|
I have to say that I am comforted that I am not crazy thinking there is some wiggle room in the wording of negative healing, since we're a dozen posts in without a consensus.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
Ok, that makes sense. Just as a follow up, because heal is worded in a weird way... (at least when cast with 3 actions) Could a previously damaged bandit who's standing in the emenation say "sure i'll take it" and be healed by an opposing cleric?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Mise posted:Ok, that makes sense. Yes, the emanation is a double-edged sword in not cases, because it heals enemies just as if they were friendly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Just ban Dhampir, imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:Just ban Dhampir, imo. There's nothing wrong with dhampirs
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
Andrast posted:There's nothing wrong with dhampirs Some motherfuckers are always tryin' to ice skate uphill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
if you wanna be really raw about it, i'd treat the "as if you were undead" as rules text and just plainly treat the dhampir as if they were undead for positive and negative energy. When it comes to positive and negative energy, you treat the dhampir as if they were undead, because that's what it says to do. It gives you instructions for how to interpret the trait. On the other hand, it's the start of the campaign and it's not PFS. Do whatever makes everyone the happiest, including yourself as the GM.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
I don't see people use 3-action heal very often anyway, so to me it's a really niche edge case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
Yeah I don't expect it to come up to often since I know the druid prefers to use that one out of combat but better to have a plan now than have to figure it out in the middle of a combat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
It seems like dhampir wasn't thought out that well. It definitely seems like they're intended to still be treated as living creatures -- it doesn't say you lose that trait, just that you're damaged by positive and healed by negative. This creates a lot of weird rules interactions. For instance, I haven't been able to find any language that you can fail a save on purpose. So if your ally wants to cast massacre on you, you as far as I can tell must attempt a save. If you're a fighter, you might succeed and thus critically succeed, and so take no damage. Similarly if you drink a healing potion on accident for whatever reason there's no attempt to reduce the damage or anything like there most likely would be if it were a normally harmful item. However, with the interpretation floated above it seems way too powerful. You lose out on positive healing, sure, but there are several other non-negative means of healing that you don't get excluded from (soothe, treat wounds, elixir of life). In addition to this, and the biggest one that makes this seem way too strong, is chill touch. You still count as a living creature, so you can heal yourself for 1d4+mod per spell level at-will at any time. Sure, if you critically fail you'll be enfeebled for a round, but that's a small price to pay for the strongest unlimited healing there is. For a quick comparison, starting bare at level 1 here are non-consumable sources of healing: quote:
You'll notice I listed the healing per ten minutes. That's because Chill Touch puts these all directly in the garbage in terms of sustaining your undead party. 1d4+4 (avg 6.5) hp every 6 seconds adds up to 650 hp per 10 minutes. Now, this assumes you fail all of the saves, but even every save being a success only reduces it to 325, which is still over 4x more than the cleric expending an entire day's worth of heal (or harm) spells. All of the above things scale, but so does chill touch. Out-of-combat healing is pretty readily available, but this means a party of dhampir who have access to one member with chill touch can probably heal all of their party's wounds in a minute, not ten, while expending no resources other than keeping their spellcasting attribute high which they'd want to do anyway. My first gut reaction was to just say that dhampir count as undead, which seems like it honestly nips most of the weird stuff in the bud, but there are a few spells that only work on living creatures currently that seem like it'd be weird to make them immune to: hideous laughter, status, touch of idiocy. It also makes it so you basically can't resurrect them, I think, but I'm not sure how I feel about that anyway. Even ignoring the low-level chill touch problem, treating them as living creates weird problems with vampiric touch/exsanguination (so they get healed, but does the caster get healed? does it do a Final Fantasy-style reverse healing damage?) and some other similar spells. It also just seems way stronger than any other ancestry benefit. You give up a few normal healing methods, unlock a few more (one of which is way too effective), and in exchange you get healed by any attacks that do negative damage. You don't gain any actual vulnerability to positive damage, so even if enemies use healing spells on you they are most likely less effective than damage spells of their level. You don't actually count as undead, so effects that really roast undead (divine spells like searing ray) don't affect you any more strongly than they do your living allies. This is more words than I'd intended, so I'm glad my player who was going to play a dhampir decided not to, because I feel like after examining them at this point I just wouldn't allow my players to be one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
Given that 1e Pathfinder has a very similar trait that puts the "despite being living, treated as undead for healing" text into actual mechanical rules, I think the intent's pretty clear. Paizo just forgot that they added a distinction between positive energy damage and positive energy healing for no good reason. 1e Dhampir, for reference: Negative Energy Affinity: Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
Do the Greater Tengu Forms and Ki Form stack? Asking for a very very stupid character idea. Kenku: *Makes the sound of one hand clapping and goes Golden Tengu*
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
Something that does negative damage doesn't automatically heal undead (or other creatures with Negative Healing).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Zurai posted:I think the intent's pretty clear. Given that like 10 people in this thread have come to various conclusions following different lines of thought, it's really not helping that you are sitting there with your hands on your hips screaming "It's pretty clear, idiots!" every page. Just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Well, that does unravel a lot of that and make it a lot more reasonable. However, it's extremely dumb that this rule is explained in the Bestiary 2 of all places, since a lot of creatures in the first bestiary have it (I had to look it up on Archives of Nethys). Looking at the release schedule, Bestiary 2 came out right before APG, so it almost feels like they realized this would cause weird stuff and added a clarification, when in the past it was intended to work the other way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
or maybe paizo consciously chose to break from the 1st edition rules, and simply forgot to include the updated description in the bestiary? not everything has to be a conspiracy
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
Red Metal posted:or maybe paizo consciously chose to break from the 1st edition rules, and simply forgot to include the updated description in the bestiary? not everything has to be a conspiracy What? If anything my guess (I'm not sure how "it almost feels like" is speaking authoritatively) feels more charitable to Paizo, since they realized there was a problem when they started making a player race with negative healing. Your explanation means that they always intended it to be different and printed a whole book full of monsters with that ability without explaining that, which would be poor editing instead of realizing they wanted to change something and putting it in a book at that point. Especially since the rules text goes against a) established precedent in their previous game and its sources of inspiration and b) an intuitive deduction of what "negative healing" means, aka you get healed by negative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
Zarick posted:You'll notice I listed the healing per ten minutes. That's because Chill Touch puts these all directly in the garbage in terms of sustaining your undead party. 1d4+4 (avg 6.5) hp every 6 seconds adds up to 650 hp per 10 minutes. Now, this assumes you fail all of the saves, but even every save being a success only reduces it to 325, which is still over 4x more than the cleric expending an entire day's worth of heal (or harm) spells. All of the above things scale, but so does chill touch. Continual Recovery is already infinite healing, and when has Paizo ever released a campaign where saying 'and we take an hour to heal everyone six times' actually affects anything? Just go with the expectation that PCs will always be able to heal to full given any noticeable amount of time out of combat and that it's only combat uses of weird healing interactions that matter for balance. Roadie fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Nov 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
FWIW, after reading through the rest of the discussion, the errata and, ugh, official rules lawyer forum I've changed my mind: you're right, RAW Heal doesn't hurt damp hairs. I was initially very sure "you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead" meant they count as having the Undead tag for effects with the Positive/Negative tag, because what else would it mean? That sentence is in fact not that at all, it's just a really crap description of the Negative Healing tag, from a different book, that does a different thing than what the heritage implies. You'd think that'd slip into the errata but apparently nope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
I've noticed that PF2 seems to have a few bits of janky rules-text oversights like that, more than I ever really came across with PF1. For example, I was looking at the idea of an Arcane Sorcerer using a multiclass Archetype for Bard to pick up Occult spells too, and use Charisma for all of the above. Then I noticed a few things like this:CRB p. 201 posted:EFFORTLESS CONCENTRATION [reaction[free-action] FEAT 16 The "active sorcerer spells" part seemingly fucks over the possibility of using the class feat for archetype spells, despite that clause effectively being just a bit of reminder text. I don't know if it's a product of PF2 trying to have a more structured and logical approach with tags and keywords on everything, or if it's something else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
Xerophyte posted:FWIW, after reading through the rest of the discussion, the errata and, ugh, official rules lawyer forum I've changed my mind: you're right, RAW Heal doesn't hurt damp hairs. Yeah, for the record, I was thinking that line was actual rules text instead of flavor text. It still speaks pretty strongly to the intent, especially since it's almost exactly the same as the 1e Dhampir rules text, but technically speaking, 2e makes a dumb distinction between "positive damage" and "positive healing" that leaves a dumb loophole here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Red Metal posted:Something that does negative damage doesn't automatically heal undead (or other creatures with Negative Healing). Zarick posted:For instance, I haven't been able to find any language that you can fail a save on purpose. So if your ally wants to cast massacre on you, you as far as I can tell must attempt a save. If you're a fighter, you might succeed and thus critically succeed, and so take no damage. Similarly if you drink a healing potion on accident for whatever reason there's no attempt to reduce the damage or anything like there most likely would be if it were a normally harmful item. Zarick posted:Even ignoring the low-level chill touch problem, treating them as living creates weird problems with vampiric touch/exsanguination (so they get healed, but does the caster get healed? does it do a Final Fantasy-style reverse healing damage?) That said, it's still a lot more trouble than you'd think. In-combat healing is a lot rougher on them, for example, since you need to prep Harm (or a negative font). Either way, that makes it harder for both you and the rest of the party to be healed at once, because any Heal is hard to use at 3-action without damaging you, and people prepping Harm means it's only really useful on you. While this isn't a problem for something like an all-dhampir party with a negative font cleric, you don't get that many additional benefits compared to a standard party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:A healing potion also doesn't damage them. It heals them as normal. Cyouni posted:That said, it's still a lot more trouble than you'd think. In-combat healing is a lot rougher on them, for example, since you need to prep Harm (or a negative font). Either way, that makes it harder for both you and the rest of the party to be healed at once, because any Heal is hard to use at 3-action without damaging you, and people prepping Harm means it's only really useful on you. While this isn't a problem for something like an all-dhampir party with a negative font cleric, you don't get that many additional benefits compared to a standard party. But yeah, it doesn't have the crazy benefits I thought it does because I wasn't aware of the definition of this ability tucked away in the Bestiary 2. Now I am, and I think this way makes it more consistent, even if I also think it's a little unintuitive if you didn't know that in the first place. It still feels a little stronger than the other racial benefits; after all, you're still immune to negative damage, it just doesn't necessarily heal you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 13:57
|
|
|
It feels like if PF2 wants to keep a distinction between positive/negative healing/damage, then the rules should be:
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
Zarick posted:This is incorrect, they don't get healing from positive healing effects and healing potions have the positive keyword. Elixirs of life do not, so those work on them. Consumable, Healing, Magical, Necromancy, Potion are the traits on a Healing Potion. Zarick posted:Since you quoted the person clarifying, 3-action Heal does not harm you, it just doesn't heal you. Maybe I'm just biased because my party does most of its healing with Treat Wounds (which is not positive). It's only really a problem if your main source of healing is a cleric (or other primal/divine spellcaster using Heal). I am 100% sure that Heal is intended to harm dhampirs, but I do think that the wording could use some clarification. It really only matters for in-combat healing, but that can be very relevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:You are incorrect. They formally added Positive to them as part of the errata, presumably to make the corresponding negative healing potions added in the APG more useful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Xerophyte posted:They formally added Positive to them as part of the errata, presumably to make the corresponding negative healing potions added in the APG more useful. Where are you getting that? I'm not seeing it here: https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Apparently it's not in the errata, but the 2nd printing of the core rules has added the tag to the healing potions anyhow. See here. Potions are still not tagged Positive in the reference document, though. So, uh, who knows? In conclusion, signed energy is a land of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
For anyone who wants to see the full set of changes: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/jrc7uz/errata_2_but_its_just_the_new_stuff_that_i_could/
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Xerophyte posted:They formally added Positive to them as part of the errata, presumably to make the corresponding negative healing potions added in the APG more useful. PAIZOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
A VTT question. My group will be starting Age of Ashes soon. We did Plaguestone in roll20 because it had a plug and play module available and it was okay. There is no such module for roll20. Should I go Foundry or Fantasy Grounds or something else going forward? What are the pros and cons? I don’t think I care overly about macros, the only automation I did in roll20 was health and initiative tracking. I and half my party roll real dice and the rest just did /roll in chat. We used hangouts video calling for voice so that’s not a priority too. I want what’s easiest to use with pre set up maps and tokens. I don’t mind spending money and it seems like either way I’m should buy all the PDFs from paizo’s site to start but I don’t want to go super nuts if what I’m paying for I don’t really need.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:A VTT question. My group will be starting Age of Ashes soon. We did Plaguestone in roll20 because it had a plug and play module available and it was okay. There is no such module for roll20. Should I go Foundry or Fantasy Grounds or something else going forward? What are the pros and cons? I don’t think I care overly about macros, the only automation I did in roll20 was health and initiative tracking. I and half my party roll real dice and the rest just did /roll in chat. We used hangouts video calling for voice so that’s not a priority too. Foundry. It’s got great PF2e support in general AND there’s a module to import the maps and other things from your PDFs to get it all set up for you nice and easy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:A VTT question. My group will be starting Age of Ashes soon. We did Plaguestone in roll20 because it had a plug and play module available and it was okay. There is no such module for roll20. Should I go Foundry or Fantasy Grounds or something else going forward? What are the pros and cons? I don’t think I care overly about macros, the only automation I did in roll20 was health and initiative tracking. I and half my party roll real dice and the rest just did /roll in chat. We used hangouts video calling for voice so that’s not a priority too. If you have the official PDFs from Paizo of the Age of Ashes modules, there's a FoundryVTT module that will essentially import all of the assets into the program for you. You still have to set up the positions of the monsters, but it does most of the pain in the rear end map work for you, which was the part I found the most difficult. https://foundryvtt.com/ Normally it's $50 but it's on sale for $37.50 right now, and only one person needs to buy it. You do have to host locally (or pay for external hosting), but I've found that easy enough. The PF2e system for Foundry works really well in my experience (with a few bugs here and there). https://foundryvtt.com/packages/pdftofoundry/ This is the module that will import the assets. If you don't have the PDFs it might be a bit tougher, but even without them nearly all of the feats/spells/classes/items/monsters are in the system so you can mostly drag and drop things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
So Imma be playing a Shadow Bloodline Sorcerer in a game here soon for my first 2E game because the reaction stealth shenanigans look fun. Are there any non-obviously good spells in the Occult list I should keep an eye on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:So Imma be playing a Shadow Bloodline Sorcerer in a game here soon for my first 2E game because the reaction stealth shenanigans look fun. Have you looked at how few spells qualify to work with that reaction? It bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Have you looked at how few spells qualify to work with that reaction? It bad. I’m aware. There’s more than enough that I can work with it. Shadow is definitely suboptimal but that’s not what I asked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Is there anything good for an archer fighter to do with their level 2 fighter feat?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
Gort posted:Is there anything good for an archer fighter to do with their level 2 fighter feat? Exacting Strike or Assisting Shot
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
Coulda just said no
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
Archetypes at level 2 are better than nothing, even if you just get some cantrips or a familiar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 03:48
|
|
