I think I need help understanding how a 3A Harm works with the Neccro's Mastery of Life and Death ability.
Let's say my PC has one living ally and one undead ally. We also have one living and one undead enemy. If I cast a 3A Harm and all four of them are in range, if I want the "optimal" result for our party, I can make Harm do these for each target with the Mastery ability:
- For my living ally: Make Harm deal vitality damage. Since they are living, Harm attempts to damage them, but the flipped vitality damage deals no damage to living. Once I have the Invert Harm feat, I can also make Harm heal them. Until then, no healing allowed.
- For my undead ally: Make Harm do its regular thing (make no changes with the Mastery ability). Since they are undead, Harm attempts to heal them as usual.
- For the living enemy: Make Harm do its regular thing. Since they are living, Harm attempts to deal void damage as normal.
- For the undead enemy: Make Harm deal vitality damage. Since they are undead, Mastery allows me to target them for the damage effect, and the flipped vitalty damage deals damage to undead. But Harm still also attempts to heal them as normal?
That last part where versus an undead enemy is where I'm lost. I don't think the Mastery ability allows me in any way to actually stop Harm's regular effect of healing undead. I mean, it's still better than a non-Necro using 3A Harm because I at least offset the healing on an undead enemy by still dealing vitality damage to them, but that's weird, right?
I feel the example they mention gives a notion that there's a way to only deal damage to undead with Harm. "For example, you could have the harm spell deal vitality damage to undead enemies, but it would not be able to heal living allies." I can't figure out what it is though. The flipping of void and vitality damage doesn't help there. The targeting being allowed to affect both living and undead doesn't help either as far as I can tell.
IMO...
You choose vitality instead of void, and since void energy is what causes undead healing, they don't heal. Because there's no void energy.
The author of the Harm entry just took a linguistic short cut. That happens a lot with PF2E, it's why the devs have come out and said they use regular English and not to treat the rules like a computer program.
In this case, the author didn't include the somewhat pedantic sentence fragment "If the target is a willing undead creature, and it is affected by the void energy, you restore that amount of Hit Points." But that seems the very obvious way to read it.
As written you are pretty much spot on.
The concensus right now seems to be that this looks unintended and that necromancers should be able to damage undead without worrying about healing them.
Infact that is the case for the 1 and 2 action variants, so for those the necromancer cannot heal unwilling targets which would be most enemies. The writers might've missed that this don't apply to the three action variant.
Hmm yeah, this might be a situation where Harm is the one being weird and not so much Mastery of Life and Death. Its intent seems fairly staightforward with every other spell and ability it affects.
Harm as a non-Necro offers no target or effect choice. The damage targets living and the heal targets undead exclusively. You can never be affected by both effects normally. Is it maybe fair to carry that logic over to Mastery of Life and Death?
By that I mean, even though the Mastery ability says "you can affect and target both", only one of those effects go through as normal. Either it damages or it heals, but with the Mastery ability you simply have a choice since both effects can now target living or undead. Is that too much of a stretch?
As an example, let's say I do have Invert Harm. If I hit a living ally with Harm, I simply choose to heal them with Harm. Harm is then no longer trying to damage them because I didn't choose that effect. No void to vitality flipping needed. Is that the biggest cope or what?
Anyway, thank you both for indulging my lunacy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bowluc wrote: - For the undead enemy: Make Harm deal vitality damage. Since they are undead, Mastery allows me to target them for the damage effect, and the flipped vitalty damage deals damage to undead. But Harm still also attempts to heal them as normal? There is a RAW argument that it could do that by what the text says. I don't think that this is intended though.
If choosing to have Harm deal vitality damage, and still having it cause the enemy to be healed is the intent...
Mastery of Life and Death wrote: For example, you could have the harm spell deal vitality damage to undead enemies, but it would not be able to heal living allies. they really should have mentioned that in the example that goes over this exact scenario.
Bowluc wrote: As an example, let's say I do have Invert Harm. If I hit a living ally with Harm, I simply choose to heal them with Harm. Harm is then no longer trying to damage them because I didn't choose that effect. No void to vitality flipping needed. Is that the biggest cope or what?
Anyway, thank you both for indulging my lunacy.
Yes with Mastery Of... I would choose one energy per target, with vitality not healing living things. Necromancers that select the level 2 feat Invert still choose one energy per target, but now choosing vitality for living targets heals them.
Way I read Mastery of Life and Death, the Invert Harm feat and the Harm spell, when you cast 3-actions Harm with only MoLaD :
1. Living ally, you choose vitality damage for the target = no harm done.
2. Undead ally, you choose void damage for the target = no harm done and healing occurs.
3. Living enemy, you choose void damage for the target = they get hurt.
4. Undead enemy, you choose vitality damage for the target = they get hurt. And they do not get healed because it is vitality they get rather than void energy. Otherwise, the example provided at the end of MoLaD description would make no sense.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The Raven Black wrote: Way I read Mastery of Life and Death, the Invert Harm feat and the Harm spell, when you cast 3-actions Harm with only MoLaD :
1. Living ally, you choose vitality damage for the target = no harm done.
2. Undead ally, you choose void damage for the target = no harm done and healing occurs.
3. Living enemy, you choose void damage for the target = they get hurt.
4. Undead enemy, you choose vitality damage for the target = they get hurt. And they do not get healed because it is vitality they get rather than void energy. Otherwise, the example provided at the end of MoLaD description would make no sense.
The problem (and confusion) is that this isn't how Vitality/Void damage (or healing) work, nor how the harm spell works.
A normal harm spell has two very different effects depending on what it targets:
If it targets a living creature, it deals void damage.
If it targets a willing undead creature, it heals them.
Mastery of Life and Death has two relevant parts that change this:
- "Whenever you Cast a Spell or use an ability that would deal void or vitality damage, you can choose for the spell to do either void or vitality damage to each target separately." -> This is what lets us change the damage in harm to vitality when we target a living creature.
- "When you Cast a Spell or use an ability that would affect or target only living creatures or only undead creatures, you can affect and target both. This does not apply to the healing effects of spells or abilities." -> This is what lets us target Undead creatures with harm's void damage (which otherwise can only target living creatures), which we then change to vitality thanks to the other clause in Mastery of Life and Death.
The problem is that harm is worded such that these changes effectively make the spell say this:
"If the target is a living or undead creature, you deal 1d8 void or vitality damage to it (chosen for each target separately), and it gets a basic Fortitude save. If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of Hit Points."
So an Undead target would effectively be damaged and healed by the effect, but that is clearly not intended. Mastery of Life and Death is worded fine, the problem lies in the harm spell itself.
Also worth noting that Invert Harm doesn't help with this, since that simply allows you to restore hit points to living targets. There's no way to remove the fact that harm as written heals willing undead no matter what else you do.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TheFinish wrote: The Raven Black wrote: Way I read Mastery of Life and Death, the Invert Harm feat and the Harm spell, when you cast 3-actions Harm with only MoLaD :
1. Living ally, you choose vitality damage for the target = no harm done.
2. Undead ally, you choose void damage for the target = no harm done and healing occurs.
3. Living enemy, you choose void damage for the target = they get hurt.
4. Undead enemy, you choose vitality damage for the target = they get hurt. And they do not get healed because it is vitality they get rather than void energy. Otherwise, the example provided at the end of MoLaD description would make no sense.
The problem (and confusion) is that this isn't how Vitality/Void damage (or healing) work, nor how the harm spell works.
A normal harm spell has two very different effects depending on what it targets:
If it targets a living creature, it deals void damage.
If it targets a willing undead creature, it heals them.
Mastery of Life and Death has two relevant parts that change this:
- "Whenever you Cast a Spell or use an ability that would deal void or vitality damage, you can choose for the spell to do either void or vitality damage to each target separately." -> This is what lets us change the damage in harm to vitality when we target a living creature.
- "When you Cast a Spell or use an ability that would affect or target only living creatures or only undead creatures, you can affect and target both. This does not apply to the healing effects of spells or abilities." -> This is what lets us target Undead creatures with harm's void damage (which otherwise can only target living creatures), which we then change to vitality thanks to the other clause in Mastery of Life and Death.
The problem is that harm is worded such that these changes effectively make the spell say this:
"If the target is a living or undead creature, you deal 1d8 void or vitality damage to it (chosen for each target... The example given at the end of MoLaD's description would be meaningless if Harm still healed them : "For example, you could have the harm spell deal vitality damage to undead enemies,".
Nobody is disputing that undead being both damaged and healed by harm is unintentional by the example given.
But its clearly an issue that stems from how they are written to interact with eachother, This doesn't just apply to harm but any similar effect that can do both damage and healing. Like trying to damage a creature but also wanting to heal the allies surrounding it with Blood-Feasting Breath.
The difference is that for 3 action Harm it's explicitly unavoidable as Healing effects can't be adjusted by Mastery of Life and Death as opposed to the other variants where an unwilling undead simply just takes the damage.
Reading it as the heal only affecting willing targets even on the 3 action variant is likely the closest reading to the intention that fits with the rest of the rules since most undead would not automatically recognize the spell or even be able to recognize it after the fact, even if they recognized it as a void spell its not like undead are immune to Void effects.
The Raven Black wrote: The example given at the end of MoLaD's description would be meaningless if Harm still healed them : "For example, you could have the harm spell deal vitality damage to undead enemies,". I know, but it's the same thing that has happened with Dhampirs, or anyone who uses Nudge the Scales, or gets Void Healing in some other way while not being Undead, where the developer intent clashes with the actual rules.
You can absolutely use harm to deal vitality damage to Undead if you have Mastery of Life and Death RAW. Unfortunately, as written, you will also heal them, because the spell has two distinct effects, and RAW doesn't allow you to ignore one of them. It just says "If A, B happens. If C, D happens" and it was likely not intended for A and C to be the same, but now the game has advanced far enough that it has happened, which leads to issues.
If stuff worked like in 1e we wouldn't have this problem, the spell would deal Void damage to everybody and Undead (and people with Void healing) would just get healed instead.
But as it stands GMs need to use common sense to realise the spell dealing damage and healing at the same time is dumb, and not intended.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I feel the example I quoted should be enough to nudge them in the "common sense" direction.
TheFinish wrote: The Raven Black wrote: Way I read Mastery of Life and Death, the Invert Harm feat and the Harm spell, when you cast 3-actions Harm with only MoLaD :
1. Living ally, you choose vitality damage for the target = no harm done.
2. Undead ally, you choose void damage for the target = no harm done and healing occurs.
3. Living enemy, you choose void damage for the target = they get hurt.
4. Undead enemy, you choose vitality damage for the target = they get hurt. And they do not get healed because it is vitality they get rather than void energy. Otherwise, the example provided at the end of MoLaD description would make no sense.
The problem (and confusion) is that this isn't how Vitality/Void damage (or healing) work, nor how the harm spell works.
A normal harm spell has two very different effects depending on what it targets:
If it targets a living creature, it deals void damage.
If it targets a willing undead creature, it heals them.
Mastery of Life and Death has two relevant parts that change this:
- "Whenever you Cast a Spell or use an ability that would deal void or vitality damage, you can choose for the spell to do either void or vitality damage to each target separately." -> This is what lets us change the damage in harm to vitality when we target a living creature.
- "When you Cast a Spell or use an ability that would affect or target only living creatures or only undead creatures, you can affect and target both. This does not apply to the healing effects of spells or abilities." -> This is what lets us target Undead creatures with harm's void damage (which otherwise can only target living creatures), which we then change to vitality thanks to the other clause in Mastery of Life and Death.
The problem is that harm is worded such that these changes effectively make the spell say this:
"If the target is a living or undead creature, you deal 1d8 void or vitality damage to it (chosen for each target... Would hostile undead be willing targets of an enemy's Harm spell, though? I mean, there's nothing that says an enemy can't be a willing target of a spell of course. The only rule I can find is that as NPCs the GM will decide if they are willing. But how does being a willing target of a spell even work? Does the enemy automatically get to know instinctively what the spell will be or what effect it will have on them as it hits them and they make the split-second decision to be willing or not? I mean, maybe. I figure it usually works that way for allies in practice, if only because the other real people at the table can hear you say what spell you're trying to cast so they're bound to know what you're doing on a meta level anyway... but do enemies? I'm not so sure it's RAW that an enemy gets an instant mind download of what the exact effects of an enemy spellcaster's spell would be any time they are given the option of being a willing target or not. Well, maybe they don't know and can choose to be willing anyway. Actually, they probably should be able to, since:
Targets wrote: Even if you or your character don't know what the effect is, such as if your character is unconscious, you still decide if you're willing. But why would a hostile NPC choose to he a willing target of an enemy's unidentified spell? The GM decides if an NPC is a willing target or not, and I can't think of any reason why, were I a GM, I would have enemy creatures be willing targets of the party's spells without knowing what they are. If the enemy question has identified the spell somehow and knows it will be beneficial to them to be willing to it, then sure.
In any case, this wording would not mean that by RAW Harm modified by MoLaD would both deal vitality damage to and also heal undead; it would mean they take vitality damage and may also be healed if they are a willing target, which for an NPC is determined by the GM.
Yeah, there are several things in Heal and Harm that don't really behave the way that they should when they interact with several other things in the game already - most notably Living creatures with Void Healing. And that is before we even got Necromancer.
To list the problems (again), they would be that:
* Heal/Harm requiring a willing target to do their healing effect.
* Heal/Harm change their behavior automatically and algorithmically based on the type of creature.
Neither of those are a benefit to the spells.
How often does it come up that someone tries to forcibly heal an unwilling target? What is the plot and story purpose for needing that written into the spell's mechanics?
And switching based on living/undead status of the creature does nothing but cause unintended side-effects. It would be so much better to switch based on how the target reacts to Vitality/Void energy. Much fewer edge cases in that scenario.
So any arguments that use either of these rules bizarrities in Heal/Harm as 'evidence' of how the game should work are pretty much automatically suspect to me. We don't agree on the basic premises of the argument presented; there is no way we are certain to agree on the conclusion.
Dunwright wrote: Would hostile undead be willing targets of an enemy's Harm spell, though? I mean, there's nothing that says an enemy can't be a willing target of a spell of course. The only rule I can find is that as NPCs the GM will decide if they are willing. But how does being a willing target of a spell even work? Does the enemy automatically get to know instinctively what the spell will be or what effect it will have on them as it hits them and they make the split-second decision to be willing or not? I mean, maybe. I figure it usually works that way for allies in practice, if only because the other real people at the table can hear you say what spell you're trying to cast so they're bound to know what you're doing on a meta level anyway... but do enemies? I'm not so sure it's RAW that an enemy gets an instant mind download of what the exact effects of an enemy spellcaster's spell would be any time they are given the option of being a willing target or not. Well, maybe they don't know and can choose to be willing anyway. Actually, they probably should be able to, since: I feel it has to work that way though, right? Being willing a beneficial effect like that. Otherwise we wouldn't have feats like Selective Energy that allows Heal to exclude targets for the purpose of not healing unwanted targets, and Heal is written exactly like Harm but flipped on damage and targets.
Also, thank you TheFinish for breaking it all down like I wish I could in my head! It's much easier to visualize laid out like that.
And yes, I think everyone is on the same page on what the RAI is. I mean, the example given isn't shy about it either. Getting it to match up with the RAW is what stumped me. Maybe it's a good candidate for errata/clarification but now I'm not sure if it should be on the Necromancer ability or on the Harm spell.
Bowluc wrote: Dunwright wrote: Would hostile undead be willing targets of an enemy's Harm spell, though? I mean, there's nothing that says an enemy can't be a willing target of a spell of course. The only rule I can find is that as NPCs the GM will decide if they are willing. But how does being a willing target of a spell even work? Does the enemy automatically get to know instinctively what the spell will be or what effect it will have on them as it hits them and they make the split-second decision to be willing or not? I mean, maybe. I figure it usually works that way for allies in practice, if only because the other real people at the table can hear you say what spell you're trying to cast so they're bound to know what you're doing on a meta level anyway... but do enemies? I'm not so sure it's RAW that an enemy gets an instant mind download of what the exact effects of an enemy spellcaster's spell would be any time they are given the option of being a willing target or not. Well, maybe they don't know and can choose to be willing anyway. Actually, they probably should be able to, since: I feel it has to work that way though, right? Being willing a beneficial effect like that. Otherwise we wouldn't have feats like Selective Energy that allows Heal to exclude targets for the purpose of not healing unwanted targets, and Heal is written exactly like Harm but flipped on damage and targets.
Also, thank you TheFinish for breaking it all down like I wish I could in my head! It's much easier to visualize laid out like that.
And yes, I think everyone is on the same page on what the RAI is. I mean, the example given isn't shy about it either. Getting it to match up with the RAW is what stumped me. Maybe it's a good candidate for errata/clarification but now I'm not sure if it should be on the Necromancer ability or on the Harm spell. Hmm. I guess you're right, there seems to be an implicit assumption that any time you have the option to be willing or unwilling to an effect you get to automatically know exactly what that effect is. If this wasn't the case I'm sure there'd ever be much risk of accidentally healing an enemy with Heal, which is one of the things the Sleective Energy feat calls out as something it can help you avoid doing. It's not really stated outright, and the feat could just be calling out an rare scenario (since it does have other uses which are also mentioned), but I think based on that it's more likely the designers meant for enemies to know automatically whether it'd be beneficial to be a willing receipt of your spells.
Finoan wrote: How often does it come up that someone tries to forcibly heal an unwilling target? What is the plot and story purpose for needing that written into the spell's mechanics? Probably not that often, but Rahadoumis are a thing in the setting and RPing as one is basically begging for the moment you get to reject the Cleric's divine healing. Just to give one example.
Also Superstition Barbarian.
Time for the party's buffing caster to get all Subtle.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dunwright wrote: Would hostile undead be willing targets of an enemy's Harm spell, though? I mean, there's nothing that says an enemy can't be a willing target of a spell of course. The only rule I can find is that as NPCs the GM will decide if they are willing. But how does being a willing target of a spell even work? Does the enemy automatically get to know instinctively what the spell will be or what effect it will have on them as it hits them and they make the split-second decision to be willing or not? This is all what I can surmise from the RAW but.
Yes, Enemies can be willing.
No, They don't get to know what spell they are targeted by before being affected, that requires them being able to identify the spell either through having it prepared or using quick recognition. And they don't know the spell after being affected either, As is covered under Identifying Spells
No, They do not get to know what the effect is before deciding if they are willing or not, since the rules for willing targets say that you decide even if you, the player, does not know what the effect is.
Player Core pg. 426 Effects/Targets wrote: Some effects require a target to be willing. Only you can decide whether your PC is willing, and the GM decides whether an NPC is willing. Even if you or your character don't know what the effect is, such as if your character is unconscious, you still decide if you're willing. In my mind no character would willingly be affected by a hostile spellcasters magic without first knowing what the spell actually is, which is this case would be the occasional undead caster or intelligent undead who identified the spell on an earlier turn.
I do agree, this does not make sense with selective energy since the spell says that it targets change depending on the action spent and the three action does say "all living and undead creatures" as opposed to willing undead, But its the best explanation I have what I believe the writers intentions were as typically hostile creatures arent willing.
Easl wrote: it's why the devs have come out and said they use regular English and not to treat the rules like a computer program. Side-note: Does anyone have a link to a prominent version of this statement? I've seen this mentioned a few times but only ever indirectly. I'd like to have something to point to if I ever need to argue this point. ;)
NorrKnekten wrote: Nobody is disputing that undead being both damaged and healed by harm is unintentional by the example given.
But its clearly an issue that stems from how they are written to interact with eachother, This doesn't just apply to harm but any similar effect that can do both damage and healing. Like trying to damage a creature but also wanting to heal the allies surrounding it with Blood-Feasting Breath.
The difference is that for 3 action Harm it's explicitly unavoidable as Healing effects can't be adjusted by Mastery of Life and Death as opposed to the other variants where an unwilling undead simply just takes the damage.
Reading it as the heal only affecting willing targets even on the 3 action variant is likely the closest reading to the intention that fits with the rest of the rules since most undead would not automatically recognize the spell or even be able to recognize it after the fact, even if they recognized it as a void spell its not like undead are immune to Void effects.
It's not computer code. If you know that's not what they meant, what else is there?
And yes, that is the same as the discussion about dhampir.
Zeiety wrote: Easl wrote: it's why the devs have come out and said they use regular English and not to treat the rules like a computer program. Side-note: Does anyone have a link to a prominent version of this statement? I've seen this mentioned a few times but only ever indirectly. I'd like to have something to point to if I ever need to argue this point. ;) The Ambiguous Rules rule.
It doesn't say exactly that quote of, "we write the rules in plain English, so things may be ambiguous and subject to interpretation sometimes," but that is clearly what it means.
And it is written in the rulebook itself, not in a blog post or FAQ or something like that. So that makes it even harder to argue against.
NorrKnekten wrote: In my mind no character would willingly be affected by a hostile spellcasters magic without first knowing what the spell actually is, which is this case would be the occasional undead caster or intelligent undead who identified the spell on an earlier turn. What makes sense to me is that an effect designating only "willing" targets is intended to supersede saving throws. Healing an ally doesn't require overcoming their Will save DC because they are able to decide to accept the spell effect willingly.
So by contrast, if a spell effect does require overcoming the target's defenses (AC or save DC), then it shouldn't also rely on the target being "willing".
That is pretty much what I gather aswell, some effects rely on the target 'giving in' to the effect and cannot function without the target yielding to the magic.
Especially with the magic and effects which either introduce saves against unwilling targets like illumination, or lets willing targets decrease their degree of success if not just outright letting them choose instead of rolling.
The much harder question is: if a spell doesn't require a saving throw, does the targeted creature know that in time to be willing?
As a reasonably creative narrator of game and spell effects, I can definitely come up with ways of describing a beneficial spell effect in a way that anyone being targeted with that effect would know immediately that the spell is harmless at worst and likely beneficial.
So it really is solely a matter of game balance to decide if a 3-action Heal effect will target and heal living creature enemies or not.
Game narrative arguments saying that 'in reality, enemies wouldn't know that the spell was helpful, so they wouldn't be willing,' mostly just show how that particular person thinks the game narrative is required to be. It doesn't provide evidence of how the game mechanics are supposed to work.
Finoan wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: In my mind no character would willingly be affected by a hostile spellcasters magic without first knowing what the spell actually is, which is this case would be the occasional undead caster or intelligent undead who identified the spell on an earlier turn. What makes sense to me is that an effect designating only "willing" targets is intended to supersede saving throws. Healing an ally doesn't require overcoming their Will save DC because they are able to decide to accept the spell effect willingly.
So by contrast, if a spell effect does require overcoming the target's defenses (AC or save DC), then it shouldn't also rely on the target being "willing". These points really resonated with me. So in the absence of official clarification, I'm going to run it as: if the creature rolls a saving throw ignorant of the effect, they're unwilling by default. So if a necromancer cast 3-action Harm in a room with undead foes and set the foes to receive vitality damage, they would roll a save against the damage and so not qualify for the healing. But say there was one undead creature in that mix of foes who had Harm prepared, auto-IDed the necromancer's spell, and wished to benefit from the healing. How would their willingness be represented when it came to the damage? Roll save and reduce the degree of success by one sound fair?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Note that willing is a completely meta concept in PF2. Even while their PC is unconscious, the player gets to decide whether the PC is willing or not.
The Raven Black wrote: Note that willing is a completely meta concept in PF2. Even while their PC is unconscious, the player gets to decide whether the PC is willing or not. Yeah this, And by extention this also applies to NPCs and Monsters as the GM makes the decision for those. Ofcourse with the idea that a GM shouldn't play the creature as if they were privy to all the knowledge the GM has.
Baarogue wrote: But say there was one undead creature in that mix of foes who had Harm prepared, auto-IDed the necromancer's spell, and wished to benefit from the healing. How would their willingness be represented when it came to the damage? Roll save and reduce the degree of success by one sound fair? I don't think it would be represented at all, Not only is it a separate effect but as a standard, even if you are willing it does not mean you get to take a lower degree of success even if you want to, unless the specific effects says that you can.
If you think it's more fair to make them succeeding their save causes the healing and damage to cancel out then sure and that they only recieve healing on a crit success and otherwise just reduce damage taken, it could work for harm in lack of proper clarification how its supposed to work.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
