Borai and the Heal and Harm spells

[Finoan]

So... It has been a long-standing problem in Pathfinder2e that I am sad to see made its way into Starfinder too.

Heal and Harm change their behavior on the Undead status of the target. The caster has no choice in the matter. Which is fine as long as the target is a normal living creature or a normal Undead creature.

But if the creature is mismatched by use of the Void Healing ability on a living creature or the Borai's mismatch of having the Undead trait but being affected by Void and Vitality energy like a living creature, then things go haywire.

They go haywire because the spell still changes its behavior based on the target's Undead status, not the target's reaction to Vitality or Void energy. So the behavior of these two spells changes to something that the creature ignores. Healing doesn't cause damage and damage doesn't heal (no, a Wood Kineticist cannot Kinetic Blast with Vitality damage to restore all of their allies HP - you do have to use Fresh Produce and cause a Vitality Healing effect for that).

A living creature with Void Healing gets treated by Heal as a living creature and is given Vitality healing - which is ignored.
A living creature with Void Healing gets treated by Harm as a living creature and is dealt Void damage - which is ignored.

A Borai gets treated by Heal as an Undead creature and is dealt Vitality damage - which is ignored.
A Borai gets treated by Harm as an Undead creature and is given Void healing - which is ignored.

The typical houserule is to have the Heal and Harm spells instead change their behavior to match the Void Healing or Vitality Healing of the target instead of using their Undead or living status. So Heal would heal a Borai and Harm would damage them.

But can we please, please get some errata for that.

[Baarogue]

Finoan wrote:

A living creature with Void Healing gets treated by Heal as a living creature and is given Vitality healing - which is ignored.

A living creature with Void Healing gets treated by Harm as a living creature and is dealt Void damage - which is ignored.

A Borai gets treated by Heal as an Undead creature and is dealt Vitality damage - which is ignored.
A Borai gets treated by Harm as an Undead creature and is given Void healing - which is ignored.

While I agree that it would be nice to get some official guidance on these spells and all the ways they are misinterpreted, in the most pedantic reading it would not play out the way you describe. The effects are not dependent on which targeting requirement are fulfilled. The effects have their own requirements, which are informed and altered by OTHER CONTENT

Ranges, Areas, and Targets, PC1 p.298 wrote:

If you choose a target that isn't valid, such as if you thought a driftdead was a living creature and targeted it with a spell that can target only living creatures, your spell fails to target that creature.

same section, a little later wrote:

Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character's condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead).

Void Healing, glossary wrote:

A creature with void healing draws health from void energy rather than vitality energy. It is damaged by vitality damage and is not healed by healing vitality effects. It does not take void damage, and it is healed by void effects that heal undead.

A living creature with Void Healing is targeted by heal as if they are a living creature, which means they may choose if they're willing or not. If unwilling, they are not a valid target and nothing happens. This is surely not the intended effect, but it is the most technically correct one

A living creature with Void Healing is targeted by harm as if they are a living creature, which means they are a valid target whether willing or not. Since they are living they take void damage, which they ignore because they have Void Healing. Then if they are willing they get healed because nobody can argue in good faith that a void effect which says "If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of Hit Points" is not a "void effect that heals undead."

Same difference for a Borai
They're targeted by heal as if they're undead, which ignores their willingness. Then if willing they get healed since heal is a vitality effect that says "If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 Hit Points" and in the Borai heritage it says "You're healed by vitality effects and damaged by void damage, as if you were a living creature."

They could then ignore harm simply by declaring they're unwilling, which again is surely not the intended effect but is the most technically correct one. HOWEVER, some GMs may use the first line in the Borai heritage description to treat Borai as if they are both living and undead at all times. "You've returned from the brink of death as a borai-- at once both living and undead." Which simply means they could not ignore harm, giving both spells their intended interaction with the heritage

THAT is the most pedantic reading of those spells, which leaves such creatures (usually players) in a position of advantage. But I agree that it would be nice if all such spells and other effects were errata'd to do away with the living/undead/Void Healing requirement text on their targeting and effects, since a creature's interaction with vitality and void is already baked into vitality and void effect rules

[Zoken44]

So yes these are very pedantic readings, but the very obvious INTENT is that living things with void healing would be healed by the harm spell, regardless of the intent. Just as if you did a 3action healing burst with living enemies in range they would get healing.

It's kind of the benefit of this not being a computer game, we can use common sense when the rules have edge-case contradictions like this.

[Farien]

Now if only there was some way - some obscure mechanism - to make the rules text actually match the intent.

But alas.