Void healing is defined as:
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.
Even if it's not specifically reference, the definition should be the same across all the printings of things (otherwise you would have the same ability doing different things depending on source, which is most likely an editing error).
So those with the Void Healing ability:
Take damage from vitality damage effects
Do not heal from vitality healing effects
Do not take damage from void damage effects
Heal from void healing effects
The big thing here to not that healing and damage are separate effects. I think there are a few abilities/spells out there that might do both at the same time (such as 3 action Heal spell). But since it's all vitality energy, the dhampir would ignore the healing portion of Heal and take damage as undead would from the spell.
I think the reason you don't see many posts about it is because now with the latest definition there's really no ambiguity or need for interpretation.
|
To expand on Claxon's point -
If a dhampir got hit with an effect that did vitality healing (and nothing else), the dhampir would not take damage.
Void healing doesn't mean "you take damage from every vitality effect"; you don't invert vitality healing into damage. Only if the effect did vitality damage, would it hurt you.
Some vitality-healing effects also do vitality damage, notably the Heal spell. But for example a healing potion, does not. A dhampir that drinks a healing potion only takes damage in the wallet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big thing here to not that healing and damage are separate effects. I think there are a few abilities/spells out there that might do both at the same time (such as 3 action Heal spell). But since it's all vitality energy, the dhampir would ignore the healing portion of Heal and take damage as undead would from the spell.
That's probably the intended effect...
Some vitality-healing effects also do vitality damage, notably the Heal spell. But for example a healing potion, does not. A dhampir that drinks a healing potion only takes damage in the wallet.
But there's the rub.
A 3-action Heal spell still considers a Dhampir (or other living creature with Void Healing) to be a living creature. So it will do Vitality Healing to it.
Heal only does Vitality Damage to actual Undead. The caster doesn't get to choose which it does.
Houserule as needed. I do.
So dhampir are immune to the deleterious effects of heal? Cool!
Based on what I read in the dhampir section, that sure doesn't appear to have been the intent though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have the void healing ability, which means you are harmed by vitality damage and healed by void effects as if you were undead.
Looks to me like heal would damage the dhampir as though they were undead.
The big thing here to not that healing and damage are separate effects. I think there are a few abilities/spells out there that might do both at the same time (such as 3 action Heal spell). But since it's all vitality energy, the dhampir would ignore the healing portion of Heal and take damage as undead would from the spell.That's probably the intended effect...
Some vitality-healing effects also do vitality damage, notably the Heal spell. But for example a healing potion, does not. A dhampir that drinks a healing potion only takes damage in the wallet.But there's the rub.
A 3-action Heal spell still considers a Dhampir (or other living creature with Void Healing) to be a living creature. So it will do Vitality Healing to it.
Heal only does Vitality Damage to actual Undead. The caster doesn't get to choose which it does.
Houserule as needed. I do.
I think that's an overly constrained interpretation of the rules.
The general rule for heal refers to living creatures and undead, that's true.
While Void Healing doesn't explicitly alter that, I find it better to interpret the wording of Heal as:
You channel vital energy. Choose to either deal damage of heal targets. Targets receive healing or damage as appropriate for their attenuation to vital energy.
That is almost certainly the intent, but they wrote in very casually and without abilities like void healing in mind.
If you read any of the descriptive text for the dhamir versatile heritage, it clearly states that many dhampirs take precautions against accidental healing. That might not be referring to the heal spell, specifically, but I'd be surprised if that were the case since it is the most common form of magical healing by far.
Though not technically a rule, I believe it makes the intent rather clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have the void healing ability, which means you are harmed by vitality damage and healed by void effects as if you were undead.Looks to me like heal would damage the dhampir as though they were undead.
People like to bring this up. But all that line of text does is give a one-line summary of the 4-part list of how to interact with the Void/Vitality energy types.
So those with the Void Healing ability:
Take damage from vitality damage effects
Do not heal from vitality healing effects
Do not take damage from void damage effects
Heal from void healing effects
It doesn't change how spells are targeted.
As another example, Sunburst. Sunburst does fire damage to all creatures in the area with no distinction of Undead or Void Healing designation. Sunburst also does additional Vitality Damage to Undead creatures in the area, but still makes no distinction for Void Healing creatures.
So a living Void Healing creature would take the fire damage, but would not be targeted by the spell with the Vitality Damage because they are a living creature, not an Undead creature.
As yet another example, Vitality Lash. Vitality Lash has the targeting line specify that you can use the cantrip on either an Undead creature or any creature that has Void Healing. So you could target a living Void Healing creature with Vitality Lash and deal Vitality Damage to it.
I think that's an overly constrained interpretation of the rules.
It is a literal reading of the rules, yes. I don't run the game that way, nor do I recommend doing so. Same as for Incorporeal creatures being immune to literally all strength-based checks including Strike attack rolls.
Not recommended - but it is exactly and unambiguously what the rules say.
It's an area where they really need clarifying language. It makes all the sense in the world for there to be vitality damage effects that only apply to creatures with the undead keyword and not to living creatures with void healing, in the same way that damage or healing might only apply to a psychopomp or a dragon. It's a bad practice to use "undead" and "creature with void healing" interchangeably.
Not sure what your issue with Strength Strikes not working on ghosts is. Makes perfect sense to me. It's a curveball, but not an insurmountable one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an area where they really need clarifying language. It makes all the sense in the world for there to be vitality damage effects that only apply to creatures with the undead keyword and not to living creatures with void healing, in the same way that damage or healing might only apply to a psychopomp or a dragon. It's a bad practice to use "undead" and "creature with void healing" interchangeably.
I'm 95% sure that's exactly what's happened though, especially prior to Dhampir being printed with the Void Healing ability. Although I agree it's an unfortunate way to have done things because it causes this issue.
I interpret most usages of the word "undead" instead to mean "creature with void healing ability or Undead creature" (at least with respect to abilities that talk about damaging/heal undead using Vitality/Void (Positive/Negative) energy.
I simply assume that most of the writers weren't thinking of (and still don't think of) this (common) edge case and continue to write things like living and undead creatures when they really want to talk about how creatures are affected by vitality energy and void energy. But they keep using living/undead as short hand instead of saying "creatures who are healed by vitality energy and creatures who are harmed by vitality energy".
Not sure what your issue with Strength Strikes not working on ghosts is. Makes perfect sense to me. It's a curveball, but not an insurmountable one.
"A rapier can damage a ghost, even if rhe wielder is unskilled and flailing but gets a lucky hit. So can a thrown rock but a thrust from a magical longsword, no matter how skillfully wielded never can" makes perfect sense to you? How?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure what your issue with Strength Strikes not working on ghosts is. Makes perfect sense to me. It's a curveball, but not an insurmountable one.
So I put a Ghost Touch rune on my +1 Greatsword and still can't even roll the attack roll to swing it at a Ghost... and you are OK with that?
I'm pretty sure the ghost touch weapons are still supposed to work against ghosts, even for Strength weapons. As for Dexterity working but not Strength, yeah, that doesn't make much sense. It's probably just that a creature with no body is anti-Strength in its very nature, similar to how a vampire is so averse to light that it has no reflection. It's supernatural.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the ghost touch weapons are still supposed to work against ghosts, even for Strength weapons.
Well, of course it is supposed to work. But it doesn't. Nothing in the Ghost Touch rune says that it removes the immunity to Strength-based checks and allows any weapon to be used in an attack roll. The Ghost Touch rune would work fine on a Rapier, but not a Greatsword.
That is why I use this as an example. Because it is a place where 'strict, literal RAW' results in nonsense.
Just like how a living creature with Void Healing, such as a Dhampir or someone with Revenant background, is completely unaffected by both Heal and Harm.
Even more of a problem is Bones Oracle. With Nudge the Scales they can attune themselves to death to get Void Healing, but Cursebound 1 causes them to lose the immunity to Void Damage. So they are still not affected by Heal because they won't benefit from the Vitality Healing, but they do take damage from Harm.
That is my entire point in bringing this up. Rules like this cause confusion and need to be mentioned so that people know that both the First Rule (the game is yours and if something doesn't work the way you want it to, change it), and the Ambiguous Rules rule (if something is broken, fix it), are both RAW. Running by strict RAW in all cases and at all times is not RAW.
I think that having a serious aversion or phobia of houserules is a symptom of PF1 trauma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that having a serious aversion or phobia of houserules is a symptom of PF1 trauma.
More than likely it is a symptom of trauma caused by bad house rules.
They rarely make the game better in my experience. 90% of the player base that regularly house rules seem to think that they'd make great game developers when, in practice, they'd probably be some of the worst.
I think that having a serious aversion or phobia of houserules is a symptom of PF1 trauma.More than likely it is a symptom of trauma caused by bad house rules.
They rarely make the game better in my experience. 90% of the player base that regularly house rules seem to think that they'd make great game developers when, in practice, they'd probably be some of the worst.
And there is no shortage of first time players that house-rule away MAP and critting by beating the DC by 10.
Ghost touch weapons are definitely supposed to work against incorporeal, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that all Strength-based Strikes work against incorporeal.
An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.
The use of the word "likewise" indicates to me that the same principle for ghost touch overcoming the uselessness of Strength-based checks applies in reverse. Maybe it's not literally saying that, but nothing implies that all Strength-based checks should work with or without ghost touch.
And incorporeal creatures tend to have lower Hit Points to compensate for their obnoxious defenses. So letting all those Strikes work means that ghost has little staying power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that having a serious aversion or phobia of houserules is a symptom of PF1 trauma.
I mean, to some extent I think you're right.
On the other hand, the term houserule tends to historically refer to deliberate and meaningful changes to the way the game is played. In that context it's a little bit of a stretch to look at something that's essentially being run consistent with the clear intent of the rules, with text within the rulebooks even specifically pointing in that direction, and calling it a houserule because there's also some other way to squint at the RAW.
The constant refrain of "well of course no one would ever run it this way but it's a houserule" we see from a certain subset of internet experts at some point kind of feels more like an attempt to score rhetorical points than anything actually meaningful.