Unsure on the exact RAW answer to that. (if there is one)
I recall once a thread saying that Fast Healing wasn't 'magical healing' and wouldn't actually stop Bleed at all. (i personally find that silly)
Myself i would have the fast healing negate bleed before it ticked.
If it's magical, I can't see how it wouldn't stop the bleeding. It's magical, and it's healing. Seems like a no-brainer.
The magic healing has to be applied before the bleed to stop it. So which happens first?
It sounds like to me:
Bleed is a condition. After you have it, as soon as magical healing is RECIEVED, the condition would be removed. If that happens first, awesome, if not first, well, still gone. You just took damage first.
Which comes first? No idea, but, aside from the damage, it still goes away, so you'd be taking one turn of damage max.
Edited for clarification.
Usually things are applied in the more favorable order for the target. Successful saving throw halving before resistance subtraction for example.
Fast Healing is generally an EX ability, so no.
However since most creatures with it have at least 5, and that's usually about as high as Bleed damage goes, it has the net effect of simply slowing or stunting the creature's Fast Healing for the duration, rather than actually damaging it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fast Healing is generally an EX ability, so no.
My vote: both of them should stop bleed.
But if you're only gonna pick one of them... it seems silly to let regeneration restore lost body parts but not stop bleed.
Anything that heals hit point damage stops bleed damage.
Not only does that match the rules as intended, it's simple to remember. And there's NO GOOD REASON why cure light wounds should be able to stop bleed damage when a potion of cure light wounds (also not a spell) won't do the same thing. Or fast healing or channel energy or anything else.
If it heals hp damage, it stops all bleed effects.
Hasn't been faq'd, or officially ruled, but, there is an argument for the other way.
James Jacobs has repeatedly said he's not a rules source, and this is merely how he would run things in his games, not how the rules actually work (as a blanket statement for all of his posts).
As-is the rules are pretty clear. DC 15 Heal check, or magical healing. Fast Healing is usually neither.
Even if the fast healing is from a magical source, such as an Infernal Healing spell?
That would be magical healing, regardless. Whether it's Fast Healing or not is irrelevant, it's the fact that it's magical, and heals damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacobs has repeatedly said he's not a rules source, and this is merely how he would run things in his games, not how the rules actually work (as a blanket statement for all of his posts).
As-is the rules are pretty clear. DC 15 Heal check, or magical healing. Fast Healing is usually neither.
He's also frequently issued rulings. From my understanding the "Don't take what I say as rulings" thing is for his "Ask me" thread. And he DID say "Not only does that match the rules as intended, it's simple to remember.", meaning, it's not his ruling, it's what the text meant.
What this means, between our two positions, is that there is sufficient doubt that, unless Faq'd or ruled, a DM can choose to go either way.
It looks like the OP's source of fast heal was a spell, so, in his case, looks like Rathendar answered it.
Edit: I'd still use him as a knowledgeable source anyways.
And I'm saying he, by his own admission, is not to be taken as a rules source, even above and beyond the fact that the designer's (like Jason Buhlman, Mark Seifter, Stephen Radney Macfarland, and formerly Sean K Reynolds) posts outside of official FAQs are not to be taken as a rules sources or clarifications of reality or intent of any kind, also by their own words.
Now, dev opinions can be valuable, but cannot explicitly contradict what the rules say (which is magical or healing or Heal check, full stop).
Especially not 3 year old quotes from James Jacobs (the least, hrm, reliable? That sounds disrespectful but I can't think of a better word), which is from before he made his disclaimer and made a concerted effort to stop posting rules clarifications because so many people were taking them as actual official rulings.
|
RAW, unless the fast healing comes from infernal healing, boots of the earth, or another magical source, it doesn't stop the bleed.
It does mitigate the bleed damage, but it doesn't remove the condition.
It would be a good house rule to make anything with Fast Healing or Regeneration immune to bleed, as per the Ring of Regeneration, but that is a house rule, not RAW.
|
Unsure on the exact RAW answer to that. (if there is one)
I recall once a thread saying that Fast Healing wasn't 'magical healing' and wouldn't actually stop Bleed at all. (i personally find that silly)
Myself i would have the fast healing negate bleed before it ticked.
If you go back to that thread you'll see that it was determined that it was magical healing.
@DeathMvp: Too complicated, and inconsistent with the usual rules (magically healing even 1 hit point stops all bleeding effects.)
|
I don't see how any kind of healing from a spell is not magical.
When I apply spells of that nature, I assume the effect comes into play based upon the initiative of the caster. So the damaged cured from Infernal Healing would be applied each round depending upon when the spell was cast. I would treat bleed damage the same, the extra bleed out would happen each round based upon when the successful attack causing the bleed was done.
Maybe that does not fit with RAW, I don't know, but it does clarify things.
|
|
I don't see how any kind of healing from a spell is not magical.
When I apply spells of that nature, I assume the effect comes into play based upon the initiative of the caster. So the damaged cured from Infernal Healing would be applied each round depending upon when the spell was cast. I would treat bleed damage the same, the extra bleed out would happen each round based upon when the successful attack causing the bleed was done.
Maybe that does not fit with RAW, I don't know, but it does clarify things.
I would argue that Fast Healing heals on its creature's initiative but the rules only say "each round".
However for bleed the rules are more explicit.
Bleed:
A creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn. Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage (even if the bleed is ability damage). Some bleed effects cause ability damage or even ability drain. Bleed effects do not stack with each other unless they deal different kinds of damage. When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect. In this case, ability drain is worse than ability damage.
Infernal Healing and similar spells magically give a creature fast healing. Getting the fast healing is magical, the healing that comes from the fast healing ability is not magical and won't stop bleed.
Infernal Healing is not a spell that cure hit point damage. It is a spell that grants an ability to heal, which is not at all the same thing.
|
|
Infernal Healing and similar spells magically give a creature fast healing. Getting the fast healing is magical, the healing that comes from the fast healing ability is not magical and won't stop bleed.
Infernal Healing is not a spell that cure hit point damage. It is a spell that grants an ability to heal, which is not at all the same thing.
That's exactly what I thought as per the thread I linked to above until someone pointed out this one very simply fact about Infernal Healing that proves it is indeed a healing spell (and it only took about 40 posts before someone posted it...).
School conjuration (healing) [evil]; Level arcanist 1, cleric 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, warpriest 1, witch 1
Casting
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S, M (1 drop of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water)
Effect
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 minute
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Description
You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.
School conjuration (healing) [evil]; Level cleric/oracle 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1How is it not magical healing again?
That is a pretty good point. I would counter with asking how many hit points are healed by the spell when it is cast the answer is 'none.'
I freely admit I didn't consider this point at all when answering, simply using my memory of the spell rather than looking it up.
My best explanation is that it is categorized incorrectly and probably should be a transmutation spell, however it is what it is, and it is a conjuration (healing) spell that doesn't actually heal anything, but instead grants an extraordinary property. That makes the question far more grey in regards to this specific spell.
Normally fast healing wouldn't stop bleed. I guess the question would be if you would also allow the stabilize cantrip to stop bleed, since it is also a conjuration (healing) spell. What about remove paralysis or delay poison?
|
|
Normally fast healing wouldn't stop bleed. I guess the question would be if you would also allow the stabilize cantrip to stop bleed, since it is also a conjuration (healing) spell. What about remove paralysis or delay poison?
I did misread you, in that I thought you were denying the infernal healing vs infernal wound discussion. As for the other examples, since the opposite spell to stabilize is called 'bleed' I would say yes. Since remove paralysis and delay poison do not heal any damage, indirectly or not, I would say no.
Bleed is weird. It's a condition that is very inconsistent in how it is healed.
The Bleed condition in the CRB says any spell that cures hit point damage, the Rogue Bleeding Attack talent and Oracle Bleeding Wounds revelation say any effect that heals damage, Bleeding Critical and the Universal Monster Rules say any magical healing.
So, depending on the source of Bleed, Fast Healing may or may not stop Bleed damage.
|
|
i would be wary of counting fast healing as "magical healing" because of things like:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo--- rage-powers/celestial-totem-lesser-su
and etc
What does Lesser Celestial Totem have to do with anything? It specifically states it does not affect fast healing or regeneration. Whether that fast healing or regeneration is magical in origin is irrelevant.
I think the intentions regarding Bleed are clear: any healing stops bleed.
However, I think it was worded poorly at the beginning (i.e. "magical healing") because it was thought nobody could heal non-magically fast enough that it would be relevant to the issue.
By the pure RAW, Rynjin is correct. However, I would never run it like that, nor would anyone I know. Your bleeding stops when you receive any healing at all at any table I've ever played at or would ever want to play at.
James Jacobs has repeatedly said he's not a rules source, and this is merely how he would run things in his games, not how the rules actually work (as a blanket statement for all of his posts).
As-is the rules are pretty clear. DC 15 Heal check, or magical healing. Fast Healing is usually neither.
He's also frequently issued rulings. From my understanding the "Don't take what I say as rulings" thing is for his "Ask me" thread. And he DID say "Not only does that match the rules as intended, it's simple to remember.", meaning, it's not his ruling, it's what the text meant.
What this means, between our two positions, is that there is sufficient doubt that, unless Faq'd or ruled, a DM can choose to go either way.
It looks like the OP's source of fast heal was a spell, so, in his case, looks like Rathendar answered it.
Edit: I'd still use him as a knowledgeable source anyways.
Only the PDT team issues official rulings. That does not mean James can't say "This is how it works", and be correct, but the power to issue a ruling officially belongs to the PDT with regard to core rules.
I think the intentions regarding Bleed are clear: any healing stops bleed.
However, I think it was worded poorly at the beginning (i.e. "magical healing") because it was thought nobody could heal non-magically fast enough that it would be relevant to the issue.
By the pure RAW, Rynjin is correct. However, I would never run it like that, nor would anyone I know. Your bleeding stops when you receive any healing at all at any table I've ever played at or would ever want to play at.
Quite a few monsters had fast healing and regeneration when that was written, and the rogue already had the ability to make people bleed at a slower rate than some monsters could counter it.
|
|
Still, a level one monk with a specific feat shouldn't be able to one-shot a troll.
As written, they can, if they just wait a while after hitting.
|
|
Still, a level one monk with a specific feat shouldn't be able to one-shot a troll.
They don't. Trolls can make Heal checks.
|
|
Still, a level one monk with a specific feat shouldn't be able to one-shot a troll.They don't. Trolls can make Heal checks.
Semantics. They have a 9 wis for a -1 on rolls. They could be unconscious before they roll 16 or higher.