| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been discussed here before in various threads, but Maya suggested issues like this should have a thread for it. So, here we go.
Take a Human Oracle. Cursebound 1 of the Bones Oracle curse says this:
You gain weakness 2 to vitality and void damage. You can be hurt by both vitality and void damage even if one or the other normally has no effect on you. Any immunity or resistance you have to vitality or void is suppressed.
How is that intended to interact with Vitality and Void damage effects? Because as it works now, it basically doesn't. For example, Vitality Lash:
Targets 1 creature that is undead or otherwise has void healing
The character in this scenario is not undead and does not have void healing, so this spell cannot target them despite the curse giving them weakness to vitality damage and removing immunity.
And Heal:
Targets 1 willing living creature or 1 undead creature
You channel vital energy to heal the living or damage the undead. 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. The number of actions you spend when Casting this Spell determines its targets, range, area, and other parameters.
Despite the fact this is doing area vitality damage, our Human Oracle is not considered a valid target for this damage so their weakness/removed immunity does literally nothing.
The question is: is that intended? It's not clear if the intention of the curse is simply "you gain weakness to whichever of Vitality/Void damage you are supposed to take", or if it's intended to actually let both of them affect you. If it's supposed to let both of the affect you, it basically doesn't do that right now because almost nothing that does the other type can target you.
Additionally, there are odd interactions with Nudge the Scales:
In addition, you can mediate during your daily preparations to place yourself on one side of the scales. Choose life or death. If you align yourself with life, you are healed by vitality healing effects, as normal for most living creatures; if you align yourself with death, you gain the void healing ability, causing you to be healed by void effects that restore Hit Points and any other effects that restore Hit Points to undead creatures.
So, now we have Human Oracle who uses this to gain Void Healing. Vitality Lash can now target them (as it calls out void healing). Heal still cannot, as they are not undead.
Void Warp can target them ("Targets 1 living creature") but doesn't do any damage because they have void healing and are immune to void damage.
This specific scenario is a case where the Bones curse actually does something: if you have Bones Cursebound 1 AND use Nudge the Scales to pick up Void Healing, you can be targeted by Void Warp and you now take the damage.
Similar issues happen with an Undead Oracle in the other direction, or anyone who takes Nudge the Scales (not hard to do via Archetype).
Part of this is because Heal and Harm don't actually interact with void healing at all, they just target living/undead. So an Undead character with Nudge the Scales to switch to vitality healing can't be healed by Harm (they don't take void healing) and also can't be healed by Heal (they can't be targeted with the healing). Amusingly, they also can't be damaged by Heal (because they're not harmed by vitality) and they can't be damaged by Harm (because it doesn't damage undead), unless they also have the Bones curse active.
Some of this feels like its just due to inconsistent targeting, where things say "targets living creature/undead creature" when it really means "targets creature with vitality/void healing".
And finally, Necromancer has Mastery of Life and Death:
You have studied the delicate balance of life and death
to such a point that you can dance between them with
ease. Whenever you cast a spell or use an ability that
would deal void or vitality damage, use the weaker of the
target’s resistance or immunity to void or to vitality. For
instance, if the creature were immune to void and had no
resistance or immunity to vitality damage, it would take
vitality damage from the spell or ability. Resistance or
immunity to both (or to all damage) applies as normal.
Targeting a fairly basic character (ie: a Human Fighter), this doesn't really do anything. In theory it would let you use Vitality Lash to damage them because you can switch it to use their void damage immunity (which they don't have)... but in practice you can't target them with Vitality Lash so nothing happens. As that's true of nearly every effect that does vitality and void damage, this right now only really does something if you're targeting a character with Nudge the Scales.
It doesn't feel intended that an entire class feature is meant to only actually matter against targets that have one specific Oracle feat.
What I'd really like to know is if the intention for all of these is that the spells should target based on vitality/void healing instead, in which case Heal doesn't actually care if you're "undead" or "living": it cares if you take vitality healing or void healing.
Thanks. :)
I think this is a situation where the rule clearly doesn't work as written, so it should be interpreted in a way to allow it to function as intended.
I agree with Norr that it should be read as "An effect that can deal void or vitality damage treats you as a valid target for that damage."
As far as Mastery of Life and Death ability, I don't think there are any spells that fall within this category (could cause either vitality or void) but there may be some in the book the necromancer is coming from.
Alternatively, it could be read to say that if the spell does only void damage, like vampiric exsanguination, you can target an undead creature and the spell would deal vitality damage to it instead. If this is the intent, I think the ability should be reworded to be more clear.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Similar issues happen with an Undead Oracle in the other direction, or anyone who takes Nudge the Scales (not hard to do via Archetype).
I would argue that Nudge the Scales does not remove the Void Healing that an Undead PC has. It only lists adding Void Healing if they align with death. I makes no mention of removing it if they align with life.
So while an Undead PC with Nudge the Scales and aligned with life for the day would be "healed by vitality healing effects, as normal for most living creatures" it wouldn't cause them to take damage from void effects because they haven't actually lost the rest of Void Healing.
I think this is a situation where the rule clearly doesn't work as written, so it should be interpreted in a way to allow it to function as intended.
Yes, for running the game with, make a table ruling that makes sense. The point of this thread is to bring to the attention of the developers that this rule doesn't work as written.
I get criticized every time I bring this up on Reddit (and once had my comments mod-deleted). So there are definitely people who mentally houserule it without even noticing that they are doing so. They will be very adamant that it is 'perfectly clear' that it does work exactly the way that it is written and that the way that it is written is correct and makes sense - that Heal will harm a Dhampir character and Harm will restore HP and anyone who says differently is incapable of reading plain English.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a situation where the rule clearly doesn't work as written, so it should be interpreted in a way to allow it to function as intended.
For sure, but that's actually part of the reason for this thread: In the case of Bones, I don't know what the intent is.
You can reasonably argue that the intent is "you now take both vitality/void damage and can be targeted by effects that do either". But you can also reasonably argue the intent is just "you gain weakness to whichever of vitality/void that can affect you and you can't get immunity to get around that (which is similar to how the other curses work)."
So as the GM, I need to make a ruling how it'll work at my table, which is likely going to be different from other tables. In a home game that's not great but it's workable, especially since my circle of players has two GMs and we play in each others games, so we tend to try to get on the same page about this stuff so everyone knows what to expect.
But I also GM PFS now and then, and its a bigger problem in that setting since the whole goal of PFS is to avoid table inconsistency. And since they're adding another class that has the same problematic mechanic in Necromancer, it's a problem that is getting bigger in scope.
As far as Mastery of Life and Death ability, I don't think there are any spells that fall within this category (could cause either vitality or void) but there may be some in the book the necromancer is coming from.
Alternatively, it could be read to say that if the spell does only void damage, like vampiric exsanguination, you can target an undead creature and the spell would deal vitality damage to it instead. If this is the intent, I think the ability should be reworded to be more clear.
My understanding of the ability is that an effect like Vampiring Exsanguation that does void damage can target a creature immune to void damage and effectively act like its doing vitality damage, so it will work. The ability doesn't need to actually do vitality damage itself.
That only works for abilities that don't have targeting restrictions, though, since it doesn't overcome targeting. Which makes it a vanishingly small list that it works with.
Similar issues happen with an Undead Oracle in the other direction, or anyone who takes Nudge the Scales (not hard to do via Archetype).I would argue that Nudge the Scales does not remove the Void Healing that an Undead PC has. It only lists adding Void Healing if they align with death. I makes no mention of removing it if they align with life.
So while an Undead PC with Nudge the Scales and aligned with life for the day would be "healed by vitality healing effects, as normal for most living creatures" it wouldn't cause them to take damage from void effects because they haven't actually lost the rest of Void Healing.
Oh yeesh that's even more confusing. There's too much inconsistent use of terminology in these and how they interact, and that is where a lot of this stems from I think.
Even if it takes a while to actually fix it in all the places that it needs fixing to be consistent, a statement of intent would at least make it easier to house rule.
My understanding of the ability is that an effect like Vampiring Exsanguation that does void damage can target a creature immune to void damage and effectively act like its doing vitality damage, so it will work. The ability doesn't need to actually do vitality damage itself.
That only works for abilities that don't have targeting restrictions, though, since it doesn't overcome targeting. Which makes it a vanishingly small list that it works with.
For example, Vampiric Exsanguination doesn't work with it.
You deal 12d6 void damage to living creatures in the area
It doesn't target any undead creatures in the area, so doesn't deal void damage or vitality damage to them.
My understanding of the ability is that an effect like Vampiring Exsanguation that does void damage can target a creature immune to void damage and effectively act like its doing vitality damage, so it will work. The ability doesn't need to actually do vitality damage itself.
That only works for abilities that don't have targeting restrictions, though, since it doesn't overcome targeting. Which makes it a vanishingly small list that it works with.
For example, Vampiric Exsanguination doesn't work with it.
You deal 12d6 void damage to living creatures in the areaIt doesn't target any undead creatures in the area, so doesn't deal void damage or vitality damage to them.
Good catch. I was just grabbing a spell off the top of my head that used void damage. I did find one that doesn't reference living or undead creatures in the target line or spell text. Whispers of the Void does persistent void damage to all creatures in a 10 ft burst.
I think it needs at least one more sentence to say something like, "this may mean that a creature can be targeted with a spell where it is not usually a valid target. For example you can target an undead with vampiric exsanguination and deal vitality damage to it, even though that spell usually can only target living creatures."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One spell so far. Cool.
An interesting note is that the predecessor spell, Enervation, doesn't work. It only targets living creatures.
The change to Whispers of the Void to target any creature shows another way that this problem could be resolved. Simply don't have spells change their targeting based on undead/living status.
Even Heal and Harm could work under that design. Heal would just do both Vitality damage and Vitality healing to any target. Same with Harm doing both Void damage and Void healing to all of its targets. Let the Void Healing rules and the Damage Type rules sort out which of the two gets ignored and which has an effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This issue of limited targeting capability goes WAY beyond the living and the dead, and abilities like Void Healing.
Nearly every offensive spell doesn't list objects as viable targets either, yet the game developers have publicly indicated in a number of places that you can attack objects.
As such, until we can get official clarification, I would recommend not overthinking it. Make a quick ruling that works for your table and move on to the fun. At our tables, these abilities will hurt you despite the target line, though this is made clear to the player the moment they ask to play such a character.
(This isn't to say, "Don't discuss it here or seek clarification from the developers," but rather, don't let it interfere with the fun at your table.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nearly every offensive spell doesn't list objects as viable targets either, yet the game developers have publicly indicated in a number of places that you can attack objects.
That one is a bit different IMO.
I would instead word that statement that "the game rules indicate in several places that the GM should allow attacking objects when it makes sense in the gameplay."
The difference is that the statement 'the developers say that you can attack objects' means that the players are the ones with the authority - that they should be justified in feeling offended when the GM doesn't allow them to blast holes through the building's walls so that they can short-circuit half of the planned dungeon content.
Yes, a PC should be allowed to smash a vase. Or cast Fireball on a chair. Or use an Impulse to destroy a statue. But it should be done with GM permission and approval. Not as a way to argue that the players get to decide which of the terrain is passable.
I get your point, but both statements are true. Game developers have indicated that it was their intent for it to be possible, and the rules say the GM should rule as such when it makes sense to do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that is also why there shouldn't be a rule that players can point to and say that the GM is required to allow spells to target objects. Or Strike to target objects.
The answer from the rulebook should always be that the player needs to ask the GM if that item or bit of terrain is destructible or not.
Having to ask the GM if Heal or Harm affects my Dhampir character at all is just annoying and needs errata.
Another thing I just noticed is that many void spells also have the Death trait, so undead would be immune to it even if you could target them. See Exsanguination above. Another one is Wail of the Damned (nee Banshee). It targets only living creatures, but it also has the death trait. Sanguine Mist, Vampiric Feast, Call the Blood, Devour Life, etc. looks to be about 1/3 to 1/2 of all void spells.
Execute also has the Death trait but it explicitly looses it if the target is undead.
The change to Whispers of the Void to target any creature shows another way that this problem could be resolved. Simply don't have spells change their targeting based on undead/living status.
Even Heal and Harm could work under that design. Heal would just do both Vitality damage and Vitality healing to any target. Same with Harm doing both Void damage and Void healing to all of its targets. Let the Void Healing rules and the Damage Type rules sort out which of the two gets ignored and which has an effect.
While I do agree in principle, I would have to caution here that casting Heal to heal someone would then be a hostile action, due to dealing vitality damage, even if they are immune. Same with Harm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have to caution here that casting Heal to heal someone would then be a hostile action, due to dealing vitality damage, even if they are immune. Same with Harm.
I would not agree with that. Hostile Actions are defined with the knowledge of the character in mind. If a character knows that the casting would only heal the target, then casting it on them is not a Hostile Action.
Don't focus just on "A hostile action is one that can harm or damage" and avoid reading the entire intent of the rule.
Under the current rules, if a character is unaware that an ally is a Skeleton ancestry using As in Life, So in Death to appear to be a living creature and an ally unknowingly casts Heal on them, then they would be accidentally causing damage and it still would not be a Hostile Action even though it is causing damage.
So knowingly casting Heal to only do healing, even if it is technically possible that in different circumstances in might be able to cause damage, doesn't meet the definition of Hostile.
Also remember the line at the end:
The GM is the final arbitrator of what is a hostile action.
I'm pretty sure that a spellcaster knows very well that the Heal spell could cause harm. There is neither ignorance nor unawareness at play here. Just like you can't walk around the marketplace casting Vitality Lash on everyone, thinking everyone here is a living creature has vitality healing, declaring it a non-hostile action.
I'm pretty sure that a spellcaster knows very well that casting a Heal spell on a living creature does not cause harm.
If a character is lying about their Undead or Void Healing status, and the spellcaster casts Heal on them thinking that it will heal them, then it falls into the same category of inadvertent harm as opening a door and not knowing that there is a monster behind it.
Don't change the goalposts. If you are giving caution to players about casting Heal breaking Invisibility, then you are pretty heavily implying that it is happening when casting Heal on the other characters in the party. Not casting Heal on NPCs that they know nothing about, and certainly not throwing Vitality Lash randomly around a crowded area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we suggest that Heal breaks invisibility when there might be an undead target, unbeknownst to the caster, then the current version of heal already always breaks invisibility. There would be no change in this interaction--sending out a spell that could deal vitality damage if the target is lying about being alive isn't more or less hostile based on what effect actually comes out when it hits them.
If somebody casts heal on somebody they merely suspect of being undead, I'd call that a hostile action regardless whether they turned out to be living. Imho Vitality Lash doesn't enter the question because that spell doesn't have a non-hostile application.
It may seem weird that the same action can be hostile or non-hostile depending on the character's knowledge and intent, but that is how Invisibility works.
The rules say that an action is hostile if the actor knows that it could cause harm. He doesn't have to suspect it to cause harm.
Otherwise the dumber your character is, the more hostility he can get away with: Just dump INT/WIS, roll an applicable check before AoE Heal and say "I didn't know that skeleton would take damage from the spell." (failed your Religion / Undead Lore check)
Heal is used to cause harm 50% of the time (roughly speaking), so anyone casting it knows that it could cause harm.
The rules say that an action is hostile if the actor knows that it could cause harm. He doesn't have to suspect it to cause harm.
Otherwise the dumber your character is, the more hostility he can get away with: Just dump INT/WIS, roll an applicable check before AoE Heal and say "I didn't know that skeleton would take damage from the spell." (failed your Religion / Undead Lore check)
Heal is used to cause harm 50% of the time (roughly speaking), so anyone casting it knows that it could cause harm.
Well, sure, so long as you're consistent about it. This discussion started because you said the proposed change to Heal would cause it to become a hostile action. If you instead argue that Heal is a hostile action regardless of intent, that's no problem with me, that's just not the original point.
In any case... I think undead being harmed by healing is one of the common knowledge about undead in the setting, but if we want to push it, sure we can let an especially stupid character get away with not knowing that... once. Probably before anyone in the party gains Invisibility. After that, it functions as desired.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules say that an action is hostile if the actor knows that it could cause harm. He doesn't have to suspect it to cause harm.
Heal is used to cause harm 50% of the time (roughly speaking), so anyone casting it knows that it could cause harm.
Roughly 50% of the time if you open a door in a dungeon there is a monster behind it. So every adventurer knows that opening a door could cause harm.
But opening a door is not a hostile action unless you know that opening that door is going to cause harm.
That is what the Hostile Actions rule says.
And this is still a red herring and moving of the goalposts from the original complaint against my proposed change to spell targeting since it applies to Heal and Harm already. So I am no longer interested in this conversation about Hostile Actions.
The proposed change to make Heal and Harm do both damage and healing of their respective types is not going to noticeably change those spells other than by removing strange edge cases regarding living creatures with Void Healing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, sure, so long as you're consistent about it. This discussion started because you said the proposed change to Heal would cause it to become a hostile action. If you instead argue that Heal is a hostile action regardless of intent, that's no problem with me, that's just not the original point.In any case... I think undead being harmed by healing is one of the common knowledge about undead in the setting, but if we want to push it, sure we can let an especially stupid character get away with not knowing that... once. Probably before anyone in the party gains Invisibility. After that, it functions as desired.
We had this actually come up in a game with a Dhampir that the rest of the party didn't know was a Dhampir. Trying to heal them was obviously not intended as a hostile effect even though it would have hurt them because action steps had been taken by the Dhampir to prevent the other PCs from knowing that.
It's nonsensical to say "you're dying and I want to heal you, so I'm being hostile due to information you actively prevented me from having."
Changing Heal/Harm to not mention living/undead doesn't really change how anything works in terms of being hostile or not. If so far as I know Heal is going to help an injured person, casting it isn't hostile. That doesn't change if we alter the wording so we don't get into situations where it doesn't do whats expected because of Bones Oracle/Nudge the Scales/etc.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The change to Whispers of the Void to target any creature shows another way that this problem could be resolved. Simply don't have spells change their targeting based on undead/living status.
I don’t really see what the targeting language even adds. Fireball doesn’t read “dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures who aren’t immune to fire damage.”