Witch's Healing Hex - Usable vs. undead?

[Karui Kage]

As the title. Is the healing hex useful against undead? "A witch can soothe the wounds of those she touches. This acts as a cure light wounds spell, using the witch's caster level. Once a creature has benefited from the healing hex, it cannot benefit from it again for 24 hours. At 5th level, this hex acts like cure moderate wounds."

Based on the text, it seems like it does not as it mentions a lot of benefiting... but it could just be flavor text. It does say it acts like a cure light wounds. I don't know. Thoughts?

[Carbon D. Metric]

It functions as the cure spells for all purposes not explicitly mentioned meaning it harms undead.

[LazarX]

Karui Kage wrote:

As the title. Is the healing hex useful against undead? "A witch can soothe the wounds of those she touches. This acts as a cure light wounds spell, using the witch's caster level. Once a creature has benefited from the healing hex, it cannot benefit from it again for 24 hours. At 5th level, this hex acts like cure moderate wounds."

Based on the text, it seems like it does not as it mentions a lot of benefiting... but it could just be flavor text. It does say it acts like a cure light wounds. I don't know. Thoughts?

No... it is a curing effect but not a positive energy one. All you can do with the Hex is cure. It acts as a cure light wounds for the purposes of dice and effect cap and stabilization purposes, but it is not the spell itself.

[LoreKeeper]

If it says its like the spell (cure light wounds) except for the following changes "does not harm undead", then yea, it would not work against undead. Since it says it is like the spell without restriction, it works on undead too.

[Kaiyanwang]

The Hex seems to work exactly like the spell, barring the 1/day/target thing.

so I'd say yes.

[mdt]

Yes,
But the real question is, does it Heal the undead, or harm them?

If it's not positive energy, and is instead arcane magic, it's entirely possible that it could heal the undead as easily as it heals the living.

[Allia Thren]

Hey, you could even go as far and say: "If I harm the undead with the hex, it has not benefited from it, so I can use it again. And again. And again."

That definitely does not seem to be the intend behind the Hex of course.

[rockfall22]

mdt wrote:

Yes,

But the real question is, does it Heal the undead, or harm them?

If it's not positive energy, and is instead arcane magic, it's entirely possible that it could heal the undead as easily as it heals the living.

I am entirely sure it causes harm to the undead. The fact that it uses arcane magic really should not factor into the equation at all. That's like saying that only clerics can produce effects that use positive energy, which I would think is erroneous, given that bards can cast arcane healing spells, too.

[Gruuuu]

mdt wrote:

Yes,

But the real question is, does it Heal the undead, or harm them?

If it's not positive energy, and is instead arcane magic, it's entirely possible that it could heal the undead as easily as it heals the living.

The spell specifically calls out that it generates positive energy, and there's not a separate listing for an arcane version.

[rockfall22]

Gruuuu wrote:

The spell specifically calls out that it generates positive energy, and there's not a separate listing for an arcane version.

+1.

[mdt]

Gruuuu wrote:

mdt wrote:

Yes,

But the real question is, does it Heal the undead, or harm them?

If it's not positive energy, and is instead arcane magic, it's entirely possible that it could heal the undead as easily as it heals the living.

The spell specifically calls out that it generates positive energy, and there's not a separate listing for an arcane version.

There is a difference between saying a supernatural ability works 'as' a spell, and saying that is a spell like ability. The hex is not a spell like ability, it's a supernatural ability.

If the intent was for the witch to cast the spell itself, it would be a spell like ability (Sp), not supernatural (Su).

Your interpretation makes it a spell like ability (the witch is casting the spell and generating positive energy). Since the hex is not a spell like ability, and it only says it works as the spell, that to me says use the spell's mechanical bits, but not the spell itself nor the spell's crunch.

That get's us a hex that heals 1d6+1 per caster level (Max +5) to a person up to once a day. It then mimics Cure Moderate at higher levels. Again though, that's just the mechanics of the healing. Not a spell like ability nor casting of the spell itself.

In other words, it's a vague and not very well defined ability, especially as written (a person may benefit only once per day). That indicates you can either only heal with it (not use it on undead), or that undead gain benefit from it (and are repaired). Either way, doing damage to the undead is not 'benefiting' them.

[LazarX]

LoreKeeper wrote:

If it says its like the spell (cure light wounds) except for the following changes "does not harm undead", then yea, it would not work against undead. Since it says it is like the spell without restriction, it works on undead too.

Pathfinder is not like 3.5 where healing energy automatically harms undead. That's why clerics and paladins when they are channeling positive energy actually have to choose between the two... they can't do both at once. No effect in Pathfinder has a dual function unless it's specifically stated to do so. Cleric and Paladin channeling does with the above restriction. The Healing Hex does not.

[Kalyth]

LazarX wrote:

LoreKeeper wrote:

If it says its like the spell (cure light wounds) except for the following changes "does not harm undead", then yea, it would not work against undead. Since it says it is like the spell without restriction, it works on undead too.

Pathfinder is not like 3.5 where healing energy automatically harms undead. That's why clerics and paladins when they are channeling positive energy actually have to choose between the two... they can't do both at once. No effect in Pathfinder has a dual function unless it's specifically stated to do so. Cleric and Paladin channeling does with the above restriction. The Healing Hex does not.

The effect of cure light wounds does indeed have a dual function. It heals living creatures and harms the undead. The description of the Hex says it functions as the spell. Therefore if the text does not place any additional restriction or exceptions on the effect then it is as per the spell Cure Light Wounds.

If you read the description of Cure Light Wounds the harming of the undead isn't even a variant casting. It is used in the exact same way just if an undead happens to be the target they are injured rather than healed due to their nature not any exception or change in how the cure light wounds spell is used. You could cast Cure Light Wounds and hold the charge for an hour debating whether to touch your friend and heal them or touch a zombie and harm them. The effect doesnt vary by use but by target.

Heck even if the caster of cure light wounds didnt even know the target was undead it would take damage. A vampire pretending to be a bar maid and the cleric tries to heal her only to see that the spell harmed her instead.

Channel Energy is specifically restricted to only being able to do one or the other. Mass Cure Light Wounds carries no such restriction and can be used to harm undead and heal the living at the same time with the same casting as it is all one effect just different targets are effected in different ways.

With no exclusion that it does not harm the undead I would run it just like the spell.

The fact that it is a Supernatural ability rather than a spell-like or spell I dont really think is a factor.

If someone had Dimension Door as a supernatural ability rather than a spell like ability would that alter any of the aspects of the description of Dimension Door or would you just run it basically as the spell with just applying the rules for Supernatural abilities to it (No components needed, Not subject to counter spelling, etc...)

[Gruuuu]

LazarX wrote:

LoreKeeper wrote:

If it says its like the spell (cure light wounds) except for the following changes "does not harm undead", then yea, it would not work against undead. Since it says it is like the spell without restriction, it works on undead too.

Pathfinder is not like 3.5 where healing energy automatically harms undead. That's why clerics and paladins when they are channeling positive energy actually have to choose between the two... they can't do both at once. No effect in Pathfinder has a dual function unless it's specifically stated to do so. Cleric and Paladin channeling does with the above restriction. The Healing Hex does not.

CLW wrote:

When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply Spell Resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.

Healing Hex wrote:

Healing (Su): A witch can soothe the wounds of those she touches. This acts as a cure light wounds spell, using the witch’s caster level. Once a creature has benefited from the healing hex, it cannot benefit from it again for 24 hours. At 5th level, this hex acts like cure moderate wounds.

With the possible exception of abilities that might work different because they're a Supernatural (not sold on that one yet), it seems like it does exactly that.

EDIT:

Supernatural Abilities wrote:

Supernatural Abilities (Su)

Supernatural abilities are magical attacks, defenses, and qualities. These abilities can be always active or they can require a specific action to utilize. The supernatural ability's description includes information on how it is used and its effects.

Are there conflicting rules elsewhere?

[Kalyth]

mdt wrote:

Gruuuu wrote:

mdt wrote:

Yes,

But the real question is, does it Heal the undead, or harm them?

If it's not positive energy, and is instead arcane magic, it's entirely possible that it could heal the undead as easily as it heals the living.

The spell specifically calls out that it generates positive energy, and there's not a separate listing for an arcane version.

There is a difference between saying a supernatural ability works 'as' a spell, and saying that is a spell like ability. The hex is not a spell like ability, it's a supernatural ability.

If the intent was for the witch to cast the spell itself, it would be a spell like ability (Sp), not supernatural (Su).

Your interpretation makes it a spell like ability (the witch is casting the spell and generating positive energy). Since the hex is not a spell like ability, and it only says it works as the spell, that to me says use the spell's mechanical bits, but not the spell itself nor the spell's crunch.

That get's us a hex that heals 1d6+1 per caster level (Max +5) to a person up to once a day. It then mimics Cure Moderate at higher levels. Again though, that's just the mechanics of the healing. Not a spell like ability nor casting of the spell itself.

In other words, it's a vague and not very well defined ability, especially as written (a person may benefit only once per day). That indicates you can either only heal with it (not use it on undead), or that undead gain benefit from it (and are repaired). Either way, doing damage to the undead is not 'benefiting' them.

It is a completely defined ability. It functions just as the spell Cure Light Wounds. Is there something in the description of Cure Light Wounds that is vague and not very well defined? The healing hex is a positive energy effect if not then can I use it to heal Undead? Constructs? It only becomes vague if you ignore what the description of the Hex tells you to do, reference the spell Cure Light Wounds and use that as the effect of the Hex. Again the fact that it is a supernatural ability rather than a spell-like or spell really is not an issue as it still functions mechanically as the effects of Cure Light Wounds. We could call it extrordinary ability or heck even a feat and say it functions like cure light wounds and well it would function like cure light wounds. It only gets vague if you try to read more into it than necessary.

[mdt]

Kalyth wrote:

It is a completely defined ability. It functions just as the spell Cure Light Wounds.

If that were the case, then why doesn't the power read as follows :

Healing Hex : The witch can cast cure light wounds as a hex at will. No target can be affected by the hex more than once in 24 hours. At 5th level, the witch can instead cast cure moderate wounds as a hex, with the same restriction on how many times a target can be targeted.

There are plenty of powers in the books that allow you to cast spells as special abilities (rogue talents for example), all of them specify you cast the spell, not that you do something as the spell. To me, either this is a poorly worded spell like ability, or it was the intention to make this distinctive from actually casting the spell.

EDIT :
A spell like ability can be counterspelled, a supernatural ability can't. So, if this ability were using the spell exactly, then a vampire could counterspell the ability. But they can't, so it's obviously not the spell.

[Mortifier]

Don't know why this is being debated. The part in question is how it functions on a target and that is clear.

Given that arguing opinions are pointless because everyone will have a different opinion, we can only use facts. Currently it says it functions as cure light wounds and cure light wounds specifically states it harms undead.

[Gruuuu]

mdt wrote:

Kalyth wrote:

It is a completely defined ability. It functions just as the spell Cure Light Wounds.

If that were the case, then why doesn't the power read as follows :

Healing Hex : The witch can cast cure light wounds as a hex at will. No target can be affected by the hex more than once in 24 hours. At 5th level, the witch can instead cast cure moderate wounds as a hex, with the same restriction on how many times a target can be targeted.

There are plenty of powers in the books that allow you to cast spells as special abilities (rogue talents for example), all of them specify you cast the spell, not that you do something as the spell. To me, either this is a poorly worded spell like ability, or it was the intention to make this distinctive from actually casting the spell.

EDIT :
A spell like ability can be counterspelled, a supernatural ability can't. So, if this ability were using the spell exactly, then a vampire could counterspell the ability. But they can't, so it's obviously not the spell.

Probably also because as a supernatural ability, you avoid SR and AoOs.

So, it's like a CLW that doesn't take a slot, and is easier to land? Maybe even worthwhile once it becomes a CMW......nah. Still not worth being that close to the nasty beasties.

[Karui Kage]

The reason I asked this is because I'm pretty much with mdt. If it's supposed to work like Cure Light Wounds, then why such a weird phrasing? Why not just make it a spell-like ability, usable once per target per 24 hours? That seems the simplest way. :S

[mdt]

Gruuuu wrote:

Probably also because as a supernatural ability, you avoid SR and AoOs.

So, it's like a CLW that doesn't take a slot, and is easier to land? Maybe even worthwhile once it becomes a CMW......nah. Still not worth being that close to the nasty beasties.

Yep, but again, it's extremely not like the spell, both in usage and game affects (SR, AoO, etc). I fail to see how something 'works exactly like the spell' except 'in everything except how the spell works'. :)

My own ruling on it is that it's using the same mechanics, but is not a cure light wounds spell, and is not channeling positive energy. It's just an arcane repair job. So in my game, a which could use it to heal a dhampir once per day. Or an undead minion (which makes it useful for a gravewalker). But not harm undead.

[Kalyth]

Karui Kage wrote:

The reason I asked this is because I'm pretty much with mdt. If it's supposed to work like Cure Light Wounds, then why such a weird phrasing? Why not just make it a spell-like ability, usable once per target per 24 hours? That seems the simplest way. :S

That is pretty much what it reads just with a bit more flavor rolled in.

It is tagged as a Supernatural ability.

It can be used once per day per target.

It fucntions as Cure Light Wounds or Cure Moderate Wounds.

All of that is listed in the description of the Hex.

It is obvious that the Name and flavor is that it is primarily regarded as a Healing power and not a combat power. Just a Cure Light Wounds is regarded as a Healing power rather than a combat power but both cause damage to undead due to the nature of undead.

[Gruuuu]

mdt wrote:

Gruuuu wrote:

Probably also because as a supernatural ability, you avoid SR and AoOs.

So, it's like a CLW that doesn't take a slot, and is easier to land? Maybe even worthwhile once it becomes a CMW......nah. Still not worth being that close to the nasty beasties.

Yep, but again, it's extremely not like the spell, both in usage and game affects (SR, AoO, etc). I fail to see how something 'works exactly like the spell' except 'in everything except how the spell works'. :)

My own ruling on it is that it's using the same mechanics, but is not a cure light wounds spell, and is not channeling positive energy. It's just an arcane repair job. So in my game, a which could use it to heal a dhampir once per day. Or an undead minion (which makes it useful for a gravewalker). But not harm undead.

O...kay. I don't get how you justify removing wording from the spell effects, but at this point I get the feeling you just want it to work a certain way. Which is cool.

In my mind, the only rulings that change are the ones that effect how the spell is interacted with. Spells provoke, have to pass SR, can be counterspelled. SUs don't, don't, can't. Other than that, the inner workings of the spell don't change.

[Kalyth]

mdt wrote:

Gruuuu wrote:

Probably also because as a supernatural ability, you avoid SR and AoOs.

So, it's like a CLW that doesn't take a slot, and is easier to land? Maybe even worthwhile once it becomes a CMW......nah. Still not worth being that close to the nasty beasties.

Yep, but again, it's extremely not like the spell, both in usage and game affects (SR, AoO, etc). I fail to see how something 'works exactly like the spell' except 'in everything except how the spell works'. :)

My own ruling on it is that it's using the same mechanics, but is not a cure light wounds spell, and is not channeling positive energy. It's just an arcane repair job. So in my game, a which could use it to heal a dhampir once per day. Or an undead minion (which makes it useful for a gravewalker). But not harm undead.

What are you using as the basis for stating that it doesnt channel positive energy? Just the flavor you want to apply? If it functions as the spell Cure Light Wounds, which specifically stats it channels positive energy, then it is a positive energy effect. Just as if the witch casts the spell Cure Light Wounds from her spell list. Lots of special abilities are tagged as Supernatural (or even Extraordinary) abilities and reference the effects of a spell.

Abundant Step (Monk Class Ability) (SU) Functions as if using Dimension Door. So what in the description of Dimension door do we not apply? Do we change the range? Does the Monk not end his turn after using it? Just because it's flagged as a SU doesnt mean the effect is any different. Sure he doenst use Components, It cant be Counterspelled, Not subject to SR etc....But the mechanics remain the same. But the basic mechanics of the Dimension Door remain exactly as listed in the spell description.

[Kabump]

This has been Dev confirmed to harm undead. There was a thread a few months back asking HOW MANY times it could be used, since it says it can "only benefit a creature" once a day, and hurting undead isnt a benefit. They were arguing it could be used to hurt unlimited. It was (I belive) James who stepped up and said 1) it CAN be used to harm undead but 2) only once a day per undead, basically replace "benefit" with "effect". I will look for the appropriate thread to linkify.

EDIT: Link right here

[Timitius]

Kabump wrote:

This has been Dev confirmed to harm undead. There was a thread a few months back asking HOW MANY times it could be used, since it says it can "only benefit a creature" once a day, and hurting undead isnt a benefit. They were arguing it could be used to hurt unlimited. It was (I belive) James who stepped up and said 1) it CAN be used to harm undead but 2) only once a day per undead, basically replace "benefit" with "effect". I will look for the appropriate thread to linkify.

EDIT: Link right here

Thanks for the link to the answer, Kabump!

[mdt]

Timitius wrote:

Kabump wrote:

EDIT: Link right here

Thanks for the link to the answer, Kabump!

Except that it's not a dev answer. It's the Creative Director saying it needs to be FAQd.

[Kabump]

mdt wrote:

Except that it's not a dev answer. It's the Creative Director saying it needs to be FAQd.

Its your prerogative if you don't consider James a dev or his wording official. Its official enough for me. And honestly, whats game breaking about allowing a Xd8+Y damage, subject to will save, touch attack on every undead in the world once a day, when you can cast cure <blank> for Xd8+Y on every positive energy creature in the known universes once a day? Witch has to make a touch attack, so its the same thing for any caster having to make a touch attack. Hardly game-breaking in my opinion.

[mdt]

Kabump wrote:

mdt wrote:

Except that it's not a dev answer. It's the Creative Director saying it needs to be FAQd.

Its your prerogative if you don't consider James a dev or his wording official. Its official enough for me. And honestly, whats game breaking about allowing a 1d8+5 damage subject to will save on undead? Witch has to make a touch attack, so its the same thing for any caster having to make a touch attack. Hardly game-breaking in my opinion.

I do consider him a developer, of the APs. He himself has stated, multiple times, that his opinions are just his, and what he would do in his own game. He's stated multiple times that actual rule issues have to be decided by SKR and JB.

And on top of that, you touted his post as an official Paizo answer, but left out his comment that it was just his experience and that he thought it needed to be FAQ'd. That's deceptive.

EDIT : Just so I am clear here, my bolded not was not saying that JJ was not a developer. It was saying that what you linked to was not an official ruling by him. Especially since he stated that it needed FAQing. IE: It's not a dev answer. I didn't say it wasn't a dev answer.

[Kabump]

mdt wrote:

And on top of that, you touted his post as an official Paizo answer, but left out his comment that it was just his experience and that he thought it needed to be FAQ'd. That's deceptive.

James is Paizo, ergo its an official Paizo answer in my book, obviously not yours. Great! More power to you.

Its not deceptive, I was attempting to remember a thread that was nearly a year old, Im sorry I dont have 100% perfect memory. And I LINKED to the thread in question, everyone was free to read and see that. Quit accusing me of deception, thanks.

[Timitius]

Whoa, guys. Let's keep our heads, here.

First, this thread was started because it came up in our Carrion Crown game. I'm playing the witch, and upon reaching 2nd, I took the healing hex. After seeing the oracle continually use her CLW spells to damage undead, it seemed equally plausible that I could use the hex to do the same thing. The GM was unsure...hence the thread.

I apologize for insinuating that James's answer was THE answer. Actually, James IS my GM on Thursdays, so when I read that, I took it like I would sitting at the table with him. Of course, Sean or Jason would probably confirm/clarify the ruling, so until one of them gives an OFFICIAL answer, it could go either way.

I think both sides of the interpretation have been adequately represented, so until the official statement, we can:
1) House rule it according to our preference
2) Accept James Jacobs's interpretation
3) Get increasingly angry with each other over it and get the thread locked....

[mdt]

Timitius wrote:

I think both sides of the interpretation have been adequately represented, so until the official statement, we can:

1) House rule it according to our preference
2) Accept James Jacobs's interpretation
3) Get increasingly angry with each other over it and get the thread locked....

I suspect it will be eventually FAQ'd to be 2. Honestly, it hasn't come up in my games before. I was simply pointing out that it's a poorly written ability (primarily due to the 'benefit' vocabulary) as is.

However, having thought about it, I think I'll houserule it as an arcane 'repair' type ability, so that it repairs living or undead (as I pointed out above as an interpretation of it). This makes the witch more unique, and also gives a a way to heal undead as a witch (or dhampir).

[Sean K Reynolds]

FAQ!

[mdt]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

FAQ!

Woah, busy busy busy today with the FAQ system. :)

Any chance of talking you into FAQing the magic item creation ball of yarn into an argyle sweater? :)

[Sean K Reynolds]

That's going to require some significant clarification and remember-this-for-reprint-updating. It's on the agenda, but not likely to happen today.

[mdt]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

That's going to require some significant clarification and remember-this-for-reprint-updating. It's on the agenda, but not likely to happen today.

WOOOHOOO!!!!

Should we expect a blog post, similar to the animal companion one when you've hammered it all out?

[Pirate]

Yar!

mdt wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

That's going to require some significant clarification and remember-this-for-reprint-updating. It's on the agenda, but not likely to happen today.

WOOOHOOO!!!!

Should we expect a blog post, similar to the animal companion one when you've hammered it all out?

ssshhhh! Stop distracting the man and let him update the FAQ. ^_^

(also, +1! FAQ are getting updated! WOOHOO!)

~P

[Sean K Reynolds]

mdt wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

That's going to require some significant clarification and remember-this-for-reprint-updating. It's on the agenda, but not likely to happen today.

WOOOHOOO!!!!

Should we expect a blog post, similar to the animal companion one when you've hammered it all out?

I'm pretty sure that'll be a blog/FAQ combo like animal companions.

[mdt]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

mdt wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

That's going to require some significant clarification and remember-this-for-reprint-updating. It's on the agenda, but not likely to happen today.

WOOOHOOO!!!!

Should we expect a blog post, similar to the animal companion one when you've hammered it all out?

I'm pretty sure that'll be a blog/FAQ combo like animal companions.

Awesome.

Thanks for the recent spate of FAQ activity, extremely appreciated. :)

[Drejk]

Witch in my group won't be happy, as the first session involved fighting a group of skeletons and she specifically asked ife she can try to affect them and I decided no. With this hex being supernatural ability and thus not subject to attacks of opportunity it could have been real killer. On the other hand... With her AC. Yes, it could have been real killer - one way or another.