| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is my understanding correct?
For the 3 action variant of the heal and harm spells in pf2e 2nd ed., the CASTER DOES NOT CHOOSE whether to heal/harm the living/undead. Instead, the spell automatically affects all creatures in the area based on their type; living and undead.
3 - Action Heal
Heals all living creatures in the 30 foot emanation. Damages all undead creatures within the 30-foot emanation. These undead creatures receive a basic Fortitude save against the damage.
3 - Action Harm
Harms all living creatures in the 30 foot emanation. Heals all undead creatures within the 30-foot emanation. Living creatures receive a basic Fortitude save against the damage.
Key Takeaways
1. The spells are non-selective in their area of effect form.
2. The effect on a creature (healing or harming) in the area of effect is determined by whether it is living or undead.
Yes, that is my understanding of these spells as well.
1. The spells are non-selective in their area of effect form.
Yes. The 3-action versions of these spells are indiscriminate regarding allies and enemies. Every creature in the area is affected, and each target is affected according to how the spell affects that particular creature (independently of how other creatures would be affected).
Most enemy NPCs don't follow the death and dying rules, so they don't end up unconscious at 0 HP and Dying when they are dropped to 0 HP - they instead just die and are no longer affected by 3-action Heal. Undead are always destroyed at 0 HP and are no longer affected by 3-action Harm. But there is the option for the GM to have an NPC use the Death and Dying rules same as the PCs do and so if you use 3-action Heal in an area that includes a living, but Dying, 0 HP unconscious enemy, that enemy would be healed as well.
2. The effect on a creature (healing or harming) in the area of effect is determined by whether it is living or undead.
Yes.
Which is kind-of a problem. Technically the decision is made by the spell based on the living or undead status of the affected creature. The problem is with living creatures with the Void Healing ability.
Most tables will have living creatures with Void Healing treated as though they are Undead for purposes of how the Heal and Harm spells affect them. The literal RAW interpretation and ruling is ... not very useful.
Selective Energy (Cleric 6) can be used to exclude 5 creatures to either not heal or not harm them in case you're working with a mixed crowd.
And the caster can choose to include/exclude themself.
I believe Paizo's clarified (maybe in the Remaster somewhere?) that a living creature with Void Healing counts as undead for such effects. Though yeah, there were gaping rules loopholes before, but it's supposed to be symmetrical.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Selective Energy (Cleric 6) can be used to exclude 5 creatures to either not heal or not harm them in case you're working with a mixed crowd.
And the caster can choose to include/exclude themself.
I believe Paizo's clarified (maybe in the Remaster somewhere?) that a living creature with Void Healing counts as undead for such effects. Though yeah, there were gaping rules loopholes before, but it's supposed to be symmetrical.
They've never clarified this in the way that it needs doing: an errata or official FAQ. It might be in a video/stream/discord somewhere, but you have to know where to find that in order for it to be useful and since it directly contradicts RAW and isn't in the PFS clarification list, it wouldn't work in PFS (as most GMs wouldn't know about it).
Trust me: we've been asking for it for a long time. It comes up with Dhampir, it comes up with Remaster Oracle (particularly Nudge the Scales), it came up again with the Necromancer playtest (Master of Life and Death)...
It's one of those cases where the community should just collectively house rule it and ignore what the books say because what the books say leads to very silly outcomes... but that doesn't really work in PFS because the rules aren't vague or confusing: they're just wrong.
(We all did it anyway with Magus and Arcane Cascade for like 2 years before that got an errata because it was so obviously broken, but anyway.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also bear in mind that the 3-action doesn't get the increased healing of the 2-action version. That's a common misreading I've seen as well.
The non-selectiveness of Heal and Harm's 3-action version means that they don't get used often. 95% of the time its the two action.
However there are 2 scenarios where it becomes super useful:
1. You have multiple party members at 0 hit points, so healing enemies still is a net positive because it gets multiple people up.
2. All enemies on the battlefield are undead and all party members are living and need healing or vice versa. Especially if the undead are weak to positive.
Yeah, Tridus, I've taken part in explaining this to many folk. I guess out of hope I latched onto a rumor of it being resolved. Oh well...
But as you say, there's likely enough impetus to have symmetry become the norm, even to the point where PFS folk figure so as well. (I've found most PFS leaders prefer to encourage gaming more than act as knuckle-swappers.)
Yeah, Tridus, I've taken part in explaining this to many folk. I guess out of hope I latched onto a rumor of it being resolved. Oh well...
The similar one that I remember was changed was Soothe. It had its targeting rules relaxed so that it could target undead. I thought it also had some trait adjustment so that it didn't cause undead to be immune to it - but I don't have access to older versions of the Core Rulebook any more to verify that.
But as you say, there's likely enough impetus to have symmetry become the norm,
Oh it's very symmetrical. Both Heal and Harm very symmetrically do nothing to a Dhampir.
Yeah, Tridus, I've taken part in explaining this to many folk. I guess out of hope I latched onto a rumor of it being resolved. Oh well...
But as you say, there's likely enough impetus to have symmetry become the norm, even to the point where PFS folk figure so as well. (I've found most PFS leaders prefer to encourage gaming more than act as knuckle-swappers.)
Yeah, agreed. If you just take the cases where its an issue and treat vitality healing targets as "living" and void healing targets as "undead", things work fine.
But they really shouldn't be still putting out new material with the problematic wording.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But they really shouldn't be still putting out new material with the problematic wording.
I just checked Starfinder. It is just as bad there. But in a new way.
Borai versatile heritage has the Undead tag. But they have Vitality Healing like other living creatures.
So Heal will see them as Undead and deal Vitality damage to them. Which they should ignore because of the general rules for the Vitality damage type.
And Harm will see them as Undead and try to do Void Healing to them. Which... they will ignore. Because healing doesn't do damage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't think "You have the void healing ability, which means you are harmed by vitality damage and healed by void effects as if you
were undead." doesn't treat Dhampir as undead when it comes to vitality damage and void healing called out in heal and harm?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't think "You have the void healing ability, which means you are harmed by vitality damage and healed by void effects as if you
were undead." doesn't treat Dhampir as undead when it comes to vitality damage and void healing called out in heal and harm?
Right, that one works fine. Borai also mention it in the other direction so that should also be fine, but it's a bunch of extra wording that has to go in every time they do this.
If the targeting was fixed on the other end, that wouldn't be necessary. Vitality Lash for example targets "undead or something with void healing". It does vitality damage. So it works fine, but if it targeted "1 creature", it would work exactly the same way since vitality damage doesn't harm anything with vitality healing anyway.
Doing it in this roundabout way of specifying it explicitly like this creates confusion when they don't do that, like on Heal.
Anyone experienced with this will know how they should run it, but it'd be better if they would just stick with a single set of consistent wording instead of sometimes specifying it and sometimes not.
You don't think "You have the void healing ability, which means you are harmed by vitality damage and healed by void effects as if you were undead." doesn't treat Dhampir as undead when it comes to vitality damage and void healing called out in heal and harm?
No. It doesn't.
Nothing in that line changes how Heal and Harm treat the Dhampir as a living creature.
Heal: If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 Hit Points.
Harm: If the target is a living creature, you deal 1d8 void damage to it, and it gets a basic Fortitude save.
Is the Dhampir a living creature? Yes.
Is the Dhampir an undead creature? No.
That is what the Heal and Harm spells look at. Then they decide whether to do healing or damage effects.
That note in Dhampir is reminder text. It is simply restating the same rules that the Void Healing ability already has. In both cases it is talking about being affected or immune to healing or damage types. It doesn't change anything about spell targeting.
Heal isn't trying to do Vitality damage to the Dhampir, so why would that note in the Dhampir rules change anything? The Dhampir is still immune to both the Vitality healing of Heal and the Void Damage of Harm.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there's no ambiguity here. We all know that it's supposed to work on dhampir and borai.
Those two sentences are very contradictory.
We all assume that it is supposed to work on Dhampir and Borai. But it is unclear which or how.
The common ruling is that Heal will damage a Dhampir and Harm will heal them.
The less common ruling is that Heal will heal a Dhampir and Harm will damage them.
The troll ruling is that Heal and Harm both do nothing to a Dhampir.
Only the troll ruling has rules support to back it up. So, no. I don't think it is excessive to ask for errata to fix this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which, while not “huge”, is still a…problem. Unless you are playing a Dhampir or a Borai. Then it might indeed be “huge”.
How do dhampirs heal in pf2e remastered
This what my research comes up with .....
Dhampirs in Pathfinder 2e Remastered heal only from void (formerly negative) healing effects, not from vitality (formerly positive) healing, even though they are still living creatures. Traditional healing spells and potions that use vitality do not heal dhampirs; instead, they are healed by void healing sources and harmed by vitality damage, just like undead.[1][2]
• Healing Methods that Work for Dhampirs:
o Void healing effects: Any effect that specifically provides void healing (such as the Harm spell used to heal undead).[2]
o Oil of Unlife: Functions as a healing potion for creatures with void healing.[3]
o Treat Wounds/Battle Medicine: These use non-magical means and do not rely on vitality energy, so they work on dhampirs as they are living creatures and these actions are not tagged with the vitality trait.[3]
o Soothe spell: Also works, as it does not rely on vitality healing.[3]
----
o Healing spells and elixirs using vitality healing (like Heal or healing potions): These do not heal a dhampir at all. The Heal spell, if used as an attack targeting a dhampir (treating the dhampir as an undead), would deal vitality damage to them, but most uses simply fail to heal at all.[1][2]
o Harm spell: If cast as a healing effect (targeting undead), it can heal a dhampir because it uses void healing.[2]
•Special Feat – Twist Healing: If a dhampir has the Twist Healing feat, they can invert the energy of an item that would cast Heal to instead produce the effect of Harm, thus healing themselves from void energy.[4]
In summary, dhampirs in PF2e Remastered must rely on void healing effects, Harm spells, Oil of Unlife, and non-vitality healing like Treat Wounds for recovery; they cannot use normal healing magic or potions designed for the living.[4][1][2][3]
1. https://2e.aonprd.com/Ancestries.aspx?ID=23
2. https://paizo.com/threads/rzs5j6qj?Player-Core-2-Dhampir-void-healing
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1gpk7g6/any_healing_related_ tips_for_playing_a_dhampir/
4. https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2353
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do dhampirs heal in pf2e remastered
This what my research comes up with .....
You can add the Animists "Garden of Healing" spell to that list. It works in the same way as the Soothe spell, only with an emanation and at a rate of d4/rank per turn for up to 10 turns. This makes it fairly useless in combat (you will heal all enemies, even the undead) but absolutely amazing for post combat healing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The entire living/undead distinction for targeting & healing/damaging effects in the 2e rules is a completely unnecessary pain in the behind.
Paizo could have just scuttled it altogether and kept Undead as a mere creature type like Dragon or Animal, while running the vitality/void healing independent of the undead trait.
Right now, if you're an undead character with the Nudge the Scales feat, you can become immune to pretty much all vitality & void damage simultaneously: immune to vitality because you have vitality healing, and immune to void damage because most void damage effects specify that they only target living creatures (e.g. Void Warp) or harm living creatures (e.g. Devouring Void).
It's needlessly complicated. Just remove all "undead" & "living" from all spells and effects and run it purely on damage/healing type.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Twist healing is the greatest clue for Harm actually healing Dhampirs and Heal harming them.
Specific Defines General is invalid logic.
Also, the ability gives zero clues to how Heal and Harm are intended to work on a living Void Healing creature. All it does is lets you (for example) use a scroll of Heal to cast Harm with.
The entire living/undead distinction for targeting & healing/damaging effects in the 2e rules is a completely unnecessary pain in the behind.
Paizo could have just scuttled it altogether and kept Undead as a mere creature type like Dragon or Animal, while running the vitality/void healing independent of the undead trait.
It's needlessly complicated. Just remove all "undead" & "living" from all spells and effects and run it purely on damage/healing type.
Agreed. Absolutely. This would all be fixed if Heal and Harm and related spells switch their behavior based on the target's interaction with Vitality and Void energy rather than on the creature type.
Right now, if you're an undead character with the Nudge the Scales feat, you can become immune to pretty much all vitality & void damage simultaneously: immune to vitality because you have vitality healing, and immune to void damage because most void damage effects specify that they only target living creatures (e.g. Void Warp) or harm living creatures (e.g. Devouring Void).
Even more fun - if you are actually a Bones Oracle at Cursebound 1, then you lose your immunity to both Vitality and Void damage. So while you still can't be healed by Heal or Harm and will still ignore Heal trying to do Vitality healing to you, you can now be injured by Harm dealing Void damage.
Or the other way around for an Undead Bones Oracle.
|
Twist healing is the greatest clue for Harm actually healing Dhampirs and Heal harming them.Specific Defines General is invalid logic.
Also, the ability gives zero clues to how Heal and Harm are intended to work on a living Void Healing creature. All it does is lets you (for example) use a scroll of Heal to cast Harm with.
And it very strongly implies that the Heal spell would harm the Dhampir whereas the Harm spell would heal him. Which justifies it being a 17th level feat actually.
And it very strongly implies that the Heal spell would harm the Dhampir whereas the Harm spell would heal him.Twist healing is the greatest clue for Harm actually healing Dhampirs and Heal harming them.Specific Defines General is invalid logic.
Also, the ability gives zero clues to how Heal and Harm are intended to work on a living Void Healing creature. All it does is lets you (for example) use a scroll of Heal to cast Harm with.
Why?
What gives that implication?
You aren't even necessarily casting the spells from these items on yourself. You can use scrolls of Heal to cast Harm on enemies. What about that is implying how your Dhampir character gets targeted by Heal or Harm?
-----
What it feels like you are doing is assuming an expectation that this feat's only purpose is to let you get scrolls of Heal and use them to cast Harm on yourself so that you can heal with them.
That is an impressive amount of assumptions going on.
There are certainly plenty of other uses of the feat.
And even a hypothetical feat that said exactly that: "Dhampir feat 17: You can use items that cast the Heal spell to instead cast Harm on yourself to heal with." you would still be running into a Specific Defines General logical fallacy. You can't use a specific rule to determine what a general rule that doesn't exist should be. And you certainly can't use a specific rule to override a general rule generally for all other similar but distinct abilities.
I agree: although the wording around many vitality and void effects is confused by references to undead rather than void healing and should probably be standardized, the Dhampir’s own rules text makes it unambiguously clear that they’re harmed by heal and healed by harm. I don’t think there’s any way to read or rule that differently in good faith.