|
I don't put much stock in the rules call out for soothe working as there are MULTIPLE reasons it can't work: even if we ignore the living creature target, we also have the Undead trait stating they "don't benefit from healing effects". So Soothe needs rewritten completely to have it work on undead and I don't really see how that can happen and it lose the healing trait while still healing living creatures without it getting a separate section like heal and harm do for living and undead creatures.
Undead PCs can be healed with Healing effects just fine as long as those are not Positive too (and are not restricted to living targets). It's only Positive Healing effects that do not work on them.
|
|
They still have the undead trait...I don't put much stock in the rules call out for soothe working as there are MULTIPLE reasons it can't work: even if we ignore the living creature target, we also have the Undead trait stating they "don't benefit from healing effects". So Soothe needs rewritten completely to have it work on undead and I don't really see how that can happen and it lose the healing trait while still healing living creatures without it getting a separate section like heal and harm do for living and undead creatures.Undead PCs can be healed with Healing effects just fine as long as those are not Positive too (and are not restricted to living targets). It's only Positive Healing effects that do not work on them.
Specific trumps General AFAIK.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Chalice Implement proves that they intend for the Undead trait to block anything with the Healing trait. When a creature with Negative Healing (all Undead have this) Drinks from the Chalice, they are still healed, and the effect loses the Healing and Positive traits and gains the Negative trait.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Specific trumps General AFAIK.
There is no specific: Basic Undead Benefits
Source Book of the Dead pg. 44"Negative Healing: You are damaged by positive damage and aren't healed by positive healing effects. You don't take negative damage and are healed by negative effects that heal undead." Soothe isn't a negative effect, so this isn't an override of the general rule that says the same thing. The only thing I know of that suggests soothe works on undead is that single reference in the healing undead section.
Basic Undead Benefits say nothing about not getting the penalties of being Undead. They just don't get the pile of immunities that are in every Undead stat block and are completely disconnected from the Undead trait.
Basic Undead Benefits just restates the same thing undead does.
Undead
Source Core Rulebook pg. 637
"Undead creatures are damaged by positive energy, are healed by negative energy, and don't benefit from healing effects."
"Negative Healing: You are damaged by positive damage and aren't healed by positive healing effects. You don't take negative damage and are healed by negative effects that heal undead."
Nothing in Negative Healing states that they are healed by healing effects so there isn't an override, contradiction or a Specific that trumps the General. Negative Healing disallows positive Healing and undead disallowed all Healing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please clarify this then - what is an example of negative healing in action? What is something that "is healed by negative effects that heal undead?" What is a negative effect that heals undead?
Now, compare...
Siphoning negative energy into yourself, your hand radiates a pale darkness. Your touch weakens the living and disorients undead, possibly even causing them to flee. The effect depends on whether the target is living or undead.
Living Creature The spell deals negative damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting modifier. The target attempts a basic Fortitude save, but is also enfeebled 1 for 1 round on a critical failure. Undead Creature The target is flat-footed for 1 round on a failed Fortitude save. On a critical failure, the target is also fleeing for 1 round unless it succeeds at a Will save.
Harm and Oil of Unlife both have the Negative trait and specifically heal undead or beings with Negative Healing. Chill Touch also has the Negative trait, but most emphatically does not heal undead or beings with Negative Healing.
Some of the traits are worded in an open manner like that as we are just discussing. They are OK. But tell me what parts of the game fall apart if you look on traits as optional rules? The game just crashes like a house of cards.I'm not saying that the general traits are optional. I'm saying that they are descriptive and informative and apply broadly to many things.
Other traits - such as Agile or Sweep - absolutely do define game mechanics. But many times traits don't define any mechanics - they just inform and describe.
Such as the Negative trait.
I do agree with you. To me it is clear that some traits are supposed to be descriptive of typical properties, not prescribing properties.
Often that is clear in the language that is used in the trait. But not always.
But how should we tell them apart?
|
|
Specific trumps General AFAIK.There is no specific: Basic Undead Benefits
Source Book of the Dead pg. 44
"Negative Healing: You are damaged by positive damage and aren't healed by positive healing effects. You don't take negative damage and are healed by negative effects that heal undead." Soothe isn't a negative effect, so this isn't an override of the general rule that says the same thing. The only thing I know of that suggests soothe works on undead is that single reference in the healing undead section.Basic Undead Benefits say nothing about not getting the penalties of being Undead. They just don't get the pile of immunities that are in every Undead stat block and are completely disconnected from the Undead trait.Basic Undead Benefits just restates the same thing undead does.
Undead
Source Core Rulebook pg. 637
"Undead creatures are damaged by positive energy, are healed by negative energy, and don't benefit from healing effects.""Negative Healing: You are damaged by positive damage and aren't healed by positive healing effects. You don't take negative damage and are healed by negative effects that heal undead."
Nothing in Negative Healing states that they are healed by healing effects so there isn't an override, contradiction or a Specific that trumps the General. Negative Healing disallows positive Healing and undead disallowed all Healing.
Indeed, there is the RAW that creatures with Basic Undead benefits are not healed by Postive Healing effects.
There is the RAW that they are healed by effects that heal undead.
Where is the RAW that they are not healed by effects that do not heal undead ?
If it is just that Healing effects do not work on undead (from the Undead trait), there would be absolutely zero need to specify that Positive Healing effects do not heal creatures with Basic Undead benefits.
I stand by my Specific trumps General reading of RAW.
|
|
Fun fact : creatures with the Basic Undead Benefits can be healed with Treat Wounds and Battle Medicine.
While creatures who only have the Undead trait can only be healed with Treat Wounds if the healer has the Stitch Flesh feat. And they can never be healed with Battle Medicine, since it is a healing effect and it is not Treat Wounds, and thus unaffected by the Stitch Flesh feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the RAW that they are not healed by effects that do not heal undead ?
The Undead trait: "Undead creatures are damaged by positive energy, are healed by negative energy, and don't benefit from healing effects." Affects that heal have the Healing trait ["don't benefit from healing effects"] and "are healed by negative energy". Nothing in Basic Undead benefits contradicts this.
Or to give an analogy: Having one sign say 'no dogs allowed' beside a sign that says 'no animals allowed' doesn't mean you can bring in your cat... 'no dogs allowed' doesn't say one way or another about other animals any more than "aren't healed by positive healing effects" informs you about non-positive healing effects.
If it is just that Healing effects do not work on undead (from the Undead trait), there would be absolutely zero need to specify that Positive Healing effects do not heal creatures with Basic Undead benefits.
It's far from the only instance of them adding things that seem unneeded. I mean just look at The Oscillating Wave: I'm pretty sure I know what they wanted to happen but... yeah. Or battleforms not being able to escape until an update fixed the wording. They might have intended to have healing effects work on PC undead, but that doesn't come through with the RAW that we have.
I stand by my Specific trumps General reading of RAW.
And I stand by the fact that the Undead trait and the Basic Undead benefits never contradict so there isn't a specific vs general: Positive Healing effects is a subset of healing effects after all.
Fun fact : creatures with the Basic Undead Benefits can be healed with Treat Wounds and Battle Medicine.
While creatures who only have the Undead trait can only be healed with Treat Wounds if the healer has the Stitch Flesh feat. And they can never be healed with Battle Medicine, since it is a healing effect and it is not Treat Wounds, and thus unaffected by the Stitch Flesh feat.
Now Stitch Flesh is an example of Specific trumps General. I can't see a creature with Basic Undead Benefits getting healed without it though as it still has the undead trait.
And yes, it would be better if they errataed the Undead trait.
But since it is in so many places and they have the "No errata before reprint" policy. I feel we won't see it for a long long time and thus we need to be satisfied with the Basic undead benefits RAW.
The undead trait is fine as/is: it'd be the basic undead benefits that would have to note a specific override of that trait for healing.
As far as "we need to be satisfied with the Basic undead benefits RAW"
|
|
Now Stitch Flesh is an example of Specific trumps General. I can't see a creature with Basic Undead Benefits getting healed without it though as it still has the undead trait.
And it does not strike you as odd that even with Stitch Flesh you cannot heal an undead PC with Battle Medicine even though you can heal them with Treat Wounds ?
Whereas by my reading, both work just fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it does not strike you as odd that even with Stitch Flesh you cannot heal an undead PC with Battle Medicine even though you can heal them with Treat Wounds ?
No, why should it? I also don't expect it to work on an NPC mummy or skeleton either.
Whereas by my reading, both work just fine.
I honestly don't see how your read is valid: it doesn't work grammatically to set up an inclusion of non-positive healing needed for a specific vs general rules argument: EI, I can't see a RAW reading that gets you there. You'd have to fall back on RAI and invoke the Ambiguous Rules "wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended" clause but I don't find the current actual read problematic [spells that specify they heal undead still heal undead] or not working as intended [undead having the undead trait seems pretty intentional and there isn't a specific call out of generic non-positive healing working]. A call out of positive not working in one section and a mention of soothe working lead me to think there is an error in mentioning soothe not that there is an error in Basic Undead Benefits.
That said, I'd have no issue with someone houseruling it so that non-positive healing works: that's different than agreeing in the rules section that RAW allows it though.
We seem to agree that there is no clear agreement or answer based in RAW that is not somewhere else contradicted by RAW. This is not terribly surprising, as writing undead mechanics means codifying myriad exceptions and in some cases inversions to the rule even before you add the various semi-dead creatures...
So how then do we think it should be written in a perfect world which predicted each of the later sources of confusion?
Bearing in mind that whatever traits or mechanics you imagine must account for the following general groups of creature:
-Fully Undead (ie undead with negative healing) some of whom can heal themselves with various abilities
-Living Half-Dead (ie living creatures with negative healing) around whom spells which only target either living or undead hold much confusion and disagreement
-Undead PCs, who are vulnerable to ailments but come off immune to the cure
-Non-living but not undead creatures such as constructs who are also immune to healing but not hit point regeneration.
Also I suppose the following abilities are worth mentioning for completeness, including but not limited to:
-Positive hit point healing healing
-hit point healing with no pos/neg tag
-non-hp healing effects, positive or not
-abilities which either combine positive and negative, or treat living and undead separately
PS while we're at it perhaps someone would like to volunteer to create a new (or revive an old) thread with a name more appropriate for the topic of undead mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We seem to agree that there is no clear agreement or answer based in RAW that is not somewhere else contradicted by RAW.
The only contradiction is the Healing Undead section and it contradicts itself: if it's as The Raven Black says, it should say that Elixirs of Life and soothe works [neither has the positive trait] but it says elixirs of life are no use but soothe can works so it doesn't seem like the positive healing mention in undead traits is a factor in it.
So how then do we think it should be written in a perfect world which predicted each of the later sources of confusion?
*shrug* I think all that needs done is to have spells/items that heal undead to specifically mention that. Living Half-Dead, like dhampirs, a note in negative healing altering targeting should be enough.