The entries don't say "your current HP," they only say "your HP." This is like saying "the rules say your proficiency bonus, not your bonus," when there's nothing there to suggest that only the proficiency/current value is what matters.I thought those were also different.
Calculating a skill DC is done with 10 + bonus.
Calculating the result of Assurance is done with 10 + proficiency bonus.
In this case, it refers to a specific subset of bonus (proficiency), whereas the lack of a prefix would refer to all subsets that apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're unconscious because you're dying, you can't wake up while you have 0 Hit Points. If you are restored to 1 Hit Point or more via healing, you lose the dying and unconscious conditions and can act normally on your next turn.Now, the second sentence does imply the one thing having you lose Unconcious is Healing to at least 1 HP. Correct me, but gaining Temp HP is not Healing, is it?
Yes, the gaining of temporary Hit Points seems to be distinct from the healing that recovers current Hit Points, but the Dying condition has this to say about waking up.
You lose the dying condition automatically and wake up if you ever have 1 Hit Point or more.
No mention of "healing."
No, it doesn't:But, it does:Doesn't matter, because they're still only given Temporary HP. If Temporary HP doesn't count, then the spell does nothing. It has to give a specific exception for it to work, and "temporarily bring them back to life" doesn't work, the same way Temporary HP doesn't work.Revival is just badly phrased. The qualification „ but no normal Hit Points“ is but completely and utterly unneccesary, if not for tossing a Golden Apple to the mob.
If the spell is successful, the creature returns to life with 1 Hit Point.The raised creatures have a number of temporary Hit Points equal to the Hit Points you gave living creatures, but no normal Hit Points.
When I, for the sake of an argument, remove a phrase from the description, you cannot throw that phrase back into my face; it is not there anymore.
But, let me elaborate my suggested rephrasing. Here's the spell with the relevant part emboldened and the offending phrase stricken:
A burst of healing energy soothes living creatures and temporarily rouses those recently slain. All living targets regain 10d8+40 Hit Points. In addition, you return any number of dead targets to life temporarily, with the same effects and limitations as raise dead. The raised creatures have a number of temporary Hit Points equal to the Hit Points you gave living creatures
Now, what might happen to the deceased.
1. They gain a sizable amount of Temp HP.
2. They gain "temporary life with the same effects and limitations as raise dead".
Let us have a look at that, then:
You attempt to call forth the dead creature's soul, requiring the creature's body to be present and relatively intact. The creature must have died within the past 3 days. If Pharasma has decided that the creature's time has come (at the GM's discretion), or if the creature doesn't wish to return to life, this spell automatically fails, but the diamonds aren't consumed in the casting.
If the spell is successful, the creature returns to life with 1 Hit Point, no spells prepared or spell slots available, no points in any pools or any other daily resources, and still with any long-term debilitations of the old body. The time spent in the Boneyard leaves the target temporarily debilitated, making it clumsy 2, drained 2, and enfeebled 2 for 1 week; these conditions can't be removed or reduced by any means until the week has passed. The creature is also permanently changed by its time in the afterlife, such as a slight personality shift, a streak of white in the hair, or a strange new birthmark.
2.a) So, they've got 1 HP now; they awake.
3. They can't gain any HP or Temp HP until they die again.
Nearly done; bear with me!
We want to compare the two outcomings now.
Revival (Original): a temporarily risen creature with 0 HP and X Temp HP.
Revival (Revised): another temporarily risen creature with 1 HP and X Temp HP.
Does that 1 HP really make that much of a difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're unconscious because you're dying, you can't wake up while you have 0 Hit Points. If you are restored to 1 Hit Point or more via healing, you lose the dying and unconscious conditions and can act normally on your next turn.Now, the second sentence does imply the one thing having you lose Unconcious is Healing to at least 1 HP. Correct me, but gaining Temp HP is not Healing, is it?Yes, the gaining of temporary Hit Points seems to be distinct from the healing that recovers current Hit Points, but the Dying condition has this to say about waking up.
You lose the dying condition automatically and wake up if you ever have 1 Hit Point or more.No mention of "healing."
Well spotted! Two different verses in the CRB seem to contradict one another. Why, it is Scripture, after all.
But do they, now?
When there are two different rules, pertaining to the same subject, one coming with a certain qualification, the other more broadly phrased, does that nullify the qualification?
I do not think it's in the interest of anyone to open that Can of Wyrms.
No, it doesn't:But, it does:Doesn't matter, because they're still only given Temporary HP. If Temporary HP doesn't count, then the spell does nothing. It has to give a specific exception for it to work, and "temporarily bring them back to life" doesn't work, the same way Temporary HP doesn't work.Revival is just badly phrased. The qualification „ but no normal Hit Points“ is but completely and utterly unneccesary, if not for tossing a Golden Apple to the mob.
If the spell is successful, the creature returns to life with 1 Hit Point.The raised creatures have a number of temporary Hit Points equal to the Hit Points you gave living creatures, but no normal Hit Points.When I, for the sake of an argument, remove a phrase from the description, you cannot throw that phrase back into my face; it is not there anymore.
But, let me elaborate my suggested rephrasing. Here's the spell with the relevant part emboldened and the offending phrase stricken:
** spoiler omitted **
Now, what might happen to the deceased.
1. They gain a sizable amount of Temp HP.
2. They gain "temporary life with the...
If your argument requires ignoring or changing other effects to fit your interpretation, it beckons the question of if it really is the correct one if it requires changing other rules portions to accommodate this interpretation.
We can't just assume the spell is written in error when there is an interpretation (temporary HP count as HP for purposes of consciousness) that makes the spell function normally with no change to the description. Paizo has done four errata passes through the CRB, and each time have passed over this spell. Odds are, if the spell was indeed in error, they would have noticed this as an issue and fixed it by now.
I think the most straightforward reading is that whenever the rules refer to your permanent HP, it just says HP. And that temporary HP are not some sort of weird subset of that, but their own distinct concept. That a single spell's wording seems to make strange assumptions about the general rules of the game is not a strong piece of evidence that those rules aren't still intended to be read the way they are. It's much more likely that the spell is supposed to be an exception in this case, even if that's not made explicit.
A straightforward reading doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct one, especially if it doesn't consider other rules element interactions. Even so, another straightforward reading would interpret Temporary HP and HP that's just temporary. It doesn't cease to be HP by putting a word in front of it.
The problem is that exceptions have to be spelled out for them to qualify, and if they're not, then it calls into question whether there is even an exception there at all. And if there is no exception to be found, then the idea that it's creating an exception just doesn't make sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I posted this question because I wasn't sure, but now that I've seen the Revival spell, I'm 100% sure temporary Hit Points are real. The fact that they are tracked separately and have different rules for gaining and losing them doesn't change that.
Gods! One of the reason why our D&D refugee group is considering switching to Pf2 is because we thought and hoped that Pf2 was a more well-oiled and finely tuned rules system. (re: Stealth etc) So that we could skip arguments like this.
Dangit, why hasn’t this sort of question already been addressed by Paizo with an official clarification, or Pf Society ruling, or at least provisional examples from Paizo designers’ own home tables, as to how Temp HPs work?
Jeezus, I wish to skip this sort of community argument ad nauseum.
Honestly, there's not really much to clarify. The rules already explain how Temporary HP work well enough that it's practically clear how it works.
If anything, the argument stems from a corner case situation, since most people that are at 0 HP will have plenty of other means to restore consciousness with normal HP than to rely on a Temporary HP solution. It's not like Potions of Healing aren't pretty standard equipment that even basic adventurers would carry on them, though this might come up if a character is out of such a resource.
Taking the frustrations generated from a corner case argument and applying them to an entire rules entry is hardly grounds to call PF2 a bad system with a lot of holes in its function. Just as well, if you simply want to "skip arguments like this," you can ignore the thread entirely, and find another one that doesn't debate rules.
Gods! One of the reason why our D&D refugee group is considering switching to Pf2 is because we thought and hoped that Pf2 was a more well-oiled and finely tuned rules system. (re: Stealth etc) So that we could skip arguments like this.
Dangit, why hasn’t this sort of question already been addressed by Paizo with an official clarification, or Pf Society ruling, or at least provisional examples from Paizo designers’ own home tables, as to how Temp HPs work?
Jeezus, I wish to skip this sort of community argument ad nauseum.
The odds that this situation will ever happen in play are so unlikely that a final answer is going to be based on the table at play. This case of TempHP versus standard HP restoring consciousness is so incredibly niche and probably will never matter in 99.99999999% of games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gods! One of the reason why our D&D refugee group is considering switching to Pf2 is because we thought and hoped that Pf2 was a more well-oiled and finely tuned rules system. (re: Stealth etc) So that we could skip arguments like this.
Dangit, why hasn’t this sort of question already been addressed by Paizo with an official clarification, or Pf Society ruling, or at least provisional examples from Paizo designers’ own home tables, as to how Temp HPs work?
Jeezus, I wish to skip this sort of community argument ad nauseum.
I just finished reading the core rulebook, and in my opinion, Pathfinder 2e is a more well-oiled and finely tuned rules system. There's certainly stuff that's annoyingly vague, which is expected to happen sometimes when the rulebook is over 600 pages, but for the most part, when the rules talk about something, they leave very little unexplained.