|
Can I use Heal at a Glyph of Warding, since it is hostile to undead?
http://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=138
The stored spell must take 3 actions or fewer to cast, have a hostile effect, and target one creature or have an area.
http://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=148
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.
The "have a hostile effect" is where i'm stuck since it dont say that it can ONLY have an hostile effect, and damage a group of creatures is clearly a hostile effect.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would allow it. But only to hurt undead. It would harmlessly discharge (without any healing done) if a creature without negative healing triggered the glyph.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I use Heal at a Glyph of Warding, since it is hostile to undead?
The stored spell must take 3 actions or fewer to cast, have a hostile effect, and target one creature or have an area.
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.
The "have a hostile effect" is where i'm stuck since it dont say that it can ONLY have an hostile effect, and damage a group of creatures is clearly a hostile effect.
Linkified!
As to the question asked, I would allow this. Or would anyone say that you could not use Glyph of Warding with Harm, because it could heal undead?
I would require that the caster set a trigger and not a password in this case, and only allow the spell to trigger on an undead moving into the area. If it is somehow triggered some other way, and would not deal damage, then it harmlessly fizzles. But I would allow the spell to heal and harm at the same time as normal. Or would you say that you couldn't use Glyph of Warding with Vampiric Touch because it has a positive effect on top of the negative effect?
Would your opinion change if the party were all playing Dhampir's with negative healing?
At least that is how I'd run it.
|
I would allow harm, to harm the living, but not to heal undead.
This is a very transparent attempt to get a trap that you trigger "by accident" to cast extra heals on your party that you prepared with yesterday's spell slots.
Glyph of Warding only accepts hostile spells. Only the hostile part of the Heal should work.
I would allow harm, to harm the living, but not to heal undead.
This is a very transparent attempt to get a trap that you trigger "by accident" to cast extra heals on your party that you prepared with yesterday's spell slots.
Glyph of Warding only accepts hostile spells. Only the hostile part of the Heal should work.
But Glyph of Warding doesn't say that it only applies the hostile part of a spell. It applies the Spell and any effects of that spell by my reading. I agree that it shouldn't be able to be triggered in a way that doesn't cause someone harm, but at the same time I see nothing wrong with a side effect heal.
A decent compromise with your players is to disallow area heals if you feel strongly about it, and restrict Glyph of Warding to 2 action targeted heal against the offending creature. Require the caster to include "undead creature" in the trigger and there is no longer any chance of healing happening. That gets into meta territory, as it acts as a sort of litmus test against Intelligent Undead though.
This does get a bit sticky when applied to Harm. For instance, say your cleric decided to Glyph of Warding a doorway the party needs/wants to hold against invaders. Unbeknownst to them they are being attacked by a Dhampir. The intruder trigger the Glyph, and poof. The spell goes off and does nothing but softly tickle.
No "harmful" effect was done. Is that valid? If so then why disallow Heal being used?
Edit: I imagine Fireball is a pretty universally accepted spell that can be used with Glyph of Warding. Well, what if the foe is immune to or healed by Fire? Why wouldn't they be healed as they are entitled to?
|
|
I would allow harm, to harm the living, but not to heal undead.
This is a very transparent attempt to get a trap that you trigger "by accident" to cast extra heals on your party that you prepared with yesterday's spell slots.
Glyph of Warding only accepts hostile spells. Only the hostile part of the Heal should work.
Nowhere on the spell is says "ONLY" accepts hostile spells.
It says: have a hostile EFFECTIf I use 3 actions Harm with Selective Energy, in your version I would be able to avoid all undeads plus my allies, its even better then the original version.
I would allow it. But only to hurt undead. It would harmlessly discharge (without any healing done) if a creature without negative healing triggered the glyph.A negative healing that trigger the glyph of a 3 action heal, would still heal everyone on the area?
... no, of course not. I forgot that glyph can hold area spells. But that really doesn't change the intend of my post unless you're splitting hairs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... no, of course not. I forgot that glyph can hold area spells. But that really doesn't change the intend of my post unless you're splitting hairs.I would allow it. But only to hurt undead. It would harmlessly discharge (without any healing done) if a creature without negative healing triggered the glyph.A negative healing that trigger the glyph of a 3 action heal, would still heal everyone on the area?
So, whats your point?
If anyone get a benefit from the spell I cant use it?Its just with healing?
If I cast a lighting bolt and a flesh golem triggers it?
If I cast vampiric touch on the glyph it fails because I'll heal?
... no, of course not. I forgot that glyph can hold area spells. But that really doesn't change the intend of my post unless you're splitting hairs.I would allow it. But only to hurt undead. It would harmlessly discharge (without any healing done) if a creature without negative healing triggered the glyph.A negative healing that trigger the glyph of a 3 action heal, would still heal everyone on the area?So, whats your point?
If anyone get a benefit from the spell I cant use it?
Its just with healing?
If I cast a lighting bolt and a flesh golem triggers it?
If I cast vampiric touch on the glyph it fails because I'll heal?
I already said my piece in my first post. To clear it up:
You can only put a spell into the glyph that has some potential hostile effect. Any non-hostile effect will be ignored.
On re-reading the spell, I will say that any creature triggers the gylph at all times. If you put heal into it and the one opening it can't be negatively affected by the spell, it just dissipates harmlessly.
Yes, you can use Vampiric Touch to deal damage, but it wouldn't grant any temporary HP.
Yes, a Flesh Golem would trigger a Lightning Bolt AND be hit by it, which will heal it. This is not a non-hostile effect of the spell. It's an ability/effect of the Golem.
No where. The wording of the glyph spell is one that requires complex analysis. Basically RAW is so complex it hangs on arguments about commas. It is stuffed and so various GMs are just playing it how they want it. This is one of those issues which is not easily resolvable at all because its all about how people want it to work.
Technically it only has to be hostile to something to go into the glyph not to trigger it. The trigger is based off simple sensual rules and can't determine intent (have a look at how normal hazards work in the game).
I believe you can use it as a healing burst.
But there is potential for abuse in the spell and getting multiple effects of faster than normal action wise. I arbitrarily limit and neuter advanced action economy tricks when I GM. Some GMs prefer to just neuter the spell, and look for any interpretation to shut it down.
I don't mind it but carefully limit it in practise to make it no faster than two actions a go, and don't allow players to stack multiple effects together.
What ever approach you prefer. But I'd rather see the spell used more widely. I don't mind if it is effectively a couple of free scrolls for a caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real abuse in the spell which is totally legal by RAW is to stack 4 or 5 damaging spells in one area. Have it triggered by - say anyone not wearing a blue shirt - then kite the enemy across it. 5 effects triggered at once, encounter over. Its a lot of spell resources, but it is possible to prepare it in advance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real abuse in the spell which is totally legal by RAW is to stack 4 or 5 damaging spells in one area. Have it triggered by - say anyone not wearing a blue shirt - then kite the enemy across it. 5 effects triggered at once, encounter over. Its a lot of spell resources, but it is possible to prepare it in advance.
And this is why I don't think you can really consider this tactic "broken". It requires at least a day of advanced prep work to really get a benefit from it. Smart play should be rewarded.
If a party knows exactly where a given combat is going to take place, and they spend all of their resources preparing that battlefield, why shouldn't they gain an advantage? It won't matter for most encounters after all, and you as the GM know they are preparing nasty surprises for the enemy and can adjust encounter difficulty to compensate if you feel it is necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is why I don't think you can really consider this tactic "broken". It requires at least a day of advanced prep work to really get a benefit from it. Smart play should be rewarded.
Broken only in the sense that if you did it to the PCs they would cry foul.
Any power than allows you to set up a high level two action power like fireball, and then set if off as a single action, or a trigger, is too strong when you can stack it up and do it multiple times.
For example Cersei blowing up the Sept of Balor is fine as a GM plot device but you should never let the players have that power. As a GM you should never do that to the players directly either.
I pretty much always play that you can't overlay glyphs - unless I want the game to become very deadly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I use Heal at a Glyph of Warding, since it is hostile to undead?
http://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=138
The stored spell must take 3 actions or fewer to cast, have a hostile effect, and target one creature or have an area.
http://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=148
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.
The "have a hostile effect" is where i'm stuck since it dont say that it can ONLY have an hostile effect, and damage a group of creatures is clearly a hostile effect.
RAW is obviously not so clear cut, and prone to cheesing and shenanigans like you ascertain (and vehemently defend). So, let's look at the RAI aspect of it a little further within the spell description.
Any creature that moves, opens, or touches the target container or enters the target area that doesn't speak the password or that matches the trigger activates the glyph, releasing the harmful spell within.
So, the creature has to speak a password or do a trigger of some kind to avoid the glyph, and if not, the harmful spell is released. The key word is that it's a harmful spell. A spell that doesn't harm you, like Heal on a Living Creature, would not be grounds for triggering it, because then it ceases to be a harmful spell, as the rules intend for it to be. An Undead creature (or creature harmed by Positive Damage) would trigger it as normal, because it is a harmful spell to them. The inverse would also be true, a Necromancer utilizing Harm spells to heal their undead minions would not work, because Harm is not a harmful spell to them, but it is harmful to living creatures (and potentially the Necromancer themselves), meaning they must trigger it for it to match the intent that it's a harmful spell. The rest would be circumstantial (and potentially hazardous).
Even if we want to argue that it doesn't matter which creature, because it states any creature can trigger it, even you, the spellcaster, restoring HP is not a hostile effect, making it not applicable for a Glyph of Warding cast, meaning only the positive/negative damage potions apply, and positive/negative damage does not provide corresponding healing by RAW, meaning no healing would trigger anyway, only damage.
... no, of course not. I forgot that glyph can hold area spells. But that really doesn't change the intend of my post unless you're splitting hairs.I would allow it. But only to hurt undead. It would harmlessly discharge (without any healing done) if a creature without negative healing triggered the glyph.A negative healing that trigger the glyph of a 3 action heal, would still heal everyone on the area?So, whats your point?
If anyone get a benefit from the spell I cant use it?
Its just with healing?
If I cast a lighting bolt and a flesh golem triggers it?
If I cast vampiric touch on the glyph it fails because I'll heal?
The point is that spells which expressly list themselves as providing healing, even to just certain creatures, is not harmful, which defeats the intent of the spell's function, which is that it is indeed a harmful spell.
Dealing damage is harmful, yes, but being immune to damage (or absorbing damage as health from abilities outside the spell effects) is circumstantial to the entity triggering the glyph, not a result of receiving a selective non-harmful effect from the spell stored. A Flesh Golem triggering a Glyph of Lightning Bolt is not the same as using Harm to heal an Undead target. One expressly lists its effects as healing, the other has innate abilities which transform damage dealt by an effect to healing instead. The spell is still otherwise harmful and damages all other entities not immune or overly resistant to its effect, it doesn't change the overall nature and intent of the spell, unlike Harm/Heal.
Vampiric Touch is a little different, as gaining the Temporary HP is a mere side-effect of doing the damage, which is still a harmful spell, unlike Harm on an Undead creature, which ceases to be so. The Temporary HP aren't also permanent, and only last for a minute, meaning there really isn't a whole lot of cheese to be had there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the creature has to speak a password or do a trigger of some kind to avoid the glyph, and if not, the harmful spell is released. The key word is that it's a harmful spell. A spell that doesn't harm you, like Heal on a Living Creature, would not be grounds for triggering it, because then it ceases to be a harmful spell, as the rules intend for it to be. An Undead creature (or creature harmed by Positive Damage) would trigger it as normal, because it is a harmful spell to them. The inverse would also be true, a Necromancer utilizing Harm spells to heal their undead minions would not work, because Harm is not a harmful spell to them, but it is harmful to living creatures (and potentially the Necromancer themselves), meaning they must trigger it for it to match the intent that it's a harmful spell. The rest would be circumstantial (and potentially hazardous).Even if we want to argue that it doesn't matter which creature, because it states any creature can trigger it, even you, the spellcaster, restoring HP is not a hostile effect, making it not applicable for a Glyph of Warding cast, meaning only the positive/negative damage potions apply, and positive/negative damage does not provide corresponding healing by RAW, meaning no healing would trigger anyway, only damage.
That feels like a bit of a stretch. I dont' see "harmful spell" as precluding any beneficial effects that a spell may or may not have. If that were the intent, then it would be trivial to just say that.
The way I read Glyph of Warding, the spell must have a harmful effect to be valid. So you couldn't use say, Feather Fall or Mage Armor. Heal and Harm on the other hand both do include a harmful effect in their text, albeit conditional to positive/negative energy.
So it stands to reason that both spells are eligible for use with Glyph of Warding.
I also just don't see any good justification for modifying a spell beyond what Glyph of Warding stipulates. The only modification it notes is that if the spell targets one or more creatures, it targets the triggering creature, and any area spell becomes centered on that creature. End of instructions.
Spell goes in glyph. Caster sets trigger/password. Someone trips glyph. Spell goes off. There is no mention of modifying the spell beyond targeting, so why modify the spell?
|
|
I would allow it BUT based on this language "releasing the harmful spell within." that's part of how a glyph is triggered, it would only trigger when the spell would have a harmful effect on the one triggering it.
so, if you set up a 3 action heal in it, if an undead comes close it will trigger, deal damage to all undeads and heal all living in the area. But it would have to be an undead triggering it. A living creature walking into the area wouldn't trigger the glyph.
So I can trigger 4 x 3 action heal with a summon undead?
The Dhampir is not an undead, therefore listed at the Harm spell as part of the harmful effect, the ability to change the damage is a special feature he has, he can trigger harm area spells?|
|
I would allow it BUT based on this language "releasing the harmful spell within." that's part of how a glyph is triggered, it would only trigger when the spell would have a harmful effect on the one triggering it.
so, if you set up a 3 action heal in it, if an undead comes close it will trigger, deal damage to all undeads and heal all living in the area. But it would have to be an undead triggering it. A living creature walking into the area wouldn't trigger the glyph.
So I can trigger 4 x 3 action heal with a summon undead?
The Dhampir is not an undead, therefore listed at the Harm spell as part of the harmful effect, the ability to change the damage is a special feature he has, he can trigger harm area spells?if it can harm something, it is by definition harmful to it.
if it can't harm it then it's not.
it doesn't matter how or why something is harmful.
A flesh golem can trigger lighting bolt?
Which is another way of just arbitrarily limiting it, so its fits what you think it reasonable as a GM. I prefer a more expansive view. But each to their own. Please just warn players about your house rules - or if you prefer - how you interpret RAW for this spell.
In my games one would not be able to use glyph of warding as a healing battery, or for any other beneficial effect. Nor would I allow my players to apply a touch trigger then throw it at enemies. (Which my players have actually asked me about doing.) None of that is how the spell is intended to function. It is a trap, not a healing/buffing effect or an offensive device akin to a grenade.
I would allow overlapping glyphs. That takes a lot of resources and setup, and follows the intended use for the spell as a magical trap.
So, the creature has to speak a password or do a trigger of some kind to avoid the glyph, and if not, the harmful spell is released. The key word is that it's a harmful spell. A spell that doesn't harm you, like Heal on a Living Creature, would not be grounds for triggering it, because then it ceases to be a harmful spell, as the rules intend for it to be. An Undead creature (or creature harmed by Positive Damage) would trigger it as normal, because it is a harmful spell to them. The inverse would also be true, a Necromancer utilizing Harm spells to heal their undead minions would not work, because Harm is not a harmful spell to them, but it is harmful to living creatures (and potentially the Necromancer themselves), meaning they must trigger it for it to match the intent that it's a harmful spell. The rest would be circumstantial (and potentially hazardous).Even if we want to argue that it doesn't matter which creature, because it states any creature can trigger it, even you, the spellcaster, restoring HP is not a hostile effect, making it not applicable for a Glyph of Warding cast, meaning only the positive/negative damage potions apply, and positive/negative damage does not provide corresponding healing by RAW, meaning no healing would trigger anyway, only damage.
That feels like a bit of a stretch. I dont' see "harmful spell" as precluding any beneficial effects that a spell may or may not have. If that were the intent, then it would be trivial to just say that.
The way I read Glyph of Warding, the spell must have a harmful effect to be valid. So you couldn't use say, Feather Fall or Mage Armor. Heal and Harm on the other hand both do include a harmful effect in their text, albeit conditional to positive/negative energy.
So it stands to reason that both spells are eligible for use with Glyph of Warding.
I also just don't see any good justification for modifying a spell beyond what Glyph of Warding stipulates. The only modification it notes...
It precludes it if there is no harmful effect to otherwise take place. This is why an effect with Temporary HP like Vampiric Touch would work, but an effect that does not harm certain targets, like Heal/Harm, should not. There's also other fitting spells, like Divine Wrath, that harms creatures of certain alignments, so that those whom are true believers of a faith can be tested and, if failed, consequently banished or killed for their heresy.
The intent of the spell that it is harmful to the triggering target. If the Glyph does not apply a harmful effect to that type of target because it ceases to be a valid target to be harmed by the spell, then it shouldn't trigger based on that. A Divine Wrath Glyph of Warding that targets, say, Evil or Neutral creatures to keep them out of a sacred place, shouldn't trigger when a Good creature enters the area.
|
|
If you allow non-harmful uses then you could do this:
Enchant a pebble with a glyph of warding and stick a 2-action heal on it. Put it in a little bag that you can stick your finger in. Have your friend hang it from his belt.
He gets in trouble? He just sticks his finger in and gets a Heal spell cast on him. You can have a number of glyphs active equal to your casting stat modifier. So it's about as many (maybe more) than your Divine Font, faster to activate. Basically, doubling your max-level Heal spells if you have a few days to charge up.
This is an exploit. Don't do it.
If you allow non-harmful uses then you could do this:
Enchant a pebble with a glyph of warding and stick a 2-action heal on it. Put it in a little bag that you can stick your finger in. Have your friend hang it from his belt.
He gets in trouble? He just sticks his finger in and gets a Heal spell cast on him. You can have a number of glyphs active equal to your casting stat modifier. So it's about as many (maybe more) than your Divine Font, faster to activate. Basically, doubling your max-level Heal spells if you have a few days to charge up.
This is an exploit. Don't do it.
An exploit that could allow up to seven 2-action heals for a single action (if your seven healing pebbles are the only thing in the bag, you could easily touch all at once in the time it takes you to use a single action).
So, yeah. No way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you allow non-harmful uses then you could do this:
Enchant a pebble with a glyph of warding and stick a 2-action heal on it. Put it in a little bag that you can stick your finger in. Have your friend hang it from his belt.
He gets in trouble? He just sticks his finger in and gets a Heal spell cast on him. You can have a number of glyphs active equal to your casting stat modifier. So it's about as many (maybe more) than your Divine Font, faster to activate. Basically, doubling your max-level Heal spells if you have a few days to charge up.
This is an exploit. Don't do it.
Which you are doing by just saying no. It would be much preferable if the Glyph spell itself gave us proper and clear rules for this.
But by reasonable intepretations of RAW you can put Heal spells into Gylphs, because they can reasonably be Hostile. Just like Lightning Bolt it can be Hostile to some creatures and Helpful to others.
OR are you just going to allow Harm spells in and give this advantage only to Dhampir characters?
AFAICT you do need to limit Glyph in one of these ways
1) Ban it
2) Force it to be totally non mobile (note that containers are inherently mobile, and the are a couple of characters races that can be containers now)
3) Be harsh about Hostile intent - unfortunately its not possible to be fully consistent mechanically here. You have to keep breaking the fourth wall to enforce this.
4) Arbitrarily control the action economy and rely on the x/day limits of the spell.
I prefer the last option, because you have to do this anyway with alchemical potions and consumables.
You can't actually enchant pebbles. They aren't "a container or a ten-foot by ten-foot area."
True but there are plenty of suitable small containers you can use.
You can't actually enchant pebbles. They aren't "a container or a ten-foot by ten-foot area."True but there are plenty of suitable small containers you can use.
This falls into GM FIAT though, because a container isn't a properly defined item by the rules.
Defaulting to literal definition, it is "an object that can hold or transport something." That can range from a bag or backpack, which is the intended targets, to a statue, as there are plenty of cases where statues, which are objects, are holding something, which fits said literal definition. Consequently, a cart transporting goods would also be considered a container, so wouldn't that also be a valid target for the spell?
It's all a YMMV case, really. Intent and GM FIAT will trump the RAW here any day of the week.
While at first it feels odd that you could Ward something as small as a coin purse or other portable container, it does make some sense in world. Small chests and the like tend to be where Wizards and other people with magic keep valuables. It stands to reason that they would come up with a way to ward them.
A pretty simple "fix" to any sort of healing abuse would be to have a pan-party prohibition on triggering their own Wards on purpose. In the same way that gaming groups should self police to make sure everyone is avoiding meta-game knowledge, you should also self police to make sure you aren't abusing certain spells, Glyph of Warding among them. Ascalaphus is correct in that, as far as I can tell, there is no in game limitation that would prevent the situation he described. So that is where the group and the GM have to come to an understanding that certain uses of the spell are verboten.
That will have wide table variance, but then again so do many aspects of TTRPG's in the first place. I don't think this is an issue worthy of really putting all this mental energy into. I for one have never had a player prepare a Glyph of Warding to my knowledge, much less try to use it as described.
|
|
In Society Play I would say it's entirely reasonable that in order to avoid PVP, Glyphs of Warding will never activate due to the caster or other PCs "accidentally" or otherwise triggering it. It would only trigger from NPCs, which may or may not be a good thing. If it happens to trigger a heal spell while the PCs are in the area so be it, though I don't see many undead opening containers left on the floor when there are tasty living creatures within 30 feet.
In Society Play I would say it's entirely reasonable that in order to avoid PVP, Glyphs of Warding will never activate due to the caster or other PCs "accidentally" or otherwise triggering it. It would only trigger from NPCs, which may or may not be a good thing. If it happens to trigger a heal spell while the PCs are in the area so be it, though I don't see many undead opening containers left on the floor when there are tasty living creatures within 30 feet.
That would be where the "area" version of the spell would come into play. Ward the area in and around a doorway for example and the undead have no choice but to trigger the ward on their way to the party. Assuming the party is close enough to the door to create a chokepoint, something most parties like to do in my experience, they will probably be in the radius of the heal spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yea that's fine, that's basically just a trap and they used both spells in at the same time, which circumvents the "I have 4 backup heals in my pocket for free because I cast them all in my downtime" problem.
Apart from a few GP it is not much different to having a few backup scrolls in your pocket. After a few levels, almost all casters have those.
I don't think that this objection is reasonable.
|
|
Oh yea that's fine, that's basically just a trap and they used both spells in at the same time, which circumvents the "I have 4 backup heals in my pocket for free because I cast them all in my downtime" problem.Apart from a few GP it is not much different to having a few backup scrolls in your pocket. After a few levels, almost all casters have those.
I don't think that this objection is reasonable.
At level 7 you can have 4 glyphs with level 3 Heal spells in them, saving you 120g. The Spells School only gives you a single scroll for free per game. Essentially you would get a benefit that's 4x as powerful as your three years of training and connections in the Pathfinder Society.
120 gp that is hardly anything at level 7. I thought I heard that in PFS players always had lots of money?
Anything stopping a band of players from self detonating several containers as single actions while being warded by spell immunity in advance?
|
|
Which you are doing by just saying no. It would be much preferable if the Glyph spell itself gave us proper and clear rules for this.
But by reasonable intepretations of RAW you can put Heal spells into Gylphs, because they can reasonably be Hostile. Just like Lightning Bolt it can be Hostile to some creatures and Helpful to others.
OR are you just going to allow Harm spells in and give this advantage only to Dhampir characters?
No, I'm just leaning heavily on the "hostile" requirement of the Glyph. A potentially hostile spell goes into the Glyph. Only the hostile part of the spell can come back out of the Glyph.
So a Harm glyph would damage the living but wouldn't heal undead or dhampirs and a Heal glyph would damage undead but wouldn't heal the living.
|
|
Which you are doing by just saying no. It would be much preferable if the Glyph spell itself gave us proper and clear rules for this.
But by reasonable intepretations of RAW you can put Heal spells into Gylphs, because they can reasonably be Hostile. Just like Lightning Bolt it can be Hostile to some creatures and Helpful to others.
OR are you just going to allow Harm spells in and give this advantage only to Dhampir characters?
No, I'm just leaning heavily on the "hostile" requirement of the Glyph. A potentially hostile spell goes into the Glyph. Only the hostile part of the spell can come back out of the Glyph.
So a Harm glyph would damage the living but wouldn't heal undead or dhampirs and a Heal glyph would damage undead but wouldn't heal the living.
The "harmful" was refering about spell you cant INTO the glyph.
If you leave just "spell" it can mean the Glyph itself or the Spell you cast into the glyph.And there is nothing saying anywhere that it only trigger if its harmful or even worst, only a part of the effects.
At PFS its possible to cast 4x 3 actions heal with a single level 1 summon undead spell to open a container.
I hope some dev find a good solution to fix this.
Same thing to a ranged "trap" with a damaging spell.
Which you are doing by just saying no. It would be much preferable if the Glyph spell itself gave us proper and clear rules for this.
But by reasonable intepretations of RAW you can put Heal spells into Gylphs, because they can reasonably be Hostile. Just like Lightning Bolt it can be Hostile to some creatures and Helpful to others.
OR are you just going to allow Harm spells in and give this advantage only to Dhampir characters?
No, I'm just leaning heavily on the "hostile" requirement of the Glyph. A potentially hostile spell goes into the Glyph. Only the hostile part of the spell can come back out of the Glyph.
So a Harm glyph would damage the living but wouldn't heal undead or dhampirs and a Heal glyph would damage undead but wouldn't heal the living.
Same.
The intent of the spell is that you are creating an effect that would thwart potential thieves, invaders, etc. From entering an area or taking your belongings.
A heal spell going off when a living creature triggers the effect defeats the entirety of that intent, to the absolute detriment of the game.