|
| 22 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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 Regeneration
First, 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?
since the ring says it heals 1hp a round I would say yes it does. I don't know the ioun stone but yes if it has similar wording.
I don't know if it's over powered to be honest at the level yourvusing items lik these you usually die from failed saves I think
|
|
since the ring says it heals 1hp a round I would say yes it does. I don't know the ioun stone but yes if it has similar wording.
I don't know if it's over powered to be honest at the level yourvusing items lik these you usually die from failed saves I think
The ioun stone only heals 1 hp / 10 minutes unfortunately otherwise it would be OP. But, I agree with your opinion. I think Fast Healing would work and that it isn't OP. Any other thoughts?
It's a 'per instance of healing' effect. It's not 'per point of healing' effect.
Basically, you get wounded, you start to fast heal via ring or stone. The first point of injury gets healed, you get the Con kicker. Since the ring or stone doesn't STOP healing, it's considered the same instance, and that's all the bonus you get.
Otherwise, you could simply stagger out your nightly HP regain and gain +Con bonus every hour or something. It doesn't work that way.
You'll get the bonus ONCE while fast healing, until you get back to full hp. Then the fast healing shuts down. As soon as you get injured again, the fast healing starts, you get the hp bonus.
Note that getting injured multiple times will have no effect on this. It's all considered one long magical healing event, even if you keep getting injured and the fast healing keeps working. It's not Hp/injury.
So, yes, fast healing will trigger the effect ONCE, until you get full HP back.
==Aelryinth
So, yes, fast healing will trigger the effect ONCE, until you get full HP back.
Sounds like you are saying you only get the bonus from the feat once a day until you get all of your HP back. I don't see any such stipulation in the feat. Maybe I read that wrong?
I just went and looked up all of this stuff, and yes, it works per RAW. Half of your Con modifier, even with a 20, is only 2. Regaining 3 HP every 10 minutes isn't a huge deal. If you can even get the Ioun Stone, then I would hazard a guess that it isn't a low magic campaign, so this is well within the norm. Nice combo.
|
|
It's a 'per instance of healing' effect. It's not 'per point of healing' effect.
Basically, you get wounded, you start to fast heal via ring or stone. The first point of injury gets healed, you get the Con kicker. Since the ring or stone doesn't STOP healing, it's considered the same instance, and that's all the bonus you get.
Otherwise, you could simply stagger out your nightly HP regain and gain +Con bonus every hour or something. It doesn't work that way.
You'll get the bonus ONCE while fast healing, until you get back to full hp. Then the fast healing shuts down. As soon as you get injured again, the fast healing starts, you get the hp bonus.
Note that getting injured multiple times will have no effect on this. It's all considered one long magical healing event, even if you keep getting injured and the fast healing keeps working. It's not Hp/injury.
So, yes, fast healing will trigger the effect ONCE, until you get full HP back.
==Aelryinth
So I take the ring off and put it back on? I personally disagree with your interpretation but thanks for the opinion =)
|
|
So, yes, fast healing will trigger the effect ONCE, until you get full HP back.Sounds like you are saying you only get the bonus from the feat once a day until you get all of your HP back. I don't see any such stipulation in the feat. Maybe I read that wrong?
I just went and looked up all of this stuff, and yes, it works per RAW. Half of your Con modifier, even with a 20, is only 2. Regaining 3 HP every 10 minutes isn't a huge deal. If you can even get the Ioun Stone, then I would hazard a guess that it isn't a low magic campaign, so this is well within the norm. Nice combo.
=) thanks, I thought it was an interesting character idea!
=) thanks, I thought it was an interesting character idea!So, yes, fast healing will trigger the effect ONCE, until you get full HP back.Sounds like you are saying you only get the bonus from the feat once a day until you get all of your HP back. I don't see any such stipulation in the feat. Maybe I read that wrong?
I just went and looked up all of this stuff, and yes, it works per RAW. Half of your Con modifier, even with a 20, is only 2. Regaining 3 HP every 10 minutes isn't a huge deal. If you can even get the Ioun Stone, then I would hazard a guess that it isn't a low magic campaign, so this is well within the norm. Nice combo.
That's correct, it would only work once a day, if you only get wounded once and never get back to full hit points.
Let's go with a different example, the Vigor line of healing spells that give fast healing.
Clearly, casting Light Vigor gives FH 1 for 11 rds, but its also clearly ONE healing spell and instance of healing. You should only get the Hit points for the first round (just like the Augment Healing feat only grants the extra healing on round 1), and then the rest of the effect runs its course.
The stone and the ring do the exact same thing...except they have no time limit. You get injured, they heal the first point, you get +2 hit points, and then the rest of the effect continues on until you are at full hit points, when it stops. If you get wounded again, it starts again, you get +2 hit points the first time, and it keeps going.
Taking the ring on and off won't do anything. Either it continues the effect you interrupted, or it ignores the wounds (i.e. same thing if you pass it to someone already wounded...does it start healing them, too? Is there an attunement period needed?)
Your argument could then be made for waking up every hour at night, so you get 1/8th of your level in hit points, plus 1/2 your con bonus, every hour, on the hour.
Nah, doesn't work that way, either.
The ring starts healing you, you get your bonus. When its done healing you, it turns off, and waits to start working again.
I'd be thinking that a feat that could triple, quadruple or more the power of fast healing might just be a little overpowered, don't you?
==Aelryinth
|
|
=) thanks, I thought it was an interesting character idea!So, yes, fast healing will trigger the effect ONCE, until you get full HP back.Sounds like you are saying you only get the bonus from the feat once a day until you get all of your HP back. I don't see any such stipulation in the feat. Maybe I read that wrong?
I just went and looked up all of this stuff, and yes, it works per RAW. Half of your Con modifier, even with a 20, is only 2. Regaining 3 HP every 10 minutes isn't a huge deal. If you can even get the Ioun Stone, then I would hazard a guess that it isn't a low magic campaign, so this is well within the norm. Nice combo.
That's correct, it would only work once a day, if you only get wounded once and never get back to full hit points.
Let's go with a different example, the Vigor line of healing spells that give fast healing.
Clearly, casting Light Vigor gives FH 1 for 11 rds, but its also clearly ONE healing spell and instance of healing. You should only get the Hit points for the first round (just like the Augment Healing feat only grants the extra healing on round 1), and then the rest of the effect runs its course.The stone and the ring do the exact same thing...except they have no time limit. You get injured, they heal the first point, you get +2 hit points, and then the rest of the effect continues on until you are at full hit points, when it stops. If you get wounded again, it starts again, you get +2 hit points the first time, and it keeps going.
Taking the ring on and off won't do anything. Either it continues the effect you interrupted, or it ignores the wounds (i.e. same thing if you pass it to someone already wounded...does it start healing them, too? Is there an attunement period needed?)
Your argument could then be made for waking up every hour at night, so you get 1/8th of your level in hit points, plus 1/2 your con bonus, every hour, on the hour.
Nah, doesn't work that way,...
Fast Healing
"When you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing, you recover additional hit points equal to half your Constitution modifier (minimum +1).When I ready "When you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing..." I think that seems per instance not per spell or per day. The whole 1/8 nights rest isn't applicable anyway. "with a full night's rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night." so you need the full 8 hours to get 1 hp/lvl. The ring works differently. It heals you 1hp/round when worn.... through thick or thin, full hp or no hp. It occurs 1/round. If you take it off it stops.... put if back on... it starts again. just like that.
RAW has the advantage here. The feat does not specify. And I find your comment on sleep and recovering HP obtuse, if a bit condescending. Regardless of intent, though I'm sure this use was overlooked, the RAW supports this. You can't argue it.
And yes, Vigor would trigger this effect. I for one don't see the problem with this, because otherwise, I find this feat to be quite underwhelming.
Wait so you guys are saying that a barbarian with 30 con can use this ability on a ring of regeneration, which reads "When worn, the ring continually allows a living wearer to heal 1 point of damage per round and an equal amount of nonlethal damage."
So with 1 feat, you take a 90k item and multiply its effects manyfold by making it heal 6 points every round instead of 1? That doesn't seem broken to anyone else?
Personally I think it's a decent feat, especially if you have a cleric who channels energy to heal the party regularly. You get a few extra points of healing every time you're hit with a healing spell. That ends up being a lot for me!
A few things:
Fast healing(ex)or regeneration(ex)is neither magical healing or resting.
I will settle for underwhelming rather than over the top.
I am fairly confident the ability was not meant to supercharge fast healing or regeneration effects.
I am aware this is a rule forum.
I do not like RAW reading replacing common sense, I understand some people enjoy just bending and breaking stuff to get an extra bonus.
Legal and illegal rule lawyering doesnt interest me much.
The ring doesnt work on wounds suffered while not wearing the ring if I recall correctly, though it doesnt say anything about taking it off and then putting it back on.
I am not really trying to make a point.
I still think it is a decent feat, even without silly RAW readings.
huh remco he is talking about healing from magic items. it isn't (ex)
huh remco he is talking about healing from magic items. it isn't (ex)
I am aware of that, but if you think it through there really shouldnt be a difference. Even though fast healing (su) would be 'magical', making the distinction in itself is a load of hogwash to proof a RAW point, which I personally do not much care about.
Wait so you guys are saying that a barbarian with 30 con can use this ability on a ring of regeneration, which reads "When worn, the ring continually allows a living wearer to heal 1 point of damage per round and an equal amount of nonlethal damage."
So with 1 feat, you take a 90k item and multiply its effects manyfold by making it heal 6 points every round instead of 1? That doesn't seem broken to anyone else?
Personally I think it's a decent feat, especially if you have a cleric who channels energy to heal the party regularly. You get a few extra points of healing every time you're hit with a healing spell. That ends up being a lot for me!
If you have a barbarian with a 30 Con... wow, seriously? I've never seen a PC with an attribute over 22 in my time playing, even above level 12, and the majority of my playing experience is in 3.5 where people I played with constantly rolled 18s and 16s for base stats.
At any rate, the ring is MAGICAL HEALING. If it isn't magical, then please explain the mechanic. If you're rocking a 30 Con and fork out the cash for a ring of regen, or get lucky enough to find one, sweet.
No one's cheesing anything. The feat is so straightforward. "When you regain hit points...through magical healing..." It really isn't a huge deal.
EDIT: Flagged OP for FAQ.
Wait so you guys are saying that a barbarian with 30 con can use this ability on a ring of regeneration, which reads "When worn, the ring continually allows a living wearer to heal 1 point of damage per round and an equal amount of nonlethal damage."
So with 1 feat, you take a 90k item and multiply its effects manyfold by making it heal 6 points every round instead of 1? That doesn't seem broken to anyone else?
Personally I think it's a decent feat, especially if you have a cleric who channels energy to heal the party regularly. You get a few extra points of healing every time you're hit with a healing spell. That ends up being a lot for me!
If you have a barbarian with a 30 Con... wow, seriously? I've never seen a PC with an attribute over 22 in my time playing, even above level 12, and the majority of my playing experience is in 3.5 where people I played with constantly rolled 18s and 16s for base stats.
At any rate, the ring is MAGICAL HEALING. If it isn't magical, then please explain the mechanic. If you're rocking a 30 Con and fork out the cash for a ring of regen, or get lucky enough to find one, sweet.
No one's cheesing anything. The feat is so straightforward. "When you regain hit points...through magical healing..." It really isn't a huge deal.
EDIT: Flagged OP for FAQ.
Perhaps, but I think your definition of magical healing is different then the magical healing intended in the feat, though granted fast healing(su) is technically magical.
A 30 con isnt that hard to get, base con 18(16 base as a dwarf) rage +6 and a belt +6 physical attributes (con and strength prolly). Much easier if you play non standard races even.
+6 from Item and +5 Inherent, you start with a 19 Con and you are guaranteed a 30 Con if you want it.
And fast healing is ONE instance of healing, no matter how long it takes to get the job done. You get the bonus when the effect starts, and nothing in succeeding rounds.
The feat does not say 'per round of healing'. RAW, it definitely doesn't multiply fast healing.
==Aelryinth
|
Since I feel like trying my hand at GM rules interpretation, here's my spin.
A few things:
Fast healing(ex)or regeneration(ex)is neither magical healing or resting.
Just to recap the discussion; regeneration is magical healing as per the regeneration spell.
The fast healer feat is not magical healing, for you readers out there.
I am aware of that, but if you think it through there really shouldn't be a difference. Even though fast healing (su) would be 'magical', making the distinction in itself is a load of hogwash to proof a RAW point, which I personally do not much care about.
There is no RAW point because the healing is not magical healing, it is through a feat. There should certainly be a difference between non magical and magical in a game system.
Perhaps, but I think your definition of magical healing is different then the magical healing intended in the feat, though granted fast healing(su) is technically magical.
A 30 con isnt that hard to get, base con 18(16 base as a dwarf) rage +6 and a belt +6 physical attributes (con and strength prolly). Much easier if you play non standard races even.
You seem to be switching (Su) and (Ex) for the same feat, this is not very good for a rules discussion because they are two different things and such a definition should be very clear.
Now on to the OP: It wouldn't work because you don't have the prerequisite feats. Fast Healer has other feat requirements.
Resting will trigger fast healer regardless of having a ring of regeneration. Ring of regeneration does indeed heal 1 hit points a round. It triggers fast healer as the PC with the feat is regaining hit points through magical healing. The ring is also significantly high on CL so, it could be -hard- to purchase in the first place.
Its not really overpowered because there are two other feats as a prerequisite. That and a crafty GM could do bad things like having the ring of regeneration actually being a cursed item after it is implanted. I don't see how the feat should be underwhelming with prerequisites either.
Anyway since no one seems to present any page numbers of the rules/feats/items in this rules discussion, here they are for easy reference:
APG 160
Core 11-12, 122, 191, 331, 482, 520-521
No one's cheesing anything. The feat is so straightforward. "When you regain hit points...through magical healing..." It really isn't a huge deal.
EDIT: Flagged OP for FAQ.
Where I see I problem in allowing this feat to work on fast healing (or spells and items that gives the effect), is that it is gonna seriously shrew the importance of regular healing spells.
If you allow fast healing on fast healing, then you are making a spell such as infernal healing vastly superior to cure light wound. The effect is gonna be doubled or tripled, while the cure spell get a minor bonus.
In any group that somehow relies on number crunching, it will make cure spells a sucky choice, as a lvl 1 spell (infernal healing) cast by a lvl 1 character is going to do more healing than a cure serious wounds cast by a lvl 15 cleric.
I don't see how the feat should be underwhelming with prerequisites either.
I think it's underwhelming because of the prerequisites and the fact that only returns half of your Con modifier on the trigger. I think this use of the feat makes it more attractive.
Endurance is not a terrible feat, but the only time I've ever seen it used was when I took it as a prerequisite to another feat (I forget the name of the feat, but it allowed me to add my Con modifier to Will saves).
Diehard is an okay feat. It's made far better by the change in Pathfinder that allows you to go below 0 to your negative Con score.
Fast healing is okay, I guess. An extra +2 to healing for 6 or 8 levels (when it goes up to +3 or +4) is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not extravagant. By 8th level, you've gotten 2 points to put into attributes, for a 20 base Con, ideally (22 if you rolled stats and got the coveted 18). You probably have a belt with +2 Con. Theoretically you could have a +4 belt, but that's highly unlikely because that's right at half your character wealth. So a 22. By level 8 you're getting an extra 3 points of healing per Cure Critical wounds (4d8+11) or 3d8+11, or 1d8+8 (because there's a maximum on bonus from caster level).
Three HP to 4d8+8 is a drop in the bucket. Sure, you'll be glad you got em if the cleric rolls all ones on those d8... But dang. Is that all you're supposed to get out of the feat? And this is with a high Con build! I'm sorry, but that doesn't impress me, even with a high Con score.
If it said "you regain addition hit points equal to your Constitution modifier when you receive healing from channel energy or cure spells and from rest" then I'd be on board for it.
EDIT: Infernal Healing would be a great spell to use with this feat. But it would only work for the character that has the feat! The benefit to the party would be less resources used on that one character. It's not like the cleric suddenly becomes obsolete, anyway. He has to cast the spells to trigger the feat. Infernal healing also has the Evil descriptor, so I think that means good clerics, or clerics of good deities, can't use it, right? And paladin's probably couldn't willingly accept its benefits.
|
|
Fast healing provided by infernal healing doesn't give extra hp from fast healer. It functions normally with or without the feat.
I had to look through the core, APG, and the source that has infernal healing before having to guess correctly where the heck the rules for the non-feat fast healing.
Since no one has again bothered to put a page reference here they are for infernal healing and fast healing:
Gods and Magic PF Chronicles 7
Bestiary 300
I would allow this. At first it seems overpowered but you are building a character called an Invulnerable Rager. You are focusing everything you have on defense which means your offense will suffer for this, at least for a while.
You can't afford the ring or ioun stone for quite some time. By then, you have plenty of other ways to rapidly heal, to include the heal spell itself. You could simply take the Leadership feat and have a cleric as your cohort healing you. It would accomplish the same thing (plus more).
The stone costs 20k and the ring costs 90k. The Core Book suggests that no item you own costs more than half your wealth on any single item and for a more balanced approach, 25% of your wealth should go to something like this. So you should be level 9 or even much higher before you can pull this off. You should probably be level 11 or so for the "more balanced approach." That's if you are going for the ioun stone. If you are going for the ring, you should be level 14 or 17.
I don't think this is as broken as it as first seems. You need to use three feats, one of which isn't going to be doing much for you. The ioun stone or the ring can be attacked, grabbed, dispelled, disjuncted, etc. DR doesn't help with energy damage. The SR isn't going to be enough to stop the more challenging opponents for the adventures. Yes, it will help with mooks, but not with bosses. DR isn't going to help with any non-hit point attacks.
Feats stand on their own merits. Pre-reqs don't cancel out an overpowered feat, unless you believe in the 'feat tax' argument of spending on suck to get something overpowered.
The only way you can rule it equitably is per instance of healing. Applying it 'per round' or 'per hit point' of healing isn't equitable with Cure Spells.
You apply an even hand across the board. Once per instance of Fast Healing activating, once per Regeneration activating, once per Cure Spell going off.
Start making exceptions, and you just screw up the rules.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Feats stand on their own merits. Pre-reqs don't cancel out an overpowered feat, unless you believe in the 'feat tax' argument of spending on suck to get something overpowered.
The only way you can rule it equitably is per instance of healing. Applying it 'per round' or 'per hit point' of healing isn't equitable with Cure Spells.
You apply an even hand across the board. Once per instance of Fast Healing activating, once per Regeneration activating, once per Cure Spell going off.
Start making exceptions, and you just screw up the rules.
==Aelryinth
I understand you think that this might be inappropriate but maybe you just misunderstand or have a different personal opinion? It isn't fast healing. It isn't regeneration. It is an item that heals you 1 hp/round. It has no associated Supernatural or extraordinary abilities associated with it. It is however, associated with the spell Regenerate (which is a seventh level cleric spell and ninth level druid spell.)
Either way, you're welcome to have your opinion but I would encourage you to back your opinion up with quotes from the book as this is a rules question.
Feats stand on their own merits. Pre-reqs don't cancel out an overpowered feat, unless you believe in the 'feat tax' argument of spending on suck to get something overpowered.
The only way you can rule it equitably is per instance of healing. Applying it 'per round' or 'per hit point' of healing isn't equitable with Cure Spells.
You apply an even hand across the board. Once per instance of Fast Healing activating, once per Regeneration activating, once per Cure Spell going off.
Start making exceptions, and you just screw up the rules.
==Aelryinth
You're making up this "per hit point" argument. The only place this is even coming up is the fact that most heal-over-time effects are 1 per round.
However, I have another question, one I only just thought of: Does the fast healing from the stone and the ring really stack? The stone essentially gives you 1/10 HP per minute, which is 1/60 hp per round. The ring give you one per round, which is 10 per minute. (I think, but it's late, and my brain is fried from all the junk food from the superbowl party.) I think the greater value overrides the lesser one, but it's not a "bonus" per se, and I don't know where to find this out.
Just for sake of simplicity of figuring out the HP regain though, I would rule that the ring overpowers the stone and the stone doesn't impact healing anymore. I mean, really, 1 HP per 10 minutes compared to 1 every 6 seconds is a vast difference. The stone becomes almost a moot point, and not worth stacking. [/tangent]
At any rate, Aelryinth, you're the one making an exception. The feat states that if at ANY point you receive magical healing, you benefit from the feat. It does not specify a single instance per spell, or a limit per day to the bonus healing. You're making that up, because it simply is not in the feat description, no matter how badly you want it to be there. Your argument about the Cure spells vs HoT spells isn't valid. They work the way they work because you are making a trade-off. With Cure spells, you have a chance to get a large (or small) portion of HP all at once, which is more useful in a pinch, but has the added gamble of rolling minimum healing. Meanwhile, with HoT spells, you are guaranteed a certain amount of hit point gain, but you have to wait over an extended period. The fact that this feat happens to work BETTER with the latter seems like it is flavor geared to me.
Wolverine, anyone?
|
This is also a weird way to discuss things in the rules forum. You can state your opinion that applying thing x in this way is overpowered and you would change it to balance things out but that is different than interpreting the rules.
There are two ways of reading a thing, one is balanced, the other is broken.
You use the way that is balanced. What is weird about that?
|
|
Well no, it doesn't require adding anything, it's a simple matter of baseline assumptions.
"When you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing, you recover additional hit points equal to half your Constitution modifier (minimum +1)."
When someone casts "Infernal Healing" on you are you "regaining" hit points 10 times or are you regaining them once over a 10 round period?
The feat doesn't say 'each round you regain', it is unspecific.
If you assume that it's each round the spell effect is it's twice, three times, or even more powerful than what's written, and heals 5 times as much as the baseline first level healing spell Cure Light Wounds.
If you assume that Infernal Healing is a single effect that grants you healing over an extended period then the feat has the exact effect it has with cure light wounds, you get an extra 1-? hit points for each time a healing spell is cast.
So you can assume whichever you want. When I'm playing I always assume that any given feat isn't designed to give a benefit way out of proportion from other feats.
|
|
Well no, it doesn't require adding anything, it's a simple matter of baseline assumptions.
"When you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing, you recover additional hit points equal to half your Constitution modifier (minimum +1)."
When someone casts "Infernal Healing" on you are you "regaining" hit points 10 times or are you regaining them once over a 10 round period?
The feat doesn't say 'each round you regain', it is unspecific.
If you assume that it's each round the spell effect is it's twice, three times, or even more powerful than what's written, and heals 5 times as much as the baseline first level healing spell Cure Light Wounds.
If you assume that Infernal Healing is a single effect that grants you healing over an extended period then the feat has the exact effect it has with cure light wounds, you get an extra 1-? hit points for each time a healing spell is cast.
So you can assume whichever you want. When I'm playing I always assume that any given feat isn't designed to give a benefit way out of proportion from other feats.
I don't believe he is arguing the power level of the feat Ogre... He is merely saying that your preferred way to interpret the feat requires that you add your own statment "The feat doesn't say "each round you regain", it is unspecific". With no additions the feat IMO clearly says that if you gain health through magical or natural you gain more health from it... No additions or subtractions just an easy read.
Well no, it doesn't require adding anything, it's a simple matter of baseline assumptions.
You know what they say about when you assume...
"When you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing, you recover additional hit points equal to half your Constitution modifier (minimum +1)."
QUESTION: When someone casts "Infernal Healing" on you are you "regaining" hit points 10 times or are you regaining them once over a 10 round period?
ANSWER: The feat doesn't say 'each round you regain', it is unspecific.
You answered your own question. The feat is not specific. If you get infernal healing cast on you and get one HP per round, how is it mechanically different from having cure light wounds cast on you every round? Ignore the fact that each requires a separate casting on someone else's part, that is irrelevant.
Every 6 seconds, you are regaining hit points. When you get one, it adds the bonus from the feat. When you regain another point, you get the bonus again. It does not say "once per effect" ANYWHERE, people are MAKING THIS UP. It isn't broken, people, and the stupid-ridiculous numbers that are coming up in this thread are the result of a total dump of resources into a single focus, which is a HUGE detraction from other areas. If you are willing to go that far with your resources, WOO HOO! And have fun on that climb to level 15, or 16, or 17, whenever that crap is available to you!
|
|
I don't believe he is arguing the power level of the feat Ogre... He is merely saying that your preferred way to interpret the feat requires that you add your own statment "The feat doesn't say "each round you regain", it is unspecific". With no additions the feat IMO clearly says that if you gain health through magical or natural you gain more health from it... No additions or subtractions just an easy read.
*shrug*
As I said. What assumptions do you bring to reading it. Is it one effect or 10? Seeing as it's one spell I don't think there is any additions required.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
My interpretation, take it or leave it.
A) Ring & Ioun stone do stack (they are different sources and untyped). However, the Ioun stone is pointless. It only gives back 1 hp every ten minutes. That's 10 rounds per minute, or 100 rounds. Unless you have more than 100 hps and have taken more than 100, the ring will always heal you before the ioun stone can.
B) The feat works with both. However, to me, it works as detailed below.
C) Not broken if handled per below, but broken if applied to each round of healing.
How I'd handle it in my game :
A ring or stone doesn't heal you every round unless you're wounded. A ring won't even heal you unless it was on you when you were injured. Thus, it isn't 'always healing' as I saw above. It quite clearly starts healing when you take a wound, and doesn't stop until you are fully healed. Therefore, the 1st time it gives a HP to the wearer, the feat would kick in and give HP.
For example, Erik the Viking has Fast Healer and a Ring of Regeneration. He has a con of 18 (+4).
Round 1 : Erik takes an arrow in the chest for 10 hps. At the end of the round, the ring kicks in and gives back 1hp, and the fast healer kicks in and he get's 2 additional hp, so he's 7 down.
Round 2 : Erik takes another arrow for 10 more hp, leaving him at 17 down. The ring heals him for 1 hp, making it 16hp down. Because the ring is still continuing it's healing from earlier, he doesn't get the feat bonus. However, his friend the cleric channels for 15hps, bringing him up to being 1 down. This is a new source of healing, and his fast healer kicks in for it, giving him 2 additional, bringing him to full.
Round 3 : Erik takes another arrow (he's looking like a pin cushion now) and takes 7 hp. The ring again kicks in, since he was fully healed, and does 1hp. Since this is a new healing session for the ring, his Fast Healer kicks in and gives him 2 more, making him down by 5.
|
|
My interpretation, take it or leave it.
A) Ring & Ioun stone do stack (they are different sources and untyped). However, the Ioun stone is pointless. It only gives back 1 hp every ten minutes. That's 10 rounds per minute, or 100 rounds. Unless you have more than 100 hps and have taken more than 100, the ring will always heal you before the ioun stone can.
B) The feat works with both. However, to me, it works as detailed below.
C) Not broken if handled per below, but broken if applied to each round of healing.How I'd handle it in my game :
A ring or stone doesn't heal you every round unless you're wounded. A ring won't even heal you unless it was on you when you were injured. Thus, it isn't 'always healing' as I saw above. It quite clearly starts healing when you take a wound, and doesn't stop until you are fully healed. Therefore, the 1st time it gives a HP to the wearer, the feat would kick in and give HP.
For example, Erik the Viking has Fast Healer and a Ring of Regeneration. He has a con of 18 (+4).
Round 1 : Erik takes an arrow in the chest for 10 hps. At the end of the round, the ring kicks in and gives back 1hp, and the fast healer kicks in and he get's 2 additional hp, so he's 7 down.
Round 2 : Erik takes another arrow for 10 more hp, leaving him at 17 down. The ring heals him for 1 hp, making it 16hp down. Because the ring is still continuing it's healing from earlier, he doesn't get the feat bonus. However, his friend the cleric channels for 15hps, bringing him up to being 1 down. This is a new source of healing, and his fast healer kicks in for it, giving him 2 additional, bringing him to full.
Round 3 : Erik takes another arrow (he's looking like a pin cushion now) and takes 7 hp. The ring again kicks in, since he was fully healed, and does 1hp. Since this is a new healing session for the ring, his Fast Healer kicks in and gives him 2 more, making him down by 5.
Meh, =) i'll leave it lol!
|
|
I don't believe he is arguing the power level of the feat Ogre... He is merely saying that your preferred way to interpret the feat requires that you add your own statment "The feat doesn't say "each round you regain", it is unspecific". With no additions the feat IMO clearly says that if you gain health through magical or natural you gain more health from it... No additions or subtractions just an easy read.*shrug*
As I said. What assumptions do you bring to reading it. Is it one effect or 10? Seeing as it's one spell I don't think there is any additions required.
The feat never mentions the number of effects Ogre. That's what I'm trying to say. Your interpretation is adding this idea of # of effects. The more simple interpretation doesn't add or subtract anything. Just if you get healed by magic or natural then you get extra hp. =D sorry if you still don't get it... I'll let it go.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The feat never mentions the number of effects Ogre. That's what I'm trying to say. Your interpretation is adding this idea of # of effects. The more simple interpretation doesn't add or subtract anything. Just if you get healed by magic or natural then you get extra hp. =D sorry if you still don't get it... I'll let it go.I don't believe he is arguing the power level of the feat Ogre... He is merely saying that your preferred way to interpret the feat requires that you add your own statment "The feat doesn't say "each round you regain", it is unspecific". With no additions the feat IMO clearly says that if you gain health through magical or natural you gain more health from it... No additions or subtractions just an easy read.*shrug*
As I said. What assumptions do you bring to reading it. Is it one effect or 10? Seeing as it's one spell I don't think there is any additions required.
I 'get' where you are coming from I just don't agree. But there is no point in debating it.
You answered your own question. The feat is not specific. If you get infernal healing cast on you and get one HP per round, how is it mechanically different from having cure light wounds cast on you every round? Ignore the fact that each requires a separate casting on someone else's part, that is irrelevant.The difference is simple; the instance of casting.
Infernal Healing is cast once, its effect lasts several rounds. I would apply the bonus once.
Whilst Cure Light Wounds is cast every round and each time providing a bonus.
You would apply it once, but the feat does not say, at any point in its brief description, that you only apply it once per spell effect. Gaining one HP per round is multiple instances of gaining HP through magical means, and each instance triggers the effect as the feat states.
Until a Paizo staffer comes in and says otherwise, RAW wins this argument.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You answered your own question. The feat is not specific. If you get infernal healing cast on you and get one HP per round, how is it mechanically different from having cure light wounds cast on you every round? Ignore the fact that each requires a separate casting on someone else's part, that is irrelevant.The difference is simple; the instance of casting.
Infernal Healing is cast once, its effect lasts several rounds. I would apply the bonus once.
Whilst Cure Light Wounds is cast every round and each time providing a bonus.
You would apply it once, but the feat does not say, at any point in its brief description, that you only apply it once per spell effect. Gaining one HP per round is multiple instances of gaining HP through magical means, and each instance triggers the effect as the feat states.
Until a Paizo staffer comes in and says otherwise, RAW wins this argument.
+1
I'm with ogre and mdt. You get the boost in healing once per spell or effect. Your reading of the RAW is far too narrow. You have to compare one rules subset to others when making your decisions, you can't just look at the feat in a vacuum.
--Schoolhouse Vrock
+1, though I think this is a case of people with experience balancing a game versus the 'not so balance inclined'.
If you really want to know, you should ask James or any other staff member, but I assure you they did not make the feat to quintiple the effect of your regeneration ring.
I am also of the opinion that RAW does not 'win' arguments, yes this is a rule forum, but spirit of the rules (or common sense as you will) has a place there as well, in my opinion a much bigger place.
This above is what you have to go on when interpreting the feat. There is no mentioning of fast healer being per spell effect or per healing effect(if you want to count infernal healing as a single healing effect for example). There are so few words to this ability and the meaning is pretty simple. Its trigger is "when you regain hit points" and then it specifies from what you must regain hit points, "rest or magical healing". There literally is no middle ground or gray area in this feat. Did you just regain hit points and was it from either rest or a magical source of healing? Yes and yes? then apply the feat's benefit.
Then by all means, hit the FAQ button. If you don't like what people tell you, do whatever you want in your own game.
|
|
That is a nice notion if there were things in the feat for you to compare to. But the feat is very simple. Technically, you guys aren't comparing any rules set to another. There are no rules that talk about how many instances of healing infernal healing is or how many instances of healing are the ring or ioun stone. The benefit isn't even activated off of healing effects. It is activated off of regaining hit points.
I would mention that earlier I did look at the Core, APG, Bestiary, and the PFC:Gods and Magic and posted by findings. That would likely be as close as not "too narrow" as one could get.
I also clarified that Infernal Healing does not work with Fast Healer and etc. I see that my efforts to avoid arguments based on completely invalid rules assumptions have been completely thwarted by some unseen force. Probably about three days ago.
I do feel that its silly (and probably bad, since its copyright material!) posting exact content for people who didn't bother to read it in the first place. Even more sillier than a bunch of people trying to answer rules questions without knowing the rules!