Critical Healing

[Quantum Steve]

Beek Gwenders of Croodle wrote:

Doesn't make sense to me.

If you heal someone out of combat, when you have all the time to optimize the healing spell, you have a maximum of hp healed of X.
Then if you do it in combat and score a crit, you could heal twice as much.
So healing in combat is always better, because you always have the chance to double healing... no way.
I could homerule something like 2x crit damage as suggested, but with a cap (1d8+1 healing would have a cap of 9 hp healed even if you roll 2d8+2) but then every out of combat healing should be an automatically confirmed critical.

Well, apparently, you don't actually heal people in combat, according to some. You damage them... with healing. It's like killing them with love, I guess.

[MordredofFairy]

yep. As the flesh golem also doesn't absorb anything.

To make it easier understandable for you:

Absorb is not a term used in the Rulebooks.

I used the term absorb here for any mechanism in which a specific energy affects a creature, thereby increasing it's hitpoints upwards towards the creatures maximum.

The mechanic of negative energy and a undead and electricity and a flesh golem is the same, only the ratio is different.

An meta-gamey amount of XX points of energy is channeled into something(inflict wounds, shocking grasp) or affecting something(Lightning Bolt, Channel Energy), thereby resulting in a meta-gamey increase of the targets condition by adjusting it's hit point total upward.

Why invent a different system for this mechanic if the one written works nicely and covers all cases?

[tejón]

The fact that undead creatures are damaged by positive energy does not mean that its effect on living creatures is simply an inversion of that. Damage and healing are discrete effects, not the positive and negative sides of a single axis. Different rules apply, and critical hits are exclusive to damage.

[MordredofFairy]

And how exaclty do you think you are healing them in combat? Use the 3 seconds to apply a magical bandage from your fairie first aid kit?

You are using Magic. Which is powered by some source. In case of healing, it's explicitly stated is is positive energy.

Positive-Energy-based creature + positive energy = more HP
Negative-Energy-based creature + negative energy = more HP

Positive-Energy-based creature + negative energy = less HP
Negative-Energy-based creature + positive energy = less HP

and all that on a simple 1:1 basis in every case.
Why are you bent on inventing a WHOLE new system of handling it without ANY indication whatsoever that it SHOULD be handled differently?

it's easily reversible.

You cast inflict wounds on me, wounds open up, i cast cure wounds on me, wounds close. For all things considered, the effects are exactly opposite and interchangeable. Instead of insisting this is not so, i'd ask you to show me any indication of this being supposed to be handled in a separate way? page number?

As said, there's also the whole thing of "If you don't know someone is undead and you cure them, can you crit?" Easiest to have it consistent.

[MordredofFairy]

Here is the rulebook text:

Critical Hits:

When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a "threat," meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or "crit"). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to "confirm" the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.

A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is ×2.

Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

Increased Threat Range: Sometimes your threat range is greater than 20. That is, you can score a threat on a lower number. In such cases, a roll of lower than 20 is not an automatic hit. Any attack roll that doesn't result in a hit is not a threat.

Increased Critical Multiplier: Some weapons deal better than double damage on a critical hit (see Equipment).

Spells and Critical Hits: A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll cannot score a critical hit. If a spell causes ability damage or drain (see Special Abilities), the damage or drain is doubled on a critical hit.

note that on spells it only explicitly takes about ability damage/drain being doubled.

Nowhere does it say that it ONLY applies to damage for the remainder of the text. Technically, you could also score a critical hit with a scorching ray against a fire elemental. It wouldn't effectively do any damage(so multiplying the damage, which would legally happen, is moot), but if you use the critical deck, some wild magic effect may still happen to it.

Vampiric touch, despite being a necromantic spell, reads:

"You must succeed on a melee touch attack. Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6). You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal. You can't gain more than the subject's current hit points + the subject's Constitution score (which is enough to kill the subject). The temporary hit points disappear 1 hour later."

Untyped damage. No Save. Requires a touch attack. If i crit, i get temporary hit points equal to the damage dealt(which was a crit). Sure, it's temporary HP, but still, what prevents a BBEG from Vampire-Touching helpless bound Peasants(if you rule that he can't coup-de-grace them, he'll even heal them in-between) to buff himself up? Even more so with a critical?

[Quantum Steve]

MordredofFairy wrote:

And how exaclty do you think you are healing them in combat? Use the 3 seconds to apply a magical bandage from your fairie first aid kit?

You are using Magic. Which is powered by some source. In case of healing, it's explicitly stated is is positive energy.

Positive-Energy-based creature + positive energy = more HP
Negative-Energy-based creature + negative energy = more HP

Positive-Energy-based creature + negative energy = less HP
Negative-Energy-based creature + positive energy = less HP

and all that on a simple 1:1 basis in every case.
Why are you bent on inventing a WHOLE new system of handling it without ANY indication whatsoever that it SHOULD be handled differently?

it's easily reversible.

You cast inflict wounds on me, wounds open up, i cast cure wounds on me, wounds close. For all things considered, the effects are exactly opposite and interchangeable. Instead of insisting this is not so, i'd ask you to show me any indication of this being supposed to be handled in a separate way? page number?

As said, there's also the whole thing of "If you don't know someone is undead and you cure them, can you crit?" Easiest to have it consistent.

You're the one inventing a new system i.e Healing=Negative Damage.

It's simple really
Healing = add HP
Damage = subtract HP

They aren't the same, basic arithmetic proves that. If I have some apples and you take some away, it's not the same as giving me apples.

What you want is

Damage = subtract HP
Healing = Damage*

(* Healing is like damage only you add HP instead of subtract)

Your way is not only needlessly complicated, it's also wrong, and not supported by RAW

Furthermore, I'm not saying Inflict is not the opposite of cure. I'm saying Healing != Damage. That should be common sense, somehow it's not. If you ever seem me injured, please don't try to administer first aid if you can't tell the difference between the two.

Critical hits only multiply damage. That's stated in the RAW. The only way crit healing can be justified is if Healing = Damage. There's no other way. You have to be able to remove the word 'damage' from the sentence, replace it with the word 'healing' without changing the meaning of the sentence. That makes as much sense as saying Haste = Slow, or ILW = CLW.

Healing is the opposite of damage, not a sub-set. Nowhere do the two intersect. I would draw you a Venn Diagram if I could.

[Quantum Steve]

Ok, FINE. You CAN crit on a heal, but as you pointed out, only damage is doubled, (or drain that doubles too), so there is NO EFFECT from critting with a CLW. Unless it's undead. So even if you don't know, you can still crit and roll to confirm, but if the target is alive, the healing isn't doubled.

Vampiric Touch states: "You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal." So if you crit, the damage is doubled like normal. and then you heal the same amount. How is that even a little confusing or contrary to my argument.

Also, you can't Coup-de-Grace on a heal. That's nonsense. I was being facetious when I suggested one could.

[Quantum Steve]

Spoiler:

Coup de Grace: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced "coo day grahs") to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

You can't deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you've determined what square it's in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).

Realized, this just now. You can only Coup-de-Grace with a melee weapon, bow or crossbow. So, as long as you deliver it via an unarmed strike, you can Coup-De-Grace with touch spells, but not ranged touch spells. Still, if you tried to deliver a CLW thusly, your unarmed stike damage would be doubled, healing would not, and the target would have to save or die. If you delivered a ILW thusly, all damage would be doubled and all damage would count for the save.

[MordredofFairy]

Quantum Steve wrote:

Ok, FINE. You CAN crit on a heal, but as you pointed out, only damage is doubled, (or drain that doubles too), so there is NO EFFECT from critting with a CLW. Unless it's undead. So even if you don't know, you can still crit and roll to confirm, but if the target is alive, the healing isn't doubled.

Vampiric Touch states: "You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal." So if you crit, the damage is doubled like normal. and then you heal the same amount. How is that even a little confusing or contrary to my argument.

Also, you can't Coup-de-Grace on a heal. That's nonsense. I was being facetious when I suggested one could.

no, as i pointed out, only "ability damage/drain" is specifically mentioned.

There is also no mention of a scorching ray doing more damage in there, or a inflict spell against living opponents doing more damage.

And your apple example is nice.

You lose apples, i gain apples.
You gain apples, i lose apples.

What i want is simple:

Effect=Hitpoints_AFTER - Hitpoints_BEFORE

The change in hitpoints is, to keep things global, an effect.

Now, how can we, simply, without complicating things, calculate that effect?

We have a SOURCE.

That source has an attribute and a value.

Lets say (Sonic, 6d6) or (Positive Energy, 4d8) or (Fire, 4d6+4)

For simplicitys sake, that fire part is a scorching ray. Without even knowing the target, we can say that a confirmed critical will change that energy SOURCE to a (Fire, 8d6+8), doubling the source value.

and then we have a TARGET.

That target has modifiers, such as (Positive-Energy-based) or (Vulnerable to Sonic) or (Immune to Fire) and advanced modifiers such as (Evasion) or (Spell Resistance, 25), or (Concealment, Total)

Now taking that SOURCE we apply it to the TARGET. If it's immune to fire, and the source is fire, nullify source. If it's vulnerable to fire, add half again to source. If it makes its save, half SOURCE, if it also has the EVASION modifier, nullify SOURCE.
If there is a modifier SPELL RESISTANCE on target, make a caster level check or nullify SOURCE.

Now, if Source is a critical hit with inflict light wounds against an invisible creature next to you, which you confirmed, source is (Positive Energy, 2d8+10).

Now it depends on the modifiers of the Target.
If it has concealment, check for miss chance.
If it has a Save, check for reduction.
If it is negative-energy-based, decrease HP.
If it is positive-energy-based, increase HP.

Basically you can sum ANY interaction up into a SOURCE(the defining qualities of the attack/interaction) and a TARGET(the defining qualities of the target of an interaction).

It doesn't matter if you are trying to hit a target with a bow or heal a comrade standing next to you. If the TARGET is invisible and has total concealment, you'll have to pinpoint a location and suffer a miss chance.

This mechanism is universally applicable throughtout the system.

Target has the quality (Hardness, x)
Adamantine ignore the quality Hardness on Target.

TARGET has a bonus on saves versus compulsion?
Damn, that SOURCE Spell happens to be of a quality(mind affecting, compulsion).

That SOURCE spell has the quality of (BANISH, non-native Outsiders)
Great, the TARGET has the quality of (OUTSIDER, EVIL).

Anyway, you, as anybody else, is welcome to make any ruling you want on that matter. I prefer to keep things simple.
And it doesn't get simpler than looking at WHAT something results in(e.g. that fireball dealing a total of 47 damage in a 20-foot spread over there), then looking in how the targets responds to that(the rogue makes her reflex save, the wizard fails his, the summoned fire elemental ignores the damage).

[Quantum Steve]

That's a whole lotta words for "simple"
Damage is damage and healing is healing. (self evident, really) And I don't need 500 words to explain or defend it.

[MordredofFairy]

it's simple in that it can be applied to EVERY interaction in the game.

You have a SOURCE and a TARGET.

I used plenty of words to help you understand it. Not in a way of insulting your intellect, but in making clear what i mean.

Reducing interactions to this SOURCE-TARGET mechanic works for attacks, skill checks, spells, damage, feats, materials, you name it.
If everything fits nicely, why have things act completely differently for no reason and with no source of reasoning?

[StabbittyDoom]

Quantum Steve wrote:

It's simple really

Healing = add HP
Damage = subtract HP

They aren't the same, basic arithmetic proves that. If I have some apples and you take some away, it's not the same as giving me apples.

Actually basic arithmetic DEMANDS that they be the same. Math would fall apart if subtracting a negative wasn't the same as adding a positive.

Healing = - -18 = +18
Damage = -18

Oh, and a melee touch attack is still a melee attack and can thus coup-de-grace.

I'm going to agree with Mordred's SOURCE versus TARGET analysis.

SOURCE: X Energy of type Y
TARGET: Human, Skeleton, Flesh Golem, Burning Skeleton

If Y = fire, then the human, skeleton and flesh golem hurt, the burning skeleton takes nothing. If Y = cold, then the human and flesh golem hurt, the burning skeleton REALLY hurts and the skeleton takes nothing. If Y = electricity, the human, skeleton and burning skeleton hurt and the flesh golem heals. If Y = positive energy, the human heals, the skeleton and burning skeleton hurt and the flesh golem is immune.

It only takes the above combination of 4 opponents to have every energy type have a different combination of effects (except sonic and acid, which I believe do the same thing to all targets).

You really seem to be hung up on the "critical hits multiply damage" thing when it is mathematically required that damage be negative healing, and healing be negative damage. Note that the section you refer to is immediately following a long list of mundane physical attacks. Having the wording be "multiply the effect" would be needlessly complicated in this context, with the "spells" section elaborating.

FWIW, I'd be fine with playing at your table as long as you negated critical healing of *all* sources, even unusual ones like electricity. It's all about consistency. Though to be fair the Burst property would still trigger and heal more in those cases since it's the weapon flaring up, not the accuracy.

[MordredofFairy]

yep, to elaborate on that math part:

Positive-Energy-based creature + positive energy = more HP
Negative-Energy-based creature + negative energy = more HP

Positive-Energy-based creature + negative energy = less HP
Negative-Energy-based creature + positive energy = less HP

Positive-based creature= *(1) multiplier
Negative-based creature= *(-1) multiplier

positive energy= positive value(e.g. 14, 8, 61)
negative energy= negative value(e.g. -14, -8, -61)

multiply the value of source energy(no matter if positive or negative energy) by the creatures multiplier(which handles how the energy is treated)

lets see the results:

Positive-Energy-based creature + positive energy = more HP
16*1=16
Negative-Energy-based creature + negative energy = more HP
(-16)*(-1)=16

surprisingly, both are a positive number.

Positive-Energy-based creature + negative energy = less HP
16*(-1)=-16
Negative-Energy-based creature + positive energy = less HP
(-16)*1=-16

and here we have negative numbers. arithmetics seem to agree its the same thing, really. Positive and negative energy are just two "directions" on the same axis.
If you want to get technical, you could also have Skeletons start at
-60 HP and have them destroyed once they get to 0. Then inflict spells and cure spells work normal. Inflict reduces their HP(towards the maximum of -60) and cure heals them(towards 0).
Them having a positive number of HP is just a "Value" being applied that makes them more in-line with everything else you're up again, keeping things supposedly simple.

Basically "negative energy" is just the downward continuation of "positive energy" mirrored back upwards.(hence the negative multiplier...remove the multiplier and you are going down that logical continuation again)

As in, if this Skeleton has 60 HP, seeing the negative multiplier of (-1) we can deduct that actually the skeleton has -60 HP. Which fits nicely with positive energy going upwards towards 0 HP, at which it would be destroyed, and negative energy going downwards, towards -60(effectively "healing" damage for the skeleton).

positive and negative energy is basically positive and negative "numbers", of the same axis being bent around 180 degrees at 0.

[Quantum Steve]

StabbittyDoom wrote:

Oh, and a melee touch attack is still a melee attack and can thus coup-de-grace.

A melee touch attack is not a melee weapon, bow, or crossbow. Only these three things can deliver a coup-de-grace. Your fists of fury, however, are melee weapons which is why you can coup-de-grace when you deliver a spell with an unarmed attack.

Edit: For the very last time; healing is not defined as negitve damage anywhere in RAW. At best a correlation is implied in ONE chain of spells and is a stretch at that.

[Chuck Mount]

This may be a stupid question, but... what is "RAW"?

[StabbittyDoom]

Quantum Steve wrote:

StabbittyDoom wrote:

Oh, and a melee touch attack is still a melee attack and can thus coup-de-grace.

A melee touch attack is not a melee weapon, bow, or crossbow. Only these three things can deliver a coup-de-grace. Your fists of fury, however, are melee weapons which is why you can coup-de-grace when you deliver a spell with an unarmed attack.

Edit: For the very last time; healing is not defined as negitve damage anywhere in RAW. At best a correlation is implied in ONE chain of spells and is a stretch at that.

I understand your point and find it perfectly valid. My only concern is the idea of allowing someone to critical a flesh golem with electricity and heal it more. As I understood your interpretation, this would be possible despite not being able to be "critical healed" by other sources due to semantics. If you're saying that you would *not* allow the flesh golem to be critical hit by something like Shocking Grasp, then I'm perfectly okay with that ruling. As long as it's consistent.

I think the confusion you're having is that I am not referring strictly to RAW, but RAI/what-makes-sense-to-me (though can't speak for Mordred). I understand that by RAW, as stupid and inconsistent as it is, a flesh golem CAN be critically healed by electrical energy, but a humanoid could not be critically healed by positive energy. I disagree with this and am making my case for why.

So, once again, I say that I find the following two interpretations palatable:
A) If it heals the opponent, it cannot critical. It only does base healing, no add-ons (favored enemy, sneak attack, critical, et al.)
B) Healing is treated as the consequence, rather than the effect, and thus can critical and be enhanced by other feats or abilities that increase damage (favored enemy, sneak attack criticals, et al.)

As it stands, RAW is between those. Positive and Negative energy are A, all other energies are B. This is (to me) rather inconsistent, hence why I take a disliking to it.

Oh, and I disagree that you would have to punch the person to coup-de-grace heal them. A spell touch attack makes you considered armed, which means it can be wielded as a weapon like any other. This is a bit of a derail though as it's not necessary to the point of the argument, and should be a thread in its own right. I really don't care at all about this point, so I'll leave the task of making such a thread to you.

[StabbittyDoom]

Chuck Mount wrote:

This may be a stupid question, but... what is "RAW"?

Rules as Written. It refers to the exact "letter of the law" as it were.

RAI means Rules as Interpreted. This refers to the perceived intention of the rule.

(I put the second one there because I figured, if you didn't know the first one, you wouldn't know the second.)

[Ion Raven]

You know the more that this silly argument goes on the more I question if Cure Light Wounds should actually work with a critical hit. I mean, if it doesn't matter where you touch when you cure someone, why would it matter where you touch when you damage an undead skeleton?

[MordredofFairy]

actually, i think RAW and RAI could well go hand-in-hand here.

There may be some oversights or stuff not explicitly spelt out.

still, simply go with schroedingers cat.

You are a cleric, with only a inflict moderate wounds spell left to cast.
There is an invisible attacker right in front of you.

You don't KNOW who that creature is.
If could be Positron, the living fighter.
Or his twin Negatron, the undead fighter.

To make things more interesting, even the DM doesn't decide which of both it is, a die roll will decide that with even/odd.

(in quantum mechanics, since the state of the creature is not observable
in the current timeline, and either a or b can be true, both a and b are true...)

So you roll miss chance...you hit. You roll attack...a critical threat. And you confirm. Now you have 4d8+some more of negative energy being channeled into the guy before you.

He is both healed and damaged for that same amount of hit points...
Now at this moment, we "open the box with the cat inside" and roll to see if the person is Positron or Negatron. The die comes up odd and there stands Negatron, who just got healed for 4d8+some hitpoints.

No, wait, we should retcon that and negate the crit that happened, since for him, negative energy is a healing effect, which by default can't be critted.

Arithmetics agree that Negative-Powered beings are just the negative continuation on the same axis as positive-powered beings. With positive energy adjusting the absolute numerical value upwards and negative energy adjusting the absolute numerical value downwards.

To make that continual, and properly working, movement into both directions has to work by the same rules.

Otherwise we have to go out of our way to make rulings on this AND we're breaking quantum physics along the way. (well, not really, but quantum physics in this case show that the continuity is provided by handling movement into both directions of the axis in the same way)

[tejón]

If I slam an axe head into your shoulder, it opens a gash. When I yank it out, the gash does not close.

Damage and healing are two different mechanisms. Numerically they move the same value in opposite directions. Conceptually they are completely unrelated.

You give me an apple. I eat it. I can't give it back. I have to grow another apple from a tree, then I can give you that one. Creating apples is a different mechanism than consuming them, even though keeping track of them is a simple mathematical inversion.

This game is not made of numbers. They just help it run smoother.

[Quantum Steve]

tejón wrote:

If I slam an axe head into your shoulder, it opens a gash. When I yank it out, the gash does not close.

Damage and healing are two different mechanisms. Numerically they move the same value in opposite directions. Conceptually they are completely unrelated.

You give me an apple. I eat it. I can't give it back. I have to grow another apple from a tree, then I can give you that one. Creating apples is a different mechanism than consuming them, even though keeping track of them is a simple mathematical inversion.

This game is not made of numbers. They just help it run smoother.

Brilliant!

[MordredofFairy]

tejón wrote:

If I slam an axe head into your shoulder, it opens a gash. When I yank it out, the gash does not close.

Damage and healing are two different mechanisms. Numerically they move the same value in opposite directions. Conceptually they are completely unrelated.

You give me an apple. I eat it. I can't give it back. I have to grow another apple from a tree, then I can give you that one. Creating apples is a different mechanism than consuming them, even though keeping track of them is a simple mathematical inversion.

This game is not made of numbers. They just help it run smoother.

That is also because WEAPON damage is completely unrelated to energy damage.

You will also have a hard time lighting a campfire with your battleaxe, nay?

I never claimed that damage(universally) and healing are the same thing.

I do claim, however, that on all accords, positive energy and negative energy tend to be the same. You cause wounds to open. You can heal them. You close wounds? You can open them again. Unlike your apple example, this mechanism is fully interchangable.

Now, further along that train of thought, we have group a of positive-powered guys, group b of negative-powered onces, and group c of "don't care"(constructs, e.g.)

In all regards in the game, numerically seen, positive and negative energy are traded on a 1-for-1 basis for healing or damage, respectively. In a fully interchangeable way. The only CLAIMED exception being that in the HARMFUL direction a critical should be possible while in the OTHER direction it should not, which, to me, seeing as unlike your apples, positive and negative energy are fully interchangeable for all aspects, and the rules, to me, not suggesting they SHOULD be treated differently depending on direction, doesn't make sense.

Sure you can claim that inflict wounds does untyped damage, then it gets hard explaining why it heals skeletons. If it does damage of a type called "negative energy" though, which just so happens to be exchanged, per the rules, for undead healing on a 1-for-1 basis, i don't quite see why there should be no critical hit possible.

So on that count, yes, i claim that cure light wounds inflicts 1d8+1/caster level(max 5) points of positive energy damage.
Thats ONE type of damage. Positive energy based creatures happen to heal from it.
That does NOT mean it's interchangable with every other type of damage, much like a fire elemental is immune to fire damage, not to cold. Mechanisms are interchangeable, types are not.

Seeing how the spell is BASED on an energy type(negative energy) and even claims so, and being stated that creatures of a certain type react a certain way to different energys, i don't see why there is a reason to invent a new way to deal with it by saying there is only a chance to critical if the effect is not beneficial.

You make a touch attack, you channel energy of a type into your target.
Your target reacts a certain way to it. As said, technically, healing in the middle of battle, unless your ally stands still, forgoing his dodge and dex modifiers, you would need to check if you even "hit" him with a touch attack. Handwaving that in favor of players doesn't change the mechanism that usually, also for beneficial spells, you'd have to check if you "connect". While there may be arguments to make in normal combat situations that it SHOULD be possible to SOMEHOW touch them, it's also often ignored if the target would be invisible, e.g.
Either way there's the question if it completely doesn't matter "where" the touch connects. If touching your tower shield has exactly the same effect as touching the wound in your chest, then for me it's also hard to argue that the same doesn't hold true for inflicting.
If the argument however is that healing is ALWAYS optimally applied since the target is willing, unlike the damaging mirror spell, and this OPTIMAL application is the reason you can't "critical" with it, then i'd require a full normal touch attack on any beneficial touch spell in combat.

When it's a lot easier to say a spell causes 20 points of positive energy (damage) and that positive energy just happens to heal the creature since it's positive energy based(or damage it if it's negative-based), i don't see why a middle-step is needed in which the spell causes positive energy, but it's first transformed into a "healing" energy, which is different from positive energy, and which automatically restrict itself from being allowed to critical(which is not stated anywhere i can find it).

Much the same way light and dark-spells counter each other, many fire/cold spells are specifically vulnerable to one another...etc.

"Fire can melt a wall of ice, and it deals full damage to the wall (instead of the normal half damage taken by objects)."

While specifically called out(same as that negative energy spells "heal" undead), to me it seems the wall of ice just takes full fire damage. I don't have to take that fire energy and first convert it into a raw damage variable that i can then apply to the object that would otherwise only take half damage. The direct path is easier. Why take the scenic route?

You yourself claim the game is not made of numbers, then why juggly them around more than is needed? First checking what will be the most probable effect to then convert an energy type into something else that is most probably resulting in the result you intend should happen?

Sounds more complicated than just taking the number as it stands and add or subtract it based on type.

Preventing beneficial spells that require an attack roll a chance to critical-hit is completely fair game and you can run that in your game any way you want, i'm not even claiming its wrong.
To me, the mechanisms seems more continous by allowing beneficial spells a critical-chance, i don't find a part in the rules that, to me, suggests that it's impossible(it just talks about spells in general, without ruling out beneficial spells), and it by far doesn't come up often enough to be game-breaking. If people want to get gamey(coup-de-heal) there's even an in-built failsafe without having to houserule anything.
In my eyes, it's not as clearly stated in the rules as could be. I read it this way, you obviously interpret it differently, both ways work, and "fighting" over RAI is moderately pointless. Lets see if a ruling on this comes out. If it's in your favor, i'd even understand that, and willingly bow to it, but mechanics-wise, from a continuity view, it just seems more sense to me to allow it.

[Goth Guru]

I agree that magical healing should not crit. They are two different functions of conjurations. Temporal healing, could crit. An attack from a nilbog would heal, and could be a crit. Any attack in reverse time will heal and can crit.

[StabbittyDoom]

Goth Guru wrote:

I agree that magical healing should not crit. They are two different functions of conjurations. Temporal healing, could crit. An attack from a nilbog would heal, and could be a crit. Any attack in reverse time will heal and can crit.

My interpretation of healing has always been "I conjure positive energy, then throw it at you." not "I conjure positive energy attuned to healing and throw it at you."

If a caster casts Cure Light Wounds with the intention to heal, but then realizes they cannot reach their target that turn and uses it on a nearby skeleton instead, does it not harm that skeleton? (Note that they can hold the charge for several turns before deciding to try this.) If it does hurt the skeleton then that means that the energy does not have to be attuned to its purpose, and is thus just raw energy the same way Fire and Electricity are. If this energy does not have to be attuned then how come one use can critical and another cannot?
The weapon argument presented earlier is completely silly as physical damage and energy types are completely different animals in every way (both in the fantasy context of the game and the mechanics of the game).

[Quantum Steve]

Simply remove the first line from Tejon's quote

tejón wrote:

Damage and healing are two different mechanisms. Numerically they move the same value in opposite directions. Conceptually they are completely unrelated.

You give me an apple. I eat it. I can't give it back. I have to grow another apple from a tree, then I can give you that one. Creating apples is a different mechanism than consuming them, even though keeping track of them is a simple mathematical inversion.

This game is not made of numbers. They just help it run smoother.

There, no mention of weapon damage, everything else just as valid.

[MordredofFairy]

Quantum Steve wrote:

Simply remove the first line from Tejon's quote

tejón wrote:

Damage and healing are two different mechanisms. Numerically they move the same value in opposite directions. Conceptually they are completely unrelated.

You give me an apple. I eat it. I can't give it back. I have to grow another apple from a tree, then I can give you that one. Creating apples is a different mechanism than consuming them, even though keeping track of them is a simple mathematical inversion.

This game is not made of numbers. They just help it run smoother.

There, no mention of weapon damage, everything else just as valid.

"So on that count, yes, i claim that cure light wounds inflicts 1d8+1/caster level(max 5) points of positive energy damage.

Thats ONE type of damage. Positive energy based creatures happen to heal from it.
That does NOT mean it's interchangable with every other type of damage, much like a fire elemental is immune to fire damage, not to cold. Mechanisms are interchangeable, types are not."

there, not dealing with the weapons stuff. Still valid. damage and healing are not universally the same, but in the case of positive and negative energy, they just happen to be. Healing=Damage there. Whats good for the goose, kills the ganter. And vice versa.

[Sigurd]

The ability to hurt is not necessarily the mirror of the ability to heal and vice versa.

I'd let you roll sneak attack damage when you healed someone. They wouldn't be expecting it and they are probably wide open. I would never let you manufacture a bonus by imitating another action.

You are right in that healing, with either negative or positive energy, seems to be pretty similar. I don't see skeletons getting critical healing from negative energy either. Concentrating on building is just different than blasting things apart.

Using radiation to heal (Chemotherapy) is very difficult and controlled. It is applied very differently from indiscriminate radiation poisoning.

[StabbittyDoom]

Again, I will note that I have no problems with heals not being allowed to critically hit, I only have a problem with things that are not normally heals being allow to critically heal just because they aren't normally healing.
"Energy is Energy" - As in my previous example a cleric can use a Cure Light Wounds originally intended for healing to hurt an undead creature, or visa-versa. The spell itself just allows the energy to be conjured. This is true of all energy types. Just because 99% of the bestiary treats fire as damage, doesn't mean it all does.

However! Whether you can have critical effect from damaging with energy has no effect on whether you can have critical effect on healing with energy. What DOES matter is whether having critical effect with healing in one situation because that energy "happens" to normally be damage is allowed. I don't think it should be. Just because fire is normally damage doesn't mean it should be able to "loophole" it's way into critically healing some creatures.

TLDR/To-be-blunt: Either all healing can crit, or no healing can crit (even if it's source is not normally healing). Anywhere in between is inconsistent. Whether it's on one side or the other matters little to me.

[MordredofFairy]

StabbittyDoom wrote:

TLDR/To-be-blunt: Either all healing can crit, or no healing can crit (even if it's source is not normally healing). Anywhere in between is inconsistent. Whether it's on one side or the other matters little to me.

^

This

I am leaning towards every healing can crit simply because it would be an easy sentence to exclude beneficial touch spells from achieving a critical hit. Which is not there. In line with how EVERYTHING else that deals a certain amount of damage of a certain type is handled(20/x2), i think it's more continous to say crits go both ways.

If that is NOT the case, then i shouldn't be able to critically heal the flesh golem with a shocking grasp, either, on the mere basis that i rolled a 20 that magically increases the amoung of electricity i get to channel into it.

[Goth Guru]

Basicly I have given up on all criticle heals here. In normal time, everything that heals a creature, can't crit. Everything that harms a creature, can crit, because it's an attack.
Reverse time healing, which it tried to explain earlier, reverses both. If you could run an action movie backwards, you would see a lot of ressurections. Maybe even a reheading or two. They might never allow it for that reason. It's just an example.

[VictorCrackus]

Wait.

Healing Coup?

Healing Crits?

I got this.

I'll just cast Zombie on all my players.

Thats cool right?

It'll be funny.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Majuba wrote:

In no way should the healing be doubled, for the same reason a cleric/rogue should not be able to "sneak attack" the heal to do many dice extra. The cure spell "hits" when contact is made, it doesn't need to hit the right spot. Certainly a cleric using a touch cure would 'aim' for the correct spot if that was required.

This.

[StabbittyDoom]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Majuba wrote:

In no way should the healing be doubled, for the same reason a cleric/rogue should not be able to "sneak attack" the heal to do many dice extra. The cure spell "hits" when contact is made, it doesn't need to hit the right spot. Certainly a cleric using a touch cure would 'aim' for the correct spot if that was required.

This.

I appreciate your response, but I do wish to pose the following question: If someone were to hit an enemy with something other than positive or negative energy, say in this case electricity, would this hit be allowed to critical if that creature healed from the energy (like a Flesh Golem)?

I would argue that if you rule healing can't critical from positive/negative, then you must also rule that it cannot critical regardless of the source of healing.

[Zoddy]

Okay, i have to say that i didn't read all of the posts, but i will get to them in time.

For time being, Damage on page 179 of Core state's ability damage under it and tells us that more info is on page 554 (actually 555), Under Ability Score Damage, Penalty and Drain, note that there is just 1 of those covered - Ability Drain. My interpretation of this is, that all 3, or at least 2 out of 3 are looked upon as damage.

So i need to ask, is there any official ruling on this ? Or whomever said that penalties to abilities are not damage is just seeing it from his own point of view ?

[StabbittyDoom]

Zoddy wrote:

Okay, i have to say that i didn't read all of the posts, but i will get to them in time.

For time being, Damage on page 179 of Core state's ability damage under it and tells us that more info is on page 554 (actually 555), Under Ability Score Damage, Penalty and Drain, note that there is just 1 of those covered - Ability Drain. My interpretation of this is, that all 3, or at least 2 out of 3 are looked upon as damage.

So i need to ask, is there any official ruling on this ? Or whomever said that penalties to abilities are not damage is just seeing it from his own point of view ?

Damage and drain are counted as damage (and thus multiply on crits and such), but penalties are not (and thus won't multiply). This is why damage/drain is harder to get than a "penalty" (also because penalties are easier to remove and generally last a short duration even if you don't attempt to remove them).

[Sean K Reynolds]

I think it's simplest if we go by "no healing effects can crit" as an unwritten rule. It means we don't have to parse out whether or not X is a damaging or healing effect for each creature, and doesn't open the door to weird combos in the future.

[StabbittyDoom]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I think it's simplest if we go by "no healing effects can crit" as an unwritten rule. It means we don't have to parse out whether or not X is a damaging or healing effect for each creature, and doesn't open the door to weird combos in the future.

Wait.. my brain is having a hard time parsing right now..

So does this mean "if it calls it healing it can't crit" or does it mean "if it causes healing then the healing portion can't crit, even if it's not called out as a healing spell/ability"?
My +1 flaming, frost, shock, acidic blades of inexplicable positive energy demand to know! :P
(NOTE: I hope I don't come off as annoying, I'm just trying to make sure I'm clear on this.)

[Sean K Reynolds]

I mean if you would say, "it's going to heal from that," critting won't increase the amount healed.

[StabbittyDoom]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I mean if you would say, "it's going to heal from that," critting won't increase the amount healed.

Alright, that's what I thought. Thanks ^.^

I would give you a cookie, but the cookie monster's been raiding my cabinets lately.

[Goth Guru]

Ok, you have a flame tongue sword, and a Mummy wearing a hat of disguise runs at you with a vorpal scimitar. You win initiative and hit them with your sword. They don't look like a mummy, and you are not trying to set them on fire, (you thought it would just do the extra fire damage) but they catch fire anyway. How energy functions depends (unless the card rule kicks in) on the target. The cure spells do not say you control the two possible results, so you don't.