|
Lastly, the connection between you and your eidolon means you both share a single pool of Hit Points. Damage taken by either you or the eidolon reduces your Hit Points, while healing either of you recovers your Hit Points. Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable). For instance, if you and your eidolon get caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies.
I have a dhampir summoner with the negative healing ability. His eidolon doesn't share his abilities, so it does not have negative healing. What happens when both of them are caught in a 3-action heal spell (or vice versa for a 3-action harm spell)?
My gut says, the dhampir rolls a save and you apply the net effect of the healing and damage to the hit point total, but the line I bolded above makes me question that. Do I have to consider the absolute value of each change to hp which would result in damage only a critical fail and ignore the healing amount? Healing only on a save or critical save? What about when the save is failed and the amount of healing and damage is the same?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recognize this question.
Ah, yes. Can a Dhampir Summoner benefit from healing their Eidolon?
I don't think we ever came to a complete consensus on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that for a Dhampir, positive & negative energy is asymmetric.
(And yes, this might be an error Paizo needs to update!)
They aren't an undead creature so positive energy spells which check for if the target is undead first (like Heal) don't toss positive damage at the Dhampir. A spell or effect which didn't check for creature type first (there are only a few I've seen) would affect them.
Yet for negative energy that heals undead, Dhampirs (etc.) do get healed because Negative Healing specifically says "...that heal undead."
If the positive damage part of Negative Healing had "...that hurt undead." then it'd be different, symmetric. I wouldn't be surprised to see that added in errata.
So yeah, the Dhampir's unaffected by the Heal while the Eidelon's healed.
Since Dhampir's are giving up access to a major source of healing (and most every healing item), this balances IMO though one can build around it (and if done at the party level, it's quite effective).
---
To answer the spirit of your question (and for if that errata comes), then the healed one would get healed and the harmed one would roll their save. Therefore often they'd come out even or better off unless they rolled a critical fail on the save.
The Summoner & Eidelon being opposite in terms of healing is a strong choice, well worth considering (and I think Undead Eidelon's might be difficult to balance partly because of this).
Note that for a Dhampir, positive & negative energy is asymmetric.
(And yes, this might be an error Paizo needs to update!)They aren't an undead creature so positive energy spells which check for if the target is undead first (like Heal) don't toss positive damage at the Dhampir. A spell or effect which didn't check for creature type first (there are only a few I've seen) would affect them.
Yet for negative energy that heals undead, Dhampirs (etc.) do get healed because Negative Healing specifically says "...that heal undead."
If the positive damage part of Negative Healing had "...that hurt undead." then it'd be different, symmetric. I wouldn't be surprised to see that added in errata.
So yeah, the Dhampir's unaffected by the Heal while the Eidelon's healed.
Since Dhampir's are giving up access to a major source of healing (and most every healing item), this balances IMO though one can build around it (and if done at the party level, it's quite effective).---
To answer the spirit of your question (and for if that errata comes), then the healed one would get healed and the harmed one would roll their save. Therefore often they'd come out even or better off unless they rolled a critical fail on the save.The Summoner & Eidelon being opposite in terms of healing is a strong choice, well worth considering (and I think Undead Eidelon's might be difficult to balance partly because of this).
I don't necessarily agree with your analysis. The Dhampir Heritage say that "you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead." Specific Negative Healing of a Dhampir overrides the general Negative Healing rule from the Bestiary. I think Heal damages a Dhampir.
As far as the Dhampir and Eidolon caught in the same Heal burst, Dhampir gets a basic save. So Eidolon adds healing and Dhampir subtracts the damage. It could be a net positive or negative depending on the save.
Well, that line with Dhampir Heritage is one reason why I think there will be an errata for Negative Healing. The Heritage is saying that you have X and X means this, except X doesn't mean this. The Heritage doesn't say it's a variant or exception, yet describes Negative Healing differently.
Trouble is while I think the symmetric version is likely correct, there are good balance reasons for the asymmetric interpretation to be correct instead because of the imbalance toward positive healing sources.
Though yes, Dhampir does seem stuck w/ symmetry (even if other living creatures w/ Negative Healing aren't yet). Not unless Paizo used unclear grammar with the "and" linking positive & negative energy. That scans unnaturally so I don't accept that even if it squares w/ the Negative Healing description. Huh, I wonder if the error was somebody rewriting the concept for the Negative Healing entry and mistaking that the "= undead" portion should apply to only to half instead of all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that for a Dhampir, positive & negative energy is asymmetric.
(And yes, this might be an error Paizo needs to update!)They aren't an undead creature so positive energy spells which check for if the target is undead first (like Heal) don't toss positive damage at the Dhampir. A spell or effect which didn't check for creature type first (there are only a few I've seen) would affect them.
Yet for negative energy that heals undead, Dhampirs (etc.) do get healed because Negative Healing specifically says "...that heal undead."
If the positive damage part of Negative Healing had "...that hurt undead." then it'd be different, symmetric. I wouldn't be surprised to see that added in errata.
Going with that ruling gets really weird. Because Harm has very similar language.
If the target is a living creature, you deal 1d8 negative damage to it, and it gets a basic Fortitude save.
So Harm would never get to the point of recovering HP because the Dhampir character is not an undead creature. And since Negative Healing says that you don't take negative damage, Harm doesn't affect the Dhampir at all. Just like Heal.
It feels like a too bad to be true idea to have no HP recovering spells at all that work.
But that's when the "...that heal undead" line makes the difference.
Does Harm heal undead? Yes. Therefore it heals those with Negative Healing.
Meanwhile, Heal tries to heal a living creature w/ Negative Healing (because they're living) and fails, only harming undead since there's not a comparable "...that harm undead" line to reverse the effects.
Except for Dhampir it seems because its description of Negative Healing does signify that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Heal will damage a Dhampir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd7XQMuuLWk
But that's when the "...that heal undead" line makes the difference.
Does Harm heal undead? Yes. Therefore it heals those with Negative Healing.
It never gets to that point.
If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of Hit Points.
If the target is not undead, it doesn't try to restore Hit Points. So to that target, the spell is not a negative effect that causes healing.
Yeah, the minutia of the rules is a bit unclear.
The intent of the rules is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's when the "...that heal undead" line makes the difference.
Does Harm heal undead? Yes. Therefore it heals those with Negative Healing.It never gets to that point.
If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of Hit Points.If the target is not undead, it doesn't try to restore Hit Points. So to that target, the spell is not a negative effect that causes healing.
Yeah, the minutia of the rules is a bit unclear.
The intent of the rules is not.
That is why I think you have to include the "as if you were undead" phrase from the heritage. Harm requires you to be undead to be healed, but negative healing (per the heritage) means you are treated as undead for purposes of Positive or Negative energy effects.
That is why I think you have to include the "as if you were undead" phrase from the heritage. Harm requires you to be undead to be healed, but negative healing (per the heritage) means you are treated as undead for purposes of Positive or Negative energy effects.But that's when the "...that heal undead" line makes the difference.
Does Harm heal undead? Yes. Therefore it heals those with Negative Healing.It never gets to that point.
If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of Hit Points.If the target is not undead, it doesn't try to restore Hit Points. So to that target, the spell is not a negative effect that causes healing.
Yeah, the minutia of the rules is a bit unclear.
The intent of the rules is not.
Clearly the intent is that a creature with Negative Healing is healed by Harm and harmed by Heal.
But delving into the rules and trying to rule that Heal doesn't cause HP damage to a Dhampir because of some technicality isn't good. The same rule quibbling can be applied to Harm.
In this case, the problem is that Harm checks for being undead before it decides whether it is trying to restore HP or deal negative damage. The rules about Dhampir heritage don't apply yet until after the spell decides what it is doing. And once Harm finds out that the Dhampir character is not undead it chooses to apply negative damage. Which doesn't affect a Dhampir character.
Alternatively, you can go with the idea that Harm does both negative damage and undead HP restoration to all targets. At that point the Dhampir heritage would be applied and the Dhampir character would get the HP restoration 'as if you were undead'. But the same reasoning would be applied to Heal. Heal would do both positive damage and positive HP restoration to all targets. And the Dhampir would have to take the damage from the positive damage that Heal is doing and ignore the positive healing.
You can't have it one way for one spell and differently for the other.
----
Also, I don't read the Dhampir Heritage rules as being asymmetric.
You have the negative healing ability, which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead.
It isn't
a) you are harmed by positive damageb) you are healed by negative effects as if you were undead
It should be read as
a) you are harmed by positive damage as if you were undead
b) you are healed by negative effects as if you were undead
"you are (harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects) as if you were undead."
I hate English.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and finally, the line in Dhampir heritage
You have the negative healing ability, which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead.
is mostly reminder text. It references the full Negative Healing rules. Which also appears to be symmetric to me.
|
|
It isn't
a) you are harmed by positive damage
b) you are healed by negative effects as if you were undeadIt should be read as
a) you are harmed by positive damage as if you were undead
b) you are healed by negative effects as if you were undead"you are (harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects) as if you were undead."
This is how I understood it as well.