| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
What Gm Time Stomped say is : Fast Healing and Infernal Healing won't trigger Fast Healer because they cause a regain of hit points not a heal... And he is right in this...
But the ring of regeneration clearly state that you heal 1 hp per round, so it should work with fast healer (provided you want to spend the feat chain to go there and find a 90K gold magic object...)
But if you want to play ruleword you can say it won't work since you need to "regain hit point[b]S[/s]" to trigger the effect and you only regain 1 hit point with a regeneration ring... :p
Yeah I know it's playing with words... :D
What Gm Time Stomped say is : Fast Healing and Infernal Healing won't trigger Fast Healer because they cause a regain of hit points not a heal... And he is right in this...
But the ring of regeneration clearly state that you heal 1 hp per round, so it should work with fast healer (provided you want to spend the feat chain to go there and find a 90K gold magic object...)
Why won't Infernal Healing trigger it? The argument seem to be based on a distinction between regaining and healing hit points, which does not exist anywhere else.
A) The text for the feat states "When you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing". The feat does not ask for heal hp, but to regain hp.
B) Is the spell, which is conjuration (healing), not magical healing?
C) Even if you make the interpretation that the spell only grants you mundane fast healing and is afterwards nonmagical (although the additional effects suggest that your are being continually affected by the magic), the fast healing ability specifies: "Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing." Natural healing is as far as I know iterchangeble with regaining hp from rest?
D) When the argument is tied so much up on the distinction between "heal" and "regain" hp, you might look for other parts of the rule where there are differences or similarities between the two. If you look at creature abilities, it becomes really similar:
Regenerate states that "creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing", while the wording of fast healing is that "creature with fast healing regains hit points at an exceptional rate".
If they work in the same way, as regeneration specifically states, how can you argue that the feat works in one way for regeneration and another for fast healing?
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Do not forget to hit the FAQ button, because we will never agree on this till a paizo staff member comes along. ^_^
|
GM Time Stopped.... I honestly tried to understand what you just said but really i couldn't make any sense of it.
Sorry, I was tired and my health condition at the moment is slightly painful. It can be a little distracting from trying to write coherently. I'll try and edit it later. Sorry.
EDIT: I can't edit it. Oh well I'll just try and be clearer next time. Got to go to work soon!
|
|
Why won't Infernal Healing trigger it? The argument seem to be based on a distinction between regaining and healing hit points, which does not exist anywhere else.
A) The hitpoints gained by fast healing are from non-magical healing.
B) The spell I.H. grants a (ex) non-magical hitpoint regaining ability. Like a creature with it, there's no magic involved with the actual healing.
C) No, I would think it would have mentioned resting. It is likely more so like hp gained through the heal skill. Then again, defining what is natural healing is actually one of the better questions from the FAQ flag spam here. So good job for making that point, that one might actually be worth a paizo response!
D) They don't work the same way as magical healing, either way.
I concede the fact that Infernal Healing doesn't trigger the feat, since it magically grants an Ex ability that is the actual cause of healing.
But that spell was brought up mid-thread and has nothing to do with the OP, and actually does nothing to serve the original counter-point. If anything, it helps because now there are less "OMG broken!" spells to use with the feat.
The ring and stone still trigger though. They're magical healing. Any instance of magical healing triggers the feat, whether the benefits spread out or are lumped into a single round. And I FAQ'd this thread a while back, in two different posts.
I concede the fact that Infernal Healing doesn't trigger the feat, since it magically grants an Ex ability that is the actual cause of healing.
But that spell was brought up mid-thread and has nothing to do with the OP, and actually does nothing to serve the original counter-point. If anything, it helps because now there are less "OMG broken!" spells to use with the feat.
The ring and stone still trigger though. They're magical healing. Any instance of magical healing triggers the feat, whether the benefits spread out or are lumped into a single round. And I FAQ'd this thread a while back, in two different posts.
actually, fast healing is just listed as ex in the bestiary. Granted from a spell, can it still be considered ex?
** spoiler omitted **
This ability relies on magic to function, thus it is not an extraordinary.
I do not think anyone actually believes Paizo intended it to work with fast healing or regeneration abilities, a few might think it would be cool to get more bang out off a feat that is perceived as underpowered, possibly considering themselves creative, I guess anything goes as long as RAW does not explicitly disallow it.
I think when they errata this feat it will just say, it does not work with fast healing and regeneration or similar effects.
actually, fast healing is just listed as ex in the bestiary. Granted from a spell, can it still be considered ex?This ability relies on magic to function, thus it is not an extraordinary.
I wouldn't know where to begin to look for a rule that says (Ex) abilities gained from magical sources become (Su) or (Sp). I am 99.99999% sure that there is not one, and unless someone is more determined to find it than I am, I would go so far as to say "RAW says no." Purely on grounds of that being a very obscure thing to rule on.
And I hope they don't errata this feat. Up until now, I thought the feat was a joke. I looked at it, looked at the prereqs, and scoffed. There's nothing better to say about it. And I play in groups that never use clerics. Our healing is always secondary, and the benefits of this feat still aren't attractive enough. If it instead said "Whenever you benefit from a Cure spell, Channel energy, or 8 hours of rest, you regain additional hit points equal to your Con modifier" then I'd be game, but half? Yeah right. The regen thing makes it useful, fits the theme (Fast*ER* Healer), and makes it useful even into higher levels.
EDIT: Also, RAW, it doesn't work with Fast Healing or Regeneration (Ex abilitites), but the RING of regeneration doesn't bestow the Regeneration ability, it specifically heals one HP per round. Strong conjuration aura, it's healing magic.
Well I am not stating what type it is. I am stating what type it is not. It is not an extraordinary ability by definition. Whether it is Su or Sp is irrelevant because either one falls inside the category known as magical healing.
When the spell says it "grants Fast Healing 1" it means that it is bestowing the ability from the Universal Monster Rules, which is specifically an (Ex) ability. When the text leads you to look at Fast Healing, one can't assume that it changes any part of its text just because of the source of the ability (the spell).
You are granted Fast Healing (Ex) for 1hp/round.
I think that faster healer SHOULD work in conjunction with either of the (Ex) abilities (should something be capable of attaining either ability) but the feat doesn't allow it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If a spell grants a character Fast Healing 1, do you think it should work inside an anti-magic field?
Possible answer: yes, because it transmutes you into a new form, superficially the same but with a natural power to heal damage. At the end of the spell duration, it transmutes you back to your original physiognomy. If anything, an anti-magic effect would prevent the Fast Healing from turning off.
Possible answer: no, because the effect of Extraordinary Fast Healing is mimicked by the use of magic. A hummingbird can fly naturally, and so a fly spell could be said to give you flight like a hummingbird. But it would still be magical and supper the effects of an anti-magic sphere. So would infernal healing.
I'm interested in starting a dwarven invulnerable rage barbarian.
Racial Variant: SR gained
Feats: Raging Vitality, Fast Healing, and Toughness
Rage Powers: Renewed vigor and improved DR
Items: Pearly White Ioun Stone or Ring of RegenerationFirst, my question is the boards interpretation of the feat "Fast Healing" (found in the APG) and how it would interact with the Pearly White Ioun Stone or Ring of Regeneration. The thing that I am curious about is that does the health regained from the Pearly White Ioun Stone or Ring of Regeneration trigger the Fast Healing feat?
Second, in your opinion is this combination over powered? Does it break the game? If you're a GM would you allow it in your game?
Third, i'm also considering implanting it in my skin via seeker of secrets rules. Should I or should I not?
As far as I can tell it would work with the ring of regeneration every time the effect heals the PC. The ability to heal 6 HP per round with a 30 constitution isn't too amazing considering the enemies at that point are doing well over that amount of damage if they choose to attack you.
well it grants you fast healing, there is no (Ex) in there. In fact this fast healing works differently than regular fast healing in several ways. It does not heal damage from silver weapons or good aligned weapons.Anyway, the fast healing like I said, cannot be Ex by definition in the RAW. If the spell made an exception and said "you are granted fast healing (Ex)" then that would be a specific exception.
But the general rule/definition of ex abilities is clearly defined.
It is defined in the universal monster rules under Fast Healing. Fast healing IS an (Ex) ability. The omission of (Ex) does not mean that it doesn't exist in the definition. When feats are referenced, they never have (Ex) of (Sp) listed after them though a majority of them should fall under one of the two.
The definition is there, you're just choosing to ignore the reference. If you choose to ignore the (Ex) part of the definition, then you should ignore the rest of the definition as well. If you didn't go back to the universal monster rules and look at Fast Healing, how would you know the difference between it and Regeneration? You can't look at it and say "Well, it's an (Ex) here, but I got it from a spell so it must now be (Su)." The spell does not say "this is a supernatural ability."
Arguing that because it doesn't heal damage from specific sources doesn't change it either. The spell itself is citing that caveat, and it is modifying the definition of Fast Healing, which you are supposed to reference for use of this spell.
When terms are used in the game, they have a definition.
Just as it was not valid for people to add text to the feat earlier in the thread, it is not valid to add text to this spell.
it is a good thing that is fan created content because it is poorly written.
Infernal healing should be an instantaneous spell that just grants fast healing 1 for one min. Instead it is a spell that acts like fast healing with a duration of one min.
Giving the spell itself a duration of one min means it can be affected by dispel magic and an AMF, which constitutes it all as magical healing. So it isnt the feat that's broken its the poorly written spell its being applied to.
But I agree with the argument that it works with a ring of regeneration. it is magical and every round it heals you. which are the only two things required for the feat to activate.
Nothing says the same source can not provide separate instances of healing (not that this matters because the feat doesn't care if it is separate or not)
Well I believe you said they were universal monster rules. For monsters who have it in their stat table it is always an ex ability. This is not in a monster stat table. This is from a player source.
But like I said, ex abilities are defined. If you want to ignore that definition well that is your perogative. But magically granted fast healing cannot be Ex.This fast healing follows all the other rules that moderate magical effects. It will be stopped by an antimagic field, it can be dispelled. You want to make a single exception and call it situationally Ex while it is otherwise functionally anything but Ex
I don't have any idea what you just said...
As far as the spell, it's in official Paizo content (PF #29, Mother of Flies or alternatively PF Chronicles: Gods and Magic), it's just been converted. I hadn't noticed that. So it's possible that there is a slight difference in the original texts. I happen to have Gods and Magic, but it's not handy.
Regardless, there is no distinction between fast healing as a magical effect and fast healing from the universal monster rules. Universal monster rules apply even to PCs where applicable (low-light vision, damage reduction, etc). I don't know WHERE you get the notion that because it has "monster" in it that they don't apply.
it is a good thing that is fan created content because it is poorly written.
Infernal healing should be an instantaneous spell that just grants fast healing 1 for one min. Instead it is a spell that acts like fast healing with a duration of one min.
Giving the spell itself a duration of one min means it can be affected by dispel magic and an AMF, which constitutes it all as magical healing. So it isnt the feat that's broken its the poorly written spell its being applied to.
But I agree with the argument that it works with a ring of regeneration. it is magical and every round it heals you. which are the only two things required for the feat to activate.
Nothing says the same source can not provide separate instances of healing (not that this matters because the feat doesn't care if it is separate or not)
Infernal healing is not fan created content.
Claiming that a certain spell or item is poorly written, while basing the rest of the argument on pieces of text that holds similar uncertainties.
Take for example the precious ring of regeneration. You mention that the ring heals you (which might be magically), which is not correct according to the text.
The ring of regeneration "allows a living wearer to heal 1 point of damage". So the magical ring does not heal anything, instead it allows the wielder to heal him or herself in a fashion that is greatly similar to the regeneration ability.
My earlier comments on infernal healing wasn't because I want the feat to apply to the spell. But I do believe that the effects thereof are similar to the one given by the ring.
The important part of this discussion, is whether you can argue that RAW wins the discussion. This is not one of those cases, as RAW isn't clearly defined.
There are a few relevant parts of the text that aren't defined:
- Magical healing: There are no definition on what magical healing is. While we normally can spot whether healing is magical or not, this discussion has shown that it isn't that clear, when effects of a conjuration (healing) spell, suddenly becomes non-magical.
- Can a spell grant an undispellable Ex ability?: The is no basis in the rules to make a clear cut ruling, as looking at different parts of text and making different assumptions lead to different conclusions.
- Regaining or healing: While there is no difference in the text, it has been lifted up as argument as to a difference between effects.
- Is abilities magical healing or natural: While fast healing and regeneration is Ex and by that definition non-magical, the healing chapter clearly defines natural healing as rest, and healing from spells and abilities as magical healing. Rules aren't consistent.
Given that there are so many parts of the rules that aren't clearly defined AND the feat is a single sentence that does not explain any details, provides us with a situation where RAW can't be relied on without interpretation.
At this point it becomes increasingly consider RAW compared to intentions as well as implications. If you agree that the feat is lacking explanation, then it isn't sufficient to make an argument based on simply logic on what is said, while ignoring what isn't. If you go down that road, the book is full of examples that would be logically correct but still be entirely unwarrented.
My question at the point where RAW doesn't answer the question is: Should the feat be much more useful to certain kinds of healing compared to others?
Lastly I might add that I don't think the combination of the feat and the ring is very problematic. The cost of gp and feats are pretty high, so if I was GMing, I might allow it. But that is not really the point of debate.
Fast healing 1 is also a 90k ability. Fast healing 2 is 180k ability. Fast healing 3 is an Epic level feat.
This feat basically takes fast healing and open ends it. Being able to heal hit points continuously basically means full hit points at the start of every fight, a fighter's dream. it's the out of combat utility that is important here, not just the in combat. Sure, it's not that powerful during a fight...but he'll never need a cure wounds outside of combat ever again. Fast healing 6 is 60 hp/minute...that's a LOT of healing for just standing there! Troll FH is high so it actually has an effect in combat. This starts to come close, and definitely would dominate out of combat healing.
So, no, you don't have a RAW argument, you have a RAI argument. Your interpretation of when it triggers is different from ours.
==Aelryinth
I'm pretty sure Paizo has not released epic level rules, so I don't know where you're getting that information. Besides that, the ring does not grant fast healing 1. It heals 1 HP per round, so long as the ring was worn when the damage was taken. Nowhere in the ring's description do the words "fast healing" appear. A ring can be stolen, lost, or destroyed, fast healing as an (Ex) ability innate to a creature cannot.
Trolls do not have fast healing. They have regeneration 5 (acid or fire).
Fast Healing (Ex)
A creature with fast healing regains hit points at an exceptional rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature’s entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached. Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediately.Format: fast healing 5; Location: hp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneration (Ex)
A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature’s regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally.The creature’s descriptive text describes the types of damage that cause the regeneration to cease functioning. Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally.
A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.
Format: regeneration 5 (fire, acid); Location: hp.
Emphasis mine. I won't say regeneration is better or worse, because regeneration can be stunted via certain damage types, though it allows limbs to regrow and prevents death. Personally, I'd take regeneration, but that's besides the point.
The original point of this thread has NOTHING to do with fast healing; someone brought up the spell Infernal Healing, and that sparked the debate. It's moot, however because fast healing is (Ex) and not magical (regardless of whatever concepts people want to force into to implications of its origins).
The original point of this thread has NOTHING to do with fast healing; someone brought up the spell Infernal Healing, and that sparked the debate. It's moot, however because fast healing is (Ex) and not magical (regardless of whatever concepts people want to force into to implications of its origins).
Would you mind considering the facts posted by Thepuregamer concerning origins of fast healing?
Take the Eidolon evolution for one. It can gain Fast Healing (Su). How can you keep on arguing that fast healing always is a non-magical extraordinary ability, when there is many examples of it being a supernatural ability and by definition magical?
You might make arguments that Infernal Healing isn't magical, but the point that fast healing always is non-magical has been shot down.
I agree it is not the most important part of this discussion, which is intentions of the feat.
It does become relevant though, when the arguments on one side is a strict reading of RAW assisted by the argument that the Feat-Ring-combo isn't gamebreaking. It is necessary to consider similar uses of the feat, to assess whether it favors a certain kind of healing over others.
I've seen a bunch of threads go on and on about having to make assumptions when reading rules, or conversely that the rules are what the rules are.
The simple fact is the act of reading requires years and years of compound biases and assumptions on everyone's part. Translating English into the Language-Of-Your-Brain is not an intuitive process, it is something we learned how to do, and we all learned differently. It doesn't matter how finely the letters were crafted 'pon the page, we all INTERPRET the images of letters, grouped into words, contextually segmented into sentences. As such, assumptions are NECESSARY to gain an understanding of these rules.
As many people as possible should be trying to interpret the many ways something MIGHT be read to be able to be able to communicate with other readers.
|
I've seen a bunch of threads go on and on about having to make assumptions when reading rules, or conversely that the rules are what the rules are.
The simple fact is the act of reading requires years and years of compound biases and assumptions on everyone's part. Translating English into the Language-Of-Your-Brain is not an intuitive process, it is something we learned how to do, and we all learned differently. It doesn't matter how finely the letters were crafted 'pon the page, we all INTERPRET the images of letters, grouped into words, contextually segmented into sentences. As such, assumptions are NECESSARY to gain an understanding of these rules.As many people as possible should be trying to interpret the many ways something MIGHT be read to be able to be able to communicate with other readers.
Yes but don't you know that your own opinion is many many times more important than anyone elses!
Yes but don't you know that your own opinion is many many times more important than anyone elses!
You kid, but it's actually quite difficult for someone to accept an idea that is contrary to the understanding they first had. Doing so on a somewhat consistent basis takes a lot of practice and discipline.
|
|
You kid, but it's actually quite difficult for someone to accept an idea that is contrary to the understanding they first had. Doing so on a somewhat consistent basis takes a lot of practice and discipline.
I do hope you realize I was being sarcastic... Either way thanks for the philosophical idea above...
I do hope you realize I was being sarcastic... Either way thanks for the philosophical idea above...
Of course, that's there the "You kid, but..." part comes in.
Fast healing 1 is also a 90k ability. Fast healing 2 is 180k ability. Fast healing 3 is an Epic level feat.
This feat basically takes fast healing and open ends it. Being able to heal hit points continuously basically means full hit points at the start of every fight, a fighter's dream. it's the out of combat utility that is important here, not just the in combat. Sure, it's not that powerful during a fight...but he'll never need a cure wounds outside of combat ever again. Fast healing 6 is 60 hp/minute...that's a LOT of healing for just standing there! Troll FH is high so it actually has an effect in combat. This starts to come close, and definitely would dominate out of combat healing.
So, no, you don't have a RAW argument, you have a RAI argument. Your interpretation of when it triggers is different from ours.
==Aelryinth
Wand of cure light wounds(CL1) is 375 gp to make, 750gp to buy. optional feat expenditure, and less gp expenditure. Fast healer does not break out of combat healing open. Out of combat healing is already easy and cheap. You are 100% wrong.
Also, For the other part, I and others have already given ample irrefutable proof on the issue of RAW. I am done with that part of the discussion. Especially when there is nothing new to bring to it.
That wand takes 50 standard actions to use. It also takes a level in a class with healing ability, or many ranks in UMD. An average wand of CLW does 225 HP curing. It has no effect in combat unless you spend actions. It doesn't help you at negative hp.
a Ring of Regeneration giving FH 1 heals 600 hp/hr, takes no actions, no skill rank investment, no levels in a healer class. It automatically stabilizes you and gets you moving if you fall. It is working, albeit slowly, even in the middle of combat. It stops bleed damage automatically. You'd have to spend 30 CLW wands/day to equal the healing potential of the Ring.
FH is much, much better then a CLW wand. The comparison is laughable.
You have given no irrefutable proof whatsoever. You've given an interpretation, and not a very good one. Your RAI is yours, and most of us don't agree with it, but its not RAW.
=====Aelryinth
That wand takes 50 standard actions to use. It also takes a level in a class with healing ability, or many ranks in UMD. An average wand of CLW does 225 HP curing. It has no effect in combat unless you spend actions. It doesn't help you at negative hp.
a Ring of Regeneration giving FH 1 heals 600 hp/hr, takes no actions, no skill rank investment, no levels in a healer class. It automatically stabilizes you and gets you moving if you fall. It is working, albeit slowly, even in the middle of combat. It stops bleed damage automatically. You'd have to spend 30 CLW wands/day to equal the healing potential of the Ring.
FH is much, much better then a CLW wand. The comparison is laughable.
You have given no irrefutable proof whatsoever. You've given an interpretation, and not a very good one. Your RAI is yours, and most of us don't agree with it, but its not RAW.
I am not sure what your raw is... is the ring healing you? (yup) is it magic? (yup)
Fast healer works! woo hoo! 3 feats and a 90,000gp item and you get a good effect, yeah sounds about right in the RAW and balance department
I dont find it likely that the feat is designed to only be worthy of taking when you use the ring of regeneration option that boosts it from 1 to 5 per round or so, but from a balance PoV :
5 healing per round vs 1 healing per round isnt as huge a difference as it seems:
- outside of combat both will heal you up to your max hp in relatively short time
- you invest 3 feats and a fairly decent investment raising your constitution, even though none of the feats are really useless, they are considered 'weak'
- 1 healing stabilizes and stops bleeding as well as 5 healing does
|
|
Fast healing 1 is also a 90k ability. Fast healing 2 is 180k ability. Fast healing 3 is an Epic level feat.
No.
This feat basically takes fast healing and open ends it.
No it doesn't.
So, no, you don't have a RAW argument, you have a RAI argument. Your interpretation of when it triggers is different from ours.
==Aelryinth
Who is this "ours"?
a Ring of Regeneration giving FH 1 heals 600 hp/hr
RoR is not Fast Healing 1, ever.
Cure light wounds:
30 wands of cure light wounds available to level 9 party if they divide their funds (at 15% of their wealth).
Can be used by more than one member of the party
Can be customized with metamagic feats
Essentially don't end up counting against WBL as you level because they get replaced
Can heal wounds caused at any time
Can be used offensively (and potentially critically hit)
Ring of Regeneration:
Need to be level 19 to afford it, assuming that it is 25% of your wealth.
Can only be used by one person
Can only heal wounds caused when worn
Is not customizable
Is not an offensive weapon, ever.
There is no reason to not allow the Faster Healer feat to work each round with the Ring of Regeneration. I think the most Con score we'd be looking at would be 30 or so. So the character, at level 19, can heal 6 points each round. Or the character can do the same thing 10 levels earlier with wands.
What would be the difference between using three feats with a 90k item and the Leadership feat with an Oracle of Life? I'm willing to get that the Oracle of Life cohort is a lot more game breaking than a limited Fast Healing 6. Basically what I'm saying is that it is no more game breaking than other options that come much sooner and do more.
There is nothing in the rules that suggests that the Faster Healer only applies once per effect. It clearly states that you gain the effects when you heal. The ring of regeneration (and the ioun stone) both state that you heal every round.
Whether or not that's what is intended is a completely different issue. The simple fact remains that this is how they interact with each other the way things are currently written.
I am not sure what your raw is... is the ring healing you? (yup)
Nope. If you wanna go the strict RAW route, the ring doesn't heal you. It allows the wearer to heal himself.
is it magic? (yup)
The ring is magic, yes. But there is anything solid to support whether or not you are healing yourself in a magical fashion or other. While you might rule that it is a magical healing, one might also reasonably rule that it is healing identically to the regeneration ability.
|
|
What would be the difference between using three feats with a 90k item and the Leadership feat with an Oracle of Life? I'm willing to get that the Oracle of Life cohort is a lot more game breaking than a limited Fast Healing 6. Basically what I'm saying is that it is no more game breaking than other options that come much sooner and do more.There is nothing in the rules that suggests that the Faster Healer only applies once per effect. It clearly states that you gain the effects when you heal. The ring of regeneration (and the ioun stone) both state that you heal every round.
Whether or not that's what is intended is a completely different issue. The simple fact remains that this is how they interact with each other the way things are currently written.
I thank you for the higher level play insight.
It seems a lot of the arguments from some people are about how powerful the ring is on a lower level character that cannot even get a RoR. RoR is just average in power compared to other items of similar or lesser worth, even with the fast healer feat. It would only be worth the gold spent by crafting the item.
Three feats spent on one character and another character dedicated to craft the item seems like a fair drop into the good ol' Pathfinder resource bucket of character possibilities for just a ring or two.
I am not sure what your raw is... is the ring healing you? (yup)Nope. If you wanna go the strict RAW route, the ring doesn't heal you. It allows the wearer to heal himself.
is it magic? (yup)The ring is magic, yes. But there is anything solid to support whether or not you are healing yourself in a magical fashion or other. While you might rule that it is a magical healing, one might also reasonably rule that it is healing identically to the regeneration ability.
Whuuuuut? e_o;
Listen to yourself. If it was identical to regeneration, they would reference regeneration in the item description. That thread you're hanging on to isn't even there. As for fast healing being an (Ex or (Su)... I'm over that, it doesn't matter, it's ALMOST irrelevant.
Bob_Loblaw raised several good points that don't even require a RAW reading. Even if you don't like it, the balance here is sound.
Being able to heal hit points continuously basically means full hit points at the start of every fight, a fighter's dream.
==Aelryinth
Most games I play a fighter dreams about being able to fly, or see invisibility, or be able to travel 100 feet and make a full attack. Healing to full is usually a given.
Some realistic numbers.
Human fighter with 18 con, +4 from a belt of con for 22 total (even this is high, most fighters start 14-16) making a ring of regeneration heal 4 points a round.
At what level do you expect to pull this off? 10? 12? 14? 16? This is a feat chain and then a very expensive item that might not even be available depending on the DM.
A troll's regeneration was brought up as having a real impact in gameplay. A troll is CR 5. And has real regeneration, making it much more difficult to kill.
Besides the rational non-level-4-gameplay-kneejerk-this-is-op response, the combination appears to work just fine. Kudos for finding a use for this feat.
Whuuuuut? e_o;Listen to yourself. If it was identical to regeneration, they would reference regeneration in the item description. That thread you're hanging on to isn't even there. As for fast healing being an (Ex or (Su)... I'm over that, it doesn't matter, it's ALMOST irrelevant.
Bob_Loblaw raised several good points that don't even require a RAW reading. Even if you don't like it, the balance here is sound.
Wow, the insight of your arguments just ceases to amaze me, "If it was identical to regeneration, they would reference regeneration in the item description"...
Perhaps there is the slighest chance that the developers used the ring of regeneration from earlier editions as baseline for their item, despite the changes they made to its effect?
And would you really expect them in the wording of the ring to take consideration of a feat they create at a later point? If not, there really isn't a reason for them to include it.
I haven't at any point claimed that the ring+feat would be overpowered (quite the contrary if you read my posts), but if you agree to the fact that fast healing can come from a magical source, then you got to deal with those situations as well.
Of the rest of Bob_Loblaws points, comparing it to the Leadership feat (which is the single most powerful feat in the game) is hardly relevant.
At the end, the argument boils down to: RAW does not forbid it.
And while it does not, I as well as a number of others raise the question: Does RAW consider it?
Whuuuuut? e_o;Listen to yourself. If it was identical to regeneration, they would reference regeneration in the item description. That thread you're hanging on to isn't even there. As for fast healing being an (Ex or (Su)... I'm over that, it doesn't matter, it's ALMOST irrelevant.
Bob_Loblaw raised several good points that don't even require a RAW reading. Even if you don't like it, the balance here is sound.
Wow, the insight of your arguments just ceases to amaze me, "If it was identical to regeneration, they would reference regeneration in the item description"...
Perhaps there is the slighest chance that the developers used the ring of regeneration from earlier editions as baseline for their item, despite the changes they made to its effect?
And would you really expect them in the wording of the ring to take consideration of a feat they create at a later point? If not, there really isn't a reason for them to include it.I haven't at any point claimed that the ring+feat would be overpowered (quite the contrary if you read my posts), but if you agree to the fact that fast healing can come from a magical source, then you got to deal with those situations as well.
Of the rest of Bob_Loblaws points, comparing it to the Leadership feat (which is the single most powerful feat in the game) is hardly relevant.
At the end, the argument boils down to: RAW does not forbid it.
And while it does not, I as well as a number of others raise the question: Does RAW consider it?
+1
Wow, the insight of your arguments just ceases to amaze me, "If it was identical to regeneration, they would reference regeneration in the item description"...
Not insight, SIR, common sense.
Speaking of insight, I loved this little bit of intellectual awesomeness:
...the ring doesn't heal you. It allows the wearer to heal himself.
I don't know where that came from, but that was sheer brilliance. I don't know what I was thinking... a magic ring whose sole purpose is healing HP isn't a source of MAGICAL HEALING? Somewhere in the fine print there it has to state the the ring unlocks some latent Weapon X factor in anyone who wears it making it completely natural and not magical at all. Man, I am a total idiot.
Thank you, for sharing your staggering and obviously infinite wisdom and your huge ego. Let me get out of your thread so I don't clog up your internet with inferiority.
Wow, the insight of your arguments just ceases to amaze me, "If it was identical to regeneration, they would reference regeneration in the item description"...Not insight, SIR, common sense.
Speaking of insight, I loved this little bit of intellectual awesomeness:
...the ring doesn't heal you. It allows the wearer to heal himself.I don't know where that came from, but that was sheer brilliance. I don't know what I was thinking... a magic ring whose sole purpose is healing HP isn't a source of MAGICAL HEALING? Somewhere in the fine print there it has to state the the ring unlocks some latent Weapon X factor in anyone who wears it making it completely natural and not magical at all. Man, I am a total idiot.
Thank you, for sharing your staggering and obviously infinite wisdom and your huge ego. Let me get out of your thread so I don't clog up your internet with inferiority.
Sorry if I got a bit annoyed in my last post, the tone in your last post triggered it, but there was no reason to step it up.
The fact that I mentioned the detail with the ring, was simply to compare the strict RAW reading argument of 'Ring heals you - it is magical - then you get feat bonus', to the healing gained from similar sources such as fast healing.
And to me, the fast healing issues remained a relevant part of this discussion, as nobody on the other side of the debate, had bothered to relate to quite important points that it isn't necessarily an extraordinary ability.
Of the rest of Bob_Loblaws points, comparing it to the Leadership feat (which is the single most powerful feat in the game) is hardly relevant.
I know that we are in agreement but I would like to point out that I was simply asking a question to help a few others think about the balance issues they were having. The combination that the OP wants to use is hardly game breaking and is, in fact, weaker than other options he can use much earlier in the game. Most GMs I know are very leery about allowing the Leadership feat, myself included. If he could pull this off by 7th level instead of 19th level, how is the 19th level option the broken option?
|
|
The fact that I mentioned the detail with the ring, was simply to compare the strict RAW reading argument of 'Ring heals you - it is magical - then you get feat bonus', to the healing gained from similar sources such as fast healing.And to me, the fast healing issues remained a relevant part of this discussion, as nobody on the other side of the debate, had bothered to relate to quite important points that it isn't necessarily an extraordinary ability.
That is because fast healing is an (ex) ability. Unless Paizo switched the company name to Paizo-Fox News, there's nothing to debate in the first place. Unless someone is being a rules lawyer and making up mechanics that don't exist, that is. The APG Summoner rules for the evolution upgrade are an exception to normal fast healing (ex) because of the other conditions placed on it and the nature of the eichodon. It doesn't mean this exception makes some new unwritten rule.
I believe that the RAW takes all this stuff into account, outside of having to explain everything. The rulebooks are meant to be understood and brief enough without having to resort to unnecessary elaborations. I for one, like not having to buy 700+ page core rulebooks.
A creature with fast healing regains hit points at an exceptional rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature’s entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing.
Nothing more to say. The combo works just fine
Necro! Still waiting on a ruling from an FAQ on this!