Construct healing


Rules Questions

101 to 135 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Vrischika111 wrote:
edit : didn't see the Wyrd. yes, it's a tiny construct

That's part of the issue though.. by RAW, familiars become Magical Beasts - so is it a construct, or a magical beast? There is no text stating that it is an exception to the rules.

Liberty's Edge

Sangerine wrote:

When you die, you don't go prone as per RAW. Still no rules on fatigue if you skip out on sleep.

In society play, everyone abides by the RAW.

I'd call this an excellent example of satire... but I'm afraid you are serious.

Scarab Sages

CBDunkerson wrote:
Vrischika111 wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Constructs aren't healed by positive energy, though.
and where do you find this rule ?
Right here

Says constructs are NEVER healed by positive energy. And yet the Iron Priest is PFS legal archetype which allows the cleric to channel positive energy to heal constructs....

"Never" might have a different meaning than I think it does.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Sangerine wrote:

When you die, you don't go prone as per RAW. Still no rules on fatigue if you skip out on sleep.

In society play, everyone abides by the RAW.

I'd call this an excellent example of satire... but I'm afraid you are serious.

Its not satire, and you seem to be taking his words out of context. The point he's drawing attention to is that things that are logical are not always handled in the rules.

Pathfinder isn't a simulation of reality, its a game, and it isn't going to cover everything. Fortunately the GM is allowed to arbitrate when the rules aren't clear, or when he/she feels like something is out of balance.

Its very important to distinguish between the two because:

A) players are building characters and making decisions based on the actual meaning of the rules, and if the GM isn't interpreting this correctly then this can lead to problems and an overall decrease in enjoyment of the game

B) its the GM's job to inform all players as early as possible when the rules change (a house rule) due to the second case. If a GM isn't correctly interpreting RAW and adding his/her own assumptions then there is a chance that the players won't find out until they have a character or concept built.

Its even more important in PFS because in society play house rules are more or less prohibited in order to give players a consistent experience across GMs. If there is an issue in the rules that a PFS GM feels is hurting the game, then there are proper channels to get that issue officially addressed. If GM's were allowed to make their own decisions I could run into the case where a character build wasn't allowed at all at one table, but was fine at another, which basically means that character is worthless. Because of that its more or less universally agreed that its better to have some issues last a little longer (until paizo can make a ruling), than give PFS GMs free reign and drive players from the game due to bad experiences. This is why in PFS everyone goes by RAW.

In the end, the important thing to always remember is that GMs (both for PFS and home games) come to the Rules forums to figure out the meaning of the rules in relation to their question. Once he or she has a firm understanding of what the text means, they can decide on their own if the intent of the rules matches their meaning, and if their will be issues with their group based on that. If they aren't sure at that point then they can go to the advice forum. If the meaning of the rules in the rules forum gets distorted by the opinions of others, or by any interpretation that doesn't have textual basis, then the ability of any GM or player to make rules decisions is hampered.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Vrischika111 wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Constructs aren't healed by positive energy, though.
and where do you find this rule ?
Right here

Says constructs are NEVER healed by positive energy. And yet the Iron Priest is PFS legal archetype which allows the cleric to channel positive energy to heal constructs....

"Never" might have a different meaning than I think it does.

This is a case of specific trumping general. Generally constructs are never healed by positive energy. However in the specific case of the Iron Priest the channel energy ability is altered such that it works on constructs.

Additionally the faq says the following:

Quote:
Positive energy never heals or harms creatures or objects that are neither living nor undead (such as constructs), and it never directly damages the living or heals undead, barring some special effect that explicitly changes this

You could argue that the bolded part only applies to the second clause, but that seems kind of silly to say that only the negative energy can be changed by new abilities.

Overall though the point is somewhat inconsequential, because infernal healing doesn't call out that it uses positive energy like the cure spell line does, and I'm pretty sure someone brought that up as a nixed option earlier in the thread.

Liberty's Edge

Amrel wrote:
If GM's were allowed to make their own decisions

They are.

Quote:
I could run into the case where a character build wasn't allowed at all at one table, but was fine at another

Happens all the time.

Quote:
Because of that its more or less universally agreed that its better to have some issues last a little longer (until paizo can make a ruling), than give PFS GMs free reign and drive players from the game due to bad experiences.

There is a difference between "free reign" and 'you are breaking the rules if you have characters fall down when they die'.

Quote:
This is why in PFS everyone goes by RAW.

They don't... and frankly, can't given that the term is essentially meaningless. Rules are ALWAYS interpreted. It is impossible for them to not be.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Amrel wrote:
If GM's were allowed to make their own decisions

They are.

Quote:
I could run into the case where a character build wasn't allowed at all at one table, but was fine at another

Happens all the time.

Quote:
Because of that its more or less universally agreed that its better to have some issues last a little longer (until paizo can make a ruling), than give PFS GMs free reign and drive players from the game due to bad experiences.

There is a difference between "free reign" and 'you are breaking the rules if you have characters fall down when they die'.

Quote:
This is why in PFS everyone goes by RAW.
They don't... and frankly, can't given that the term is essentially meaningless. Rules are ALWAYS interpreted. It is impossible for them to not be.

Just because something doesn't happen the way it should doesn't make it right.

GMs are not allowed to alter or houserule in PFS. If a gm does then that needs to be called out.

Table variance, in and of itself, has never helped a player or improved a session. If there is a discrepancy that causes builds to be denied due to table variance, then whatever issue is there needs to be called out and escalated until there is consensus.

There is a difference between "free reign" and the other. But the point is that making rulings that affect players based on "logic" instead of what is called out in the rules leads to table variance, and on the whole table variance isn't a good thing when you switch GMs often. Because of that, GMs in PFS shouldn't make up their own rulings unless something isn't covered by the rules (which isn't the case with this question) or unless its absolutely necessary in order to continue the scenario.

If you let GMs make rulings on things like falling over when you go unconscious, then a GM could by the same logic say that you could take serious injury if you were say, near a cliff or a flight of stairs or a solid object on which you might strike your head. Things of that level of detail are often left out of the rules because you aren't supposed to make rulings on them at all. If a player wants to fall over for thematic reasons then that's fine, but if it starts interacting with game mechanics its problematic.

Additionally, even when there is lots of table variance, RAW is still the best way to go because it gives all players the same foundation. Anything else introduces even more variation which only makes the problem worse.

I apologise for the confusion if there was any regarding my meaning of interpreted. Generally when I mention or read someone say something about rules being interpreted, I generally take it to refer to the process of a GM taking RAW, RAI, and his/her current play group into account when deciding how to rule on a given question or portion of the game. That entire process allows for ambiguity and variance and as a whole doesn't have a place in PFS where players constantly work with different GMs.

To be clear again, I am not referring to a GM using an understanding of the English language and basic logic to determine the meaning of a line of text. That process is relatively free of ambiguity on the part of the reader and is usually fairly easy to prove or disprove because there is already a nearly comprehensive framework directing one on how to determine the meaning of text (as opposed to proving or disproving the impact of a rules decision on a particular play group)

Maybe I need to come up with a better term.

I will also concede that the unconscious example is a silly one, but its meant to be. Its drawing attention to the fact that this is a game, and sometimes the rules can be a little silly, but lots of games have silly rules, and you follow them, because you are deciding to play that game. And if you play a game in a competitive nature, or in an organised fashion, you play by all the rules unless the organisers decide to change them. I don't get to say that a knight moves differently in a chess tournament because I think that a horse moving in an L shape is silly, because that's unfair to everyone else.

Scarab Sages

A house rule is a permanent change to the game rules within a location or domain of a specific GM. PFS GMs can't house rule, but they can resolve grey rules as they see fit on a case by case basis. Functionally, this and a houserule are the same thing if you only attend a single session.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
A house rule is a permanent change to the game rules within a location or domain of a specific GM. PFS GMs can't house rule, but they can resolve grey rules as they see fit on a case by case basis. Functionally, this and a houserule are the same thing if you only attend a single session.

That's a fair point, but I guess in my mind they are different.

For me, a houserule is when a GM takes things other than the text of the rule into account and comes to a decision, and that decision contradicts whats in the text. For example if I had a player who was abusing some rule to the detriment of other players, or like (as far as I am concerned) the case above stating that you can't cast a spell on a creature when the spell says target creature and there are no rules saying to the contrary.

Legitimately ruling on something, or just trying to figure out what the rules as written mean, isn't a houserule as long as the GM is making his or her best effort to follow the text and not add anything onto it.

If a rule is grey enough that there can't be consensus on what the rule actually means when GMs are legitimately trying to determine what the writing equates to (as opposed to adding opinions), then it needs clarification from Paizo in the form of a faq or something similar, with the need being proportional to how much it might screw up a particular player or group in pfs. For example, I doubt lacking rules clarity on falling prone after going unconscious has ever really messed someone up, but having my PFS character only work at half the tables I play at is pretty annoying.

Scarab Sages

Amrel wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
A house rule is a permanent change to the game rules within a location or domain of a specific GM. PFS GMs can't house rule, but they can resolve grey rules as they see fit on a case by case basis. Functionally, this and a houserule are the same thing if you only attend a single session.

That's a fair point, but I guess in my mind they are different.

For me, a houserule is when a GM takes things other than the text of the rule into account and comes to a decision, and that decision contradicts whats in the text. For example if I had a player who was abusing some rule to the detriment of other players, or like (as far as I am concerned) the case above stating that you can't cast a spell on a creature when the spell says target creature and there are no rules saying to the contrary.

Legitimately ruling on something, or just trying to figure out what the rules as written mean, isn't a houserule as long as the GM is making his or her best effort to follow the text and not add anything onto it.

If a rule is grey enough that there can't be consensus on what the rule actually means when GMs are legitimately trying to determine what the writing equates to (as opposed to adding opinions), then it needs clarification from Paizo in the form of a faq or something similar, with the need being proportional to how much it might screw up a particular player or group in pfs. For example, I doubt lacking rules clarity on falling prone after going unconscious has ever really messed someone up, but having my PFS character only work at half the tables I play at is pretty annoying.

Rule only needs to be grey to the GM to get a ruling by the GM. I agree, it would be really nice if PFS had everything FAQed, or wrote things so they didn't need it.

Regarding houserules, the difference is if the GM/table has a predetermined ruling on a given rule which is unique to that GM/table, then it's a house rule. If you have an unusual rule interaction and you explain it to the GM beforehand and they say they'd rule it a certain way, that is more a "this time" ruling and not a houserule. Best suggestion if they are consistently saying "no" to something you think is allowed, try working on explaining it a different way, as it may be your explaination that is making it seem not allowed.

A house rule is more consistent, and applies to both the GM and the players. It's an offical ruling that applies for more than session, which overrides the actual game rules. Houserules can be silly, like requiring players to take a sip of beer each time they critical, or more game changing, like redefining the alignment of a specific pathfinder deity.

And in all this, the GM can still be wrong. Just because they remember it wrong, doesn't mean they intend it as a houserule. Sometimes, in the name of expediency, a GM will use rules from memory, rather than exactly looking it up a partially recalled rule, since the group has a limited play time to complete a scenario for PFS credit.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Did anyone else notice in the FAQ that CBD linked?

Quote:
These rules extend to the fast healing from positive-energy attuned planes as well (though overhealing on a major positive-energy attuned plane can be dangerous as well); only living creatures gain fast healing on such a plane.

Seems to be a parallel to the question at hand. I know that the Prime Material Plane isn't "Positive-Energy attuned" but the overall basis for the Fast Healing not working on Constructs is there.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

thaX wrote:

Did anyone else notice in the FAQ that CBD linked?

Quote:
These rules extend to the fast healing from positive-energy attuned planes as well (though overhealing on a major positive-energy attuned plane can be dangerous as well); only living creatures gain fast healing on such a plane.
Seems to be a parallel to the question at hand. I know that the Prime Material Plane isn't "Positive-Energy attuned" but the overall basis for the Fast Healing not working on Constructs is there.

That's completely irrelevant in a debate over whether fast healing, in general, does not work on constructs.


Specific trumps general. Always.

Positive energy planes specifically state they only grant Fast Healing to living creatures, so constructs and undead don't benefit. (Though it raises an interesting question for living creatures with Negative Energy Affinity...)

Constructs state they don't regain health on their own, which is an exception to the typical rules, but then it states, in the same block of text as an exception to the exception, that certain spells and effects can heal them (citing an example of make whole, which affects only constructs), and that constructs with fast healing still benefit from that special quality.

If a construct has fast healing, then by RAW, it can benefit from fast healing.

If a construct gains fast healing, then by logic, it now has fast healing.

There is a whole way to argue semantics about Infernal Healing, in specific (for example, you could say it mentioning a wounded creature might exclude constructs, which are more damaged than wounded), or that the fact that because it mentions blood, the target might require blood. But neither of those are supported by RAW.
They are quite viable as rules in home games (I am more than keen on the idea of an arcane healing spell more powerful than CLW actually having a price), but that's home games, where the GM's word has more of an impact.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It is? Seems that the very thing that I referenced is in that FAQ.

It looks as if any Constructs in a Positive-Energy Attuned plane will loose their own Fast Healing despite having it otherwise, as well as Vampires and other undead that usually have it in their entries in the Bestiary.

edit, sorry, got Ninja'd, responding to Cyrad here...


So... Are people actually going to FAQ something or are they just going to argue needlessly for 10 more pages? It's pretty obvious at this point that neither side is going to magically convince the other of their position.


thaX wrote:
It looks as if any Constructs in a Positive-Energy Attuned plane will loose their own Fast Healing despite having it otherwise, as well as Vampires and other undead that usually have it in their entries in the Bestiary.

This seems like an intentionally obtuse way of parsing the line about positive energy planes, when context implies the creatures gaining fast healing from the plane itself.

Even if taken hyper literally, it still only restricts nonliving creatures from gaining fast healing, thus doing nothing to the quality possessed by those who already possess it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It depends on how it gains that ability. If the maker puts in a mechanism to self repair, it matters not when he puts that in, during the making of the construct or as an add on.

Gaining it by anointing Unholy water or Demon's blood on it, to heighten a Natural Healing process that isn't there?

Silver Crusade

At this point it might be more prudent to simply start a new thread that just asks "does all Fast Healing use Positive Energy" or something similar.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Saethori wrote:
thaX wrote:
It looks as if any Constructs in a Positive-Energy Attuned plane will loose their own Fast Healing despite having it otherwise, as well as Vampires and other undead that usually have it in their entries in the Bestiary.

This seems like an intentionally obtuse way of parsing the line about positive energy planes, when context implies the creatures gaining fast healing from the plane itself.

Even if taken hyper literally, it still only restricts nonliving creatures from gaining fast healing, thus doing nothing to the quality possessed by those who already possess it.

Plane Travel has not been something I have gone into much in anything but the 2nd edition Planescape. It could go either way.

My main point is that I was not making this up like some has tried to tell me.

Silver Crusade

thaX wrote:
Gaining it by anointing Unholy water or Demon's blood on it, to heighten a Natural Healing process that isn't there?

Funny that you should keep mentioning things that aren't there, since your whole argument hinges all on your own made up line of logic that isn't supported by the rules.


thaX wrote:

It depends on how it gains that ability. If the maker puts in a mechanism to self repair, it matters not when he puts that in, during the making of the construct or as an add on.

Gaining it by anointing Unholy water or Demon's blood on it, to heighten a Natural Healing process that isn't there?

Did you really just post this?

"or as an add on"

What is a spell but a temporary add on?

/cevah


Ashram wrote:
So... Are people actually going to FAQ something or are they just going to argue needlessly for 10 more pages? It's pretty obvious at this point that neither side is going to magically convince the other of their position.

10 more pages ... psh ... thats not even that many pages :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Rule only needs to be grey to the GM to get a ruling by the GM. I agree, it would be really nice if PFS had everything FAQed, or wrote things so they didn't need it...

I agree with pretty much everything you said and I get where you're coming from.

I'm referring more to the process of coming to a ruling than the actual ruling. In my mind when I think of a DM houseruling part of the rules, I'm thinking of a DM who is coming to a different conclusion than what the text calls out, because of his/her own assumptions or opinions, or because his/her players ask for something different than whats in the books.

I'm fine with a DM remembering something wrong because no one is perfect, but when a DM chooses to rule differently than whats in the text, even when presented with evidence to the contrary, simply because they feel differently about something, that's what I take issue with.


wow - thread went all over.

Pathfinder, like it's origin game, is full of exceptions and the game is not rigorously consistent (in a math proof manner). So it's best to take what the rules are and what designers comment on into consideration. Your peers in the game post their opinions here too.

As a player it's always a wise idea to ask your GM what they think on some tricky gray areas. Home games and PFS games have areas open to interpretation and good negotiation can be valuable.

PFS provides a simple set of decisions in the Guide, FAQs etc which are very helpful but they are not a definitive answer for Pathfinder as a whole unless you are playing in PFS, and even then there are grey areas. The whole thing about an RPG is to make your (home) game special and customize it. Who would want to be in a home game where you have to buy all your magic! pffft!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Cevah wrote:
thaX wrote:

It depends on how it gains that ability. If the maker puts in a mechanism to self repair, it matters not when he puts that in, during the making of the construct or as an add on.

Gaining it by anointing Unholy water or Demon's blood on it, to heighten a Natural Healing process that isn't there?

Did you really just post this?

"or as an add on"

What is a spell but a temporary add on?

/cevah

A spell is a spell effect. My example is much more like the robots in Season six in PFS have shields added on for the upper tiers.

There are some constructs that can be built in the bestiary using points much like the Eidolon uses Evolutions. This is to what I refer, something of a more permanent basis added to the write up in the book, not a temporary spell effect.


thaX wrote:

It depends on how it gains that ability. If the maker puts in a mechanism to self repair, it matters not when he puts that in, during the making of the construct or as an add on.

Gaining it by anointing Unholy water or Demon's blood on it, to heighten a Natural Healing process that isn't there?

You're just making stuff up now.


Iron Golem wrote:
A magical attack that deals fire damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for each 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. An iron golem gets no saving throw against fire effects.
Flesh Golem wrote:
A magical attack that deals electricity damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for every 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. A flesh golem gets no saving throw against attacks that deal electricity damage.

so is this healing[fire]or[electric]??? lol... so a flame strike does some healing and the holy part is ignored (as there's a save). This shows that moderately complex constructs can have healing from different effects.

there's also;

Clockwork Reiiquary wrote:
The reliquary is vulnerable to damage from positive energy as if it were an undead creature. It is not affected by negative energy.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yep, those effects are particular to those constructs. Doing a lightning bolt on a Flesh Golem is an extraordinarily bad idea.

Ozy, this particular was pointed out to me, by multiple people. To be fair, there is also a couple of those that don't believe it either.

It is what it is.


not if it's YOUR Flesh Golem... lol...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

*Feigning confusion*

I sorry, Azothath, uh, I have no idea to what you refer...

On a serious note, I have said my piece on this. I merely pointed out a particular in response to a post giving advice that may have been suspect (giving Fast Healing to a Construct via Infernal Healing). It parallels an issue that has been discussed in the past concerning eidolons, as both constructs and Eidolons are in the same situation.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I found out recently that there is a spell that actually specifically gives Fast Healing to a construct.

Rapid Repair

Being a 5th level spell, I doubt that both this and Infernal Healing (1st level spell) can do the same thing to the same target.

Saw this and believe that it has some input on the discussion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

That's also Fast Healing 5. It is certainly overleveled if Infernal Healing counts.


1. It's a standard action to cast, not the entire round casting time of Infernal Healing.
2. It's Fast Healing 5, which is more than Infernal Healing (Fast Healing 1 as a first level spell) or Greater Infernal Healing (Fast Healing 4 as a fourth level spell).
3. It lasts a round per level, as opposed to the fixed one minute duration of the Infernal Healing line.

I don't think it's a fair comparison, honestly. They're not really like each other.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well, checking the two versions of Infernal Healing and this spell, the level seems to correlate to the number of Fast Healing that is given.

I believe it could be considered overleveled if the limit of target is counted, but not counting as evil/good could be the advantage here.

I just pointed it out as an additional consideration on the subject.

Edit (ninja'ed post) My point is that Rapid Repair specifies a target "Construct" as a part of the spell.

101 to 135 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Construct healing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.