what is the official answer - do Dhampir take damage from Heal?


Rules Discussion


I've spent the last 1.5 hours reading Errata/FAQ, Paizo forums, Reddit, and elsewhere and am still no closer to knowing if Dhampir are supposed to be damaged by the Heal spell. Can anyone point me to an official clarification/answer?

Basically, it comes down to three things:


  • * Heal saying "if the target is undead, you deal that amount of positive damage to it" (Dhampir are not undead)

  • * Dhampir ancestry saying "which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead" but that is just descriptive text referencing Negative Healing

  • * Negative Healing trait says "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."

Strictly by RAW, I don't think the Dhampir should take damage from Heal but the description in Dhampir ancestry seems to indicate the intent is that they do take damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Official Answer: Stalk the FAQ page.


breithauptclan wrote:
Official Answer: Stalk the FAQ page.

Where in the FAQ page? As I said, I read the FAQ/errata but, if it's in there, I missed seeing it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

One of many things Paizo should clean up.

1) Heal has its own rules. Technically a Dhampir is targeted as a willing living creature. So the spell tries to heal but Negative Healing says that a Dhampir is is not healed by positive healing effects.
So nothing happens.
2) If you cast Harm on a Dhampir at least it doesn't have to be willing. But a Dhampir is protected by Negative Healing again as it does not take negative damage.

So neither work.

Personally I house rule it and ignore the targeting resrictions on ALL these sorts of spells and effects. I treat all creatures with negative healing as if they were undead. That is how I think it should work.

The rules remain totally stuffed. The latest errata didn't even do a decent job of fixing Soothe. Paizo keep dropping the ball on this. They just don't seem to see how broken it is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The second bullet point you posted seems pretty abundantly clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
The second bullet point you posted seems pretty abundantly clear.

I agree it is clear on intent. However, that is just descriptive fluff referencing the mechanics in Negative Healing (which does not say what that descriptive text says it does).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

One of many things Paizo should clean up.

1) Heal has its own rules. Technically a Dhampir is targeted as a willing living creature. So the spell tries to heal but Negative Healing says that a Dhampir is is not healed by positive healing effects.
So nothing happens.
2) If you cast Harm on a Dhampir at least is doesn't have to be willing. But a Dhampir is protected by Negative Healing again as it does not take negative damage.

So neither work.

Personally I house rule it and ignore the targeting resrictions on ALL these sorts of spells and effects. I treat all creatures with negative healing as if they were undead. That is how I think it should work.

The rules remain totally stuffed. The latest errata didn't even do a decent job of fixing Soothe. Paizo keep dropping the ball on this. They just don't seem to see how broken it is.

I agree with you on all points (how it works RAW, how it should work, and that Paizo really needs to clean it up).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

specific rule over write general rule

so heal doesn't have to say undead and dhampir

because dhampir already said dhampir count as undead for something referencing undead


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Twilight2k wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
The second bullet point you posted seems pretty abundantly clear.
I agree it is clear on intent. However, that is just descriptive fluff referencing the mechanics in Negative Healing (which does not say what that descriptive text says it does).

We're not talking about intent, although I agree intent is clear, we're talking about what that line of rules text says, which is also pretty clear.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Twilight2k wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
The second bullet point you posted seems pretty abundantly clear.
I agree it is clear on intent. However, that is just descriptive fluff referencing the mechanics in Negative Healing (which does not say what that descriptive text says it does).
We're not talking about intent, although I agree intent is clear, we're talking about what that line of rules text says, which is also pretty clear.

But that line is NOT a rules line. In full, it says:

Quote:
You have the negative healing ability, which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead

"which means..." is an (incorrect) description of what Negative Healing does - not a rule. A rule would have been "The Dhampir counts as undead for purposes of positive damage and negative effects".


Twilight2k wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Twilight2k wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
The second bullet point you posted seems pretty abundantly clear.
I agree it is clear on intent. However, that is just descriptive fluff referencing the mechanics in Negative Healing (which does not say what that descriptive text says it does).
We're not talking about intent, although I agree intent is clear, we're talking about what that line of rules text says, which is also pretty clear.

But that line is NOT a rules line. In full, it says:

Quote:
You have the negative healing ability, which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead
"which means..." is an (incorrect) description of what Negative Healing does - not a rule. A rule would have been "The Dhampir counts as undead for purposes of positive damage and negative effects".

Well, according to Nethys, the Negative Healing ability references the monster ability Negative Healing, spelled out in the Beastiary, and the entry in the Dhampir write-up is just a shorthand reference. Here's what the original entry actually says:

Negative Healing wrote:
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.

So, we are told the following from this short excerpt:

1. Dhampir are damaged by Positive Damage.
2. Dhampir are not healed by Positive Healing effects.
3. Dhampir are not damaged by Negative Damage.
4. Dhampir are healed by Negative Effects that heal Undead.

Granted, every time Positive Damage is referenced, the requirement for targeting things with Positive Damage almost always requires an Undead target, the idea that they would reference it being able to be damaged by Positive Damage would seem to suggest that for the purposes of targeting via Positive effects, they would count as an Undead creature; otherwise, the reference for it to be susceptible to Positive Damage does nothing, as these effects require an Undead target to work. Just as well, Dhampir aren't the only creatures with this type of ability, so it stands to reason that all creatures with this ability are treated as Undead creatures for the purposes of targeting with Positive Energy.

In short, take everything you know about Undead, and treat the Dhampir as Undead for those exceptions. Most anything else, the Dhampir counts as a Living creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

That was just more duplication.

You are still missing the point.

Grand Lodge

Squiggit wrote:
The second bullet point you posted seems pretty abundantly clear.

There isn't really any ambiguity at all, so I dunno what the point of going "but technically it says."

Especially when the argument is pretty dubious anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I posted this in another thread a while ago. Here it is again

The target entry decides who can be targeted, then ALL of the spell effects take place. In the case of characters with negative healing, only one of those effects will affect them.

A walkthrough of what I mean:
Heal targets 1 willing living creature or 1 undead creature.
Is the undead eidolon or dhampir one of those? Well, considering they know a Heal spell will hurt them, they probably won't count as a willing living creature. The eidolon is undead so they qualify for being an undead target, but while dhampir have negative healing they are not undead so they don't qualify for the second target requirement. A dhampir probably could not be targeted with Heal unless tricked into being a willing target. What happens next for the eidolon or a willing dhampir? If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 HP. But both have negative healing, so even if they were willing they would not be healed. Next, if the target is undead, you deal that amount of positive damage to it, and it gets a basic Fort save. This would damage the eidolon and a foolishly willing dhampir. BOTH of Heal's effects occur, it's just that we usually only see one because most targets only qualify as one type of target. Due to the unique qualities of an undead eidolon or a dhampir, they both occur but we still only see the affects of one because the other is nullified.

The other scenario, Harm
Harm targets 1 living creature or 1 willing undead creature. Both of them qualify as a living creature so on to the effects. If the target is a living creature, you deal 1d8 negative damage to it, and it gets a basic Fort save. Both of them are unaffected by this damage due to having negative healing. Next, if the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of HP. Since negative healing causes them to be "healed by negative effects that heal undead" they would be healed by this effect if they were a willing target. Again, due to their unique situation BOTH effects occur, but only one affects them.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The dhampir ancestry says they're affected as undead. So the intent is clear.

The line between (somewhat fragile) reminder text and specific rules for a specific case is often blurry with Paizo. We've seen that in several other places too.

I'm imagining a GM that every time a player then starts with "but well technically..." pulls a cord to open a trapdoor beneath the player's chair.

The best way to play the rules is not to stumble over technicalities but try to run them as intended.


Gortle wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

That was just more duplication.

You are still missing the point.

If the intent is Dhampir are Undead creatures, then give them an Undead trait tag in addition to the Dhampir tag. The fact they don't have this should mean something.

The idea that they count as Undead only for certain things seems far more intended than "They're just Undead with a different nametag."


Twilight2k wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Official Answer: Stalk the FAQ page.
Where in the FAQ page? As I said, I read the FAQ/errata but, if it's in there, I missed seeing it.

It's not there. At least not yet. That's why you and the rest of us are stalking that page waiting for it to show up.

We can argue ourselves in circles repeatedly - and have done so several times already - but nothing we say is official.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Twilight2k wrote:
But that line is NOT a rules line.

It isn't? Why not?

As far as I am aware, there is no style guide or formatting laid out by Paizo to indicate which pieces of text we're intended to ignore and which we aren't.

Quote:
A rule would have been "The Dhampir counts as undead for purposes of positive damage and negative effects".

Which is literally what the part you're saying doesn't count says.

Negative healing should get cleaned up in general, but the dhampir entry is pretty clear on how it works for them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

In the absence of something 'official' cleaning up the language, I'm okay with "Healed by Negative, Harmed by Positive"


Squiggit wrote:
Twilight2k wrote:
But that line is NOT a rules line.

It isn't? Why not?

English grammar. In this:

Quote:
You have the negative healing ability, which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead

"which means..." is an explanation of what Negative Healing is/means (except that it isn't). As written, it is not a rule. Paizo really needs to either a) change that text to actually match Negative Healing, or b) change it so it is a rule rather than an (incorrect) explanation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take on strict RAW for this interaction:

Dhampir has Negative Healing which says

Negative Healing wrote:
It is damaged by positive damage and is not healed by positive healing effects.

The Dhampir heritage entry itself says something very similar.

Dhampir wrote:
You have the negative healing ability, which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead.

Dhampir is also a living creature. The heritage description says half living and half undead, but mechanically they do not have the undead trait and nothing says that they are not a living creature - which is the default for the Ancestries.

The Heal spell targets either a willing living creature or an undead creature. The Dhampir is a living creature so that qualifies if we assume that the Dhampir character is willing to be targeted.

The spell description says

Heal wrote:
If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 Hit Points.

However, the Dhampir Negative Healing rules prevent being healed by positive healing effects.

Healing effects do not cause damage though. Same as damaging effects do not cause healing.

So you can target a Dhampir with Heal, but it won't do anything.

There is actually similar logic for Harm. The spell will treat the Dhampir as a living creature and try to do negative damage to them. Since Negative Healing prevents taking negative damage and damage never heals, Harm won't affect the Dhampir either.

Now, obviously this strict RAW reading is somewhat broken for actually trying to play the game and have fun. The table will need to decide on which way to tweak things. Do the Dhampir follow undead rules and they are harmed by Heal and healed by Harm? That seems to be the most likely intended implication for Negative Healing. If you aren't happy with that, come up with a different way of running it at your table that both the Dhampir character's player, the GM, and the rest of the players at the table are all on board with.


Ascalaphus wrote:

The dhampir ancestry says they're affected as undead. So the intent is clear.

The line between (somewhat fragile) reminder text and specific rules for a specific case is often blurry with Paizo. We've seen that in several other places too.

I'm imagining a GM that every time a player then starts with "but well technically..." pulls a cord to open a trapdoor beneath the player's chair.

The best way to play the rules is not to stumble over technicalities but try to run them as intended.

Sounds nice but in practice we all do it differently. We do regularly disagree about what was intended. Lots of people have interpretations that give Dhampir major problems. So we end up with lots of groups that ignore a game feature because they just don't know what is going on. Or they just work away from the game. I have seen it often enough.

Paizo need to fix this. It is a really terrible experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What exactly is the opposite belief about intention here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
What exactly is the opposite belief about intention here?

That neither heal nor harm work on Dhampir at all. The net result being Dhampir only have a few healing options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no such "caster's intent" rule for the Heal and Harm spells. You may damage an undead you cast Heal on mistaking them for the living, and you may heal an undead you cast Harm on thinking they were living. There is no line drawn from the targeting requirements and the effects. Can you target? Good, now ALL effects take place unless the spell says otherwise. As I said above, most of the time only one of the Heal/Harm effects will be valid because the target is EITHER living or undead but when they are both or living w/negative healing like Dhampir, that's still okay because only one effect will affect them

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
What exactly is the opposite belief about intention here?
That neither heal nor harm work on Dhampir at all. The net result being Dhampir only have a few healing options.

Do you really believe that was intended? That seems to me to be too strange, too buried in technical minutiae, to be true. Also, it'd be too bad to be true.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Gortle wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
What exactly is the opposite belief about intention here?
That neither heal nor harm work on Dhampir at all. The net result being Dhampir only have a few healing options.
Do you really believe that was intended? That seems to me to be too strange, too buried in technical minutiae, to be true. Also, it'd be too bad to be true.

No I don't belive so as I've already said. But there are always people who believe that RAW is RAI because this is a game with all sorts of arcane minutia. Then there are always people who are totally literal. There is a name for that mental condition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the Heal spell specifically, there is a question of whether the spell will do the effect for living creatures and end up having no effect at all, or if it will do the effect for undead creatures and deal positive damage to a Dhampir.


breithauptclan wrote:
For the Heal spell specifically, there is a question of whether the spell will do the effect for living creatures and end up having no effect at all, or if it will do the effect for undead creatures and deal positive damage to a Dhampir.

por qué no los dos


Baarogue wrote:
por qué no los dos

That would be equivalent to just doing the damage.

Which still leaves unanswered 'why not do nothing' - which is what RAW technically says, but is probably not intended.


Gortle wrote:
Personally I house rule it and ignore the targeting resrictions on ALL these sorts of spells and effects. I treat all creatures with negative healing as if they were undead. That is how I think it should work.

I haven't GM'd in a bit so I don't remember exactly how I tackled this but I think that's is how I did it. Probably not entirely rules accurate but it's the only way it's ever been the most functional and the least confusing in my experience as both a GM or player.

I think how exactly I did is that anything with negative healing that's also living is simply targetable as undead and prioritized as so if at all possible. So things like Heal and Harm that can target both, has targets you as undead. Effects that exclusively target the living work on you normally, while effects that exclusively target the undead will work on you as if you're undead. Of course the most important part is that these ONLY apply if the effect in question involves positive and negative healing and damage AKA if it interacts in any way with the Negative Healing ability.

I'm sure there are effects that exclusively target undead with no relation to Negative Healing that could be problematic if it worked on a technically living creature. Although I think this is where a living creature with Negative Healing AND has the undead trait would be relevant? So not the Dhampir but the Undead Eidolon qualifies for such effects.

This subject is so consistently confusing, a clarification on all of it would be so relieving. This is probably the only rule that renews my confusion whenever I come back to it and have to reprocess how I understand it, lol.


Starfinder Superscriber

How is it confusing? I didn't even know there was a controversy. I just defaulted to the PF1 wording.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
How is it confusing? I didn't even know there was a controversy. I just defaulted to the PF1 wording.

Sadly Paizo agrees with you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, I'm just not seeing how the actual intent is confusing here. Heal and harm are meant to just treat Dhampir as undead.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
What exactly is the opposite belief about intention here?
That neither heal nor harm work on Dhampir at all. The net result being Dhampir only have a few healing options.

And since that's obviously wrong, there's no actual confusion. Problem solved never existed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Super Zero wrote:
Gortle wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
What exactly is the opposite belief about intention here?
That neither heal nor harm work on Dhampir at all. The net result being Dhampir only have a few healing options.
And since that's obviously wrong, there's no actual confusion. Problem solved never existed.

Having to ignore what is literally written and run the game according to the interpretations of the players at a particular table - which may change from table to table - is often considered its own problem. Even if the strict RAW is clearly broken and not working and obviously needs changed somewhere.

Similar examples:
Being unable to use Escape while in a polymorph form - which did eventually get errata.
Having Magus Arcane Cascade end immediately after using the action to start it because its requirements are then violated.
Being unable to use a Ghost Touch weapon to make a Strength based Strike against an incorporeal creature.


I've had enough different people argue and ask about things like Malignant Sustenance if it can target Dhampir's in the first place or not to consider it confusing.

I just rule Negative Healing as if it says to also treat the living with Negative Healing as undead even for targeting purposes AKA what Gortle said. It doesn't say it but it's the simplest and probably the most intended way of interpreting it.


breithauptclan wrote:
Twilight2k wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Official Answer: Stalk the FAQ page.
Where in the FAQ page? As I said, I read the FAQ/errata but, if it's in there, I missed seeing it.

It's not there. At least not yet. That's why you and the rest of us are stalking that page waiting for it to show up.

We can argue ourselves in circles repeatedly - and have done so several times already - but nothing we say is official.

There are plenty of cases where them being living still applies, just not if there's the Vitality/Void tags. For example, the spell "Soothe" in occultism, some Elixirs and more. Dhampir's are specifically a strange hybrid between life and death.

If you want to be fully undead, there's a Vampire Archetype. (Do not recommend personally, unless the DM lets you grab the rest of the Template as well)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / what is the official answer - do Dhampir take damage from Heal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.