No, that just makes a stronger case for healing of living being positive. WE know undead are "Healed" by negative energy.
Find me one example of negative energy healing a normal living being. Then you may have a point. All you have shown is yet another example of healing using positive energy.
Any race with negative energy affinity is living and healed with negative energy.
Clerics of death after level 8 are also healed with negative energy. Undeath subdomain clerics can cause anyone to be healed with negative energy.
**a thoughtful, civil rebuttal**
First of all Diego thank you for being nice. Greatly appreciated.
You gave good food for thought, and I don't have my books with me right at the moment so I kinda think I should let your ideas percolate longer. But, I wanted to voice my appreciation.
But while I'm here, I will go out on a limb and say a couple things about what you said, though.
One conclusion I don't share with you is that the rules you cite prevent the possibility of undead being healed by something other than negative energy (or fast healing). Positive energy says it harms undead instead of healing it.. but what I see there is that if healing were to come in a form that is neither positive nor negative, it would work on undead as well as living since 'only' was not used in the undead template prior to mentioning negative energy/fast healing.
as an aside, I wasn't aware of a rule that said the alignments of monsters can't be changed on an individual basis.. that a Pathfinder thing?
Wow man, they were treating you like sh#$ in the begining of this thread and I'm sorry. The community here normally isn't so... hateful.
It's probably INTENDED to be positive. It's hardly a game-breaking ability one way or the other though, and if your gm and you are cool with it it's certainly not OP.
RAW - you're right there's a hole. However, the paizo folks can't cover EVERYTHING and it seems a little nit-picky to me. Common sense would indicate it being positive energy - but of course your gm could rule otherwise.
Monsters alignments can, most certainly, be changed on an individual basis.
No, that just makes a stronger case for healing of living being positive. WE know undead are "Healed" by negative energy.
Find me one example of negative energy healing a normal living being. Then you may have a point. All you have shown is yet another example of healing using positive energy.
Any race with negative energy affinity is living and healed with negative energy.
Clerics of death after level 8 are also healed with negative energy. Undeath subdomain clerics can cause anyone to be healed with negative energy.
Don't try to use logic on it!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I agree with you, however by "strict RAW" without intent or basic knowledge but strict only what is written counts. Well Dead can still take actions and do not fall prone as by strict RAW it never says you can and they fall. Yes thats an over-the-top example but it is the same logic being used here.
I am baffled. mdt just went through a patient explanation that this is not the same logic.
Game terms simulating the real world don't need a lot of explanation, and the game designers can move on without going into too much detail about whether a rope needs to sleep, how much damage a flying creature takes if she hits a cloud, or whether a chicken is warmer than a 10-foot pole.
But when the game creates its own reality, we can't fall back on the same kinds of common sense. Does a gaseous form character need to breathe? How does a synthesist's eidolon heal damage? How many vowel sounds does Aklo have? Can a wight see in the dark?
(Sometimes, we use common sense to derive information about the common-world principles of fantasy things. So we don't need the game rules to tell us that a dead peryton will fall to the ground, even though perytons are mythological.)
These are not the same kinds of situations. Your claims about being dead aren't an "over-the-top but logically the same" example. They're an entirely different thing.
Every time someone says "Well, by strict RAW" that almost always means "Well if I ignore intent and every other instance of something like this in the game, I can use it how I want."
Or it means "without extrapolating beyond the rules". (What do you mean when you say every time, but almost always?) As the design team chose to write the rules for "lay on hands", it heals all things: living creatures, constructs, demons, evil dragons, undead. It can be used a different way, to harm undead. If you want to argue against that plain reading, feel free. If you want to rule otherwise at your table, go ahead.
Strict RAW without using intent and basic assumptions simply have no meaning.
All right. And do you have evidence of the design intent here?
Please note that the cleanse spell provides clear evidence that somethings can change their energy type to still heal when they are supposed to simply heal.
But what if you're a paladin of Asmodeus?
|
Or it means "without extrapolating beyond the rules". (What do you mean when you say every time, but almost always?) As the design team chose to write the rules for "lay on hands", it heals all things: living creatures, constructs, demons, evil dragons, undead. It can be used a different way, to harm undead. If you want to argue against that plain reading, feel free. If you want to rule otherwise at your table, go ahead.
No, it don't heal undead or constructs. They have exclusive rules, what isn't on the list of thing that heal them don't heal them.
But what if you're a paladin of Asmodeus?
They have been corrected away as something that should never be published and that slipped through QA and is against the rules in Golarion.
So why people continue to use them as an example?|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Or it means "without extrapolating beyond the rules". (What do you mean when you say every time, but almost always?) As the design team chose to write the rules for "lay on hands", it heals all things: living creatures, constructs, demons, evil dragons, undead. It can be used a different way, to harm undead. If you want to argue against that plain reading, feel free. If you want to rule otherwise at your table, go ahead.
No, it don't heal undead or constructs. They have exclusive rules, what isn't on the list of thing that heal them don't heal them.
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.
Diego, so far as I can tell, there is no such list for this power. Lay On Hands heals wounds.
Now, there are folks on these boards who are insisting that (a) the power is really channelling positive energy, and this means (b) it doesn't really heal consructs or undead, and that proves (a) the power is really channelling positive energy.
So far, nobody on the design or development teams has provided evidence for (a) or (b).
RAI I believe LoH was intended to be positive energy. RAW is undefined, since it's not defined.
Not all healing is divine (Bards and Witches heal with arcane energy, which theoretically does not call on a god to do so, and may or may not be positive energy).
In the case of Cure light wounds the spell does indeed say positive energy. The one and only "healing" spell that does not use positive healing is Infernal Healing( that i can find anyhow)
People keep claiming channel has nothing to do with LOH but this is simply untrue. LOH seems to work just freaking like Positive energy but seems not to be just because they left a line out?
If it looks like a duck...
My quote above was addressing the idea that divine healing must be positive energy healing. The point is, a Bard and Witch can cast Cure spells, but don't have a divine bond with any divine source (save possibly the patron). Thus the argument that because it's divine healing it must be positive energy is not a valid argument. Bards heal with positive energy without invoking divine powers. If a bard can conjure positive energy without a god being involved, then there's no reason why someone else can't heal without a god being involved, or even without positive energy being involved.
And, as I said, repeatedly. RAI = Positive Energy. RAW = Untyped Healing. You can argue with that until you are blue in the face, but the rules are simply not what you want and believe them to be. I treat it as positive energy in my own campaigns, and expect others to as well. But strict RAW, it's untyped.
Actually MDT all your argument about bards and witches proves is that there is some healing that is not divine. It does nothing to show that divine healing is not based on positive energy. Considering that LOH is a divinely powered ability, it follows that it should be positive energy because every other example of divine healing is positive. Of course, when I say divine healing I mean for the living. Obviously something like cleanse can change its type to heal undead, but that is one spell going from positive energy to negative energy according to the caster's needs.
Technically I agree with your last point about it being untyped according strict RAW, but I see it as nothing more than an oversight (or something the designers assumed would be readily apparent). Frankly I do consider the attempts to justify it healing undead as a bit munckiny. I'd be more inclined to house rule a way for a dhampir pally before allowing something like this argument to fly.
Seeker...there's so many fallacies in your arguments that I can't even begin to understand how you're not trolling. So let's assume you are. 6/10. Next time learn some grammar and spelling.
And for everyone crying "munchkin": Why isn't he just making an undead antipaladin? That'd save him having to ask this question. And he'd still be able to make his players cry.
For Deusvult: I'd say that a little DM/GM consideration is needed, as though you were the Force of Good granting this Dhampir his power.
Example: "Oh...he's half-undead. But he wants to help me out, so I won't force his own power to hurt him. That's cruel, and cruelty is Evil's thing."
Alternatively: "I want to test this guy's faith a bit. I won't let him Lay on Hands on himself, but I'll let him have inflict spells, which I wouldn't let most paladins have, but only if he doesn't fall later. If he does, no more inflict until he makes serious reparations."
Really, a little flexibility is all that's required.
Really? I wouldn't agree with all of Seeker's arguments, but I don't think that they were really troll-worthy.
|
|
Or it means "without extrapolating beyond the rules". (What do you mean when you say every time, but almost always?) As the design team chose to write the rules for "lay on hands", it heals all things: living creatures, constructs, demons, evil dragons, undead. It can be used a different way, to harm undead. If you want to argue against that plain reading, feel free. If you want to rule otherwise at your table, go ahead.No, it don't heal undead or constructs. They have exclusive rules, what isn't on the list of thing that heal them don't heal them.Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.Diego, so far as I can tell, there is no such list for this power. Lay On Hands heals wounds.
Now, there are folks on these boards who are insisting that (a) the power is really channelling positive energy, and this means (b) it doesn't really heal consructs or undead, and that proves (a) the power is really channelling positive energy.
So far, nobody on the design or development teams has provided evidence for (a) or (b).
Specific rule trump general rule.
Specific rules:
Undead type:
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score.
Construct type:
Cannot heal damage on its own, but often can be repaired via exposure to a certain kind of effect (see the creature's description for details) or through the use of the Craft Construct feat. Constructs can also be healed through spells such as make whole. A construct with the fast healing special quality still benefits from that quality.
|
I've stayed away from posting for a while, but have been following it with interest.
There's a couple of things I'd like to reiterate for clarity.
I'm saying:
Lay on Hands is never typed as Positive Energy.
- RAW, this is plain as can be.
Lay on Hands has the option to heal OR damage undead.
- This one isn't beyond discussion, but nevertheless I believe it to be true. This all boils down to the verbage, where 'alternately' is used in the following quote:
"Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures.."
Does 'alternately' mean that if targeting an undead creature, you have the choice between heal or damage.. or does 'alternately' mean that you have the choice to target an undead, where it must take damage instead of healing.
Since we hardly need the rules to point out that you can freely choose who or what to target, the first reading imo seems to be the correct one. (not to mention, undead healing rules.. my next point) Hence, my saying that LoH on undead may be chosen as a heal or damage.
Undead may be healed in ways besides Fast Healing and Negative Energy.
- Undead healing rules have been quoted a few times. They never say that Fast Healing and Negative Energy are the only ways that undead may heal.. just that non-intelligent undead may only heal themselves via Fast Healing (but may be healed by others normally), and that all undead can be healed by negative energy. Can means 'may', not 'is the only way'.
Lumping all healing, or all healing powered by a divine source, into one category makes logical sense but is never actually done in the rules.
- This means that insisting that LoH 'should' be holy/divine and thus positive energy is not supportable. I mean, it's sensible, possibly even exactly what the rules developers intended, but it's not what they wrote, and hence not the rule. Insisting that LoH is positive energy is making your own house rule, not enforcing the Pathfinder rule.
I'd like to thank those who've continued to discuss this and especially those who've worked to keep it civil.. did a better job than I could have in all probability :)
|
|
it follows that it should be positive energy because every other example of divine healing is positive.Infernal healing? Goodberry? Blessing of the Salamander?
Infernal healing is not divine. It would work on undead (it give the fast healing capability and: "The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score").
I think it will not work on construct as the construct type say "A construct with the fast healing special quality still benefits from that quality.", calling a ability of the construct, not something that can be given to it.Beside that, fast healing give an ability to a creature, it is not straight healing.
|
|
Undead may be healed in ways besides Fast Healing and Negative Energy.
- Undead healing rules have been quoted a few times. They never say that Fast Healing and Negative Energy are the only ways that undead may heal.. just that non-intelligent undead may only heal themselves via Fast Healing (but may be healed by others normally), and that all undead can be healed by negative energy. Can means 'may', not 'is the only way'.
Then specifying "they can be healed this way and that way" is absolutely useless, don't you think?
If the developers meant "only positive energy don't heal undead but all other systems work" they would have said that.|
|
If the rule were:
"Undead type:
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) is the only other way to heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score."
You'd be right.
As you quoted yourself, it instead says:
"Undead type:
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score."
What part of 'Negative energy can heal..' means that all other ways do not heal? Heck, for that matter, if 'can' means nothing else works, then not even Fast Healing, which is explicitly said to work right there in the following sentance.
I'd say that a little DM/GM consideration is needed, as though you were the Force of Good granting this Dhampir his power.
Example: "Oh...he's half-undead. But he wants to help me out, so I won't force his own power to hurt him. That's cruel, and cruelty is Evil's thing."
Alternatively: "I want to test this guy's faith a bit. I won't let him Lay on Hands on himself, but I'll let him have inflict spells, which I wouldn't let most paladins have, but only if he doesn't fall later. If he does, no more inflict until he makes serious reparations."
Really, a little flexibility is all that's required.
THIS. ^^
Also, some people here did say that Lay on Hands wasn't specifically ever stated to be Positive or Negative Energy. Mikaze's example also works well. Lastly, I find it sort of amusing (it contributes to the thread, but I can't help but fear it might turn for the worse) that Diego and Deusvult are flipping opposite ends of the same coin here, metaphorically speaking. If the rules are unclear about this and can be interpreted in two (or more) different ways, why not leave it to the DM to decide after seeing both sides of the debate you two are having?
|
|
If the rules are unclear about this and can be interpreted in two (or more) different ways, why not leave it to the DM to decide after seeing both sides of the debate you two are having?
Because, this is the sort of thing that really shouldn't come down to the ultimate answer of 'whatever your GM says it is, is.'.
I mean, sure, GMs always have that final perogative, but they do so knowing that they're deviating from the book and either do so with prior consideration or not.. that's on them.
It's a totally different issue if the mechanics of a major class feature, as well as the mechanics of a major monster type are left to the say so of each individual GM.
If the inelegance of that doesn't sway you, think of the poor GMs/Players in PFS who have nothing other than what the letter of the rule IS to go by ;)
|
Does it actually say anywhere that once i'm dead i can't continue to attack the guy that killed me? I don't believe so but if such a rule exists, I want to know of it.\This is the part I question. I could certainly have missed it.. that's why I posted this question.
Does it actually say anywhere that divine (or healing) energy must be polarized either positive or negative? I don't believe so, but if such a rule exists, I want to know of it.
: deprived of life : no longer alive
2a (1) : having the appearance of death : deathly <in a dead faint> (2) : lacking power to move, feel, or respond : numb
b : very tired
c (1) : incapable of being stirred emotionally or intellectually : unresponsive <dead to pity> (2) : grown cold : extinguished
the definition of "dead" makes that ruling unnecessary
|
I see people are hung up on the use of the word 'alternatively' in the LoH description. There are those that would say the word is a hold over from the earlier d20 incarnation of the game, used for the sake of backwards compatiblity, even though both LoH's are completely different animals:
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin with a Charisma score of 12 or higher can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can heal a total number of hit points of damage equal to her paladin level × her Charisma bonus. A paladin may choose to divide her healing among multiple recipients, and she doesn’t have to use it all at once. Using lay on hands is a standard action.
Alternatively, a paladin can use any or all of this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity. The paladin decides how many of her daily allotment of points to use as damage after successfully touching an undead creature.
compare to
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.
Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every two levels the paladin possesses. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. Undead do not receive a saving throw against this damage.
I have a different take on the use of the word 'alternatively' in both descriptions...and it may blow your mind.
In 3.5 you could argue that the paladin's lay on hands and turn undead was not divine inspired. That made it easier to have paladins that did not serve a church. Even 2E paladins did not have to serve a church. 2E paladins couldn't heal undead (according to the Paladin's Handbook, a paladin 'can restore lost hit points to himself, another character, or a natural animal with the laying on hands ability.' It even goes go to say that the recipient 'must still be alive' and that it 'can't bring dead characters back to life.') Now I say all that because back in 2E, there were no rules that allowed laying on hands to be used to harm undead, let alone cure spells being able to do the same. The question had been put forth by many that a provision should made for this. After all, if it could work in a Final Fantasy game, why then shouldn't it work in D&D? So when 3E came along, that provision was finally made official, and thus the the use of the word 'alternatively.'
Hope that helps the discussion somewhat.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
it follows that it should be positive energy because every other example of divine healing is positive.Infernal healing? Goodberry? Blessing of the Salamander?
Infernal healing is not divine.
School conjuration (healing) [evil]; Level cleric/oracle 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1
With respect, the way I understand the game rules, when cast by a cleric / oracle, infernal healing is a divine spell. (The same way that cure light wounds is an arcane spell when cast by a bard or witch.)
I am still curious to see if you consider goodberry a positive energy spell. Another poster asked about a monk's Wholeness of Body ability (and the Monk of the Healing Hand's corresponding Ancient Healing Hand ability).
There are lots of ways to heal damage in Pathfinder. Many are called out as using positive energy. Laying on of hands isn't one of them.
Again, if you think it's appropriate to the theme of the Paladin class to say that it is positive energy at your table, nobody's stopping you. But there seem to be several contributors to this thread who aren't choosing to differentiate between "This is how I'd judge the situation as a GM" and "This is how everybody must judge, because the intent of the rule is clear to me. Anybody who claims it isn't just as clear to them is trying to run a scam."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some posts. Be civil.
|
|
*animates a zombie horse*
Since the LoH question has died.. I'll resurrect with a new angle.
Energy Body (Su): As a standard action, you can transform your body into pure life energy, resembling a golden-white fire elemental. In this form, you gain the elemental subtype and give off a warm, welcoming light that increases the light level within 10 feet by one step, up to normal light. Any undead creature striking you with its body or a handheld weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of positive energy damage + 1 point per oracle level. Creatures wielding melee weapons with reach are not subject to this damage if they attack you. If you grapple or attack an undead creature using unarmed strikes or natural weapons, you may deal this damage in place of the normal damage for the attack. Once per round, if you pass through a living allied creature's square or the ally passes through your square, it heals 1d6 hit points + 1 per oracle level. You may use this ability to heal yourself as a move action. You choose whether or not to heal a creature when it passes through your space. You may return to your normal form as a free action. You may remain in energy body form for a number of rounds per day equal to your oracle level.
So, LoH isn't the only example of healing energy not being specified as positive energy. Indeed, the Life Energy Body specifically says the offensive use is Positive.. if the healing were positive it'd certainly say so.
Or are people really suggesting that a Dhampir Orcale of Life would burn himself with the Life Energy Body power?
|
|
Undead Subdomain
Associated Domain: Death.
Replacement Power: The following granted power replaces the bleeding touch power of the Death domain.
Death's Kiss (Su): You can cause a creature to take on some of the traits of the undead with a melee touch attack. Touched creatures are treated as undead for the purposes of effects that heal or cause damage based on positive and negative energy. This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1). It does not apply to the Turn Undead or Command Undead feats. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
The Death's Kiss domain power supports the notion that healing can come in forms that are neither positive nor negative energy... since it is specified to only work with healing that is positive or negative energy.
|
|
So a dhampir paladin would be so overpowered if it were ripped of its greatest strength, self-healing? Don't be ridiculous.
Even in game balance terms it's only fair to allow a dhampir to heal itself with LoH regardless of whether it's positive or negative. RAW there's absolutely no argument about the healing process. If one must, it could be entitled "spiritual healing".
Yet I admit it ... maybe should be classified as positive energy. A useless mention anyhow.
Even in game balance terms it's only fair to allow a dhampir to heal itself with LoH regardless of whether it's positive or negative.
Would you feel the same way if it were a Dhampir Oracle of life and his/her Channel ability?
|
|
Would you feel the same way if it were a Dhampir Oracle of life and his/her Channel ability?
False comparison.
The channel ability is excplicity said to be positive energy. Furthermore, it's not a 'screwed over' issue in this case either because the chaneller may always exclude himself from the effect.
The Life Oracle's Energy Body otoh I'll repeat as being another good example of healing that is neither positive nor negative energy, however.
|
Even in game balance terms it's only fair to allow a dhampir to heal itself with LoH regardless of whether it's positive or negative.Would you feel the same way if it were a Dhampir Oracle of life and his/her Channel ability?
Would you feel different if it was a dhampir monk using Wholeness of Body?
I was always under the impression that LoH was the same typeless divine energy that was in Flame Strike.
|
Undead Traits...
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.
**bold emphasis mine**
I had already made my personal decision that LoH should be positive.
However, if I agree, for the moment, that you are correct that LoH is untyped, than it would seem that Dhampir are a special case and immune to LoH. They are considered undead for the purposes of pos/neg energy, so it would seem they wouldn't be healed or harmed from LoH if it's typeless.
|
|
Undead Traits...
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.**bold emphasis mine**
I had already made my personal decision that LoH should be positive.
However, if I agree, for the moment, that you are correct that LoH is untyped, than it would seem that Dhampir are a special case and immune to LoH. They are considered undead for the purposes of pos/neg energy, so it would seem they wouldn't be healed or harmed from LoH if it's typeless.
If the rule were:
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) is the only way to heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.then you'd be right.
Negative energy can heal.. doesn't mean Negative energy is the ONLY WAY to heal.
Use the monk example mentioned a couple times now. If a vampire monk used Wholeness of Body, would he heal or hurt himself? It's not negative energy... It has even less themewise to do with positive energy than LoH..
Furthermore, if Negative energy is the ONLY way to heal, why then say that fast healing works? Does that become negative energy?
Anyway I don't mean to be all leapy-ambushy. I'm not saying one is wrong to RAI LoH as positive energy.
I just mean to argue with people who say that it's a no brainer, and that LoH is positive energy what is RAW.
Should LoH be positive? Maybe.
Should Wholeness of body?
Should Celestial Sorcerers?
etc etc
For every kind of healing that is RAW not positive energy, does it get its own case by case comparison to undead? Or as a bunch do they go all one way? Nothing anyone has been able to come up with (myself included) says.
Hence my desire for a FAQ.
|
|
more stuff
I agree with you in that it is not a "no brainer." I'm just saying that until there is an FAQ (or whatever), it is up to the GM to adjudicate it. IMO, it is considered positive energy and therefore follows the same rules. But I accept that others will RAI differently and if I ever play at a table where you are GM'ing, I will accept your interpretation. I only ask that you do the same. :-)
|
|
But I accept that others will RAI differently and if I ever play at a table where you are GM'ing, I will accept your interpretation. I only ask that you do the same. :-)
Oh without question. The GM can always go 'I don't care about what you say, I'll just houserule it my way if you don't drop it..'. Ultimately, the player is never in the right.
I think that with the examples that came up in the discussion, that a question larger than LoH was exposed.
The interaction of heals and undead is a big mess as is, and imo very deserving of attention/FAQing.
|
|
Deusvult
Here might be a better example:
Can a Damphir Paladin heal himself?
Can any Paladin damage a haunt using LoH?
I think players have the right to expect yes in both cases - yet once it only works without positive energy once it only works with positive energy.
So what do I do as GM?
Interesting but imo fallacious. The GM Mastery guide uses the bleeding walls as an example haunt. How would LoH being used as a heal stop that, even if it were positive energy? If you touch the wall, would it somehow transfer to the haunt? I don't see why it couldn't, but neither do I see why it must.
Using the alternate form of LoH, the damage undead form, that'd clearly damage the haunt, assuming it made sense that a touch would 'reach' it.Channel would be the much more clearly useful ability (being an AoE and bypassing any question of whether it 'reaches' the undead power behind the haunt).
|
|
A haunt is not an u dead creature. You need positive energy (of any kind) to hurt it. Apart of that it can't be hurt by anything unless it has a specific weakness that says it can be damaged that way.
So Cure Light Wounds can damage any haunt as it is powered by positive energy. Channel works the same way.
LoH only ! works to damage a haunt similar to an undead if you assume it is positive energy.
|
|
In case you want the rule:
Game Mastery Guide:
On the surprise round in which a haunt manifests, positive energy applied to the haunt (via channeled energy, cure spells, and the like) can damage the haunt's hit points (a haunt never gains a Will save to lessen the damage done by such effects, and attacks that require a successful attack roll to work must strike AC 10 in order to affect the haunt and not merely the physical structure it inhabits). Unless the haunt has an unusual weakness, no other form of attack can reduce its hit points.
So your assumption:
Using the alternate form of LoH, the damage undead form, that'd clearly damage the haunt, assuming it made sense that a touch would 'reach' it.
Only works if LoH is powered by positive energy. And yes - I would agree with you that the alternate form of LoH should damage a haunt. But RAW it doesn't unless LoH is powered by positive energy.
So how would you rule. Does LoH damage a haunt or not? It isn't as clear as you say.
Edit: bolded the important part
|
|
Things to remember:The Core Rulebook was written assuming you're playing one of the PC races in that book.
All of those PC races are healed by positive energy.
The paladin has channel positive energy as a class ability--an ability that was added in the PFRPG (in 3.5, they had turn undead).
The 3.5 paladin LOH writeup didn't mention positive/negative energy because channeling positive or negative energy as a class ability (whether cleric or paladin) wasn't a concept in 3.5. Therefore, 3.5 LOH didn't state that it was channeled positive energy, partly for that reason and partly because the 3.5 PH also assumed you were playing one of the standard PC races.
The PF wording of LOH is an example of using the 3.5 wording without revising it to cover all the consequences of the rules changes in PF, such as good clerics and paladins gaining channel positive energy, and without considering that a future book would have a potential PC race with negative energy affinity (a universal monster rule that didn't exist when the Core Rulebook was written).
If LOH (whether 3.5 or PF) said "heal a living creature" or "uses positive energy to heal," this discussion wouldn't be happening at all.
That said, it's pretty obvious that the paladin is a class that uses holy power/positive energy for its abilities, and therefore its LOH healing should be considered a positive energy source rather than a "typeless" healing like resting, using the Heal skill, or the monk's wholeness of body ability. There's no good reason why the paladin's LOH should be considered "typeless" rather than positive, and at least one good reason why it should be considered positive rather than "typeless." Therefore, we're considering LOH to be a positive energy effect.
Therefore, a dhampir paladin hurts himself if he uses LOH on himself.
I appreciate the Dev perspective, and am done pointing out that LoH never says positive energy in the rules.
Should this same logic carry over to all other sorts of heals that neglecty to specify polarity (or type), or do some work differently? (seems Fast Healing is a no brainer exception, so should there be other ones too?)
Got a source for that quote deusvult? Not to case aspersions on you just curious about the context.
|
|
Since all this thread seemed to do was come to an agreement to disagree, and I play PFS primarily... I asked in that forum about this rule, or potentially others like it where you just have to expect table variation in the environment where GMs don't get to make house-rules.
Paizo PFS organizer saw the thread and invited a dev to chime in here. I thought it dishonest to not paste a copy here in this thread, since a Dev had posted his own thoughts on this very issue.
With any luck it'll make it into a FAQ, and we can all live happily ever after.
(PS I'm assuming that Sean's thoughts carry over to Oracle of Life abilities, but no other 'untyped' heals such as fast healing or monk's wholeness of body. I think Celestial Sorcerer's Heavenly Fire should still be untyped, but can see how others would disagree. Hopefully a potential FAQ will say how to tell what abilities work as positive energy, when they don't say they are positive energy. If he doesn't like those words I'm putting in his mouth, he's welcome to correct me :)
My biggest complaint at this point is all the times they made such an effort to say, "Positive energy isn't inherently good and negative energy isn't inherently evil" and continually make a lie of that statement when it comes to game mechanics (that the genius that is powering the paladin is a moron without the ability to think about what its doing and that good can again only use positive energy... etc, etc).
Which of course is only semi-tangentially connected to the current issue.
Secondly, I disagree that because the bard or witch can cast cure light wounds that makes it a non-divine spell. Bards are designed to be a jack-of-all-trades. Including a little bit of divine. Just like Oracles, which are specifically stated to not necessarily follow or worship any one God: "oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals. Instead of worshiping a single source, oracles tend to venerate all of the gods that share their beliefs." I would suggest a bard gets cure light wounds from whatever God happens to be listening right the hell now, cuz I really really really need healing. It is a mistake to assume that because it is listed in the same spell list with some arcane spells that it must be arcanely powered.
So you are saying that categorically and mechanically the witch and bard are just plain wrong.
So but I'm not going to follow you there.
|
|
My biggest complaint at this point is all the times they made such an effort to say, "Positive energy isn't inherently good and negative energy isn't inherently evil" and continually make a lie of that statement when it comes to game mechanics (that the genius that is powering the paladin is a moron without the ability to think about what its doing and that good can again only use positive energy... etc, etc).
Which of course is only semi-tangentially connected to the current issue.
Abraham, I thing you are going at it from the wrong direction.
The key is not that positive energy is good and negative is evil, but that positive energy is the stuff of life and negative the stuff of death and undeath.As the majority population of the living races see being alive as better than being dead or undead they see dispensing life as the right action for a good guy and dispensing death as the right action for a bad guy.
So good clerics and paladin don't use positive energy because it is good, but because the act of giving life is good. The positive energy is only the instrument.
|
|
Can we get an official title for people that intentionally misread wording or say that a lack of a specific rule means their goofball idea is withing the rules, bonus points if they argue with Sean for pointing out the obvious intent?
No, just like we can't call you out for what you are doing lest Ross have to police the thread again.
Look. When something is omitted from the rules, it's debatable if it was deliberate or by accident. None of us are devs, so none of us could say which.
Oh, one might presume to say they know the mind of the devs, and many made such bold claims. Doesn't mean that with hindsight, they are 'right' in that they knew what a dev would say.
Once a dev says, that's it. Someone who would then argue with a dev the way one would argue with a close-minded forum troglodyte is himself become such a creature.
You take your 'see! Dev agrees with me!' victory lap, and I'll trump you with my 'See! Dev agrees with me that they should have wrote the rules better!'. Who wins? neither of us, that's for sure.
Abraham, I thing you are going at it from the wrong direction.
The key is not that positive energy is good and negative is evil, but that positive energy is the stuff of life and negative the stuff of death and undeath.
As the majority population of the living races see being alive as better than being dead or undead they see dispensing life as the right action for a good guy and dispensing death as the right action for a bad guy.
So good clerics and paladin don't use positive energy because it is good, but because the act of giving life is good. The positive energy is only the instrument.
Sorry I'm still not seeing it -- possibly because the whole negative and positive energy aspects to it are stupid to me. After all we didn't need them back when the cure spells were in the necromancy school where they belonged.
The whole 'channel energy' thing is clumsy at best and as has been proven in this thread it's not as simple as 'postive = life negative = death'.
After all we have straight 'divine' energy in flame strike (as well as the same potentially in smite evil and chaos hammer) -- the divine don't need to rely on such a clumsy and ineffective method... and they shouldn't.
