It depends on the method of healing. A lot of healing spells allow saving throws, so yes, the target can make a save for half healing, if they really don't want to be healed.
Mystic Cure allows a save for 1/2 if you wish. Other types of healing would be up to the GM however anything that takes 10 minutes to perform would be very hard to do on an unwilling patient.
Without sedation or restraint of some type I am not sure I would allow it on an unwilling person.
MYSTIC CURE 1–6
School conjuration (healing)
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range touch
Targets one living creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will half (harmless); Spell Resistance yes
(harmless)
Have you tried talking with the other players (problem player included) and GM before going this route?
Mechanically, the answer is: don't cast a healing spell on him until he apologises.
Yes.but this is not a discussion about my gaming tables Dynamics. It has it's drama and it is ours.
That aside why should healing work as well on blatent blasphemers. I think it should work (because he is not a demon or undead) but not as well as on good people, believers or non-believers that are not of opposing alignments. Shouldn't there be willingness on the part of the healer to impart the best healing he can do. They roll to see if the gods think they are worthy of thier full blessing or just half. The cleric or mystic is doing his job no matter his feelings on the subject of his healing.
You can either flat out refuse to heal him or use a lower caster level.
As an example if the spell is cure serious wounds you can cast it at lowest level required to cast the spell. So if you are a level 10 cleric you can cast it as a level 5 cleric. It's only 5 points of difference though, in that example.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Selective channeling and opt him out.
Edit: Hmm, after checking the book, Starfinder doesn't seem to have selective channeling.
You could however make a case that you no longer see him as your ally, and thus he does not get the benefit of being healed by Healing Channel when you use it to heal all allies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just for edification purposes, the word you were looking for in the title is "coerced".
As for the problem you're having. You're trying to solve out of game problems with in game solutions. This rarely works. Talking to the player and GM are probably going to be much more effective.
That said, there isn't really a way by the rules, to hold back or reduce your healing. Unless you expend a lesser healing slot or whatever.
You did mention that the other player typically just waits for you to use an AOE heal on the party to get healing. Might I suggest you pick up the feat Selective Channel and simply remove remove them from those included.
Edit: I forgot this was for Starfinder as I was writing the response, so selective channel doesn't exist.
Well, with regards to alignment... there are currently very few game mechanics that depend on alignment in Starfinder. No class has an alignment restriction, and the powers of Mystics aren't even specifically tied to a deity.
There might be an some spells that have varying effects depending on alignment, but for the most part alignment doesn't matter in Starfinder. You should probably a) not be a aware of what is written on the alignment section of their sheet & b) not worry about what it is.
You really only need to worry about the character's behavior in relation to the rest of the party.
Maybe they're a jerk...to everyone outside the party. That would be acceptable. If they're a jerk to party members that's not acceptable.
As for your next bit about "having faith in an ally"...I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, magic in Starfinder isn't belief based. There isn't divine or arcane magic, just simply magic. And it's not fueled by belief. Exactly what connection deities have to Mystics is unclear, but it doesn't seem like they supply the spells to them. At the very least, you can have mystics who are not fueled by a deity.
I think it should work (because he is not a demon or undead) but not as well as on good people, believers or non-believers that are not of opposing alignments.
That's not how healing magic works in SF. Undead and demons are both healed by Mystic Cure the same as living creatures. So are constructs now. I'm not sure how much sense any of that makes coming from an old school DnD perspective, but I think they threw all of that out the window intentionally.
Shouldn't there be willingness on the part of the healer to impart the best healing he can do. They roll to see if the gods think they are worthy of thier full blessing or just half. The cleric or mystic is doing his job no matter his feelings on the subject of his healing.
As others have said, if you don't see him as an ally, he doesn't get AoE heals. If you choose to cast on him, you can always cast at a lower CL, or just use a lower level slot. The gods have nothing to do with it, no matter what the Mystic believes.
Heal the undead abominations, the lady of graves would not approve of her gifts being used that way. Watch your tongue you are near heresy with a statements like that!
Mechanically speaking, Phrarasma doesn't actually have to grant mystics power. Mystics can derive power from many sources. Mystics aren't clerics.
If the problem between your character and the other players character is that your playing a worshiper of Pharasma and the other character is playing an undead...then you have out of character problems with the two of you picking characters that aren't compatible.
It sounds like your characters just butt heads and aren't good together in a party.
Out of character, whenever starting a new game it is the responsibility of all the players involved (and the GM) to make sure that in everybody's characters will work well together, from an RP view.
If you're playing a religious zealot of Pharasma, but everyone else in the party is okay with Eoxians...you might have the wrong sort of character for the group.
Conversely, if everyone in the party are Pharasma worshipers, and this other character isn't and wants to stand on the sidelines while you destroy all the undead...they might have the wrong sort of character for the group.
However, I have the feeling that the other players might be ambivalent about undead (assuming they're not actively trying to kill you), you're anti-undead and the player your having problems with is pro-undead? Would that be a correct guess?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually mystic cure specifies a "living" creature. Undead and constructs are not "living" and so would not be effected by mystic cure, though it don't mention positive energy or damaging undead as D&D/Pathfinder versions of such spells would.
Actually mystic cure specifies a "living" creature. Undead and constructs are not "living" and so would not be effected by mystic cure, though it don't mention positive energy or damaging undead as D&D/Pathfinder versions of such spells would.
You're right, my bad. I noticed that undead were no longer damaged by healing magic in the AA and forgot to back check that with the actual spell target.
I can not comment on his political? (moral?)standing on the Undead. I do know that if he thinks something is stupid he will pitch a fit ooc and ic not help but if his pc does something stupid he expects everyone to whole heartedly back him. Like taking all the party pool money and spending it on himself. But when i donate money to charity/church/taxes he whines about wasting party funds. I veiw all people who murder for faith as zealots. If i were to use a different longer description I would say he's more like crusader from the Crusades and Israel or a warrior priest from the Warhammer 40k universe. So dogmatic and violant towards Monster, Heretics and Undead (Abominations). He is not going to lite city guards/ patrons of other goodly faiths/non-believers on fire without provocation.
This just sounds like a lot of out of character problems...you should talk to the player outside of game time and resolve whatever issues you're having.