So I've had this come up in multiple sessions now as people are catching on that the Mortal Healing feat is incredibly powerful for a Skill Feat (turn all regular Successes on Treat Wounds into Crits).
The drawback in theory is that you must be a follower of the Laws of Mortality, which for all intents and purposes acts like a deity with Edicts, Anathema, Alignment requirements... the works. There's one very specific anathema that to me seems like the balancing factor - you must not solicit or receive divine or religious aid. My interpretation is that functionally you can never choose to be a willing target for divine spells, so a divine Heal or Lay on Hands that specifies a "willing target" will not work on you.
However, I have had players skirt this because they really like the feat but don't like the consequences, and in practice there are no consequences to violating the anathema. It's awkward because as the GM I'm careful about taking away player agency and telling them they cannot do something, so if they just proceed anyway fully knowing they're breaking the anathema and not caring, I'm not sure how best to proceed.
I mean, if a player brought a Druid that was clearly wearing metal armor and an steel shield and tried to claim their character truly believed rocks were living things so it was okay, I'd not let that pass. Beyond the RP bits, there's a functional balancing reason to give the Druid class this drawback.
From everything I've read for Organized Play it just seems to be taken as a given that players will choose to not commit anathema. Like the example they give is that a Champion of Sarenae could not lie to a guard. That seems pretty clear cut. But there's nothing on whether that means you'd prevent them if they went ahead and tried to lie anyways, or what would happen afterwards if they did so.
Mostly I'm finding the Laws of Mortality one to be the most awkward to work with, since there's no actual "Deity" or primal forces behind it to enforce the rules, and a lot of players I've found don't actually even realize what the requirement for Mortal Healing means or that there even is an Anathema associated with it.
So what's the best way to handle it? Simply disallow the character from ever counting as a "Willing target" for divine spells? Allow them to choose to break the Anathema and then disable Mortal Healing for the rest of the session (although this winds up not meaning much since often the need for such healing would come during the final encounter where the feat no longer is a factor)?
Just curious if this has come up for anybody else and how they've handled it, or whether there's been some prior official guidance on the topic and how it should be handled. Thanks!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regular characters aren't subject to the Anathema of their Religions. Following the Laws of Mortality means you don't want to take the help of a Cleric in the same way that a lay follower of Sarenrae doesn't want to lie, not that you suffer some crippling consequence if you do.
In regards Mortal Healing, the entirety of the mechanical representation of the impact of breaking the tenets of the Laws of Mortality is that the bonus doesn't work on someone who has received hit points from a source of Divine healing in the last day. It doesn't stop you from having friendly Divine spells cast on you, though the character should at the very least be uncomfortable at the prospect, as it is primarily a roleplaying drawback.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many adherents of the Laws not only refuse to practice divine magic but also refuse to allow such magic to be cast upon them, preferring a death unsullied by divine intervention over one indebted to distant, uncaring deities who trade in souls. Druids’ standing with regard to the Laws is sharply divided. Those who don’t worship a deity are welcome due to their healing powers and their ability to combat the nation’s desertification, but they are viewed with suspicion in some places since their magic shares its instinctual faith-based vital essence with divine magic.
It seems like if they are an RP heavy player, they should have to refuse Divine Healing from everyone except atheist Druids, as if they are deep enough into the Laws of Mortality to get this benefit, they would rather die than be healed by the gods.
That being said, a lot of players, myself included, enjoy mechanics and strategy more than RP, and mechanically, Divine Healing only negatively impacts Mortal Healing if it happened within the previous 24 hours.
|
Regular characters aren't subject to the Anathema of their Religions. Following the Laws of Mortality means you don't want to take the help of a Cleric in the same way that a lay follower of Sarenrae doesn't want to lie, not that you suffer some crippling consequence if you do.
In regards Mortal Healing, the entirety of the mechanical representation of the impact of breaking the tenets of the Laws of Mortality is that the bonus doesn't work on someone who has received hit points from a source of Divine healing in the last day. It doesn't stop you from having friendly Divine spells cast on you, though the character should at the very least be uncomfortable at the prospect, as it is primarily a roleplaying drawback.
In this case, though, 'you follow the Laws of Mortality' is an actual prerequisite for the feat: If you repeatedly violate its only tenant by accepting divine aid, then you aren't really a follower anymore and you should lose access to the feat. Of course, how exactly you'd lose it makes no sense (Vegan Police suddenly appear?) but if you don't meet the prerequisites, you shouldn't get the benefits...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, a lot of players, myself included, enjoy mechanics and strategy more than RP, and mechanically, Divine Healing only negatively impacts Mortal Healing if it happened within the previous 24 hours.
I don't agree with this. The way I see it, there's two requirements for Godless healing. The first is the requirement that you mentioned: it refers to the target of your Treat Wounds, and whether they've received divine healing.
However, this is separate from the requirement on the PC with the feat: the prerequisite for taking the feat is to follow the Laws of Mortality. You might personally get more enjoyment out of mechanics than RP, but this feat has a RP restriction that's mechanically implemented through the feat's prerequisites. You should be willing to abide by those if you take the feat.
(Is there still a rule that you lose the benefit of a feat if you no longer satisfy the prerequisites? Or is this a PF1 rule that didn't carry over explicitly?)
That being said, a lot of players, myself included, enjoy mechanics and strategy more than RP, and mechanically, Divine Healing only negatively impacts Mortal Healing if it happened within the previous 24 hours.I don't agree with this. The way I see it, there's two requirements for Godless healing. The first is the requirement that you mentioned: it refers to the target of your Treat Wounds, and whether they've received divine healing.
However, this is separate from the requirement on the PC with the feat: the prerequisite for taking the feat is to follow the Laws of Mortality. You might personally get more enjoyment out of mechanics than RP, but this feat has a RP restriction that's mechanically implemented through the feat's prerequisites. You should be willing to abide by those if you take the feat.
(Is there still a rule that you lose the benefit of a feat if you no longer satisfy the prerequisites? Or is this a PF1 rule that didn't carry over explicitly?)
How many followers of a religion follow all of its tenets? I know many, many unwed Christians, Muslims, and Jews that aren't virgins, Methodists who drink, Hasidics who eat pork, etc...
Most of them are still considered devout members of their religions.
Without the looming threat of divine punishment that followers of other religions have to keep them in line, I'm sure there are plenty of lax followers of The Laws of Mortality living outside Rahadoum.
|
|
That being said, a lot of players, myself included, enjoy mechanics and strategy more than RP, and mechanically, Divine Healing only negatively impacts Mortal Healing if it happened within the previous 24 hours.I don't agree with this. The way I see it, there's two requirements for Godless healing. The first is the requirement that you mentioned: it refers to the target of your Treat Wounds, and whether they've received divine healing.
However, this is separate from the requirement on the PC with the feat: the prerequisite for taking the feat is to follow the Laws of Mortality. You might personally get more enjoyment out of mechanics than RP, but this feat has a RP restriction that's mechanically implemented through the feat's prerequisites. You should be willing to abide by those if you take the feat.
(Is there still a rule that you lose the benefit of a feat if you no longer satisfy the prerequisites? Or is this a PF1 rule that didn't carry over explicitly?)
How many followers of a religion follow all of its tenets? I know many, many unwed Christians, Muslims, and Jews that aren't virgins, Methodists who drink, Hasidics who eat pork, etc...
Most of them are still considered devout members of their religions.
Without the looming threat of divine punishment that followers of other religions have to keep them in line, I'm sure there are plenty of lax followers of The Laws of Mortality living outside Rahadoum.
A follower of the Laws of Mortality accepting divine aid is more along the lines of a Christian/Muslim/Jew declaring that God doesn't exist: While the practices you are talking about may be important, they are not the central tenet of the faith.
Accepting divine aid violates 'The fundamental principle behind the Laws is a relatively simple assertion that deific aid—even the best intentioned—ultimately comes at too high a price.'
That being said, a lot of players, myself included, enjoy mechanics and strategy more than RP, and mechanically, Divine Healing only negatively impacts Mortal Healing if it happened within the previous 24 hours.I don't agree with this. The way I see it, there's two requirements for Godless healing. The first is the requirement that you mentioned: it refers to the target of your Treat Wounds, and whether they've received divine healing.
However, this is separate from the requirement on the PC with the feat: the prerequisite for taking the feat is to follow the Laws of Mortality. You might personally get more enjoyment out of mechanics than RP, but this feat has a RP restriction that's mechanically implemented through the feat's prerequisites. You should be willing to abide by those if you take the feat.
(Is there still a rule that you lose the benefit of a feat if you no longer satisfy the prerequisites? Or is this a PF1 rule that didn't carry over explicitly?)
How many followers of a religion follow all of its tenets? I know many, many unwed Christians, Muslims, and Jews that aren't virgins, Methodists who drink, Hasidics who eat pork, etc...
Most of them are still considered devout members of their religions.
Without the looming threat of divine punishment that followers of other religions have to keep them in line, I'm sure there are plenty of lax followers of The Laws of Mortality living outside Rahadoum.
A follower of the Laws of Mortality accepting divine aid is more along the lines of a Christian/Muslim/Jew declaring that God doesn't exist: While the practices you are talking about may be important, they are not the central tenet of the faith.
Accepting divine aid violates 'The fundamental principle behind the Laws is a relatively simple assertion that deific aid—even the best intentioned—ultimately comes at too high a price.'
I guess that depends on if you consider Deific aid to be transitive or not.
Am I receiving Deific aid, or is the Cleric casting the Spell receiving Deific aid?
If it is transitive, where do you draw the line?
If the Cleric casts Magic Weapon on a Weapon, and then I use that Weapon, am I receiving Deific aid?
If the Cleric casts Heroism on the Fighter, and then the Fighter makes an Athletics Check to Aid me, am I receiving Deific aid?
If the Cleric casts Stabilize on me, is it essentially rape? (no I'm not trivializing rape, it's just the only word I can think of for doing something that violates you while you are unconscious.)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that depends on if you consider Deific aid to be transitive or not.
I feel like the simple notion that in this scenario someone is trying to rules-lawyer the core tenant of their own faith is enough to indicate that maybe they shouldn't still be qualifying for a feat that requires it.
I guess that depends on if you consider Deific aid to be transitive or not.I feel like the simple notion that in this scenario someone is trying to rules-lawyer the core tenant of their own faith is enough to indicate that maybe they shouldn't still be qualifying for a feat that requires it.
None of this is from a personal standpoint.
I always play CG characters, so I've never been able to take the Feat anyway, as apparently being Chaotic is somehow antithetical to whatever greater being decides whether or not I can follow the Laws of Mortality, which don't believe in following a greater being...
Not to mention that the Laws of Mortality themselves grant Divine Abilities and Skills to certain Classes, which is extremely paradoxical.
divine abilties part is mainly for rasied by society background, their skill being medicine makes sense as they need to care for themselves and not be reliant on divine magic. So you either gain Con or Int plus free boost, medicine skill and assurance of it and laws of morality or radihum lore
My understanding of Gods and Magic is that those things are listed because you can choose a Demigod, Pantheon, or Philosophy in place of a Deity for Classes that require them.
So you could, for example, be a Cleric of Green Faith, or, as silly as it sounds, a Champion of The Laws of Mortality.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding that.
Outside of Druids, Divine Casters have never really appealed to me.
Either way, having an Alignment restriction on a Philosophy that is explicitly about not following a Deity strikes me as very strange. Who exactly is enforcing that alignment restriction, if you aren't worshiping a being that grants you your powers?
|
|
divine abilties part is mainly for rasied by society background, their skill being medicine makes sense as they need to care for themselves and not be reliant on divine magic. So you either gain Con or Int plus free boost, medicine skill and assurance of it and laws of morality or radihum loreMy understanding of Gods and Magic is that those things are listed because you can choose a Demigod, Pantheon, or Philosophy in place of a Deity for Classes that require them.
So you could, for example, be a Cleric of Green Faith, or, as silly as it sounds, a Champion of The Laws of Mortality.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding that.
Outside of Druids, Divine Casters have never really appealed to me.
Druids are Primal rather than Divine in PF2
Either way, having an Alignment restriction on a Philosophy that is explicitly about not following a Deity strikes me as very strange. Who exactly is enforcing that alignment restriction, if you aren't worshiping a being that grants you your powers?
Well, the philosophy has a strong community element to it: 'Instead, mortal beings must shape their own fate, aware of their own limitations, trusting in their reliance upon one another and their shared values rather than divine intervention and guidance' that presumably doesn't fit well with chaotic mindsets.
On the other hand, I could easily see a faction of this philosophy with more of a 'self-reliant' theme (Accept no aid from anyone or anything, mortal or divine!) but I doubt a PC adventurer would get far with such a mindset...
So yeah, the discussion here is basically the core issue I'm running into. If it's purely an RP distinction, then I should be able to create a Druid who uses metal shields if I can provide a sufficient RP reason why this is okay for my character. However, I know of no GM that would allow this. Why is this anathema different?
If you're playing a Druid you follow the rules for being a Druid. If you follow the Laws of Mortality then you follow the rules for the Laws of Mortality. It seems pretty straightforward.
Similar to a cleric of Sarenae not being able to lie themselves, but not needing to actively prevent another party member from lying on their behalf, it seems reasonable that a Laws of Mortality follower could not willingly accept divine aid, but would be able to begrudgingly accept other party members being divine and using divine magics. And there's a mechanical set of rules around the concept of being a willing recipient of divine aid, the same as there are rules defining what constitutes a shield and armor made of metal.
It also seems pretty straightforward to me what breaking the anathema would mean - you've lost faith in the capability of mortals to manage on their own without divine aid, and thus you've lost faith in your own ability to provide incredible non-magical medical treatment (losing the benefit of things requiring being a follower). It doesn't require the Rahadoum police to come beat you up. In this instance your superhuman capabilities come from within.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that depends on if you consider Deific aid to be transitive or not.
Am I receiving Deific aid, or is the Cleric casting the Spell receiving Deific aid?
If it is a spell being cast upon you for your benefit (even as part of a group of recipients), then you are receiving Deific aid.
If it is transitive, where do you draw the line?
If the Cleric casts Magic Weapon on a Weapon, and then I use that Weapon, am I receiving Deific aid?
I'd say yes, as that situation stinks to high heaven of an attempt to find a loophole that allows you to ignore the core tenent of your faith.
If the Cleric casts Heroism on the Fighter, and then the Fighter makes an Athletics Check to Aid me, am I receiving Deific aid?
I'd say no, but I could definately see a 'zealot' character taking offense to indirect aid like this.
If the Cleric casts Stabilize on me, is it essentially rape? (no I'm not trivializing rape, it's just the only word I can think of for doing something that violates you while you are unconscious.)
Something you do not want is forced upon you, so at the very least I'd expect you to no longer associate with that divine caster afterwards.
At a minimum, I'd expect a follower of this philosophy to never* be a willing recipient of divine magic.
It's been a long time since I've played PFS, but I have real issues seeing this faith as reasonable for Society play: It just has a massive 'does not play well with (certain) others' vibe to it.
*Okay, 'never' is a bit strong, but once you can count a handful or so cases, the character's 'faith' seem really questionable...
|
|
One other thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet:
When you get a crit on a Treat Wounds check, you only add 2d8 to the amount healed (from 2d8 to 4d8). You do not double the bonus HP you get from increasing the DC / Skill Level required. So, Mortal Healing becomes pretty unimpressive after a little while...
...
Critical Success The target regains 4d8 Hit Points, and its wounded condition is removed.
Success The target regains 2d8 Hit Points, and its wounded condition is removed.
Critical Failure The target takes 1d8 damage.
One other thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet:
When you get a crit on a Treat Wounds check, you only add 2d8 to the amount healed (from 2d8 to 4d8). You do not double the bonus HP you get from increasing the DC / Skill Level required. So, Mortal Healing becomes pretty unimpressive after a little while......
Critical Success The target regains 4d8 Hit Points, and its wounded condition is removed.
Success The target regains 2d8 Hit Points, and its wounded condition is removed.
Critical Failure The target takes 1d8 damage.The given example is meant to work with the Trained check.
It is this way because it says
The Medicine check DC is usually 15, though the GM might adjust it based on the circumstances, such as treating a patient outside in a storm, or treating magically cursed wounds. If you’re an expert in Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10; if you’re a master of Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30; and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50. The damage dealt on a critical failure remains the same.The damage dealt on a critical failure remains the same.
So, they had to specify that the only thing which remains the same is the damage, while the rest changes.
If the only thing affected by the critical success would have been the same, they would have stated it ( or else, they wouldn't have stated the part about the critical failure ).
I'd say binary logic in adjunct to raw.
I don't entirely follow what you are trying to say, but Taja is correct. The results table for Treat Wounds is not an example, it is the result of the Treat Wounds Action.
On a Critical Success you restore 4D8+(10/30/50) HP.
On a Success you restore 2D8+(10/30/50) HP.
On a Critical Failure you inflict 1D8 Damage.
Now if you continue treating them for a full hour, and don't fail any rolls, you get to do that 6 times, add up all the results, and then double the total.
Godless Healing is a much better Feat, with much looser restrictions.
I am saying that, if it were like Taja says, they wouldn't have to specify the part about the critical failure.
Why did they have to?
Because "everything" changes but the critical failure, which is flat in the given example ( Trained check ).
Or in other words
"why should they had to specify and only for critical failure?"
If Taja example would have been correct, there would have been no need to say "critical failure always remains the same", because "everything" in the example would have been the same whether the DC, but because they decided to do so, their intent is imo more than clear.
That is simply telling you that increasing the DC doesn't cause you to deal an extra 10/30/50 Damage, on top of the 1D8.
I changed my post while you were typing your response, as after thinking about it for a moment, my opinion changed. Don't want it to look like I edited it to invalidate your response.
I changed my post while you were typing your response, as after thinking about it for a moment, my opinion changed. Don't want it to look like I edited it to invalidate your response.Oh don't worry, it happens to everybody.
I checked again and saw that the wounded condition is only mentioned on the success and critical success, so it's probably the way taja suggested.
Now I am lost for what concerns the progression ( hp healed/10 minutes and the 1 hour treatment ).
I am a little lost doing my math here ( seems that the 1 hour treatment is useless when your get continual recovery, and also that the more you proceed, the longer the time needed to heal somebody ).
Being successfully Treated for 1 Hour will result in a higher HP gain than you get with Continual Recovery.
Each Treat Wounds check takes 10 minutes. For simplicity's sake, I'm just going to use Trained as an example.
Each time you get a success or better, you can keep treating for another 10 minutes, to a maximum of 1 hour. At the end of that hour, you add up the results of all your checks, and then double them.
So, if you treat the patient for 1 hour, that gives you 6 rolls(60/10). Assuming you get a success on all of those rolls, the patient recovers (12D8)*2 HP.
In addition, because the cooldown on Treat Wounds states that the time spent Treating Wounds counts towards the cooldown, after the hour is up, you can immediately start treating the same patient again if you want to.
If you instead Treat Wounds for 10 minutes, using Continual Recovery between each attempt, you still get the same 6 rolls (the 10 minutes to treat and 10 minutes cooldown overlap, so it's still 60/10), but you don't get to double the HP gained, because instead of making 6 rolls during a single Treat Wounds session, you performed 6 Treat Wounds sessions. So you only regain 12D8.
Continual recovery is good if you only need to regain a small amount of HP between many rapid battles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
divine abilties part is mainly for rasied by society background, their skill being medicine makes sense as they need to care for themselves and not be reliant on divine magic. So you either gain Con or Int plus free boost, medicine skill and assurance of it and laws of morality or radihum loreMy understanding of Gods and Magic is that those things are listed because you can choose a Demigod, Pantheon, or Philosophy in place of a Deity for Classes that require them.
So you could, for example, be a Cleric of Green Faith, or, as silly as it sounds, a Champion of The Laws of Mortality.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding that.
I don't believe this is true. The rules for a Pantheon say that you can choose to worship a Pantheon, but you still need to pick a primary god and you are mechanically a worshiper of that god for most class features.
I didn't see anything in Gods & Magic that lets you pick a philosophy in place of a god, and my understanding was that Champions and Clerics needing to pick a deity and not just a cause is an intentional part of the setting.
Specifically, the section on Pantheons explicitly says that Clerics and Champions can pick one in place of a god, and has rules for how that works, but there's no section like that for philosophies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think how good or bad the feat is matters much.
Both feats supernaturally enhance the effectiveness of medicine based on your faith in the laws of morality. A GM who sees a character regularly and egregiously violating the tenants of their faith is well within their rights, imo, to say that they stop qualifying for the feat and can no longer benefit from it.
That is something that got lost in the change of editions. Previously you could use a philosophy or concept as a deity with GM permission. And the are followers of those philosophies or concepts in the lore (albeit few).
Since PF2 doesn't have actual rules, then until Paizo releases them they can only be done with GM permission. Unlike the more broad version of PF1 that allowed Paladins/Clerics of Alignment or Druids with a custom set of domains.
It wasn't exactly "lost". Rather - the "cleric of an ideal" thing existed for settings other than Golarion. On Golarion, the intent was that clerics needed deities, which is why you never saw any clerics in APs that didn't get their power from a deity.
With second edition, the rules are explicitly Golarion-centric, rather than the rules being setting-neutral. So since clerics on Golarion require a deity, second edition doesn't have rules for deity-less clerics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I changed my post while you were typing your response, as after thinking about it for a moment, my opinion changed. Don't want it to look like I edited it to invalidate your response.Oh don't worry, it happens to everybody.
I checked again and saw that the wounded condition is only mentioned on the success and critical success, so it's probably the way taja suggested.
Now I am lost for what concerns the progression ( hp healed/10 minutes and the 1 hour treatment ).
I am a little lost doing my math here ( seems that the 1 hour treatment is useless when your get continual recovery, and also that the more you proceed, the longer the time needed to heal somebody ).
Being successfully Treated for 1 Hour will result in a higher HP gain than you get with Continual Recovery.
Each Treat Wounds check takes 10 minutes. For simplicity's sake, I'm just going to use Trained as an example.
Each time you get a success or better, you can keep treating for another 10 minutes, to a maximum of 1 hour. At the end of that hour, you add up the results of all your checks, and then double them.
Without continual recovery, you can't make another check for an hour.
If you take the baseline 'you keep treating the patient for another 50 minutes' option, the total healing they get in that hour is double the result of the check you rolled at the 10 minute mark.That's all.
So, if you treat the patient for 1 hour, that gives you 6 rolls(60/10). Assuming you get a success on all of those rolls, the patient recovers (12D8)*2 HP.
Nope, it's (2d8+x)*2 where x is the bonus from your selected DC / Proficiency level
In addition, because the cooldown on Treat Wounds states that the time spent Treating Wounds counts towards the cooldown, after the hour is up, you can immediately start treating the same patient again if you want to.
Correct.
If you instead Treat Wounds for 10 minutes, using Continual Recovery between each attempt, you still get the same 6 rolls (the 10 minutes to treat and 10 minutes cooldown overlap, so it's still 60/10), but you don't get to double the HP gained, because instead of making 6 rolls during a single Treat Wounds session, you performed 6 Treat Wounds sessions. So you only regain 12D8.
It would be 6 separate checks at 2d8+x, for a total of 12d8+6x if you get a success on each check, or roughly three times what you could get in that hour without this feat.
Continual recovery is good if you only need to regain a small amount of HP between many rapid battles.
Nope, it is essential for getting HPs up in any reasonable time frame
Godless Healing is a much better Feat, with much looser restrictions
Godless Healing is a very different feat with a 'minor technicality' I didn't catch on my first reading: It only helps the healing you recieve, not the healing you do.
General, Skill
Source World Guide pg. 56
Prerequisites Battle Medicine, can’t have a patron deity
You recover an additional 5 Hit Points from a successful attempt to Treat your Wounds or use Battle Medicine on you. After you or an ally use Battle Medicine on you, you become temporarily immune to that Battle Medicine for only 1 hour, instead of 1 day.
So, having this feat doesn't actually help you heal anyone but yourself, which puts it in a completely different category in my mind...
For me, there's also one point to take into account: Most divine casters will never cast a beneficial spell on someone following the Laws of Mortality.
My Lawful Good Angelic Sorcerer of Sarenrae will never cast any beneficial spell on a follower of the Laws of Mortality. He will not even heal one through mundane means.
He will not even heal one through mundane means.
I agreed with this post quite a bit, but you lost me here. Why would you not heal a follower of the Laws of Mortality through mundane means?
He will not even heal one through mundane means.I agreed with this post quite a bit, but you lost me here. Why would you not heal a follower of the Laws of Mortality through mundane means?
For 2 reasons.
First, Laws of Mortality anathema says that you must not "receive divine or religious aid". And my Angelic Sorcerer consider himself both religious and divine. Being lawful, he will have hard time going against someone's beliefs.But most importantly, a follower of the Laws of Mortality is a strong antagonist to any religious character. In Rahadoum, they destroy religious symbols, they expel religious people. Working with such people is like working with a Cleric of Asmodeus: not impossible, but clearly I don't see my Sorcerer having any fun in doing so. So, if he has a valid reason not to help him, he will oblige.
For me, there's also one point to take into account: Most divine casters will never cast a beneficial spell on someone following the Laws of Mortality.
My Lawful Good Angelic Sorcerer of Sarenrae will never cast any beneficial spell on a follower of the Laws of Mortality. He will not even heal one through mundane means.I think you will, if needed.
Or else will be like not following your deity edicts.
If I see a way to redeem him, you're right. Otherwise, there's no edict stating that you have to help the enemies of your religion. Or maybe you consider I should heal a wounded Cleric of Urgathoa?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a significant difference between worshipping a god that is actively and intentionally evil and refusing to worship any god. I could understand not healing a extremist Pure Legionnaire who goes out of their way to harm the faithful, but most followers of the Laws of Mortality don't hate the gods or actively work against them, they just think that people out in the world are relying on divine aid instead of relying on each other. In general this would be particularly true of those who left Rahadoum to become adventurers rather than some form of anti-theist missionary.
Nope, it's (2d8+x)*2 where x is the bonus from your selected DC / Proficiency level
I strongly disagree with this reading, as it would make the entire thing pointless. You would be better off just doing separate rolls most of the time, especially because you could do your entire party, and then an hour later do your entire party again.
Nobody is going to spend 1 Hour treating a single patient for such a pointless result.
There's a significant difference between worshipping a god that is actively and intentionally evil and refusing to worship any god. I could understand not healing a extremist Pure Legionnaire who goes out of their way to harm the faithful, but most followers of the Laws of Mortality don't hate the gods or actively work against them, they just think that people out in the world are relying on divine aid instead of relying on each other. In general this would be particularly true of those who left Rahadoum to become adventurers rather than some form of anti-theist missionary.
I clearly disagree. If you want your character to follow no divinity, just don't choose any deity, and that's it. You'll get healing from my Sorcerer and there won't be any issues.
The primary tenet of the Laws of Mortality is pretty clear: "Let no mortal be beholden to a god." I hardly think a follower of such a philosophy will interact nicely with someone who's power comes from a god, who's blood is blessed by a god and who's following a god's edicts to the letter.Also the edicts and anathema of the Laws of Mortality are for half of them clearly anti-theists.
|
|
Nope, it's (2d8+x)*2 where x is the bonus from your selected DC / Proficiency levelI strongly disagree with this reading, as it would make the entire thing pointless. You would be better off just doing separate rolls most of the time, especially because you could do your entire party, and then an hour later do your entire party again.
Nobody is going to spend 1 Hour treating a single patient for such a pointless result.
If you don't have the appropriate feat support, only one party member is injured, and your initial heal amount isn't enough to fully heal that person, then extending it to a full hour is a decent deal (not much else you can do).
If you have Continual Recovery, then you'd never use this option as making additional checks is always going to be a better option (assuming you have a decent chance to succeed in the check in the first place, of course).If you want to be decent at Treating Wounds, you need to invest resources into it. When I created my halfling thief, I quickly settled on a 'bandage spec' for him:
Level 1 - Trained in Medicine, Assurance(Medicine) as a skill feat (useless at this level, much better at level 2).
Level 2 - Expert in Medicine, Continual Recovery as a skill feat
Level 3 - Ward Medic as a skill feat.
Our party Cleric ended up taking the Rogue Dedication feat at level 2 for the extra skill feat (plus the armor proficiency) so he could also Treat Wounds better (which was kinda funny, since my thief took the Cleric Dedication at level 2).
Okay, here is the relevant text:
Exploration, Healing, Manipulate
Source Core Rulebook pg. 249
Requirements You have healer’s tools.You spend 10 minutes treating one injured living creature (targeting yourself, if you so choose). The target is then temporarily immune to Treat Wounds actions for 1 hour, but this interval overlaps with the time you spent treating (so a patient can be treated once per hour, not once per 70 minutes).
...Difficulty Text Snipped...
If you succeed at your check, you can continue treating the target to grant additional healing. If you treat them for a total of 1 hour, double the Hit Points they regain from Treat Wounds.
...Degrees of Success Snipped.
It seems pretty clear to me that you can not make additional checks for that one hour, but you can 'extend' the check you made and double its healing: Your interpretation makes the 'immune' period completely pointless (unless you failed, i guess)
If you succeed at your check, you can continue treating the
target to grant additional healing. If you treat them for a total
of 1 hour, double the Hit Points they regain from Treat Wounds.
This does 2 things.
1. If I succeed at my check, I can continue treating them to gain additional healing. I have to make rolls to do this, as there is no other mechanic in the ability to grant additional healing.
2. If I continue to succeed on my checks, and I continue to make them for a total of 1 hour, I double the Hit Points they regain. If I only treat them for 20 minutes, they only gain the benefit of those 2 rolls, no doubling.
It does not make the countdown period pointless. If I treat you for 10 minutes, and then we have another fight, and you need more healing, we have to wait for the hour to elapse.
If it only used the original roll, it would say something like "You can increase the time this activity takes from 10 minutes to 1 hour to double the amount of HP granted."
|
Posted this over in the Society Forum, and I see it was already addressed in the first two posts here, but reposting for completeness' sake:
Prerequisites Battle Medicine, can’t have a patron deityMortal Healing
Prerequisites Godless Healing, you follow the Laws of Mortality
"When you roll a success to Treat Wounds for a creature that hasn’t regained Hit Points from divine magic in the past 24 hours, you get a critical success on your check instead"Laws of Mortality
Anathema worship or swear an oath by a deity or religion, solicit or receive divine or religious aid, take a side in conflicts between religionsAnathema
"Champions and clerics must avoid their deity’s anathema or risk losing their divine powers, and even lay worshippers usually feel guilty for performing such acts, as they will be weighed against them in the afterlife."The only thing that prevents Mortal Healing from working is "regained Hit Points from divine magic in the past 24 hours".
|
|
If you succeed at your check, you can continue treating the
target to grant additional healing. If you treat them for a total
of 1 hour, double the Hit Points they regain from Treat Wounds.This does 2 things.
1. If I succeed at my check, I can continue treating them to gain additional healing. I have to make rolls to do this, as there is no other mechanic in the ability to grant additional healing.
2. If I continue to succeed on my checks, and I continue to make them for a total of 1 hour, I double the Hit Points they regain. If I only treat them for 20 minutes, they only gain the benefit of those 2 rolls, no doubling.
It does not make the countdown period pointless. If I treat you for 10 minutes, and then we have another fight, and you need more healing, we have to wait for the hour to elapse.
If it only used the original roll, it would say something like "You can increase the time this activity takes from 10 minutes to 1 hour to double the amount of HP granted."
Nope, I have to strongly disagree with your interpretation here, but this should probably be moved to it's own thread: We definitely have two separate conversations going on right now...
New Thread Created: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs432cr?Treat-Wounds-after-1-Hour
I was thinking more about the "protect allies" Part. The redemption part could be situational, as you already pointed out.
In PFS, you can play a LN Cleric of Zon-Kuthon. So, I think I'll handle it the same way: he won't clearly be a full ally as my Sorcerer's loyalty goes to Sarenrae before going to the Pathfinder Society. In some circumstances, like fighting a hidden cult of Rovagug, he may be a full ally. But for most missions, he'll just be tolerated.
In my opinion, healing someone who opposes your faith is borderline anathema. I would clearly understand if a cleric loses his powers because of such act (or repeated acts).|
|
Posted this over in the Society Forum, and I see it was already addressed in the first two posts here, but reposting for completeness' sake:
Prerequisites Battle Medicine, can’t have a patron deityMortal Healing
Prerequisites Godless Healing, you follow the Laws of Mortality
"When you roll a success to Treat Wounds for a creature that hasn’t regained Hit Points from divine magic in the past 24 hours, you get a critical success on your check instead"Laws of Mortality
Anathema worship or swear an oath by a deity or religion, solicit or receive divine or religious aid, take a side in conflicts between religionsAnathema
"Champions and clerics must avoid their deity’s anathema or risk losing their divine powers, and even lay worshippers usually feel guilty for performing such acts, as they will be weighed against them in the afterlife."The only thing that prevents Mortal Healing from working is "regained Hit Points from divine magic in the past 24 hours".
Actually, that Anathema line you quoted lists two specific classes that need to be particularly careful of Anathema: It doesn't state they are the only ones who do.
In my opinion, if you are trying to get a mechanical benefit from your faith, you really need to actually follow its edicts (or at least appear to for social benefits).