. (There was a negative energy energon, too, I just forget it's specific name, and it dealt negative energy damage and while it could heal undead, it's base attack still hurt them with explicitly negative energy damage).
There were also, obviously, the plains of positive and negative energy back then, and those both hurt you. If I recall, there was even an explanation stating explicitly that positive and negative energy were damage types, so only abilities specifically channeling them to heal could heal.
Even removing, that, though, I find it absurd that a Wraith could just touch itself to full health. That makes no sense for the way the creature works and is written to work in modules or whatever--they're smart enough that their tactics should always include retreating through a wall to fully heal themselves when taken down to low hit points, and that is never included, which leads me to believe it's not even RAI, never mind RAW.
|
|
For someone who purports to like symmetry, your viewpoint is entirely asymmetrical.
As I stated before, ToC is the inverse of LoH. If lay on hands is a positive energy effect, then it stands to reason that touch of corruption is a negative energy effect. The write-up for ToC is written in nearly the same fashion as LoH, done with the express purpose of displaying the symmetry the abilities possess, since they are opposite forces. The two, however, do have differences:
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.
Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every two levels the paladin possesses. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. Undead do not receive a saving throw against this damage.
Compared to...
Beginning at 2nd level, an antipaladin surrounds his hand with a fiendish flame, causing terrible wounds to open on those he touches. Each day he can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 his antipaladin level + his Charisma modifier. As a touch attack, an antipaladin can cause 1d6 points of damage for every two antipaladin levels he possesses. Using this ability is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Alternatively, an antipaladin can use this power to heal undead creatures, restoring 1d6 hit points for every two levels the antipaladin possesses. This ability is modified by any feat, spell, or effect that specifically works with the lay on hands paladin class feature. For example, the Extra Lay On Hands feat grants an antipaladin 2 additional uses of the touch of corruption class feature.
The main points where the two write-ups differ are 1) the fact that a paladin can use lay on hands as a swift action on herself for healing and 2) the antipaladin can use the same feats, spells, and effects that work specifically with LoH on ToC.
But for this, only the first one is relative to the conversation. Because it doesn't say that an antipaladin can use it on himself for the purpose of healing, we can infer that the effect would then be harmful to a 'living' antipaladin, since we already know it can be used to heal undead. This would seem to indicate the effect is in fact negative energy based. Since neither write-up states what effects the abilities are, but we have a FAQ saying conclusively that LoH is a positive energy effect, do we really need a FAQ to point out what should already be obvious? That ToC is in fact a negative energy effect. For the purpose of being symmetrical, this makes the most logical amount of sense.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I could have sworn one of the devs ruled that Lay on Hands can't heal undead, on account of being positive energy based (I'm on my phone at work so I can't check).
Since Touch of Corruption seems like a pretty clear mirror for Lay on Hands, I'd rule that it likewise can't harm undead.
|
|
The fiendish flame is just flavor text, does not mean his ToC is some sort of demonic hellfire or something. The main thing to look at here is to just connect the dots, Throwing any sort of fast healing spells out the window
What do heal spells use for living creatures? Positive energy
What do clerics channel to heal the living? Positive energy
The paladins Lay on hands has been stated to be Positive energy by FAQ and heals the living while harming undead.
So taking all that into consideration it is safe to say that if your alive you want positive energy to keep you alive and fighting.
now
What do inflict spells use for healing undead? Negative energy
what do clerics channel to heal undead? Negative energy
Now the anti-paladins ToC is stated to "Heal undead" not give them fast healing, but to do the polar opposite of what a paladins lay on hands ability would do to undead.
now following the same line of logic for it is one hundred percent apparent comparing these side by side that Toc is logically a negative energy ability and would therefore heal undead not harm them, just as the Paladins ability to harm undead using Lay on Hands would not harm a living creature.
Not I think that it sounds like a cool thing to be able to do, but it just doesn't work rules wise.