Venture-Agent, California—Silicon Valley
|
I guess the problem is just in my lodge then. Players will usually have battle medicine, but it's rare to see anyone be a dedicated healer, and when they are they use Heal a LOT. In my In Burning Dawn game I GMed, the one cleric in my party was casting heal every round, until they got dropped themselves. After that, the only healing available was the free potions they chose at the start of the scenario. When we have multiple tables we always try to have at least one party member who can cast heal, as we've had a lot of close calls with parties almost TPKing because there was no dedicated healer. Especially in the 7-8 level range.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the problem is just in my lodge then. Players will usually have battle medicine, but it's rare to see anyone be a dedicated healer, and when they are they use Heal a LOT. In my In Burning Dawn game I GMed, the one cleric in my party was casting heal every round, until they got dropped themselves. After that, the only healing available was the free potions they chose at the start of the scenario. When we have multiple tables we always try to have at least one party member who can cast heal, as we've had a lot of close calls with parties almost TPKing because there was no dedicated healer. Especially in the 7-8 level range.
I love playing my level 8 healing cleric! Let me know if a dedicated healer is needed on your future tables.
That being said, my character would be unable to help a Dhampir with magical healing.
It seems to me that a Dhampir may want to invest in a Wand of Harm to give to a cleric to cast.
Does this really matter though since covid has dealt a rather heavy blow to Pathfinder society? Since we aren't allowed to set restrictions on "in person" sessions and online play is really nothing compared to in person, a decent amount of people are refusing to play somewhat altogether.
Can we get an update that allows VOs to set conditions on in person play, such as proof of having the covid vaccine, so that we can safely start doing in person official pfs again? My entire state has essentially shut down their society play because of covid. Nobody really likes to play online. In comparison to in person, it really sucks.
We've all invested a lot of money and time into the local playing area, but nobody wants to go play without proof of vaccines, but apparently we aren't allowed to gatekeep anti vaxxers out? (I know this sounds harsh, but so is potentially killing someone or causing them long term damage due to their personal choices)
We literally started discussion of closing down weekly society play for our entire state semi permanently today. For over a decade the group has been playing pfs almost every week (except on major holiday weekends) and now they're going to shut it down because we can't keep the anti vaxxers out due to paizo ruling? Nobody wants to play with the risk that someone brings an active covid in, unless they all have the vaccine.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
I'm also confused about what rule is being referenced that would prevent basic safety precautions from being followed. Not clustering people in a small space without proper precautions in the middle of a pandemic is something anyone running a table could and should do, with or without anything in writing to say that their decision has some backing beyond their own judgement. There really aren't two sides to this.
|
Nobody really likes to play online. In comparison to in person, it really sucks.
I count literally thousands of people signed up on Warhorn for online Society games right now.
And I've GMed for plenty of first timers over the course of this last year. More than I ever did in-person in the same time frame.
I'm not sure what the exact count of Society participation was pre-Covid, but the claim that "nobody likes online play" is a bit hyperbolic.
Contributor
|
Online can be pretty darn good -- if you can avoid sound issues, and if you don't let the tools get in the way of your game. Oddly, I think my choice to go primitive using google sheets for maps really helped my table's experiences because I could concentrate on the story rather than the tech. That said, I am really looking forward to being able to GM in person again.
Still, I am really glad that the Dreamers crowd persisted and kept providing events online. Before the Pandemic, we ran an average of 3 tables every Wednesday night in the Dreamers space. After the Pandemic... well, we're still running 3 tables in the online Dreamers event. We lost a couple regulars, gained some others, and sometimes have visiting Californians who hop on a table. But we've still been going. I still get to play with most of the people that I played with pre-pandemic.
Online play is not the same as in person. But it's still good, and it still brings us together.
|
|
BTW, Aetheldrake, can we help your region start doing some online games so that you don't feel you have to cancel out everything in your area? It may be that a different VTT will be easier. If your group doesn't like Roll 20, Foundry is pretty nice. Or go old school and join me with Google Sheets! It's the VTT for luddites, and it works fine. Though perhaps we should address this in a different thread, so that dhampir healing can get all the love it deserves.
Hmm
|
Does this really matter though since covid has dealt a rather heavy blow to Pathfinder society? Since we aren't allowed to set restrictions on "in person" sessions and online play is really nothing compared to in person, a decent amount of people are refusing to play somewhat altogether.
Can we get an update that allows VOs to set conditions on in person play, such as proof of having the covid vaccine, so that we can safely start doing in person official pfs again? My entire state has essentially shut down their society play because of covid. Nobody really likes to play online. In comparison to in person, it really sucks.
We've all invested a lot of money and time into the local playing area, but nobody wants to go play without proof of vaccines, but apparently we aren't allowed to gatekeep anti vaxxers out? (I know this sounds harsh, but so is potentially killing someone or causing them long term damage due to their personal choices)
We literally started discussion of closing down weekly society play for our entire state semi permanently today. For over a decade the group has been playing pfs almost every week (except on major holiday weekends) and now they're going to shut it down because we can't keep the anti vaxxers out due to paizo ruling? Nobody wants to play with the risk that someone brings an active covid in, unless they all have the vaccine.
It all depends on where you live. For instance, our group has been able to play in person for most of the pandemic so far. It is possible to play in person, just have to look into exactly what your state or local restrictions are. We have been using Warhorn so we could limit attendance to one table, and making that table so it provides adequate distancing for the players and GM.
|
We've all invested a lot of money and time into the local playing area, but nobody wants to go play without proof of vaccines, but apparently we aren't allowed to gatekeep anti vaxxers out?
Are you suggesting that the "welcoming and inclusive" rules are blocking your ability to create requirements meant to protect the health and safety of your local community? I wouldn't go as far as to call them "anti-vaxers" since there are a number of reasons why someone would not get the vaccine, but I doubt the campaign leadership is saying you have to admit un-vaccinated/un-masked players because of inclusiveness.
Besides, I would think this is more of a venue issue than a campaign one. I assume that your FLGS or alternate host has their own rules for who can enter their facility. If you agree with them, then you are not the one denying anyone access. If you disagree with them, its unlikely you'll be able to do your own thing in their facility and might have to move on to somewhere else.
We might need a more clear picture of what you are suggesting about the rules that is giving you problems.
Nobody really likes to play online. In comparison to in person, it really sucks.
If you mean within your lodge, then maybe. If you mean in general, then that's very untrue.
|
|
Correct.
PF2's Negative Healing works differently than PF1's Negative Energy Affinity .
Heal deals positive damage only to undead (whereas a Dhampir is a living creature), and restores hit points only to the living (but a Dhampir "is not healed by positive healing effects").
Similarly, a Dhampir drinking a healing potion neither benefits from its healing, nor takes damage. Adding a negative version to the list of consumables benefits a Dhampir, and other characters neither benefit from it nor take damage if they accidentally take a sip.
|
|
What language are we talking about?ETA. Just checked yesterday, the new language should be in the next revision of the guide.
Under starting consumables, the line has been added "Characters utilizing negative energy healing mechanics may replace any positive healing options on the chart with the same level negative equivalent."
But it is part of a raft of changes for season 3, and therefore will not show up until the season 3 guide drops.
|
Correct.
PF2's Negative Healing works differently than PF1's Negative Energy Affinity .
Heal deals positive damage only to undead (whereas a Dhampir is a living creature), and restores hit points only to the living (but a Dhampir "is not healed by positive healing effects").
Similarly, a Dhampir drinking a healing potion neither benefits from its healing, nor takes damage. Adding a negative version to the list of consumables benefits a Dhampir, and other characters neither benefit from it nor take damage if they accidentally take a sip.
I am not entirely sure that was how the Dev team meant for it to work, but as it stands now, that is how it works until they give us some indication it shouldn't.
Venture-Agent, Finland—Tampere
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
. Nobody really likes to play online. In comparison to in person, it really sucks.
I feel offended as someone who does prefer the online play ;P
Lot less of my social anxieties are flaring up and prep is easier for me online ;D And I like feel of the play better too
|
|
Regarding Negative Healing
I admit not being up to date with any designer/developer commentary on this topic as I generally do not like Dhampir so I don't play any, and I currently have never had one at my table. However, looking at the relevant text:
You have the negative healing ability, which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead.
A creature with negative healing draws health from negative energy rather than positive energy. It is damaged by positive damage and is not healed by positive healing effects. It does not take negative damage, and it is healed by negative effects that heal undead.
You channel positive energy to heal the living or damage the undead. If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 Hit Points. If the target is undead, you deal that amount of positive damage to it, and it gets a basic Fortitude save.
Three-Action: You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot emanation. This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst
That all seems to be fairly clear (to me anyway) that a Dhampir would take damage from a burst of positive energy.
PF2 vs PF1
I agree they work differently, or at least they seem to. PF1 made a distinction between positive energy being used to heal vs harm. PF2 doesn't make that distinction. It does both simultaneously.
...deals positive damage only to undead (whereas a Dhampir is a living creature)
Except as I quoted above, the APG specifically says a Dhampir is effected "as if you were undead" with respect to positive and negative energy effects.
Similarly, a Dhampir drinking a healing potion neither benefits from its healing, nor takes damage. Adding a negative version to the list of consumables benefits a Dhampir, and other characters neither benefit from it nor take damage if they accidentally take a sip.
This, OTOH, I can support, at least partially. Looking at the Healing Potion text, it neither references positive energy in the text, nor does it have the positive trait (unlike the heal spell which does). It does not specify the source energy other than to give it the Healing, Magical, and Necromancy traits. By that, I don't see why a dhampir couldn't just drink a healing potion just like everyone else. As mentioned above, I don't know if the designers meant for that to be how it works, but we have been told not to add or subtract any words from the rules. They say what they mean and mean what they say. No more, no less. Maybe they left the positive trait off so healing potions couldn't be used as bombs. Or maybe they just forgot to add it to the list. Dunno, and I'm really not interested in speculating.
At the end of it all, if there is some designer/developer/org play leader commentary or an FAQ/errata somewhere to support the claims that dhampir are exempt from the effects of positive energy, I would love to be pointed to it so when the day arrives that I do have a dhampir appear at my table, I'll know what the clarification is. Otherwise, it seems like this is more a case of wishful thinking.
|
|
...That all seems to be fairly clear (to me anyway) that a Dhampir would take damage from a burst of positive energy...
"If the target is undead"...
...a Dhampir is not undead.
You don't need a Dev comment to reiterate the restrictions set forth in the spell.
Negative Healing, as the name implies, is asymmetric. The only mention of being "treated as undead" is for the purposes of healing from negative energy. What's conspicuously absent is any mention of being treated as undead for the purposes of damage from positive energy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not at all how it's worded, though.
Okay. I see what's wrong. I'm quoting the more lengthy text from Negative Healing (which contains two clearly distinct sentences), and TwilightKnight is quoting the text from Dhampir (which contains only one, with two clauses separated by the word "and").
Reading Negative Healing, there's no room for misinterpretation. The only mention of "undead" is in the second sentence telling us what happens when exposed to negative energy. The first sentence has no mention of being treated as undead for positive energy.
Reading the Dhampir description, I can see how one might interpret the "harmed by positive damage" clause and the "healed by negative effects" clause as both being tied to the "as if you were undead" qualifier.
If that was the only text we were given, I could see the argument being endless, but we're given the more detailed text of Negative Healing to go by for the actual rules. So if you have clear rules on one hand, and an ambiguous reference to those rules on the other, wouldn't you want to go with the former?
After all, if you were faced with a creature that just listed "Negative Healing" in its statblock, there'd be nothing to confuse the matter.
|
|
I guess I can see how you would say that based on the two clauses in the dhampir listing, but given that the text is not written by strict grammatical rules there is really no way to know if those clauses are supposed to be independent of each other (which I believe would require some punctuation around the ‘and’) or both are impacted by the rest. I’ve seen Paizo go both ways with that type of interpretation so I’m not really prepared to dismiss what my analysis tells me. Also, I think it’s a case of the general rule, that being how Negative Healing works like it’s listed in the Bestiary vs a more specific application with slightly different rules like how it applies specifically to dhampir. Yes, I agree that the rule in the Bestiary is clear, but it is modified to apply to the specific case of dhampir who are both living and treated like undead.
I guess the answer is, expect table variation. As long as the GM points out their interpretation to a player presenting a dhampir so they can make an informed choice it’s fair. At least until/unless Paizo wants to weigh in.
|
|
I've had the opportunity to play four Bounties with two dhampir in a party. The general request and consensus was for my Cleric of Kofusachi to *NOT* do the three action (before getting into any mechanical issues) Heal.
Fortunately we didn't need it, and we had another cleric in the party who followed a different deity who had Harm as an option, so it was more my cleric staying out of *their* burst because it'd heal the rest of the party.
Almost forgot during the third Bounty and the GM asked "Are you *sure* you want to do that?"
"Stabilize works, right?"
"That *should* You're just stopping the death processes for the moment."
So as has been noted above, expect some variation there, I suspect.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been elevated to the FAQ team. Hopefully this will produce a clarification on intent from the Dev team.I asked a similar question regarding Dhampir negative healing on the forums and also walked away with an interpretation much closer to Nefreet.
Appended to the FAQ request.