How do construct familiars (that is, those with the Construct familiar ability) regain hit points if they're immune to healing?
Do they require an "off day" where you revoke their Construct status in order to heal?
Is this one of those Erratas that need to happen solely based on the fact it is impossible to heal a construct Familiar?
So long term rest and Focused Rejuvenation work fine.
Do they though?
There is no indication that it is referring to healing in general, or the Healing trait specifically. In any case, the glossary lists "healing" as:
- long-term rest (downtime)
- Medicine skill
- natural healing (rest)
- healing effects (usually HP restoration, but sometimes by removing diseases or other debilitating effects)
So how are we to know where the line was intended to be drawn? It literally just says "The familiar is immune to ... healing, ..." not "healing effects." Seems pretty all encompassing to me.
Is this one of those Erratas that need to happen solely based on the fact it is impossible to heal a construct Familiar?
The wild thing is that this is the errata.
So how are we to know where the line was intended to be drawn? It literally just says "The familiar is immune to ... healing, ..." not "healing effects." Seems pretty all encompassing to me.
Not really an issue mechanically. "Immune to healing" is the standardized terminology used for this kind of effect, and healing is a keyword.
It's stupid, but restoring hit points and healing are not the same thing (in the same way that hostile actions and attacks are different).
Is this one of those Erratas that need to happen solely based on the fact it is impossible to heal a construct Familiar?The wild thing is that this is the errata.
So how are we to know where the line was intended to be drawn? It literally just says "The familiar is immune to ... healing, ..." not "healing effects." Seems pretty all encompassing to me.Not really an issue mechanically. "Immune to healing" is the standardized terminology used for this kind of effect, and healing is a keyword.
It's stupid, but restoring hit points and healing are not the same thing (in the same way that hostile actions and attacks are different).
"Healing" is both a keyword AND a trait. The trait seems to only refer to healing effects (such as heal or sound body) whereas the keyword seems to refer to most any form of hit point gain (such as from natural healing after a night of rest). It's literally listed in the glossary twice.
"Immune to _____" is standard rules phrasing that references traits, conditions, or damage types.
Immune to healing would be preventing using things with the Healing trait. Not preventing any sort of HP regain.
Yes, having the ability to repair a construct familiar is a bit of an oversight and seems like something that was missed in the Remaster. And it does need some sort of errata and clarification. Being unable to heal or repair a familiar is TBTBT.
|
Natural language strikes again. They failed to state that they're talking about Traits and the same section lists SEVERAL things that are very specifically not Traits as well.
You cannot heal a Construct Familiar by any means unlesss you ignore the PC1 Construct Ability/Type and simply continue using the PFS Guide version of it.
Natural language strikes again. They failed to state that they're talking about Traits and the same section lists SEVERAL things that are very specifically not Traits as well.
Are there any that are not either traits, conditions, or damage types?
I have seen "Immune to Fear" which is a trait.
I have seen "Immune to Unconscious" which is a condition.
I have seen "Immune to piercing" which is a damage type.
I don't generally see "Immune to _____" being anything else.
|
|
It's not that the ability lists things that aren't in one of those categories, it's that some of those things that are listed mean more than one thing such as Healing, Poison, Vitality, and Void which all use the same word without delineating if they're talking about all effects related to and guided by the terms, if they're only talking specifically about things that have the Trait only or BOTH.
The lack of follow-through with the Trait system is the biggest flaw in terms of PF2 having inconsistent phrasing and requiring GM adjudication. Every time something is intended to interact with a Trait, ESPECIALLY when that term means multiple other things with regard to the game, it should 100% specify in some way that it is talking about the Trait and every instance where it is not referring to it then they should either user different wording or the normal typeface... and before I hear the argument again, I could care less about the excuses that issuing errata to Bold every instance of a term when it is discussing a trait being "too labor intensive" because honestly, this is a self-inflicted wound that only gets worse the longer they ignore it. They should have seriously hired someone with serious CS cred to translate and input the rules into at least some kind of rudimentary code that can understand, translate, and handle the mechanical meaning and interaction between things so they can then trivially do consistency checks to ensure the phrasing and mechanical language they're using breaks the mold and make sure the pieces of the puzzle actually fit together they way they were intended to instead of it all being left up to the personal and silent interpretation of the author/authors/editors whose hands the rules passed through only. They had every opportunity to do so but their priorities seem to be on the setting rather than the actual game which completely baffles me since the primary draw of Paizo products has, from the very start, been how well-designed, clearly written, and balanced the rules are when compared against their contemporaries.
PF2 has a fantastic core mechanical foundation and balance to it but the flaws and confusion that remain in it almost always boils down to mixed term usage, vagueness, and leaning far too hard (IMO) on GM at-the-table interpretations of things when the meaning of it could have been easily and trivially understood if they only stopped using the same word to describe things in a general sense, as a trait, and which also has a strict mechanical term such as here with Healing/healing as well as dozens of other traits. They tried to patch some early instances of how Traits didn't do what they wanted early on by essentially watering them down and trying to signpost that they're meant to be followed/read/interpreted as what they are "as a sometimes snack" such as the Fire Trait ruling as well as Finesse with Weapons/Maneuvers and just...
Anyway, this is a long-standing pet peeve of mine with this and other game systems and it is far from a reason to condemn the building that is PF2 if we were to use the construction analogy but all in all it's like a rotten and stained drop-ceiling with mismatched colored foam tiles that get replaced every now and then when they could/should have simply opted for proper ceiling stainless tiles or better yet planks. Anyhow I'll wrap up my rant here, I just wish the construction company put more work into making sure the elevators always worked versus making sure the room descriptions/dedications were etched from an ethically sourced batch of bronze stock by disadvantaged and historically impoverished artisans.
It's not that the ability lists things that aren't in one of those categories, it's that some of those things that are listed mean more than one thing such as Healing, Poison, Vitality, and Void
I'm pointing out a context clue that can be used to distinguish between the meanings.
Poison might be a type of item as well as a trait and a damage type, but when something is "Immune to Poison" it is talking about the trait or the damage type. Not being unable to pick up and move a vial of poison (the item).
Yes, natural language is inherently ambiguous. I'm pretty sure that I have seen one of the developers discussing why they decided against using different fonts or colors for keywords. Something about having too many fonts being very cluttering to the text and making it hard to read or having the fonts be unable to be distinguished. And colors was for colorblind reasons.
Edit: here is one that I have found. It doesn't go into everything, but it does give some insight.