|
In Pathfinder Player Core 2, page 318, glossary entry for "void healing", "A creature with void healing draws health from void energy rather than vitality energy. It is damaged by vitality damage and is not healed by healing vitality effects. It does not take void damage, and it is healed by void effects that heal undead."
In Pathfinder Player Core, page 335, inside entry for "Heal" spell, "If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 Hit Points. If the target is undead, you deal that amount of vitality damage to it, and it gets a basic Fortitude save."
Dhampir are the only creatures, that I can find, that have the "void healing" ability, but do not have the Undead trait. Their interaction with the Heal spell is unique to them. Since Dhampir are not undead, they would not take damage from the Heal spell. Since Dhampir have the void healing ability, they do not heal from the vitality healing. This makes the Heal spell have no effect on Dhampir.
Possible errata to fix this ambiguity in the rules:
1) Give Dhampir the Undead trait.
2) Change wording in the Heal spell to include "target is undead or a creature with the void healing ability" (instead of just "target is undead").
3) Add a FAQ that specifically details the interaction of the Heal spell with Dhampir.
The Harm spell also has this wording problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's an inconsistent wording issue, yeah. Bones Oracle's curse has a not quite the same but related issue: it says they are now affected by Vitality damage, but they're not Undead so RAW things like Heal can't target them for damage purposes.
Really the general issue is with targeting of those effects. Heal should say "if the target is affected by Vitality damage" or "if the target has Void healing" or something to that effect, and that verbage should be used consistently across the books so that its clear what the interactions are. Right now they're using different ways to describe similar things in different places and it creates wonky interactions.
Its an area that needs some errata IMO. In the mean time, based on how Dhampir worked in PF1 and the lore around them, effects like Heal that "target undead" can be house ruled to "target things that have void healing or otherwise take vitality damage" and it'll work more like you expect it to. Personally I'm not sure I'd want to give Dhampir the undead trait, but that would also solve it.
Keep in mind if you do give them the Undead trait you need some caveat to ignore the "destroyed at 0 HP" part of it, because that'd be horrible for players.
As it is though I just run it as close to PF1 as I can: they're Undead In-Name-Only and get hurt by heal, healed by harm and so on and so forth.
There is also the Revenant background. It is legacy content from Guns and Gears, so it is still called Negative Healing, but it is the same thing.
Similarly the legacy Bones Oracle did give full Negative Healing, but that has been changed in the Remaster Bones Oracle. It doesn't get full Void Healing now.
Personally, I think the wording of Void Healing is fine. It is good that it makes the distinction between healing effects and damage effects of both Vitality and Void types. I don't think that Dhampir or other Void Healing living creatures should be given the Undead trait as a hack to make Heal and Harm work properly. I think instead the errata should be to the targeting of Heal and Harm, or an addition to Void Healing in general that spells or other effects that target undead will target creatures with Void Healing as though they were undead if they affect undead creatures.
While not quite the same, an Undead Eidolon has the undead trait and void healing but is considered a living creature due to its initial ability.
I think most people use this sentence under the Dhampir entry as the best guide for how it's intended to work. "You have the void healing ability, which means you are harmed by vitality damage and healed by void effects as if you were undead."
The "as if you were undead" part, which is unfortunately absent in the void healing description, heavily implies that you are targetable as undead if you have void healing, but specifically for void or vitality damage and healing effects. As a Dhampir, you should still be targetable as living for everything else. I don't think it reads that way RAW, but it is how most groups I've seen treat it.
With how many different spells and effects that specify they target living or undead while assuming living doesn't have void healing and undead does have void healing, I think the Void Healing description itself should just specify how it affects targeting, if it's even supposed to.
1) Give Dhampir the Undead trait.
Check out this special rule
These descriptors have no mechanical benefit, but they’re important for determining how certain spells, effects, and other aspects of the game interact with your characterI read this as an oxymoron, and one of the worst rules in the game. Especially because it is hidden away here.
So I wouldn't go with a trait in this context.
The "as if you were undead" part, which is unfortunately absent in the void healing description, heavily implies that you are targetable as undead if you have void healing, but specifically for void or vitality damage and healing effects.
My counterargument for this is that Vitality Lash targets a "creature that is undead or otherwise has void healing" (emphasis added). Obviously that second clause would be wholly redundant if void healing let creatures be targeted as undead.