Periapt of Wound Closure Synergies

[TheGuyMan160]

I have a few questions about how Periapt of Wound Closure works when the entry states that it "allows normal healing of wounds that would not do so normally."
So, my question is, what would happen if you happened to be wearing one of these Periapts when you feed hit points into an item such as Bands of Blood Rage or Ring of Terrible Cost? Would the hit points lost be recovered due to the Periapt's ability to heal normally unhealable wounds? Or does the healing only work on damage that has caused actual wounds?

In addition, the Periapt of Wound Closure states that it "doubles the wearer's normal rate of healing". Does this synergize with Fast Healing? If so, how?

If anyone else is interested in these items, here are some links. They are pretty good items.
Periapt of Wound Closure
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/m-p/peria pt-of-wound-closure

Ring of Terrible Cost
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rings/ring-of-terrible-cost

Bands of Blood Rage (only now do I realize that this is a 3.5 item)
http://dndtools.pw/items/magic-item-compendium--73/bands-blood-rage--224/

[Joey Cote]

Its a good question. I had a similar one recently when I took a cursed wound that the GM said required having a remove curse cast before the wound could be cured. I hadn't remembered the allows normal healing part of the periapt, but when I asked he said it required a remove curse, so no. It certainly wasn't worth an argument or spending time looking up some corner rule over.

I seem to remember someone in another post pointing out that when something specifically forbids/allows something, it overrides a general rule allowing/forbidding something. But in your case, you have two instances of specific allowing of healing and forbidding of healing.

[TheGuyMan160]

Joey Cote wrote:

Its a good question. I had a similar one recently when I took a cursed wound that the GM said required having a remove curse cast before the wound could be cured. I hadn't remembered the allows normal healing part of the periapt, but when I asked he said it required a remove curse, so no. It certainly wasn't worth an argument or spending time looking up some corner rule over.

I seem to remember someone in another post pointing out that when something specifically forbids/allows something, it overrides a general rule allowing/forbidding something. But in your case, you have two instances of specific allowing of healing and forbidding of healing.

Yeah, the exception based ruleset does say that. But the problem here is that the specific that would beat the general is vague. It is a vague specific. I think I'll ask my GM about this, I think that he'll have some input. But I *think* that yes, the periapt does allow the healing to happen.

Any idea how the periapt works with fast healing?

[Josh-o-Lantern]

Hmmmmmm...

Burn damage says "This damage can't be healed by any means other than getting a full night's rest, which removes all burn and associated nonlethal damage."

but...

"The periapt doubles the wearer's normal rate of healing or allows normal healing of wounds that would not do so normally."...

Bloodsworn Retribution comes to mind as well...

[CBDunkerson]

Yeah, as soon as I saw the OP I figured this was going to wind up wrapping in questions about burn damage... and that's where I think it REALLY has a problem.

If the periapt can allow any and all damage, no matter the source, to be healed magically then every Kineticist needs one of these and the class just became MASSIVELY more powerful. Ergo, no way are we going to see an official ruling to that effect.

So, how else might the periapt text be interpreted?

I think the actual intent is that natural healing rate (e.g. 1 hp/level after 8 hours rest) is doubled OR, you get the normal natural healing rate for wounds that otherwise wouldn't heal naturally. I don't think it was meant to modify magical healing at all.

[Josh-o-Lantern]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Yeah, as soon as I saw the OP I figured this was going to wind up wrapping in questions about burn damage... and that's where I think it REALLY has a problem.

If the periapt can allow any and all damage, no matter the source, to be healed magically then every Kineticist needs one of these and the class just became MASSIVELY more powerful. Ergo, no way are we going to see an official ruling to that effect.

So, how else might the periapt text be interpreted?

I think the actual intent is that natural healing rate (e.g. 1 hp/level after 8 hours rest) is doubled OR, you get the normal natural healing rate for wounds that otherwise wouldn't heal naturally. I don't think it was meant to modify magical healing at all.

I don't think it would be "MASSIVELY" more powerful. Survivable? yeah. Powerful? Nah. You're still limited to the number of Burn you can generate in a 24 hour period so it's not like you're going off the rails with the healing or nuking. Healing the damage wouldn't remove the burn I wouldn't think, just the damage component.