Lay on Hands vs. Negative Energy Affinity

[LazarX]

deusvult wrote:

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?)

Since this game is so heavily built on a rules and exception structure, Logic like so many other elements of the game should be used on a case by case basis. Logic is like any other tool in discussion it can be a tool of misuse as well.

[Diego Rossi]

LazarX wrote:

deusvult wrote:

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?)

Since this game is so heavily built on a rules and exception structure, Logic like so many other elements of the game should be used on a case by case basis. Logic is like any other tool in discussion it can be a tool of misuse as well.

The logic I seen in Sean reply is that "burst" healing (whit this term I intend most healing done to living creatures and that cure a fairly large number of hp a standard, magical, action) use positive energy, i.e. is a burst of life from the "plane of life energy".

Untyped healing is generally similar to an accelerate healing rate obtained through magical or mundane systems. So fast healing (SU, EX or from spells), the monk wholeness of body, the healing from the use of the heal skill and so on.

Viewing thing this way help in deciding what use positive energy and what use other form of healing when in doubt and decouple healing from the link to the gods (a bard casting cure light wound use energy from the positive plane, he is not calling the power of any god).

The monk power is a border case, but keeping in theme with the other monk powers it is reasonable to say that it is some form of control over the healing capacities of his own body and not an infusion of positive energy.

I feel that what can serve us best is internal consistence coupled with logic. If they aren't sufficient there is always the FAQ button.

[Jiggy]

deusvult wrote:

(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 :)

SKR wrote:

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.

[LazarX]

Machaeus wrote:

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.

No one absolutely no one in this thread is denying him the right to ask his GM for an exception. He asked a rules question and we gave him a rules answer. This is how the rule operates generically when it comes to dhampirs and lay on hands. I might say. "Okay, your GM makes a change for you, that's fine and dandy." That doesn't mean that I would change the rules for my game or how I would handle matters as a PFS judge.

He's trying to get his case stated as a general rule and that's not going to happen. If I recall, he's the GM in this scenario so he can do whatever he wants.