Does Reaper's Lantern Reduce Healing from Harm?

[Ravingdork]

Harm does not appear to gain the healing trait when used to restore hit points to an undead creature. Is it therefore unaffected by spells and effects like reaper's lantern that might otherwise curb healing?

Asking for a dhampir friend.

[Finoan]

Living, void healing creatures should be affected one way or the other. Either they get half the HP restoration from any spells that would be causing an effect that could colloquially be called 'healing', or they are enfeebled 1.

Yes, there is a technicality that is causing a loophole that makes it such that they are completely unaffected by the spell. Unless your table has fun playing with loopholes to break the game, don't use loopholes to break the game.

And do be aware that Living, void healing creatures are technically still unaffected by both Heal and Harm spells. Heal sees the creature is living and does Positive Vitality healing, which the Dhampir ignores - and Harm also sees the creature as living and deals Void damage to it, which the Dhampir ignores. Uses best GM voice: So do you really want to talk technicalities regarding Reaper's Lantern?

[Ravingdork]

Finoan wrote:

And do be aware that Living, void healing creatures are technically still unaffected by both Heal and Harm spells. Heal sees the creature is living and does Positive Vitality healing, which the Dhampir ignores - and Harm also sees the creature as living and deals Void damage to it, which the Dhampir ignores. Uses best GM voice: So do you really want to talk technicalities regarding Reaper's Lantern?

Would you mind walking me through that one, please?

The Void Healing entry in the PC2 glossary clearly states that effects that heal undead with void energy, such as harm, also heal creatures with void healing.

[Baarogue]

Yeah I don't know where Finoan is getting that particular reading. Perhaps from the persistent instinct to connect the targeting line with a specific effect that matches its wording?

What actually happens is the targeting line only limits who can be targeted, then ALL effects occur on the target unless the spell says otherwise. I outlined it in a very old post which I will quote here. Hopefully remastered rules haven't invalidated much if any of it

Baarogue wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Pixel Popper wrote:

Harm most emphatically does heal the Undead Eidolon.

Negative Healing

Bestiary 2 pg. 305 2.0 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.

Harm

Core Rulebook pg. 343 2.0 wrote:

You channel negative energy to harm the living or heal the undead. If the target is a living creature, you deal 1d8 negative damage to it, and it gets a basic Fortitude save. If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of Hit Points. The number of actions you spend when Casting this Spell determines its targets, range, area, and other parameters.

But when used on a living creature, Harm is not creating an effect that is trying to heal undead.

I know what RAI is for this case. Of course Harm should heal the Undead Eidolon. But the RAW on it is a bit strange.

You appear to be drawing a line from the two target entries to two different spell effects and believing they're connected. They are not. 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.

[Baarogue]

As for your question about Reaper's Lantern, I haven't gotten my PC2 yet. Did Dhampir gain any language about being affected by "effects that target undead" or the like or is their thing entirely wrapped up in the wording of Void Healing?

[Ravingdork]

Baarogue wrote:

As for your question about Reaper's Lantern, I haven't gotten my PC2 yet. Did Dhampir gain any language about being affected by "effects that target undead" or the like or is their thing entirely wrapped up in the wording of Void Healing?

It just states they get Void Healing, then gives you a page number to go look it up.

[TheFinish]

Since the rules in other places specify "effects that restore hit points" (for example, the Life Oracle) when they want to include everything, I assume "healing effects" in reaper's lantern does in fact mean "effects with the Healing trait" (even though someone could argue it doesn't).

With that in mind, yeah, Harm does not gain the healing trait, so it isn't affected. Neither is oil of unlife since it doesn't have the trait either.