| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A Dhampir has the Negative Energy Affinity, which says that negative energy heals it etc.
While that is obvious for things like Channel Energy and Cure/Inflict Wound spells, how does this work with some touch attacks that do negative energy damage?
Like a Wraith:
Melee incorporeal touch +6 (1d6 negative energy plus 1d6 Con drain)
Would that in fact heal him?
Or would it not do anything?
Or would it maybe actually still damage him?
Would he still get Con drained?
Furthermore... does that mean the Wraith can touch himself and heal himself, or another undead for that matter?
The dhampir would be healed 1d6 (negative energy) and drained 1d6 Con, by strict RAW, since the con drain doesn't say it's from negative energy.
Yes, the wraith can heal himself with a touch, or another undead, but he also drains con, so it's not really a good choice.
Personally, I'd probably house rule the con drain becomes a con boost instead, because it makes it more consistent but that's a house rule.
As far as I can tell, by RAW, a Dhampir would be healed 1d6 points but still have to make the Fort save to avoid Con drain. You could probably make the argument that a creature would have to take at least 1 point of damage to be subject to the drain attack, but I think that's in the realm of GM fiat.
Yes, the wraith can heal himself with a touch, or another undead, but he also drains con, so it's not really a good choice.
Since the wraith (or any other undead) has no Con to drain, I fail to see how this isn't a good choice.
|
"Undead are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, phantasms, and patterns), paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless). Undead are not subject to ability drain, energy drain, or nonlethal damage. Undead are immune to damage or penalties to their physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects. Undead are not at risk of death from massive damage.
Format: undead traits; Location: Immune."
Negative Energy Affinity is already kind of screwed up. But not all Negative Energy heals undead, and not all positive Energy harms them. For the Wraith, the Incorporal NE Touch is an attack that simply harms everything. Pretend it's not Negative Energy, essentually, for this purpose.
I forgot the undead were immune to ability damage. There are some with con scores, or at least there used to be. They were rare though.
Beckett, you should actually quote the entire undead type block, not cherry pick.
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.
Negative energy can heal undead creatures, full stop, period. Not 'some negative energy can heal undead, but not if you don't want it to', nor 'most negative energy', negative energy can heal undead. The attack is negative energy 1d6, it heals undead, just like Inflict does.
|
|
I didn't that's the entire entry for Undead Traits.
The part that is missing though is that not all Negative Energy actually heals Undead/hurts the living, which is what is important for Negative Energy Affinity.
For example, Enervation is a Negative Energy Attack that would not heal a Dhampir, (or give Temp HP as an Undead), because it does not heal Undead.
On the other hand, Disrupt Undead would also not affect a Dhampir, because it specifically only targets Undead, and does not heal the living.
Only Positive/Negative Energy spells that specify, like Cure & Inflict spells that they heal/harm undead/living differently apply for Negative Energy Affinity.
It is very unclear and wonky, but if you rule that Negative Energy Affinity basically just treats you as an Undead creature completely, that means that a Dhampire can not be Raised, Res'd, or True Res'd.
Your interpretation is wrong Beckett.
Specific Trumps General.
General : Negative Energy heals Undead, Positive Energy heals Living.
Specific : Enervation, Uses Negative Energy but doesn't heal Undead.
Specific : Disrupt Undead only works against undead, so never heals living.
The entire point of general and specific is so they DO NOT have to reprint 'heals undead, damages living' and 'heals living, damages undead' on every thing in the system.
|
|
That's my point, though. Disrupt Undead is a Positive Energy example that shows not all Positive Energy Heals the Living and Harms the Undead. Like the Wraiths touch, it doesn't heal Undead just because it's Negative Energy, and so would not Heal a Dhampir either.
Also note that with Channel Energy, it isn't the intent of the use, but the combination of Energy type used and the target specified.
A Positive Channel aimed at Healing the Living would hurt a creature with Negative Energy Affinity while a Positive Channel aimed at Hurting Undead would not affect them at all.
Likewise a Negative Channel aimed at healing the Undead would not affect a Dhampir, while a Negative Channel aimed at hurtig the Living would heal a Dhampir.
Just Positive or Negative Energy Channeling will not do it.
Every exception you note, Beckett, is spelled out as an exception.
If you can point out an exception that applies to the Wraith's touch, I'll be happy to add it to the list of exceptions.
You cannot use one exception to justify another exception, because exceptions by their nature only apply to the exception, not everything else. If they were, then that would be the generality.
Unless and until you can point to a specific exception for the Wraith's negative energy attack, it follows the general negative energy rules, which means it heals undead.
No, not all positive energy hurts and not all negative energy heals undead.
Only positive energy that specifies that it hurts undead, and negative energy that specifies it heals undead works.
The passage says "Negative energy can heal undead creatures." (emphasis mine)
It does not say "Negative energy always heals undead creatures instead of harming them." It is purely a possibility, and that's it, not a guarantee.
Every single effect that heals undead mentions that it does so. Inflict, negative channeling, etc. all call it out. The wraith's touch does not heal undead, it just hurts. Negative energy in this case is just a damage type (which is important because Aasimars, for example, can get Resistance to Negative Energy).
I mean, look at it this way: channeling positive energy undeniably involves positive energy, but can only heal or harm, not both.
If that is the case, then there would be no reason to call out exceptions to the rules. Enervation would not need to say it doesn't heal undead, because by default, it would not heal undead under your and Beckett's interpretation (which is frankly bizarre to me). Nor would disrupt undead need to specify it can only affect undead, not living, since it would by default do nothing to living unless specified.
Again, channeling is a specific exception to the general rules, Pathfinder (and D&D before it) is set up as general rules with specific exceptions. You are trying to regard the exceptions as the general rule, however if that were the case, they would not need to be called out as they would be the general, not the specific.
The passage says "Negative energy can heal undead creatures." (emphasis mine)
Let's look at the ENTIRE bullet point, not cherry pick? Undead traits calls out things as bullet points, so the entire bullet point must be looked at.
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.
1) Undead cannot heal damage on it's own if it has no intelligence score, but it can be healed.
2) How do you heal it? Negative energy can heal undead creatures. The 'can' in the second sentence is telling you how to heal undead, as specified in the first sentence.3) The fast healing quality always works, intelligent or not.
Let's try this statement with other objects.
A human cannot breath water. However, a human can breath underwater with a scuba tank that is full of air.
Does this say 'some scuba tanks with air may allow you to breath underwater' but some may not? No, it is an english method of modifying the sentence to link it back to the previous sentence.
|
|
Enervation DOESN"T specify that it does not heal Undead, and Disrupt Undead DOES NOT specify that it does not target or heal Living. Both cases are silent on those issues.
What you are saying, as I understand it, is that Disrupt Undead, as an example would actually need to have the exception that it does not Heal Living Targets. It does not, so because there is a specific or general rule that Positive Energy Heals the Living while all Negative Energy heals the Undead, Disrupt Undead, as written is no exception and actually does heal.
They are not exceptions to the unwritten rule that all Positive Energy Heals living and Harms Undead, and all Negative Energy heals Undead and harms living. That isn't a rule. Positive and Negative Energy are not defined game terms.
Also note in the part you quoted, "Negative Energy can heal Undead". It doesn't mention Positive Energy at all.
:)
Negative Energy Affinity: How is this ability (Bestiary 2, page 299) supposed to work?
The intent of this ability is that the creature is healed by negative energy (like an undead) and harmed by positive energy (like an undead); this is automatic and has nothing to do with the intent of the target or the energy-wielder. However, as written, the ability is a bit confusing because of the phrase “reacts to,” which doesn’t have a clear definition. This ability will be changed in the next printing of Bestiary 2.
Update: Page 299—In the description of the Negative Energy Affinity ability, replace the current entry with the following:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive, but is treated as undead for all effects that affect undead differently than living creatures, such as cure spells and channeled energy. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.
—Sean K Reynolds, 02/07/12
|
A Positive Channel aimed at Healing the Living would hurt a creature with Negative Energy Affinity while a Positive Channel aimed at Hurting Undead would not affect them at all.
Likewise a Negative Channel aimed at healing the Undead would not affect a Dhampir, while a Negative Channel aimed at hurtig the Living would heal a Dhampir.
You have these mixed up. A Dhampir would be unaffected by a channel positive meant to heal the living, because it is counted as undead, just as if a zombie were standing in the middle of your party and you channeled, it would be unaffected.
If you channeled to harm the zombie, your Dhampir buddy wouldn't be your buddy anymore.
Beckett, now you're just trolling.
'If an undead is hit by this it takes 1d6 damage' is a specific calling out that it only works on undead. If it's not undead it's either living or an object, either way, the spell doesn't work on the target. That's an exception in that the spell specifically states it only works on a specific target, thus it is also explicitly stating it doesn't work on living and objects.
Enervation specifically calls out that undead 'gain temporary hitpoints' which is an exception to the normal rule of 'negative energy heals undead'. Instead of healing them, it gives them temporary hitpoints, which is actually arguably better if they're already at full HP. Again, exceptions to the normal rules.
I have to agree with mdt here, the wraith's touch attack should heal itself.
Let's take these issues separately: firstly, Disrupt Undead:
Disrupt Undead cannot heal a living creature, but not for the reason Beckett is claiming. The reason it can't heal the living is because the damage is conditional on the target being undead. You could cast it on a living creature and hit it, but it would have no effect because the condition "if the ray hits an undead creature" is not met.
Secondly, Enervation does give the Dhampir extra hit points. Let's look again at the text for Negative Energy Affinity and Enervation:
Assuming the subject survives, it regains lost levels after a number of hours equal to your caster level (maximum 15 hours). Usually, negative levels have a chance of becoming permanent, but the negative levels from enervation don't last long enough to do so.
An undead creature struck by the ray gains 1d4 × 5 temporary hit points for 1 hour.
So, is Enervation a negative energy attack? Yes, so the Dhampir responds as if it were undead. An undead being struck by the spell gains temporary hit points. Therefore, the Dhampir gains those hit points.
Dhampir also can be rezzed, raise dead'ed, etc. because these spells do not use positive energy, therefore there is no reason that the Dhampir would respond to those spells as being an undead.
The final clause in the Negative Energy Affinity description is just redundant - in "Dhampires are alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead — positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it" you can take out the italicized portion and the meaning is the same.
Let's try this statement with other objects.
A human cannot breath water. However, a human can breath underwater with a scuba tank that is full of air.
Does this say 'some scuba tanks with air may allow you to breath underwater' but some may not? No, it is an english method of modifying the sentence to link it back to the previous sentence.
Some actually may not. If you lacked a scuba mask, for example, no tank of air will help. ;)
If that is the case, then there would be no reason to call out exceptions to the rules. Enervation would not need to say it doesn't heal undead, because by default, it would not heal undead under your and Beckett's interpretation (which is frankly bizarre to me).
Enervation says nothing about not healing undead. In fact, it specifically calls out a special thing it does to undead:
"An undead creature struck by the ray gains 1d4 x 5 temporary hit points for 1 hour."
Nor would disrupt undead need to specify it can only affect undead, not living, since it would by default do nothing to living unless specified.
Disrupt Undead also makes no specific mention of not healing people.
"You direct a ray of positive energy. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit, and if the ray hits an undead creature, it deals 1d6 points of damage to it."
And if it didn't specify it only worked on undead, it would deal 1d6 points of damage to anyone, living or otherwise.
Your stance is really confusing me. Every single example you list is another example of why I'm correct. What evidence do you actually have? Negative and Positive energy are damage types that deal damage unless otherwise specified (by calling out that they heal specific types of targets).
|
|
Dhampir also can be rezzed, raise dead'ed, etc. because these spells do not use positive energy, therefore there is no reason that the Dhampir would respond to those spells as being an undead.
Note I was saying "if" you say that NEA just straight up treats Dhampirs as Undead", those three spells specifically do not work on Undead Creautures (see the last line of Raise and Res, and the second to last for True Res). They are Conjuration (Healing) spells.
"A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be raised. The spell cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age."
Trolling? No, I'm not trolling. I was under the impression I was having a discussion. I guess I was mistaken, so I'll leave you guys and gals to it.
:)
Edit: Now I see I'm 2 hours late with this as Nefreet already mentioned it. But what the heck. Always double tap.
A Positive Channel aimed at Healing the Living would hurt a creature with Negative Energy Affinity while a Positive Channel aimed at Hurting Undead would not affect them at all.Likewise a Negative Channel aimed at healing the Undead would not affect a Dhampir, while a Negative Channel aimed at hurtig the Living would heal a Dhampir.
As I understand it you got that wrong.
Negative Energy Affinity: Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it.
my understanding of that is that channel positive energy to hurt undead hurts the dhampir as it is treated as an undead.
Channel positive energy to heal living would do nothing because it is treated as an undead.Same with channel negative.
I know this has been discussed before and every time I felt assured that I understood it correctly.
And for the same reason I'd say that the wraith touch would heal it and drain con.
With disrupt undead it's not so clear but I'm inclined to say it is positive energy and thus the dhampir reacts as if undead and gets damaged.
With disrupt undead it's not so clear but I'm inclined to say it is positive energy and thus the dhampir reacts as if undead and gets damaged.
You're right. Disrupt Undead specifically calls out the spell as dealing positive energy to damage undead, and given the Dhampir ability, it would be harmed for exactly the reason you mention.
Your stance is really confusing me. Every single example you list is another example of why I'm correct. What evidence do you actually have? Negative and Positive energy are damage types that deal damage unless otherwise specified (by calling out that they heal specific types of targets).
That's ok, to be 100% honest, your stance boggles my mind. You read my statements, and somehow manage to twist them around somehow 180 degrees to the opposite of what I'm saying, so we're even.