Trouble is there are conflicting listings for Negative Healing, and you've listed both.
As given above under the Dhampir version, it uses the simplest version, which also was how PF1 did it: Treat this living creature as undead.
In that case, even as a living creature, those with Negative Healing wouldn't get a choice, just like an undead wouldn't. Which is to say I don't think the "willing" part matters.
That's symmetrical, yet the other version isn't. That's the one you listed under the spoiler tag. In that case there's a loophole for living creatures with Negative Healing.
Take positive damage? Yes.
Take negative damage? No.
Healed by negative effects that heal undead? Yes.
Those are the same, but there's this last one:
Damaged by positive effects that harm undead? Nope.
They're not healed by them, but unlike undead they're not harmed (unless it's explicitly listed as damage). And it is damage to undead, but unlike with negative energy, there's no mention of treating them as undead re: positive energy. So they're treated as living (because they are and it's only for negative healing that they're treated like undead) and would be healed except Negative Healing says they're not.
I think the asymmetry is so PCs with Negative Healing can travel alongside regular parties who would want to do AoE Heal without sacrificing their one dead-ish guy. Of course the fact that Dhampir, the most likely to be a PC, would get hurt is counter-evidence. Oy.
I'd say run with whichever balances for the story you're telling. Traditionally I'd go with the latter version (despite the imbalance) and to allow for PCs w/ Negative Healing, but in an all-Negative-Healing party I'd go for the former because to close off the exploitation of that imbalance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules have a lot of little technical problems and corner cases when it comes to healing undead.
My recommendation is to ignore the details as so many of them contradict and are just illogical. Details here scroll down to Healing undead which is point 37. Instead just consider everything that has Negative Healing as Undead for the purposes of spells and abilities that relate to healing and positive/negative damage and it will work out reasonably.
Otherwise you will get into a knot.
One reasonable and consistent ruling is to do as Gortle mentioned and treat anything with Negative Healing as though it was Undead for purposes of spell effects.
Another option that is reasonable and can be applied somewhat consistently is to treat spells as doing positive/negative and healing/damage but only one of the set at a time.
So Heal can either do positive healing or positive damage. If it is doing positive healing, then it won't affect undead or things that are living but have Negative Healing. If it is doing positive damage, then it will harm undead or those with Negative Healing, but won't heal the living.
Same with Harm. It can do negative damage or negative healing. But it doesn't try to do both at the same time.
------
The actual printed rules are quite a bit more complicated than this and has some really strange interactions.
Should they be treated like Dhampirs since "Despite being living creatures, dhampirs respond to positive and negative energy as if they were undead"?
Yes.
The text of heal describes the typical interaction. Creatures with negative healing break that assumption and should be treated as if they are undead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another option that is reasonable and can be applied somewhat consistently is to treat spells as doing positive/negative and healing/damage but only one of the set at a time.So Heal can either do positive healing or positive damage. If it is doing positive healing, then it won't affect undead or things that are living but have Negative Healing. If it is doing positive damage, then it will harm undead or those with Negative Healing, but won't heal the living.
Same with Harm. It can do negative damage or negative healing. But it doesn't try to do both at the same time.
That's a pretty meaningful nerf to 3-action heal spells when fighting undead (or 3-action harms when fighting living creatures as undead). Does it really need that?
I think when I had read 2nd editions heal spell, I had actually interpreted their intent as the one put forth by Breithauptclan. The statement that it could do Positive Healing or Positive Damage since they explicitly chose to use the word OR, since if they wanted to be able to do positive damage and positive healing, I would have expected them to use the word AND as the conjunction.
I will admit that I can see someone could imply that the emanation line saying that it targets all living and undead creatures in the burst, one might be inclined to believe it could effect both types at the same time. However, it also could have been future-proofing knowing there would be exceptions where a living creature could be targeted by positive damage and treated like an undead, thus taking damage, despite being considered living.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AND wouldn't make sense because it only does one or the other based on the target. But the 3-action version can target multiple creatures.
That's a pretty meaningful nerf to 3-action heal spells when fighting undead (or 3-action harms when fighting living creatures as undead). Does it really need that?
Another option that is reasonable and can be applied somewhat consistently is to treat spells as doing positive/negative and healing/damage but only one of the set at a time.So Heal can either do positive healing or positive damage. If it is doing positive healing, then it won't affect undead or things that are living but have Negative Healing. If it is doing positive damage, then it will harm undead or those with Negative Healing, but won't heal the living.
Same with Harm. It can do negative damage or negative healing. But it doesn't try to do both at the same time.
You could still rule that you choose per target which it does.
But the idea being that the caster chooses which one the spell does. Most of the problems with Heal/Harm are that the spell text tries to choose which one it does algorithmically - and it doesn't do a very complete job of it.
Edit: And yes, I don't think I explained that very well in my initial post. Sorry for the confusion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's notable that the Heal spell was introduced in the CRB, which doesn't even have the concept of "negative healing." That was first introduced in Bestiary 1 but left entirely undefined until Bestiary 2. Thus CRB positive effects specify properly-undead targets rather than ones with negative healing (which includes all undead). We're on the third printing now, though, and Paizo still hasn't updated them. Such CRB abilities are either in a state of neglect, or the rules team really does have some mysterious motivation to keep it the way they are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... I will admit that I can see someone could imply that the emanation line saying that it targets all living and undead creatures in the burst, one might be inclined to believe it could effect both types at the same time...
It is neither implied nor inferred. The Heal spell explicitly states that, for the three action emanation, "[it] targets all living and undead creatures in the burst" (emphasis added).
The language is clear. The three-action casting of Heal affects both living and undead in its emanation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My position here is pretty simple. It was obviously meant to work that way, since that's the whole point of Negative Healing. Therefore, no matter how "technically right by RAW" it might seem, any reading that it doesn't work that way is obviously wrong and can be disregarded.
So what? We're not computer programs. We know what it means.
You could still rule that you choose per target which it does.
Okay, now that's a massive power boost to the spell. Suddenly totally safe to use in mixed crowds--in both senses, as it can never accidentally harm allies or accidentally heal enemies, which is the main reason to be careful with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what? We're not computer programs. We know what it means.
We know what we think it means. The problem is when that 'we' includes more than one person.
So if you think you can propose a ruling that won't get nit-picked to death, go ahead and post it.
My position here is pretty simple. It was obviously meant to work that way, since that's the whole point of Negative Healing. Therefore, no matter how "technically right by RAW" it might seem, any reading that it doesn't work that way is obviously wrong and can be disregarded.
So what? We're not computer programs. We know what it means.
You could still rule that you choose per target which it does.Okay, now that's a massive power boost to the spell. Suddenly totally safe to use in mixed crowds--in both senses, as it can never accidentally harm allies or accidentally heal enemies, which is the main reason to be careful with it.
There is a cleric feat (Selective Energy - 6th level) that lets you exclude a number of targets equal to your Charisma modifier from an AOE Heal/Harm.
So it's definitely not correct for everybody to get a better benefit for free, then.
Yeah.
I mean, okay, I played a cleric in Mummy's Mask (which our GM updated to 2nd edition), and before I hit 6th level, there was at least one fight where the cone of healing healed at least one enemy, but it was still worth it because it covered a couple allies. Once I hit 6th, that was no longer an issue.