Post/Author/DateTime	Post
msavage 06-12-07, 09:10 PM	Just a newbie question. It states Fast Healing works like natural healing only faster. But it also states that below 0 hit points a player does not heal naturally on their own and must first become stable (ie natural healing does not work below 0 hit points). It also states that as soon as the player heals at least 1 hit point they become stable (which a player would do if their fast healing is working). Does a player with fast healing need to take the diehard feat in order for their fast healing to work when they are below 0 hit points (while avoiding having to make rolls to become stable)? Thanks for any replies.
lord_xarallon 06-12-07, 09:16 PM	But it also states that below 0 hit points a player does not heal naturally on their own and must first become stable (ie natural healing does not work below 0 hit points). What I just read, it didn't mention that. (I could have missed it due to being tired)
SALDAR 06-12-07, 09:59 PM	What I just read, it didn't mention that. (I could have missed it due to being tired) From the SRD under STABLE CHARACTERS AND RECOVERY: Recovering without Help: A severely wounded character left alone usually dies. He has a small chance, however, of recovering on his own. A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing. As to msavage's question, Diehard won't help with your Fast Healing. Fast Healing works like natural healing, you don't heal without help when you are between -1 and -9 hit points, so you would still not heal without help. Diehard just eliminates the roll to become stable when at -1 to -9 hit points and thus not lose any more hit points but you still will not heal without help.
risner 06-13-07, 09:40 AM	More precisely, Die Hard makes you automatically stabilize and makes you disabled instead of unconscious. PHB p146 has the rules for recovering without help, which say that when unconscious or disabled, you do not heal naturally. Fast Healing is fast natural healing, so would stop functioning below 1 hit point. MM p252 has a good example where they tell you what happens to a vampire when his fast healing can no longer help him (he turns gaseous.)
Jeriaus 06-13-07, 11:01 AM	By RAW no, but thats a stupid rule. You heal getting shoot by an arrow in a second but then the next one knocks you out so your body stops working at it most basic level. Yeah...makes sense, huh?
risner 06-13-07, 11:19 AM	By RAW no, but thats a stupid rule. You heal getting shoot by an arrow in a second but then the next one knocks you out so your body stops working at it most basic level. Yeah...makes sense, huh? Balance, makes there to be a reason to have Regeneration in game as the "uber fast healing and more" ability.
Jeriaus 06-15-07, 05:17 PM	Well, given the regeneration is still better even with fast healing always working till you die, it doent really alter game balance.
Chimaera2000 06-15-07, 05:59 PM	Actually, fast healing does in fact stabilize you and begin restoring HP when you're at negative HP. Check out the text from the lesser vigor spell (Complete Divine, Spell Compendium): The subject gains fast healing 1, enabling it to heal 1 hit point per round until the spell ends and automatically becoming stabilized if it begins dying from hit point loss during that time. You don't need Diehard to automatically become stable.
risner 06-16-07, 01:25 AM	Actually, fast healing does in fact stabilize you and begin restoring HP when you're at negative HP. Check out the text from the lesser vigor spell (Complete Divine, Spell Compendium): You don't need Diehard to automatically become stable. Notice the "and" in the spell description? The spell gives you abilities that fast healing clearly do not provide. Spells can do that. They can and often do go beyond other rules.
Nezkrul 06-16-07, 09:05 AM	Natural Healing With a full night’s rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night. Fast healing works like natural healing. Not IS natural healing. Since the rules clearly describe natural healing (see quote above) then that is what is prevented by something that states that it prevents natural healing. If it does not specifically state it prevents fast healing from working, then it shouldn't prevent fast healing. However, feel free to disagree or agree; I don't care. IMO it seems stupid that my body would stop healing itself so fast because I lost hitpoints to the state of near death.
Matthew77 06-16-07, 09:12 AM	By RAW no, but thats a stupid rule. You heal getting shoot by an arrow in a second but then the next one knocks you out so your body stops working at it most basic level. Yeah...makes sense, huh? Being knocked unconscious does mean some functions of your body stop working. Your memory stops, your voluntary nervous system and muscles stop. It doesn't seem that strange to add "fast healing" to the list of things that stop when you are unconscious.
Jeriaus 06-18-07, 09:38 PM	It makes sense for your bodies natural healing process to stop when unconsious? Thats silly. NO form of natural healing should stop when unconsious.
The Crimson Dawn 06-19-07, 01:52 AM	Fast healing does not stop if you were knocked out due to non-lethal damage for instance so why would it change in any other circumstance.
Deathmond 06-19-07, 02:23 AM	Notice the "and" in the spell description? The spell gives you abilities that fast healing clearly do not provide. Spells can do that. They can and often do go beyond other rules. The subject gains fast healing 1, enabling it to heal 1 hit point per round until the spell ends, and automatically becoming stabilized if it begins dying from hit point loss during that time. Actually, unless he typed it wrong, the fact that the bolded comma isn't in the original text means that what came before the comma is referring to that entire sentence.
Chimaera2000 06-20-07, 10:58 PM	I double-checked my quoted description and it seems to be correct.
kinem 06-20-07, 11:22 PM	Fast Healing would work below 0 hp. The bit about not recovering hp through natural healing clearly only applies to one who became stable by making the 10% chance/round roll, which a character with fast healing would not need to do. It doesn't seem that strange to add "fast healing" to the list of things that stop when you are unconscious. Maybe not to you, but to me, it would be rather unthinkable.
SALDAR 06-23-07, 11:08 AM	Fast Healing would work below 0 hp. The bit about not recovering hp through natural healing clearly only applies to one who became stable by making the 10% chance/round roll, which a character with fast healing would not need to do. Exactly where does Fast Healing state that you do not have to make the roll to become stable? From the SRD: "Fast Healing (Ex): A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptionally fast rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature’s entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, and it does not allow a creature to regrow lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached." Also note the boldened line. It is just like natural healing so it follows the rules just like natural healing, which state that you do not recover hit points through natural healing while unconcious and Dying (see my previous post for these rules). Fast Healing is natural healing, just at a faster rate.
risner 06-23-07, 12:35 PM	Fast Healing is natural healing, just at a faster rate. /agree Fast Healing property states clear that it functions like nomal healing unless otherwise stated. Normal healing does not heal until you are at conscious, disabled and someone is helping you recover. An unaided, conscious, and disabled player has a 10% chance per day to recover hit points. This means that if you got to exactly 0 with Fast Healing, if a party member doesn't come to help you then you must wait a day to get a roll at 10% to recover hit points naturally. If you succeed, then you will be full hit points in no time. If you fail, better luck tomorrow. Some monsters have funny healing limitations but may have fast healing as an Ex ability. There are two examples of monsters that don't "natually heal", but that have Fast Healing (Ex) abilities. Each of them spell out exactly how Fast Healing works (namely that it only functions when your hit points are 1 or greater.) "Fast Healing (Ex) ... long as it has at least 1 hit point" MM p158 (Inevitable; Extraplanar Constructs) MM p252 (Vampire; Augmented Humanoid Undead)
ravenshrike 06-23-07, 01:01 PM	Some monsters have funny healing limitations but may have fast healing as an Ex ability. There are two examples of monsters that don't "natually heal", but that have Fast Healing (Ex) abilities. Each of them spell out exactly how Fast Healing works (namely that it only functions when your hit points are 1 or greater.) "Fast Healing (Ex) ... long as it has at least 1 hit point" MM p158 (Inevitable; Extraplanar Constructs) MM p252 (Vampire; Augmented Humanoid Undead) Except neither of them have a CON score, and thereby can never enter the condition we are talking about. For them, 0 hitpoints is dead, and as such the fact that their abilities spell this out strongly suggests that fast healing continues healing from -1 to -9.
SALDAR 06-23-07, 03:08 PM	For them, 0 hitpoints is dead, and as such the fact that their abilities spell this out strongly suggests that fast healing continues healing from -1 to -9. Or it could simply be reiterating the fact that undead and constructs are immediately destroyed at 0 hit points whereas other creatures are mearly disabled at 0 hit points. This doesn't change the fact that the rules for recovery while dying (-1 to -9 hit points) state that a creature with help heals naturally and a creature without help does not and the rules for Fast Healing state that it follows the rules for natural healing.
risner 06-24-07, 10:05 AM	Except neither of them have a CON score, and thereby can never enter the condition we are talking about. For them, 0 hitpoints is dead, and as such the fact that their abilities spell this out strongly suggests that fast healing continues healing from -1 to -9. More likely, it spells out what happens when anyone reaches 0 hit points with Fast Healing so that inexperienced DMs could operate the monster correctly and not allow the fast healing to recover the monster when at -9 to 0 hit points (because Fast Healing doesn't work that way.)
Harliquinn 06-25-07, 12:35 PM	As one on the side of "Fast Healing works at -1 to -9" here are other supporting arguments. The entries for Fast Healing on non-constructs and non-undead do not specify the "have at least 1 hit point." If this wasn't an exception for those types of creatures there would be no need to list it (See Mephit, Hydra, RazorBoar for examples). In fact, the description of the RazorBoar has this to say: Razor boars, with their fast healing, have been known to recover from seemingly mortal wounds, track down their attackers using their scent ability, and exact revenge. Seemingly mortal wounds would be a wound that should have knocked them unconscious/killed them in the minds of others. This would be -1 to -9. As for the text of fast healing: Except for what is noted here, fast healing is like natural healing. At the beginning of each of the creature’s turns, it heals a certain number of hit points (defined in its description). The part about at the beginning of each turn is in fact an exception to normal 'natural healing.' This is what supersedes the rules for 'natural healing.' There is no stipulation here that the creature must be at 0 hp or greater. Hope this helps. Harliquinn
SALDAR 06-25-07, 07:51 PM	The part about at the beginning of each turn is in fact an exception to normal 'natural healing.' This is what supersedes the rules for 'natural healing.' There is no stipulation here that the creature must be at 0 hp or greater. But there is a stipulation under Stable Characters and Recovery that states that creatures below 0 hit points do not heal naturally without help. So if a creature cannot benefit from natural healing to start with then it cannot benefit from Fast Healing either. Fast Healing does not eliminate the circumstances under which natural healing occurs. If it did then it would say so. The only exceptions noted, as you pointed out, are the rate and the time frame. Instead of 1 hp per level per night's rest it is X hp per round.
kinem 06-25-07, 09:56 PM	Thanks Harlequinn. But there is a stipulation under Stable Characters and Recovery that states that creatures below 0 hit points do not heal naturally without help. So if a creature cannot benefit from natural healing to start with then it cannot benefit from Fast Healing either. No, that is false as I already pointed out. A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing. It is clear that the "he" in the above paragraph refers to a character who makes the 10%/round roll to stabilize. There is no justification for a more sweeping interpretation. A character with Fast Healing would not need to make the 10% roll as he heals first. The fact that the vampire and inevitable state that it doesn't work once those monsters go below 1 hp, while normal monsters with FH and constitution scores do not, is strong circumstantial evidence that the general rule is that it still works for the living fast healers. And of course the razor boar strongly implies that too. That does leave one question though ... what exactly does it mean when it says that FH works like normal healing? Simple: Some special kinds of wounds require magical healing, and FH does not work on those.
SALDAR 06-25-07, 10:48 PM	It is clear that the "he" in the above paragraph refers to a character who makes the 10%/round roll to stabilize. There is no justification for a more sweeping interpretation. A character with Fast Healing would not need to make the 10% roll as he heals first. So he is stabilized. He is still at negative hit points. The rules state that without help he must continue to make the 10% roll every hour or lose 1 hp. It goes on to say that he does not heal naturally. If he does not heal naturally then he does not heal naturally faster either. The fact that the vampire and inevitable state that it doesn't work once those monsters go below 1 hp, while normal monsters with FH and constitution scores do not, is strong circumstantial evidence that the general rule is that it still works for the living fast healers. And of course the razor boar strongly implies that too. Just because these creatures descriptions state Fast Healing works in a certain manner for them does not mean it works in the same manner for all creatures. There is no justification for a more sweeping interpretation. That does leave one question though ... what exactly does it mean when it says that FH works like normal healing? Simple: Some special kinds of wounds require magical healing, and FH does not work on those. So Fast Healing works in some situations but not in all situations where you cannot heal naturally?
risner 06-25-07, 10:56 PM	No, that is false as I already pointed out. Well then we don't agree. I have not seen anything you posted that contradicts this theory that you do not heal via fast healing when below 1 hit point "normally".
Harliquinn 06-26-07, 08:32 AM	Well then we don't agree. I have not seen anything you posted that contradicts this theory that you do not heal via fast healing when below 1 hit point "normally". Here is the contradiction: The text of fast healing: Except for what is noted here, fast healing is like natural healing. At the beginning of each of the creature’s turns, it heals a certain number of hit points (defined in its description). One of the exceptions is that each turn, the creature heals. This is different from natural healing that only works above 0 hp. This is why it's an exception to the normal rules and why fast healing works at -1 to -9. At -10 and below it doesn't work because the creature is dead and healing has no effect on dead creatures. There are plenty of other ancillary support arguments but no one wants to accept those. Harliquinn
risner 06-26-07, 11:44 AM	There are plenty of other ancillary support arguments but no one wants to accept those. Please try the ancillary support arguments, because that one only tells me the healing is X per round instead of level per day in natural healing. In other words, that line doesn't even suggest to me that natural healing's "only works >=1 hp" rule isn't still in full force because the text of Fast Healing does not contain a line saying "you still heal X per round from -9 to 0."
Leilond 06-26-07, 11:48 AM	Here is the contradiction: The text of fast healing: One of the exceptions is that each turn, the creature heals. This is different from natural healing that only works above 0 hp. This is why it's an exception to the normal rules and why fast healing works at -1 to -9. At -10 and below it doesn't work because the creature is dead and healing has no effect on dead creatures. There are plenty of other ancillary support arguments but no one wants to accept those. Harliquinn It is fallacy The rules only say you that it is quicker. Instead of X HP a day it say X HP a round. It doesn't remove the rule that prevent natural healing to work from -9 to 0 To remove that rule it must be written
kinem 06-26-07, 01:35 PM	So he is stabilized. He is still at negative hit points. The rules state that without help he must continue to make the 10% roll every hour or lose 1 hp. It goes on to say that he does not heal naturally. If he does not heal naturally then he does not heal naturally faster either. "He" clearly refers only to one who has made the 10%/round roll and stabilized that way. Please stop pretending otherwise. So Fast Healing works in some situations but not in all situations where you cannot heal naturally? The situation you are referring to - that of having stabilized by making the 10% roll - is not normally* possible for a creature with fast healing to get into. *: There is a way it could happen, but it's rare: If the damage to a creature with FH is for example from a clay golem's cursed wounds, it can not fast heal that, so if it takes enough of that damage to reach negative hp, it would have to make the 10% roll to stabilize. According to RAW, if it did stabilize that way, it could not use fast healing even if it then takes a normal wound - that's the only time the clause you cite would apply. However it would certainly be a very reasonable house rule to let it FH the normal damage even then.
Harliquinn 06-26-07, 02:05 PM	Please try the ancillary support arguments, because that one only tells me the healing is X per round instead of level per day in natural healing. In other words, that line doesn't even suggest to me that natural healing's "only works >=1 hp" rule isn't still in full force because the text of Fast Healing does not contain a line saying "you still heal X per round from -9 to 0." Okay here is the proof (Took a few minutes to track it all down). This is taken from the SRD. A) Dying / Stable Conditions. If any sort of healing cures the dying character of even 1 point of damage, he stops losing hit points and becomes stable. Fast Healing heals X points of damage on the character's turn. This makes the character stable through healing (not through making their 10% stability roll). B) Recovering without Help. A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing. This is really the key. A character with Fast Healing heals 1 point of damage the beginning of his turn and thus becomes stable. This stable condition was not brought about 'on his own' because that is defined strictly as making the 10% stability roll. A character with Fast Healing did not need to make that roll since the 1 point of healing made him stable. Thus, the restriction on "does not recover hit points through natural healing" does not apply to that character. Other Ancillary Support: 1) Fast Healing for undead and constructs. These specifically mention that it only works at 1hp and above. Since undead and constructs are both destroyed at 0hp, there would be no need to mention this if it wasn't an exception to how Fast Healing normally works (i.e. works fine between -9 and -1). If the general rule for natural healing applies (cannot heal naturally from -1 to -9), then there would be no need to mention this at all, let alone for undead and constructs. Fast healing for all other non-undead/non-construct creatures never mention this limitation, again showing that it is the exception and not the rule. 2) Razorboar flavor text. Razor boars, with their fast healing, have been known to recover from seemingly mortal wounds, track down their attackers using their scent ability, and exact revenge. This describes a situation in which a creature is seemingly dead (unconscious and bleeding out at -1 to -9) but in which they return again. Granted it's flavor text but the intent is still clear. 3) Definition of Natural Healing. This is the entire definition of "Natural Healing" which does not mention that it does not work between -1 and -9 HP (That is only mentioned in the becoming stable on one's own by making the 10% stability roll). Natural Healing With a full night’s rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night. If you undergo complete bed rest for an entire day and night, you recover twice your character level in hit points. Harliquinn
Pentar 06-26-07, 02:22 PM	Okay here is the proof (Took a few minutes to track it all down). This is taken from the SRD. A) Dying / Stable Conditions. If any sort of healing cures the dying character of even 1 point of damage, he stops losing hit points and becomes stable. Fast Healing heals X points of damage on the character's turn. This makes the character stable through healing (not through making their 10% stability roll). B) Recovering without Help. A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing. This is really the key. A character with Fast Healing heals 1 point of damage the beginning of his turn and thus becomes stable. This stable condition was not brought about 'on his own' because that is defined strictly as making the 10% stability roll. A character with Fast Healing did not need to make that roll since the 1 point of healing made him stable. Thus, the restriction on "does not recover hit points through natural healing" does not apply to that character. Unfortunately, your entire argument hinges on the idea that you still automatically recover X hp/round with Fast Healing once you drop below 0. You cannot make that your core argument when that is the point of contention to begin with. Your argument falls apart because people are countering your argument by saying that you do not heal at all with Fast Healing when below 0 and thus you never reach the stable condition through Fast Healing. You must be treated or healed by an external source. Here's a support statement from the SRD which indicates fairly clearly that Natural Healing only works while a character is conscious or equal to or above 0 hitpoints: A stable character who has been tended by a healer or who has been magically healed eventually regains consciousness and recovers hit points naturally. If the character has no one to tend him, however, his life is still in danger, and he may yet slip away. Emphasis mine. Given the fact that under normal circumstances, a character who is between -1 to -9 hit points will die faster than his natural healing abilities are able to cope with, it is not necessary to outwardly state that natural healing does not work while a character is dying. This is inferred in that it takes 8 hours of uninterrupted rest to get hit points back naturally! Since a dying character will die well before 8 hours of uninterrupted rest have occurred, it seems a moot point to even make mention. But it is inferred in a number of passages (such as the above), that natural healing stops when you are dying. That being the case, Fast Healing stops when you are dying, because the definition of Fast Healing does not infer that it is different from Natural Healing in this regard.
Harliquinn 06-26-07, 02:36 PM	Unfortunately, your entire argument hinges on the idea that you still automatically recover X hp/round with Fast Healing once you drop below 0. You cannot make that your core argument when that is the point of contention to begin with. No my argument hinges on the fact that 'any' healing that benefits a dying character makes them stable. Your argument falls apart because people are countering your argument by saying that you do not heal at all with Fast Healing when below 0 and thus you never reach the stable condition through Fast Healing. You must be treated or healed by an external source. Please quote a passage from the SRD or PHB that states you do not heal at all with Fast Healing when you are in the 'dying' condition (That is between -1 and -9 and losing HP each round). There are two conditions to contend with: dying and stable. Here's a support statement from the SRD which indicates fairly clearly that Natural Healing only works while a character is conscious or equal to or above 0 hitpoints: Actually your quote says nothing of the kind. You are (incorrectly) inferring that from the description. If you read further (The part I quoted in the above post), it says that the character is only in danger of slipping away if they became stable on their own, which is explicitly and only defined as making the 10% stability roll while dying. The entire "Fast Healing does not work at -1 to -9" is predicated on an incorrect assumption from the statement: He also does not recover hit points through natural healing. However, this statement only holds in the case where the character became stable (from dying) due to making the 10% stability check. If the character received healing in any form (see Dying), they are not at that risk nor do they suffer that penalty. That being the case, Fast Healing stops when you are dying, because the definition of Fast Healing does not infer that it is different from Natural Healing in this regard. You and others are confusing the definition of Natural Healing from the reference of a character not benefiting from natural healing. The definition of Natural Healing says nothing about what hit point range it applies. The only mention is under stable condition and how the character reached that point. It is interesting that it's okay for you to 'infer' things that support your argument but inferences for others are dismissed. Harliquinn
Eerongal 06-26-07, 02:50 PM	i would like to interject with this statement from the SRD: Disabled A character with 0 hit points, or one who has negative hit points but has become stable and conscious, is disabled. A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions). She moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn’t risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the game master deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Unless the action increased the disabled character’s hit points, she is now in negative hit points and dying. A disabled character with negative hit points recovers hit points naturally if she is being helped. Otherwise, each day she has a 10% chance to start recovering hit points naturally (starting with that day); otherwise, she loses 1 hit point. Once an unaided character starts recovering hit points naturally, she is no longer in danger of losing hit points (even if her current hit points are negative). this is taken from the status conditions summary of disabled, which is pretty much in complete contradiction to the section of dying and disabled characters.
risner 06-26-07, 02:53 PM	No my argument hinges on the fact that 'any' healing that benefits a dying character makes them stable. The point of contention is that you do not receive that healing when at 0 or less, therefore since you received no healing when in a dying state, you do not recover and begin to heal normally. Your proof A & B are based on the disputed fact being true, so they are invalid. Your proof #1, I interpret as proof of the opposite. Your proof #2, "seemingly mortal wounds" could just as easily mean going from 55 hp to 1 hp and is flavor text anyway. Your proof #3, doesn't explain the reason for saying you would resume "natural healing" when you become stable and disabled with help.
Pentar 06-26-07, 03:08 PM	Please quote a passage from the SRD or PHB that states you do not heal at all with Fast Healing when you are in the 'dying' condition (That is between -1 and -9 and losing HP each round). Ok. Fast Healing: A creature with fast healing can remove 1 lethal hit and 1 nonlethal hit per round per 5 points of fast healing (minimum 1 hit of each type). For example, a vampire spawn has fast healing 2; it can therefore eliminate 1 hit and 1 nonlethal hit per round. A creature with fast healing may add its fast healing value to Fortitude saves made to become stable when dying. A dying vampire spawn, for example, gets a +2 bonus on its Fortitude saves to become stable. Emphasis mine. Now granted, this is Unearthed Arcana... Some consider it Core, others don't. I have no idea personally. Whatever the case, the logic of Fast Healing continues to apply. In this particular case, Fast Healing only assists a dying character in becoming stable - it does not heal them. You and others are confusing the definition of Natural Healing from the reference of a character not benefiting from natural healing. The definition of Natural Healing says nothing about what hit point range it applies. The only mention is under stable condition and how the character reached that point. It is interesting that it's okay for you to 'infer' things that support your argument but inferences for others are dismissed. I never dismissed your inferences, I merely said they were incorrect - the same way you said mine were incorrectly, for entirely opposing reasons. They have never said outright that Natural healing stops at -1 hit points. In this, you are correct. But through the "stabilizing on your own" rules, we know that natural healing does not work if you are untended, either by healing magic, or by a Heal check. I think we can safely say that they excluded any explicit statement that Natural Healing does not work while dying or "self-stabilization", because (as I said before), the point would be moot. By the time your natural healing ticks in, you're either conscious already and thus healing naturally anyway, or you're dead. Note, they never say "Natural Healing doesn't work when you're dead" - mostly because that's sort of a given. I don't think they ever imagined a situation where a creature could be "dying" for 8 uninterrupted hours such that they could get natural healing back. So we are making inferences all over the place. Based on what I've found in Unearthed Arcana, I believe it supports the logic that Fast Healing does not work while dying - even though those are alternate rules. The fundamental logic behind those abilities don't change, even if the mechanical applications do.
Thiez 06-26-07, 04:05 PM	Fast Healing: A creature with fast healing can remove 1 lethal hit and 1 nonlethal hit per round per 5 points of fast healing (minimum 1 hit of each type). For example, a vampire spawn has fast healing 2; it can therefore eliminate 1 hit and 1 nonlethal hit per round. A creature with fast healing may add its fast healing value to Fortitude saves made to become stable when dying. A dying vampire spawn, for example, gets a +2 bonus on its Fortitude saves to become stable. Lol, vampire spawn can't even go below 0 hitpoints. These rules are so alternative they are pretty irrelevant to the discussion (both Fast Healing and the Dying condition have been redefined :)) Let's do something ridiculous. Let's look at the rules for Fast Healing, and the rules for Natural Healing. Natural Healing With a full night’s rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption (such as combat or the like) during your rest prevents you from healing that night. Fast Healing A creature with fast healing has the extraordinary ability to regain hit points at an exceptional rate. Except for what is noted here, fast healing is like natural healing. At the beginning of each of the creature’s turns, it heals a certain number of hit points (defined in its description). Unlike regeneration, fast healing does not allow a creature to regrow or reattach lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached. A creature that has taken both nonlethal and lethal damage heals the nonlethal damage first. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Ah, so by RAW, Fast Healing does not apply during nightly battles. I bet Vampires and the like will be extremely disappointed :)
rironin 06-26-07, 04:12 PM	It is just like natural healing so it follows the rules just like natural healing, which state that you do not recover hit points through natural healing while unconcious and Dying (see my previous post for these rules).Your previous post quotes rules for stable characters - it says nothing about dying characters. Well then we don't agree. I have not seen anything you posted that contradicts this theory that you do not heal via fast healing when below 1 hit point "normally".I think that kinem's point was a valid one, given that this is a deeply rules-lawyering question. I think that kinem's point, which was mostly ignored, is that the entire paragraph which states that the character cannot recover hit points naturally relates to characters who are already stable and recovering without help. To reiterate:A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing.I assume that this paragraph is the only source which states conditions during which natural healing does not occur. I can see in the section called Recovering with Help that reference is made to natural healing, but this section, too, involves characters who are stable. Is there a section of text which states that dying characters do not heal naturally? I don't believe there is. I can see why there wouldn't be one; unless a character leaves the dying state by stabilizing, he will be dead in at most 9 rounds - so there's no point in specifying that natural healing, which takes at least 8 hours, doesn't work - unless we're talking about fast healing :). Assuming that there is no such text, then there is no reason why fast healing wouldn't stabilize a character; once reduced to negative hit points, the character is dying. When I look at the description of for a dying character, I don't see anything about natural healing not working. Therefore, at the beginning of a dying character's turn, his fast healing would heal him just like normal. "If any sort of healing cures the dying character of even 1 point of damage, he stops losing hit points and becomes stable." If the character is lucky, his fast healing might be big enough to bring him up to 0 hit points or higher and he'd be fine. If not, he is now stable, and whatever rules that apply to a stable character, including lack of natural healing and by extension fast healing, apply. This doesn't make any sense, and I personally am planning on ruling in my games that fast healing functions for characters who are dying or stable or conscious; it's certainly ridiculous to imagine that a character's fast healing ability functions when he's dying, puts him into a stable state, and then stops functioning, leaving him helpless until someone comes to his rescue or he makes a lucky consciousness roll. But as I said, this is a rules-lawyerly question, and unless I'm mistaken, I think that's what the RAW is telling me. Discuss! Edit: Sorry to Harliquinn for basically restating his/her arguments - why people didn't respond more adequately to him/her, I do not know.
Prom 06-26-07, 04:27 PM	Hi All, Recently I played a Dragon Shaman with a Draconic aura of Vigor. Vigor for a Dragon Shaman is described as; "fast healing 1 for each point of aura bonus" (PHB2, page 13). The Draconic "aura is dismissed if you become unconscious or are slain, but otherwise it remains in effect even if you are incapable of acting" (PH2, page 13). It looks quite clear that in this case fast healing would not operate if the Dragon Shaman is dead. If the Dragon Shaman is unconscious it does not work; -1 to -9 hp being unconscious. At 0 hp a character is still conscious so will heal fast (PHB, page 135). Although a character may not heal up hp, between -1 and -9 hp, without assistance. The bodies natural defences are represented by the characters ability to self stablize each hour by rolling a percentage dice, 10% chance of stabilizing (PHB, page 135 again). When a character body is dying you could say that the healing ability of a character is taxed so much all they can do is try and stop dying. Prom
SirGeshko 06-26-07, 04:31 PM	No my argument hinges on the fact that 'any' healing that benefits a dying character makes them stable. Other than natural healing, of course, which doesn't work while dying or disabled. Thanks to Eerongal for digging this nugget up: A disabled character with negative hit points recovers hit points naturally if she is being helped. So, Fast Healing, which is natural healing, only applies to a disabled (0 hp) or dying (negative hp) creature if they are being helped (By a heal check, for example). Once a character becomes stable on his own, natural healing, including Fast Healing has a 10% chance of kicking in. On a side note, I do like those Unearthed Arcana rules where fast healing is added to Fortitude saves made to become stable. Makes them tougher, but not as tough as trolls, who will get up in time to make a difference in combat.
rironin 06-26-07, 04:32 PM	The Draconic "aura is dismissed if you become unconscious or are slain, but otherwise it remains in effect even if you are incapable of acting" (PH2, page 13).It's an interesting point, but since the part about it only remaining active when you are conscious describes the Draconic Aura ability, and not fast healing in general, one can't conclude that this rule applies to all types of fast healing.
rironin 06-26-07, 04:38 PM	Other than natural healing, of course, which doesn't work while dying or disabled.Natural healing doesn't work when disabled. But does it work when you're dying? I see no rule that says it doesn't.So, Fast Healing, which is natural healing, only applies to a disabled (0 hp) or dying (negative hp) creature if they are being helped (By a heal check, for example).Your defininitions are a bit off there - disabled doesn't just mean 0 hp. You are also considered disabled if you are stable and conscious at negative hit points. You are only dying if you are between -1 and -9 hit points and you have not stabilized.
Pentar 06-26-07, 04:49 PM	Natural healing doesn't work when disabled. But does it work when you're dying? I see no rule that says it doesn't. Yes, effectively that's what it means. Let's take it round by round (based on my understanding of what people are saying - I had thought this myself, but I want to make sure we're on the same wavelength). Assumptions: A character with Fast Healing 1 is involved in combat. Round 1: Character is hit for X damage, and is brought to -5 hit points and is dying. Round 2: On his initiative, the Character heals 1 point of damage from Fast Healing and is at -4 hit points. He is considered stable but unconscious. Round 3: Character receives no help or aid from anyone and remains at -4 hit points, still stable and still unconscious. Round 4: Character receives a successful Heal check from an ally and his Fast Healing ticks off again, bringing him up to -3 hit points. Is this what people are saying? Additional question: Aside from the 10% chance of becoming disabled without assistance, how else can a character who is at negative hit points remain at negative hit points, but become conscious again? The only way that can happen (from what I see) is the very special condition of the character being left untreated and stabilizing on their own. There's no way to treat a character with healing or a Heal check and bring them back to consciousness without first bringing them back to 0+ hit points, correct?
rironin 06-26-07, 04:55 PM	Is this what people are saying?You and I are definitely on the same wavelength. I don't think most of the people in this discussion have been viewing it this way thus far - most of those posting have assumed that the line about no natural healing applied if you were disabled or dying, when in fact there is no rule that backs this up. I agree with your breakdown of round by round combat, and I think that this is the way it would work out by RAW. As I said before, however, I find the whole on/off fast healing idea fairly ridiculous, and I'll probably be ruling that it's always on unless you're dead. If I had to guess, I'd say that the person who wrote the dying and disabled rules didn't write the fast healing rules, or wasn't thinking about the rules interaction at the time that they wrote them. While I agree that it's RAW, I don't think that fast healing's similarity to natural healing and the rules for natural healing not benefiting disabled characters were ever intended to collide.
Pentar 06-26-07, 05:17 PM	You and I are definitely on the same wavelength. I don't think most of the people in this discussion have been viewing it this way thus far - most of those posting have assumed that the line about no natural healing applied if you were disabled or dying, when in fact there is no rule that backs this up. I agree with your breakdown of round by round combat, and I think that this is the way it would work out by RAW. Yah... I agree, this would make sense in the strictest following of RAW - dismissing any inferences, references or even common sense. But it seems an overtly complex way to handle what should be a relatively simple mechanic. You either consistently healing your Fast Healing rate, regardless of your status (except for "Dead") or you don't. I never realized how many gaps there are in D&D until I came to these forums...
BW0222 06-26-07, 05:48 PM	Folks, IMO, there isn't a 100% clear answer on this one. The SRD says: Fast Healing (Ex) A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptionally fast rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature’s entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. At the beginning of each of the creature’s turns, it heals a certain number of hit points (defined in its description). ... There are two possible readings of this. First, that the "At the beginning of each creature's turn, ..." as an exception to any rule on normal healing. Second, that the "At the beginning of each creature's turn, ..." is an exception only[/i\ to the normal healing rule that a creature heals their level in hit dice in hit points points per 8 hours of rest. Personally, if you rule the second way, I'm curious why just folks naturally assume it is an exception to the daily recovery rule and not the dying rule? Why not reverse it and claim that fast healing is an exception to [i]only the dying rules and not the normal daily healing rules? Now, it might appear obvious that if it is only an exception to one rule, that that rule should be the daily recovery of hit points, but... IMO, that is just based on it being kind of silly otherwise. However, there is no real basis in the rules to conclude that it (if it is only an exception to one rule) that it must be an exception to that rule -- and not the other way around. IMO, it is intended as an exception to all rules regarding recovery of hit points.
Harliquinn 06-26-07, 05:50 PM	Is there a section of text which states that dying characters do not heal naturally? I don't believe there is. I can see why there wouldn't be one; unless a character leaves the dying state by stabilizing, he will be dead in at most 9 rounds - so there's no point in specifying that natural healing, which takes at least 8 hours, doesn't work - unless we're talking about fast healing :). Assuming that there is no such text, then there is no reason why fast healing wouldn't stabilize a character; once reduced to negative hit points, the character is dying. When I look at the description of for a dying character, I don't see anything about natural healing not working. Therefore, at the beginning of a dying character's turn, his fast healing would heal him just like normal. "If any sort of healing cures the dying character of even 1 point of damage, he stops losing hit points and becomes stable." If the character is lucky, his fast healing might be big enough to bring him up to 0 hit points or higher and he'd be fine. If not, he is now stable, and whatever rules that apply to a stable character, including lack of natural healing and by extension fast healing, apply. I only have a few minutes so wanted to touch on this. First, this is exactly what I was trying to point out above. Second, If the character became stable due to fast healing while dying, then he does not fall into the "on his own" category (Since that is explicitly and *only* defined as making the 10% stability roll) as he has had healing that made him stable. Therefore, any reference to natural healing working or not working does not apply to this character and he may continue to benefit from natural healing as normal (and Fast Healing by extension)
kinem 06-26-07, 05:58 PM	rironin and Pentar: Thanks for your comments. Assumptions: A character with Fast Healing 1 is involved in combat. Round 1: Character is hit for X damage, and is brought to -5 hit points and is dying. Round 2: On his initiative, the Character heals 1 point of damage from Fast Healing and is at -4 hit points. He is considered stable but unconscious. Round 3: Character receives no help or aid from anyone and remains at -4 hit points, still stable and still unconscious. Round 4: Character receives a successful Heal check from an ally and his Fast Healing ticks off again, bringing him up to -3 hit points. I really don't see why the FH wouldn't help him on Round 3, going strictly by RAW. The SRD only mentions two cases in which natural healing will not work: The first is becoming stable by making the 10%/round roll, which is not the case here. It also notes that when he makes the 10%/hour roll to become conscious he still won't naturally heal, and again that is not the case here. The stable (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stable) condition by itself says nothing about not healing, even though it does make a distinction between having help or not. In terms of common sense, it's easy to see why normal natural healing wouldn't work while fast healing should. Normal natural healing requires a good night's rest, so it is clearly not a robust process. Slowness in this case is due to precariousness. Fast healing by contrast indicates a supercharged metabolism; the fact that the rate of fast healing is much, much greater than the rate at which a stable character risks losing hp indicates that it is a far more robust process and nothing short of death (or magic) should stop it. Baator, it even works in combat while you're taking damage, while normal natural healing requires uninterrupted sleep.
G_Mancer 06-26-07, 07:00 PM	Although a character may not heal up hp, between -1 and -9 hp, without assistance. The bodies natural defences are represented by the characters ability to self stablize each hour by rolling a percentage dice, 10% chance of stabilizing (PHB, page 135 again). When a character body is dying you could say that the healing ability of a character is taxed so much all they can do is try and stop dying. Prom agreed also, just a thought- waht if fast healing is your body repairing itself, but your brain telling your muscles and bones to re-connect. sort-of like an involuntary organ/muscle. at -1 to -10 your heart isn't beating. you're not blinking or breathing. i dont see fast healing as any different. and i dont see why it would help you round 2 and NOT help you round 3. maybe someone can help me grasp that. maybe all us townsfolk should form a mob and go to the castle and have the king answer it. either him or the sage. whats the sage say about it?
Pentar 06-26-07, 07:14 PM	I really don't see why the FH wouldn't help him on Round 3, going strictly by RAW. The SRD only mentions two cases in which natural healing will not work: The first is becoming stable by making the 10%/round roll, which is not the case here. It also notes that when he makes the 10%/hour roll to become conscious he still won't naturally heal, and again that is not the case here. The stable (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stable) condition by itself says nothing about not healing, even though it does make a distinction between having help or not. Well, to play Devil's Advocate a little bit, consider this idea: Perhaps the reason they explicitly state the 10%/hour for a self-stabilized character is because the only way a character can self-stabilize is with the 10%/round or 10%/hour method. They never intended for a character to "naturally" stabilize in any other way. Thus under their "standard" circumstances, a character who drops below 0 hit points either stabilizes naturally (10% chance) or has an intervention of an ally and thus is considered "tended", either by magical healing or by a Heal check. This would mean that they do not need to account for any other method of healing. You're either assisted by someone else to heal, or you're on your own, in which case your only recourse is the 10%/hour method of regaining your natural healing capabilities. It could easily work this way too - just some food for thought.
SALDAR 06-26-07, 09:35 PM	Your previous post quotes rules for stable characters - it says nothing about dying characters. Have you read the rules? Let me help. From the SRD: DYING (–1 TO –9 HIT POINTS) When your character’s current hit points drop to between –1 and –9 inclusive, he’s dying. A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions. A dying character loses 1 hit point every round. This continues until the character dies or becomes stable (see below). Well then, let's see below. From the SRD: STABLE CHARACTERS AND RECOVERY On the next turn after a character is reduced to between –1 and –9 hit points and on all subsequent turns, roll d% to see whether the dying character becomes stable. He has a 10% chance of becoming stable. If he doesn’t, he loses 1 hit point. (A character who’s unconscious or dying can’t use any special action that changes the initiative count on which his action occurs.) If the character’s hit points drop to –10 or lower, he’s dead. You can keep a dying character from losing any more hit points and make him stable with a DC 15 Heal check. If any sort of healing cures the dying character of even 1 point of damage, he stops losing hit points and becomes stable. Healing that raises the dying character’s hit points to 0 makes him conscious and disabled. Healing that raises his hit points to 1 or more makes him fully functional again, just as if he’d never been reduced to 0 or lower. A spellcaster retains the spellcasting capability she had before dropping below 0 hit points. A stable character who has been tended by a healer or who has been magically healed eventually regains consciousness and recovers hit points naturally. If the character has no one to tend him, however, his life is still in danger, and he may yet slip away. Recovering with Help: One hour after a tended, dying character becomes stable, roll d%. He has a 10% chance of becoming conscious, at which point he is disabled (as if he had 0 hit points). If he remains unconscious, he has the same chance to revive and become disabled every hour. Even if unconscious, he recovers hit points naturally. He is back to normal when his hit points rise to 1 or higher. Recovering without Help: A severely wounded character left alone usually dies. He has a small chance, however, of recovering on his own. A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing. Even once he becomes conscious and is disabled, an unaided character still does not recover hit points naturally. Instead, each day he has a 10% chance to start recovering hit points naturally (starting with that day); otherwise, he loses 1 hit point. Once an unaided character starts recovering hit points naturally, he is no longer in danger of naturally losing hit points (even if his current hit point total is negative). So the 1 point per failed 10% roll is natural loss. This last sentence states that until you start healing naturally you are losing hps naturally. So if you are not healing naturally until the third successful 10% roll then Fast Healing does not start until that point. Is there a section of text which states that dying characters do not heal naturally? I don't believe there is. You just read it. Believe!!! I can see why there wouldn't be one; unless a character leaves the dying state by stabilizing, he will be dead in at most 9 rounds - so there's no point in specifying that natural healing, which takes at least 8 hours, doesn't work - unless we're talking about fast healing :). The rules I quoted for stabilizing without help work like this. Round 1: Characte gets hit and is at -5 hp. Round 2: Character makes 10% roll to stabilize. Success: Still at -5 hp because he is dying and does not heal naturally. 1 hour: Must make 10% roll to become concious and disabled. Success: Is concious, disabled, and still at -5 hp because he does not heal naturally. Same day: Must make 10% roll to start recovering hit points naturally. If the character fails any of the 10% rolls he takes 1 point of damage and must wait for that same period of time (round, hour, or day) before making the roll again. Only when he succeeds at the day roll does he start healing naturally, which shows that natural healing will work when you are dying but you must go through the whole process. Assuming that there is no such text, then there is no reason why fast healing wouldn't stabilize a character; once reduced to negative hit points, the character is dying. When I look at the description of for a dying character, I don't see anything about natural healing not working. As I have shown you, you need to read a little more. Therefore, at the beginning of a dying character's turn, his fast healing would heal him just like normal. "If any sort of healing cures the dying character of even 1 point of damage, he stops losing hit points and becomes stable." Fast Healing will not heal him because it is natural healing and a dying creature does not heal naturally until he succeeds at three 10% rolls. If not, he is now stable, and whatever rules that apply to a stable character, including lack of natural healing and by extension fast healing, apply. Did you really just say that? My paraphrase: "Fast Healing will heal him so he becomes stable, but once he is stable Fast Healing stops working because natural healing doesn't work."
risner 06-26-07, 09:35 PM	imagine that a character's fast healing ability functions when he's dying, puts him into a stable state, and then stops functioning, leaving him helpless until someone comes to his rescue or he makes a lucky consciousness roll. I think that's what the RAW is telling me. Discuss! I think the more likely scenario is that Fast Healing doesn't provide the 1st point of healing that makes the character stable. Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is the most likely. That solution would mean that RAW says you don't heal at all when below 1 hit point.
risner 06-26-07, 10:17 PM	Subject Does Fast Healing (Ex) work when at 0 or -9 to -1 hit points? Discussion Thread Response (Support Agent) 06/26/2007 06:05 PM James, Thank you for writing. Correct, Fast Healing would not automatically stabilize. Please let me know if you need anymore help! Good Gaming! We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire. To login to your account, or update your question please click here. Paul
rironin 06-27-07, 12:31 AM	Have you read the rules? Let me help. ... Well then, let's see below. ... You just read it. Believe!!! ... As I have shown you, you need to read a little more. ... Did you really just say that? ...So you've proved that you can be rude. Awesome. I'm only going to retype my stuff briefly, and once, because if you completely skipped over everything I posted above then you can completely skip over everything I'm typing now. I read your posts. I read the SRD and PHB sections on death and dying and the condition summary. In detail. Please don't try to argue by attacking my intelligence - because even if you're right (and you haven't done much yet to prove that you are), you're still doing everyone a disservice by putting snarkiness above logic. My answer to you is to restate what I've said before. NOWHERE in any of the rules you quoted does it say that natural healing cannot occur when a character is dying. All of the rules you quoted, and all of the rules I could find that mention a character's inability to heal naturally, apply to a character that is stable. A dying character is not stable, and a stable character is no longer dying, according to the very definitions you reposted in bold and underlined font for our benefit. The two states are mutually exclusive. By the Rules as Written - interpreted in a strictly logical fashion without any regard for common sense - there is absolutely no rule preventing a dying from healing naturally (and therefore, by your logic and rules interpretation, healing via fast healing). The rules you quote only apply to when they are stabilized. That is it. If you care to rebuff my argument, I welcome you to do so. I have no problem with being proven wrong. But stop quoting the rules I've been reading all through this thread, because I'm already addressing those rules in my arguments, and you're pretending I'm illiterate instead of thinking about what I'm saying. Here's a direct quote and a question for you. In your post above you say:Round 2: Character makes 10% roll to stabilize. Success: Still at -5 hp because he is dying and does not heal naturally. ... Fast Healing will not heal him because it is natural healing and a dying creature does not heal naturally until he succeeds at three 10% rolls.First off, your "Round 2" doesn't make sense. If the character starts the round off as dying, then I have a problem with your assumption that he isn't able to heal naturally. See above, and below, and everywhere I've posted in this thread. If any character is in a position to make a 10% roll when he's dying, and he makes it, he is no longer dying - he is stable. Please use the correct terminology, since that is the crux of our argument. In both places, in any case, you state the opposite of what I've been saying (you claim that characters who are dying cannot heal naturally), but you do it as if it's given, when it's not. Find me the part in the SRD where it says that a character who is dying does not heal naturally. I will gladly admit my error in interpreting the RAW if you can disprove me with RAW. That's sort of how these silly rules lawyering arguments are supposed to work. :P To re-re-re-iterate, I don't think that's a good way to interpret the rules. My argument is an exercise in logic, because some people depend on RAW more than I do, and because I think it's fun to try to untangle the rules with strict logic (when that's even possible).I think the more likely scenario is that Fast Healing doesn't provide the 1st point of healing that makes the character stable. Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is the most likely. That solution would mean that RAW says you don't heal at all when below 1 hit point.We are both definitely in agreement that the scenario I and Pentar outlined (character is dying, fast healing works for one round, character is stable, fast healing stops working, character is healed by friends, fast healing starts up again) is ridiculous. I also agree that a simpler solution is preferable - but Occam's Razor tells me to cut somewhere else; at the moment I'm inclined to have fast healing work as long as there is a spark of life in the creature - whether dying, stable, or fully conscious and able.Thank you for writing. Correct, Fast Healing would not automatically stabilize. Please let me know if you need anymore help!It's interesting that this is the official interpretation. To take the discussion away from the RAW, do you (and others) think that the game is more balanced/fair if fast healing doesn't operate for unconscious characters, or if it does? Do you think the game designers did intentionally link fast healing to natural healing and prevent natural healing when stable, or is it a fluke? That is what I'd be interested in when it comes to my decision on the rules at my table, rather than pure logic of interpreting canon. Some people hit on this idea before (whether fast healing and regeneration were purposefully different in this regard, and whether regeneration is supposed to be the better ability - is it?) but it wasn't really pursued.
ravenshrike 06-27-07, 01:41 AM	Um, if your fast healing comes from a spell effect(How I assume most PCs come across it), none of this matters anyway because your Fast Healing would technically qualify as magical healing as it is from a spell effect.
Omega_Grey 06-27-07, 02:21 AM	Subject Does Fast Healing (Ex) work when at 0 or -9 to -1 hit points? Discussion Thread Response (Support Agent) 06/26/2007 06:05 PM James, Thank you for writing. Correct, Fast Healing would not automatically stabilize. Please let me know if you need anymore help! Good Gaming! We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire. To login to your account, or update your question please click here. Paul I'm very surprised that there are still people posting on this after you got an official answer.
risner 06-27-07, 02:49 AM	think that the game is more balanced/fair if fast healing doesn't operate for unconscious characters, or if it does? Do you think the game designers did intentionally link fast healing to natural healing and prevent natural healing when stable, or is it a fluke? I believe it is more balanced/fair to have Fast Healing not function when below 1 hit point (and I believe the RAW is clear on this but others disagree with me on the clarity.) I think the designers intentionally make Fast Healing not as good as Regeneration and I don't believe it functions this way as a fluke.
Leilond 06-27-07, 03:30 AM	I believe it is more balanced/fair to have Fast Healing not function when below 1 hit point (and I believe the RAW is clear on this but others disagree with me on the clarity.) I think the designers intentionally make Fast Healing not as good as Regeneration and I don't believe it functions this way as a fluke. It isn't better nor worst, it is totally different Regeneration do not heal damage. Only "nonlethal damage". Once you discover wich damage type is considered lethal for a regeneration creature and you can stop him regenerating. It work under 0 HP because it isn't writte that it's "like natural healing" Fast healing heal every damage type, but you cannot heal naturally when you're disabled. It work like "natural healing" Goods and bads
rironin 06-27-07, 07:57 AM	I'm very surprised that there are still people posting on this after you got an official answer.Official answers from Customer Service aren't exactly "the law". They're judgements of people, albeit very learned and experienced ones. Then too, I don't think that customer service necessarily argues the way we've been arguing, accepting strict and even contradictory snippets of the RAW - their job is to provide what seems like the best answer for the game.It isn't better nor worst, it is totally different Regeneration do not heal damage.This is what made me wonder as well. It is handy that fast healing can repair damage from any source, whereas regeneration has a weakness for every creature. On the other hand, regeneration lets you regrow lost limbs, and has no point at which the creature dies - you can still kill a creature with fast healing by bringing it to -10, but regeneration will keep working no matter how much nonlethal damage it takes. Given that most encounters in D&D end up being stand-up fights where the enemies don't back down or retreat, creatures with regeneration often give the PCs only moderate trouble - they bring the creature down with huge nonlethal damage and then figure out what to do with it. Fast healing and regeneration both end up working more or less like DR - they nullify some of the damage the creature takes each round. I guess if the creature is taking a mix of lethal and nonlethal damage, regeneration is better, since it heals both simultaneously (does it? or did I see a post above in this thread that said something different?).
Leilond 06-27-07, 08:03 AM	This is what made me wonder as well. It is handy that fast healing can repair damage from any source, whereas regeneration has a weakness for every creature. On the other hand, regeneration lets you regrow lost limbs, and has no point at which the creature dies - you can still kill a creature with fast healing by bringing it to -10, but regeneration will keep working no matter how much nonlethal damage it takes. Given that most encounters in D&D end up being stand-up fights where the enemies don't back down or retreat, creatures with regeneration often give the PCs only moderate trouble - they bring the creature down with huge nonlethal damage and then figure out what to do with it. Fast healing ends up working more or less like DR - it nullifies some of the damage the creature takes each round. You cannot base the assumption of a rule on a totally different, unrelated rule. Do not think about regeneration, when you try to understand how fast healing work, because there isn't any relationship between them. The can appear "similar", but nothing in the rules put them in one near the other Every time you think about regeneration when talking about fast healing, you confuse yourslelf with unrelated rules
rironin 06-27-07, 09:18 AM	You cannot base the assumption of a rule on a totally different, unrelated rule. Do not think about regeneration, when you try to understand how fast healing work, because there isn't any relationship between them. The can appear "similar", but nothing in the rules put them in one near the other Every time you think about regeneration when talking about fast healing, you confuse yourslelf with unrelated rulesI'm not comparing the two abilities because I'm trying to understand how they work... I'm pretty sure I understand how they work, even if I'm not sure exactly how I'd apply the fast healing while dying thing. I was comparing them because I'm looking for the reason why the designers would've made sure fast healing didn't work when you were dying or stable. If there is a good reason, and it leads to a more balanced/fun game, I'll gladly adopt it. If the only reason Customer Service ruled the way they did was because of the way they happened to read the RAW that day, then I'd put less faith in it; it doesn't mean they're wrong in my eyes, only that their justification isn't adequate all by itself. If a rule is ambiguous, or if a strict interpretation of a rule leads to a strange or unwieldy game mechanic, then I don't put much stock in it unless I can figure out why it's written the way it is.
Harliquinn 06-27-07, 09:40 AM	I believe it is more balanced/fair to have Fast Healing not function when below 1 hit point (and I believe the RAW is clear on this but others disagree with me on the clarity.) I think the designers intentionally make Fast Healing not as good as Regeneration and I don't believe it functions this way as a fluke. I concede that you got a semi-official ruling from customer service (I may send in the same question to see if it's answered the same). However, I do think the customer service is making a rule and not interpreting the rules. I also believe the RAW is clear that Fast Healing does apply while -1 to -9 based on the proof above (Concentrating on the definition of Natural Healing, Dying and Stabilized and the fact that the only place it mentions characters -1 to -9 don't benefit from natural healing is if the character stabilized using the 10% chance and not from getting any type of healing). However, Fast Healing (even if it works at -1 to -9) is in no way a threat to regeneration and is obviously a different choice. A few reasons are: 1) Regeneration converts all damage to non-lethal except for fire/acid and others, 2) Regeneration can grow back limbs, etc. Harliquinn
ravenshrike 06-27-07, 10:31 AM	I'm very surprised that there are still people posting on this after you got an official answer. ? It's CustServ, the same set of people who gave us gems like IHS breaking an AMF.
risner 06-27-07, 02:13 PM	? It's CustServ, the same set of people who gave us gems like IHS breaking an AMF. To be fair, I'd say the majority of the "wrong" answers the custservice folk give out come from poorly worded (or just down right cryptic) questions that if you don't spend an hour or more on the question you may in fact answer a different question. In other words, a lot of these gems come from people who wrote their question in a way that could easily be misunderstood. If you think the question is asking one thing and the person asking wanted to ask a different question, you are likely to get a "bogus" answer.
Pentar 06-27-07, 02:15 PM	I concede that you got a semi-official ruling from customer service (I may send in the same question to see if it's answered the same). However, I do think the customer service is making a rule and not interpreting the rules. I also believe the RAW is clear that Fast Healing does apply while -1 to -9 based on the proof above (Concentrating on the definition of Natural Healing, Dying and Stabilized and the fact that the only place it mentions characters -1 to -9 don't benefit from natural healing is if the character stabilized using the 10% chance and not from getting any type of healing). I find it astounding that people cannot concede when they're wrong. The rules were written by Human beings. Human beings can often be careless with their words, despite their intentions. The English language is prone to error and misinterpretation. Short of hive-mind type telepathy, communication issues will always occur when attempting to translate ideas into imperfect language. Ergo, they do not have to "interpret rules" as written. They simply need to know "How it was intended to work and tell us that in no uncertain terms"; which they did. They are not interpreting rules for us. That's our job. When we fail to agree on an interpretation that makes sense, we ask them and they give us the answer of What They Had Meant It To Be. Clearly, they did not mean for Fast Healing to work at -1 to -9 hit points. The rules were unclear on this, hence our subsequent debate and contacting of the CS to clarify. It is now clarified. There is no further need for discussion. You either house rule it, or you don't.
rironin 06-27-07, 02:16 PM	To be fair, I'd say the majority of the "wrong" answers the custservice folk give out come from poorly worded (or just down right cryptic) questions that if you don't spend an hour or more on the question you may in fact answer a different question. In other words, a lot of these gems come from people who wrote their question in a way that could easily be misunderstood. If you think the question is asking one thing and the person asking wanted to ask a different question, you are likely to get a "bogus" answer.This is true. Plus, unless they go into deep detail on whatever thread began the argument, they may not be thinking about the bizarre edge cases and strange scenarios that we cook up all the time to illustrate our points. Many customer service answers are perfectly reasonable for the vast majority of cases; unfortunately, it's the weird cases that we're howling about when we ask them the question.
Harliquinn 06-27-07, 02:29 PM	I find it astounding that people cannot concede when they're wrong. Funny, I'd be thinking the same thing this entire thread :) The rules were written by Human beings. Human beings can often be careless with their words, despite their intentions. The English language is prone to error and misinterpretation. Short of hive-mind type telepathy, communication issues will always occur when attempting to translate ideas into imperfect language. There is a difference between ambiguity in a rule (See the Improved Buckler Defense thread) and a rule clearly written but misinterpreted. No one has yet to show a rule or set of rules that says Fast Healing does not work between -1 and -9 on characters who stabilized due to the fast healing. The only place it's mentioned is for characters who stabilized due to rolling 10% while dying. Clearly, they did not mean for Fast Healing to work at -1 to -9 hit points. The rules were unclear on this, hence our subsequent debate and contacting of the CS to clarify. It is not clarified. There is no further need for discussion. You either house rule it, or you don't. If the rules were 'unclear' then they could not have 'clearly' meant for it to work that way. Otherwise, there would be a rule under Fast Healing that said "Does not function between -1 and -9 hit points." However, to alleviate this thread from further insults and slights from you, I am only going to post whatever response I get from customer service when I ask. We will continue to play Fast Healing as we always have (works at -1 to -9) in our home games and in RPGA events. Harliquinn
Pentar 06-27-07, 02:34 PM	If the rules were 'unclear' then they could not have 'clearly' meant for it to work that way. Otherwise, there would be a rule under Fast Healing that said "Does not function between -1 and -9 hit points." :rolleyes: I should know better when dealing with gamers and their egos. The rules were unclear. The email from Customer Service was not. I realize that I shouldn't have to make that crystal clear, but since you brought it up, I guess the obvious isn't always very... obvious.
rironin 06-27-07, 02:53 PM	:rolleyes: I should know better when dealing with gamers and their egos. The rules were unclear. The email from Customer Service was not. I realize that I shouldn't have to make that crystal clear, but since you brought it up, I guess the obvious isn't always very... obvious.You're right about the egos :) We're not just here to find out what's right - we want to be the ones who proclaim it! Customer Service is a tricky thing when it comes to these arguments. It is an unambiguous proclamation from the powers that be, you are correct (at least when the proclamation doesn't contradict other rules, or contradict other Customer Service representatives - something I'm told happens on occasion). Unfortunately, the moment Customer Service tosses in two cents, two things happen. Everyone who supported the answer the WotC Rep gives yells "HA! We told you so! Now WotC itself confirms it!" Everyone who disagrees with the Rep yells "What does that Rep know? Did they look at page blah?! Did they not consider the case of Boogety Boo?!?! How do we know they invested the six hours I spent thinking about this problem in formulating an answer? They're wrong half the time anyways." And that's actually a big problem. I have no idea how often Customer Service reps are "wrong", but it's a black box. The reps usually give terse answers, in my experience. I would've been really interested to see them say "Yes, because of this rule and this rule, this is the way it breaks down. Rule Y and Z are not meant to apply here, even though it may sound like they do." The one sentence answer we get instead leaves things open to interpretation - maybe he was really busy? Maybe he read the two sentences someone sent him in the question and didn't consider the consequences of that ruling he fired back, completely off the cuff? We'll never know :) Which is why Customer Service often just makes both sides more entrenched in their own positions. The "winning" side starts using the "WotC told us so" line instead of continuing the discussion, and the "losing" side unfavorably compares Customer Service's intelligence to that of a tomato plant. That's why I'd like to hear more discussion as to why. Some people gave thematic reasons for why one couldn't fast heal when unconscious or near death, but fluff reasons can't justify rules. I'd love to have some argument that takes game balance into account. Then I'd feel like I have a reason for applying this previously unknown affect of the rules to my games.
Harliquinn 06-27-07, 03:29 PM	That's why I'd like to hear more discussion as to why. Some people gave thematic reasons for why one couldn't fast heal when unconscious or near death, but fluff reasons can't justify rules. I'd love to have some argument that takes game balance into account. Then I'd feel like I have a reason for applying this previously unknown affect of the rules to my games. Well for what it's worth I presented rules quotes for every one of my arguments in this thread. Unfortunately they were either in general ignored or apparently misunderstood in the rebuttal. As for game balance, I don't think there's any game balance problems (my opinion) as we've always played it this way in home games and in the RPGA. Fast Healing is still not the same as regeneration and has a place as a strong (which it should be considering it's not a common ability) Extraordinary ability. Opinions on Customer Service aside, their answer to Risner's question (Which was a little ambiguous as there are multiple conditions a character can be while between -1 and -9: disabled, dying and stabilized) introduced a new rule that doesn't exist in the game. The counter argument to mine (and others) must include a stated (or strongly implied) rule about Fast Healing not affecting a character who is 'dying'. Harliquinn
risner 06-27-07, 04:29 PM	Well for what it's worth I presented rules quotes for every one of my arguments in this thread. Unfortunately they were either in general ignored or apparently misunderstood in the rebuttal. The counter argument to mine (and others) must include a stated (or strongly implied) rule about Fast Healing not affecting a character who is 'dying'. No, that is the problem with your "proof." It doesn't include a stated (or even strongly implied) rule saying Fast Healing does provide the "required" 1 point of healing to "kick start" you into "magical healing" mode to put you on the road to recovery. In short, your entire evidence for your position is "because Harliquinn says so" and not ground in any rule on any page.
Pentar 06-27-07, 04:51 PM	You're right about the egos :) We're not just here to find out what's right - we want to be the ones who proclaim it! Tell me about it. Check out the dude's reply to your post - as if the proof wasn't already in the pudding. HARHARHARHAR! :P Unfortunately, the moment Customer Service tosses in two cents, two things happen. Everyone who supported the answer the WotC Rep gives yells "HA! We told you so! Now WotC itself confirms it!" Everyone who disagrees with the Rep yells "What does that Rep know? Did they look at page blah?! Did they not consider the case of Boogety Boo?!?! How do we know they invested the six hours I spent thinking about this problem in formulating an answer? They're wrong half the time anyways." Yep - it's true with any type of "debate" though. Hell, even in court, every side brings in their own professional opinion to refute the other side's professional opinion while simultaneously digging up dirt to discredit said professionals. The poor CSRs from Wizards can never win - so they have no reason to say anything aside from what they know, or have been told, is the official ruling. All the more reason I trust their view, because it's unbiased and they're being paid to do it - if they lie, misrepresent or otherwise misinform us, their clients, they could lose their jobs. You could say that they have a lot riding on the answers they give us. Besides which, this is a game of freedom of rules - if I don't like a rule, I house rule it. No skin off my back. ... and the "losing" side unfavorably compares Customer Service's intelligence to that of a tomato plant. Hrmph. A rather unflattering comparison for the tomato plant... :D That's why I'd like to hear more discussion as to why. Some people gave thematic reasons for why one couldn't fast heal when unconscious or near death, but fluff reasons can't justify rules. I'd love to have some argument that takes game balance into account. Then I'd feel like I have a reason for applying this previously unknown affect of the rules to my games. Fast Healing is a pretty potent ability on its own - Even out of combat situations, a character with Fast Healing never needs to worry about, or invest in post-combat healing. Potions, scrolls, wands of Cure light - staples and expected "costs of adventuring" are things that are completely voided by a character with any form of Fast Healing. Notwithstanding that there are numerous feats which gives characters the ability to either; remain standing at below 0 hitpoints, or to automatically stabilize, as well as magical items like Periapts of Wound Closure, which are crafted specifically for that purpose - these would all be diminished by having Fast Healing both stabilize AND heal you back up from below 0.
rironin 06-27-07, 04:58 PM	No, that is the problem with your "proof." It doesn't include a stated (or even strongly implied) rule saying Fast Healing does provide the "required" 1 point of healing to "kick start" you into "magical healing" mode to put you on the road to recovery. In short, your entire evidence for your position is "because Harliquinn says so" and not ground in any rule on any page.Ehhh, I think Harliquinn provided ample evidence - moreover, the kind of proof you're talking about isn't his responsibility: it's yours. Natural healing is something that happens pretty much continuously, unless there are specific things that prevent it. Fast healing is similar - it always functions unless something prevents it from functioning. It isn't Harliquinn's job or intention to find a rule stating that natural healing functions on boats, on other planes, and while your character is wearing plaid. I think you'd agree with us that natural healing works on boats, on other (livable) planes, and if your character is wearing plaid - if you would disagree with this, tell me so, because it means we're not understanding eachother. The point is, I don't think it's disputed that natural healing works unless something specifically says it doesn't. Your evidence provides an exception to the rule: you're saying that natural healing always works except when this and this and this happens. Harliquinn's and my argument is that the evidence you provide applies to some cases but notably not to the case of a character who is dying. We do not have to provide a rule that shows natural healing works when you're dying. Natural healing works all the time, unless there is a specific exception in the rules. It is the lack of this exception for a dying character that leads us to our conclusions. Therefore the burden of proof rests on you to provide evidence that natural healing wouldn't work when a character is in the dying state, just as it would be your responsibility to provide proof if you claimed natural healing couldn't take place in a jacuzzi or within 15 feet of a squirrel. Harliquinn doesn't have to find a table of "Squirrel Proximity" with a checkmark in the "Fast Healing Applies" column in the row for "10-20 ft." No such table exists, because Natural Healing always happens unless specific, stated conditions are met, and by RAW, none of those conditions are present when a character is in the dying state. Unless we're just missing something. This is what you or SALDAR or anyone else could provide to truly shut us up. :P Otherwise, it is your claim that is lacking in the evidence department.
Harliquinn 06-27-07, 06:21 PM	No, that is the problem with your "proof." It doesn't include a stated (or even strongly implied) rule saying Fast Healing does provide the "required" 1 point of healing to "kick start" you into "magical healing" mode to put you on the road to recovery. In short, your entire evidence for your position is "because Harliquinn says so" and not ground in any rule on any page. I think Rironin summed it best, my proof is that Fast Healing works unless it states otherwise. There is only one condition (stabilized from making a 10% stability roll) which would preclude Fast Healing from working. Therefore, it works in other situations. Burden of proof is on you. Harliquinn
SALDAR 06-27-07, 06:29 PM	Harliquinn's and my argument is that the evidence you provide applies to some cases but notably not to the case of a character who is dying. We do not have to provide a rule that shows natural healing works when you're dying. Natural healing works all the time, unless there is a specific exception in the rules. Dying, in and of itself, is an exception to the rule. If natural healing actually works when dying then you would not be losing hps to begin with. Natural Healing occurs when you are resting unless "Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night". You are being significantly interrupted so no healing naturally. How are you being interrupted? You are taking 1 hp of damage per round because you are dying. Dying causes damage. How can you rest if you are taking damage?
Johnny_Angel 06-27-07, 07:00 PM	The subject gains fast healing 1, enabling it to heal 1 hit point per round until the spell ends, and automatically becoming stabilized if it begins dying from hit point loss during that time. Actually, unless he typed it wrong, the fact that the bolded comma isn't in the original text means that what came before the comma is referring to that entire sentence. Actually, there is no comma needed because the text after the word "and" is not a complete sentence on its own. Adding a comma there does nothing other than to make the grammar of that statement incorrect. I'm not a professor or expert at English or anything, but that is one of the things I remember from school. If you eliminated the word "and" you would then need the comma because that's how you would attach the fragment to the complete sentence; according to some texts you could also use a semi-colon to attach the fragment, but that's a subject which is a whole new debate amongst those with more grammatical proficiency than I possess.
rironin 06-28-07, 01:20 AM	Apologies in advance. This post is enormous.Dying, in and of itself, is an exception to the rule. If natural healing actually works when dying then you would not be losing hps to begin with. Natural Healing occurs when you are resting unless "Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night". You are being significantly interrupted so no healing naturally. How are you being interrupted? You are taking 1 hp of damage per round because you are dying. Dying causes damage. How can you rest if you are taking damage?This actually brings us back around to some problems with the whole "fast healing is just like natural healing" argument that were glossed over at the beginning of this conversation. Firstly, I should point out something I mentioned before, which is that no game designer ever really had to care about whether natural healing could or could not occur when a character is dying, because he would have at most 9 rounds to live - either he'd get out of the dying state, or he'd die. It's interesting that the only time it becomes important is when the healing we're talking about is fast healing, and only because we're assuming fast healing is prevented just like natural healing. I will concede to your argument, SALDAR, on one condition. I will concede because I agree that no character would ever benefit from 8 hrs of rest during the 54 seconds he could possibly spend dying before he is either dead or stabilized. How, indeed, could you possibly heal naturally if you are taking damage every round? And if an inability to heal naturally implies a similar inability to benefit from fast healing, then you cannot benefit from fast healing when you are dying, or on any other round in which you suffer damage or are interrupted from a state of rest. That is my condition for conceding to your argument above - because if your argument above is right, and fast healing is just like natural healing except where noted otherwise in the fast healing description, then no creature could fast heal on any round in which it could not heal naturally, including any combat, especially any round in which it was damaged. So if you agree that fast healing only works when you're out of combat, resting, and certainly not taking damage, then I'll agree that fast healing doesn't work when you're dying. :P This really leads inevitably to an argument which has been at the back of my mind all this time, but which I haven't really brought up, because it's awful. It's the kind of argument that makes everyone mad because I believe it becomes an argument about how you interpret a simple sentence or two, and stops being a logical proof and becomes a choose-your-own-adventure rule. In fact, the only reason I've been arguing on the side of fast healing working when you're dying and not when you're stable is because I think that the idea doesn't make any sense - but if we can show that the idea (which is backed up by RAW) doesn't make any sense, then we could eventually conclude that the assumptions that idea is based on must be questionable. The main assumption it's based on, which most of us have been going along with all this time, is that situations that prevent natural healing prevent fast healing in the first place. But I've never bought it, and I don't think it can be proved.A creature with fast healing has the extraordinary ability to regain hit points at an exceptional rate. Except for what is noted here, fast healing is like natural healing. ...A character who becomes stable on his own ... also does not recover hit points through natural healing.Fast healing is not natural healing. I've seen this argument before, and believe me, I hate it too, but let's face it, it applies. Fast healing is like natural healing except where noted in its description; but it is not equivalent to natural healing, nor is it a type of natural healing, nor is it contained within a set of things that could be called natural healing. The SRD says a stable character "does not recover hit points through natural healing." It doesn't say "through types of healing that are like natural healing." The description of natural healing does not mention special non-functioning situations that fast healing could inherit from it. Thus the argument devolves into the definition of "like". Some have said that that one statement, "fast healing is like natural healing," automatically means that anything said about natural healing, even outside of the description of natural healing itself, must also apply to fast healing, unless it is specifically contradicted in the exceptions listed in the description of fast healing itself. But that is an incredibly sweeping statement, and a very unusual way to tie two abilities together. Even though natural healing and fast healing are not the same, and fast healing isn't a type of natural healing, some assume that if you can't benefit from natural healing, you also can't benefit from fast healing. But it's a bad assumption, and you can see why if you look at a few side effects (just the ones that show up in the SRD):Natural healing takes place at five times the normal pace.Then fast healing takes place at five times the normal pace.Age, hunger, thirst, poison, and natural healing don’t function in the Astral PlaneThen fast healing doesn't function on the Astral Plane. (I had hoped to find a creature native to the Astral Plane that possessed fast healing, but I'm not familiar with creatures that typically dwell on the Astral Plane and couldn't find any in the SRD that did. If anyone knows of one, that would be interesting to note. The closest I came was the Astral Construct, which is made of Astral ectoplasm, and can have fast healing; however, Astral Constructs don't occur on the plane naturally, as far as I know.)This healing replaces your normal natural healing.A creature that took this feat would lose whatever fast healing ability it had. Some may claim that the use of "normal" raises an exception, but according to the original statement, fast healing is just like normal, plain old natural healing. Therefore it would have to have every quality normal natural healing has, including the fact that it is replaced by this feat's granted power. The point of all these examples is to hopefully show that when other parts of the SRD refer to natural healing by name, they are referring to natural healing and only natural healing. That one statement in the fast healing description shouldn't mean that anything that is said about natural healing in any context also applies to fast healing; even if they have similarities, they are two different things. Moreover, there is no way that the fast healing description can contain exceptions to these references to natural healing that hadn't even been written at the time that the ability was described. Therefore, while fast healing is like natural healing, and one should certainly refer to the description of natural healing to read about how the two are alike, every reference to natural healing in the rules (including the ones made in the description of the stable condition) refers to natural healing itself, and to nothing else - fast healing is a different ability that should be referred to by name if it is affected. Otherwise, you get the odd and unintended interpretations I've referenced above. What's more, an interpretation of that one line in fast healing that somehow reaches out to encompass all qualities attributed to natural healing in every other part of the rules requires an almost fanatical commitment to those words. If you're going to claim that every time you're talking about natural healing, you're also talking about fast healing (except in the few ways that fast healing differentiates itself in its description), then you have to accept everything - including the fact that natural healing can only take place when a character is at rest, not busy in a battle and being wounded. This is something that people have been sweeping under the rug the whole time, because we all know that that clearly doesn't apply to fast healing too - but SALDAR just brought it up to try to justify why you can't heal naturally when you're dying. One can't have it both ways, however; either you accept that not everything that is said about natural healing applies to fast healing, or you insist that everything does apply. To my mind, the only RAW solution that works is to conclude that fast healing works as long as a creature lives. Inability to heal naturally has nothing to do with it.
Vincentmun 06-28-07, 01:41 AM	Dying, in and of itself, is an exception to the rule. If natural healing actually works when dying then you would not be losing hps to begin with. Natural Healing occurs when you are resting unless "Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night". You are being significantly interrupted so no healing naturally. How are you being interrupted? You are taking 1 hp of damage per round because you are dying. Dying causes damage. How can you rest if you are taking damage? If I understand your argument correctly, the reason why fast healing does not work while under the condition "dying" is that taking damage prevents rest. Then because natural healing requires rest, dying prevents natural healing. Finally because fast healing works like natural healing, the state "dying" prevents fast healing. Of course if that argument is true, then taking any damage or experiencing any significant interruption (such as combat) would prevent fast healing from working. Now, while the idea that fast healing monsters must break from combat and hide out to start healing up, is an interesting concept. It makes fast healing a mostly worthless ability for mosters- seeing as they usually don't exist beyond the combat. Though I do believe that the fact the condition of dying never explicatively says that natural healing doesn't work in this state is a simple oversight*. The fact remains that it is not explicatively stated. Which means that for the no-common-sense-needed-or-desired RAW, fast healing works while in the "dying" condition. If and how fast healing works beyond that is still up for debate. *Dying is a state in which you are between -1 and -9 hit points inclusive. You are unconscious. And each round you must succeed on a 10% percentile check to become stable (at which point you are no longer dying) or lose 1 hit point. Since you lose 1 hit point a round while you remain in the dying condition, it would be unnecessary to state natural healing doesn't work. If you don't realize/consider that fast healing says it functions as natural healing, there is no way to shorten the 8 hours needed to heal to the 8-9 round you have while dying. Thus as I said it would be unnecessary to state "while dying you do not heal naturally", even if that is what the writers intended. .
risner 06-28-07, 10:38 AM	no game designer ever really had to care about whether natural healing could or could not occur when a character is dying, because he would have at most 9 rounds to live - either he'd get out of the dying state, or he'd die. or on any other round in which you suffer damage or are interrupted from a state of rest. but if we can show that the idea (which is backed up by RAW) doesn't make any sense, then we could eventually conclude that the assumptions that idea is based on must be questionable. Dying, Stable, Disabled and Natural Healing are all interrelated. Most of these states are the opposite of healing (if you are taking -1 hit point a round, you clearly are not healing.) Fast Healing doesn't need to inherit any effects outside of that page in the PHB. Planar traits and feats that modify natural healing don't change fast healing as based on the PHB text of Natural Healing. You say that it doesn't make sense to allow Fast Healing when dying and not allow it when in disabled and/or stable state doesn't make sense. You say you advanced that theory to show that it doesn't make sense. I say that it doesn't make sense to advance that theory. You create the situation by asserting Fast Healing works while dying. If you instead assumed Fast Healing doesn't work while dying, disabled, or stable (when natural healing doesn't work); then you have no conflicting theories that don't make sense. As for the "it is my body, of course it will work when I am dying" theory some have advanced, who is to say that fast healing isn't a mental ability? Which requires you to be conscious to benefit? As a result, requiring you to not be unconscious and dying?
Harliquinn 06-28-07, 10:50 AM	As for the "it is my body, of course it will work when I am dying" theory some have advanced, who is to say that fast healing isn't a mental ability? Which requires you to be conscious to benefit? As a result, requiring you to not be unconscious and dying? Just a quick question, how do you then rule on the spell "Lesser Vigor" which gives a target Fast Healing? Obviously the source is magical (spell) but the effect is the same as a creature which has Fast Healing already.
rironin 06-28-07, 11:38 AM	Dying, Stable, Disabled and Natural Healing are all interrelated. Most of these states are the opposite of healing (if you are taking -1 hit point a round, you clearly are not healing.)Characters who are dying, stable, and disabled receive healing in many different ways all the time - you'd have to clarify what "the opposite of healing" means, since a character can and often does take damage and healing in the same round. I agree that when a creature is dying, it will not benefit from natural healing, because natural healing requires 8 hours of rest and the dying state can be maintained for at most 54 seconds. See my post above. I agree with you that when a creature is stable, he does not benefit from natural healing unless he receives aid; this is clearly spelled out in the rules.Fast Healing doesn't need to inherit any effects outside of that page in the PHB. Planar traits and feats that modify natural healing don't change fast healing as based on the PHB text of Natural Healing.I quite agree. Planar traits and feats that refer to natural healing appear to be referring to natural healing only, and not fast healing. Why, then, do you believe that the text on a stable character being unable to benefit from natural healing extends to fast healing? There is nothing in the description of natural healing that involves being unable to benefit while stable. If fast healing really doesn't need to inherit effects outside of the natural healing description, then what leads you to conclude that fast healing is restricted just like natural healing?You say that it doesn't make sense to allow Fast Healing when dying and not allow it when in disabled and/or stable state doesn't make sense. You say you advanced that theory to show that it doesn't make sense.This is correct. If you assume that fast healing inherits any behavior or quality attributed to natural healing anywhere in the rules, then you will end up with one of two ridiculous conclusions. Either fast healing can't function anytime natural healing can't function, which rules out any combat situation and any time in which you take damage, or you make a special exception for that one part about natural healing - and in that case, there is absolutely nothing that prevents fast healing from working when you're dying (but there is something that prevents it when you're stable). Both are silly, and therefore the assumption about fast healing inheriting all of natural healing's characteristics must be false.I say that it doesn't make sense to advance that theory. You create the situation by asserting Fast Healing works while dying. If you instead assumed Fast Healing doesn't work while dying, disabled, or stable (when natural healing doesn't work); then you have no conflicting theories that don't make sense.Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, you do end up with conflicting theories. Natural healing doesn't work when you're dying for two reasons - one, you never have enough time to rest. Two, as long as you're dying you're being damaged. But both of those reasons don't apply to fast healing, which happens immediately and works on rounds in which you're damaged or in combat - this is something I think we all agree on (right?), but it's a glaring hole in the "everything that applies to natural healing applies to fast healing too" argument. This is what messes things up. If you say that you can't fast heal when dying because you can't natural heal when dying because you're being damaged and you can't naturally heal while being damaged, then you are forced to conclude that you can never fast heal on rounds when you're damaged, or in combat, or getting anything but rest and relaxation. And that's crazy talk. There really is no rule or even a good reason why the condition of dying prevents fast healing - the condition itself, very much unlike being stable, has no note that explicitly prevents natural healing. Neither condition has a note that explicitly prevents fast healing. The fact that the dying condition means damage is being taken and the fact that the dying condition never lasts for more than 9 rounds does prevent natural healing, but not fast healing. If you assume that you can't fast heal or naturally heal when dying, stable, or disabled, then yes, all of your inconsistencies go away. You're welcome to go that way, especially since Customer Service agreed with your stance. But that assumption isn't supported by the RAW. I'm throwing out the assumption that every time you see "natural healing" in the rules, you have to apply it to fast healing as well (unless there's a specific exception in the fast healing description). I think that when the stable condition refers to "natural healing", it's referring to natural healing, and not to anything else that is similar to it like fast healing. Similarly with those examples above - I think the SRD often refers to natural healing and only natural healing. And I think it's a better way to look at it, since that other way forces you to sweep the problem of "no natural healing or fast healing unless you're resting" under the rug and ignore the effects your assumption has on the rules.As for the "it is my body, of course it will work when I am dying" theory some have advanced, who is to say that fast healing isn't a mental ability? Which requires you to be conscious to benefit? As a result, requiring you to not be unconscious and dying?I reject this theory because it's fluff-based rather than rules based. I agree with you on this - I don't know how fast healing works, and I think of it in different ways for different creatures. Sometimes it appears to be some sort of mutant healing factor, sometimes it seems directly magical in nature, etc. You can think of fast healing as a mental ability if you wish, but I think that muddies things more than helps them - if a creature has its Intelligence reduced to 0, would it be unable to fast heal? Then it's unconscious, but not dying - more like comatose. Comatose people would heal naturally, but if you say fast healing is a mental action that requires consciousness, they couldn't use fast healing. Now the fluff is sort of infringing on the rules, and I tend to shy away from that.
rironin 06-28-07, 11:47 AM	Just a quick question, how do you then rule on the spell "Lesser Vigor" which gives a target Fast Healing? Obviously the source is magical (spell) but the effect is the same as a creature which has Fast Healing already.The vigor spells specifically state that they auto-stabilize a creature if it is dying. Ah, I see your point here though - does that mean they "received aid"? If not, then by Customer Service et al's view, the spell would stabilize you, and then do nothing more to help you - quite silly. Vigor was brought up in the beginning of this thread, but it was tossed out because everyone tacitly agreed on one way of reading it, but I think this deserves a second look:The subject gains fast healing 1, enabling it to heal 1 hit point per round until the spell ends and automatically becoming stabilized if it begins dying from hit point loss during that time.Looking back in this thread, I believe some people denied that this had relevance - they claimed that the "and automatically becoming stabilized if it begins dying" part was an ability the spell granted in addition to fast healing, and wasn't a description of fast healing itself. That's one interpretation, but I don't think anyone can prove it. It looks just as likely to me that the author of the spell was simply describing how fast healing works. Who's to say whether or not the "and" separates the stabilization description from the rest of the fast healing description?
Harliquinn 06-28-07, 11:58 AM	I believe some people denied that this had relevance - they claimed that the "and automatically becoming stabilized if it begins dying" part was an ability the spell granted in addition to fast healing, and wasn't a description of fast healing itself. That's one interpretation, but I don't think anyone can prove it. It looks just as likely to me that the author of the spell was simply describing how fast healing works. Who's to say whether or not the "and" separates the stabilization description from the rest of the fast healing description? The same argument was used to support why the vampire and constructs had "fast healing only functions when above 0" in their description. Those supporting the "fast healing doesn't work while dying" said that it was redundancy for clarification. If it's redundancy for clarification in one spot, it should be the same for fast healing. If it's new rules that are different in one case, it should be new rules that are different in the other case.
Pentar 06-28-07, 12:15 PM	Looking back in this thread, I believe some people denied that this had relevance - they claimed that the "and automatically becoming stabilized if it begins dying" part was an ability the spell granted in addition to fast healing, and wasn't a description of fast healing itself. That's one interpretation, but I don't think anyone can prove it. It looks just as likely to me that the author of the spell was simply describing how fast healing works. Who's to say whether or not the "and" separates the stabilization description from the rest of the fast healing description? I think this is getting remarkably silly. You don't think anyone can prove what they meant in the spell description of Vigor despite the fact that Customer Service has stated the precise intention of Fast Healing already? If you apply what Customer Service has said and go back to the description of the Vigor line of spells, it would seem pretty damn clear to me that the use of "and becomes stasbilized if it begins dying" is a benefit granted by the spell and not by Fast Healing... Since they've already said Fast Healing doesn't stabilize you!!! There. The proof is right there!! You guys are fighting really hard to try to justify your stance on why you think you're right. That's fantastic. Commendable. It's practically altruistic! But CS has given its ruling. Ask them again if you want. Rephrase the question in as cryptic a way as possible so as to obtain the answer you want to get... if you can't do that, then house rule it! Trust me - I'm not going to come over to your D&D session and demand you play Fast Healing the way CS has told you it works.
risner 06-28-07, 01:14 PM	The Vigor spells provide Fast Healing and auto stabilization benefit. The benefits are separated by the "and" word. The Vampire/Inevitable creatures provide Fast Healing. There is no "and" in the ability. There is little room to interpret the text as anything more than a clarification of the RAW. As I see it, the primary purpose is to prevent a DM interpreting Fast Healing as working below 1 hit point and "repairing" the dead Vampire/Inevitable. The Fast Healing provides healing each round at the start of the round where natural healing provides healing during 8 hours of rest. You don't need to concern yourself with combat or taking damage because natural healing fails if interrupted, but there is no way to interrupt an instantaneous event happening at the beginning of each round. There is no legal way to "interrupt" Fast Healing, so there is no legal way to argue combat or damage stops Fast Healing. To conclude Fast Healing heals dying/disabled/stable people, you must make these leaps: 1) Vigor's strong evidence to the counter doesn't count. 2) Vampire/Inevitable strong evidence to the counter doesn't count. 3) Fast Healing always works despite the lack of any text directly saying it work in these states. You end up with inconsistent readings of the rules. If you take the simplest reading, you end up with Fast Healing not working when dying, disabled, or stable but working all other times. You end up making peace with Astral Constructs Fast Healing, Vigor, and Vampires all work correctly without breaking any other cases.
rironin 06-28-07, 02:11 PM	The Vigor spells provide Fast Healing and auto stabilization benefit. The benefits are separated by the "and" word. The subject (of a vigor spell) gains fast healing 1, enabling it to heal 1 hit point per round until the spell ends and automatically becoming stabilized if it begins dying from hit point loss during that time. Here are some example sentences I cooked up. Try to tell what the sentence means. Unless you know how the ability works, I think you'll see it's not very clear: The subject of cat's grace gains a +4 enhancement bonus to Dexterity, enabling it to dodge attacks more effectively and improving its ranged attacks. Does the +4 enhancement bonus to Dexterity provide the ability dodge attacks and improve ranged attacks? Or does the cat's grace spell provide the bonus to ranged attacks? We know how Dexterity works, so we know that both benefits are derived from the Dexterity bonus, which is the only thing cat's grace does. The subject of an enlarge person spell increases in size, enabling Medium creatures to take up greater space and granting them 10 foot reach. Does the size increase granted by enlarge person grant creatures the 10 foot reach, or is the increased reach an additional benefit provided by the enlarge person spell? The only reason we know that both benefits are derived from the size increase, which is the only effect of the spell, is because we know how size increases work. I think you get the idea. The "and" doesn't make anything crystal clear. "And" could be joining two separate parts of the sentence, two separate spell effects: fast healing and auto-stabilization. Or it could be joining two benefits of fast healing: healing 1 hp per round and auto-stabilization. The spell description alone doesn't point either way, and makes perfect sense either way. The only reason I mention it is to rule it out as evidence for either side. That's the English language for you :PThe Vampire/Inevitable creatures provide Fast Healing. There is no "and" in the ability. There is little room to interpret the text as anything more than a clarification of the RAW. As I see it, the primary purpose is to prevent a DM interpreting Fast Healing as working below 1 hit point and "repairing" the dead Vampire/Inevitable.I must admit I don't really get the arguments on either side related to undead/constructs with fast healing. I know they die when reduced to 0 hit points, and the definition of death states that "Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic." So I'm not sure I understand how it even applies to either side. If fast healing doesn't apply to creatures who are dying anyways (as you say), then why would it be so necessary to spell it out again here?The Fast Healing provides healing each round at the start of the round where natural healing provides healing during 8 hours of rest. You don't need to concern yourself with combat or taking damage because natural healing fails if interrupted, but there is no way to interrupt an instantaneous event happening at the beginning of each round. There is no legal way to "interrupt" Fast Healing, so there is no legal way to argue combat or damage stops Fast Healing.Asolutely. I've never encountered any D&D player who thought otherwise. I've said so myself - fast healing totally works during combat, that's a huge part of why it's useful. This means that fast healing works when you're dying. This is the agreement I challenged SALDAR to make. But you don't think fast healing works when you're dying, and the only evidence I've seen people give is the "natural healing says you need to be resting and fast healing is just like it" line. Which you just contradicted - and I agree! Obviously fast healing doesn't care if you got hit this round. It also doesn't care if you lost one hit point this round. And since the description of the dying condition contains no rules barring the operation of fast healing or natural healing, fast healing should work. Hence, the dilemma I have been outlining for a while now.To conclude Fast Healing heals dying/disabled/stable people, you must make these leaps: 1) Vigor's strong evidence to the counter doesn't count. 2) Vampire/Inevitable strong evidence to the counter doesn't count. 3) Fast Healing always works despite the lack of any text directly saying it work in these states. You end up with inconsistent readings of the rules. If you take the simplest reading, you end up with Fast Healing not working when dying, disabled, or stable but working all other times. You end up making peace with Astral Constructs Fast Healing, Vigor, and Vampires all work correctly without breaking any other cases.1) Vigor's strong evidence to the counter doesn't count. I agree! The Vigor description doesn't provide either side of the argument with evidence. It supports both interpretations equally well. 2) Vampire/Inevitable evidence to the counter doesn't count. I agree! The note for creatures who die when they reach zero hit points just restates the definition of "dead". I don't think it helps either side. 3) Fast Healing always works despite the lack of any text directly saying it work in these states. I agree! This is something I tried to get across when you told Harliquinn he/she had to provide you with direct statements that say "fast healing works if you're dying." Please see that post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12880073&postcount=73) above. Many rules in D&D work this way. In order to cover all bases, and provide a rule that works for all cases, a simple concept applies. Most of the time the rules either state specific conditions in which something works - and we know that unless those conditions apply, it doesn't work. Or the ability always works, except in specific conditions, and we know that unless those conditions apply, it does work. Fast healing is one of these rules. It always functions, unless specific conditions prevent it from functioning. The way to prove that fast healing works in this situation is to show that no rule specifically prevents fast healing working in this situation - and the burden of proof is on you in this case. Harliquinn and I are saying "we can't find anywhere in the rules that prevents fast healing from working on a dying character" (and I can't find anywhere in the rules that prevents fast healing from working on a dying, stable, or disabled character, for the record) and we're asking you to show us where we've gone wrong. I can't post the entire SRD and say "read this and you will find no mention of a rule barring fast healing from working on a dying character" but I'm betting that it's not there, and I'm asking you to show it to me if it is there, because that is the only way you can convince someone why fast healing shouldn't work in a given situation. It's like asking if fast healing works within 15 feet of a squirrel, as my older post makes clear. I can't find you a rule that says "Fast healing totally works within 15 feet of a squirrel," but I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that there is no rule that says it doesn't work near squirrels, so we can safely say that you can heal quite fast in the presence of squirrels - even if you're dying near one :)
Harliquinn 06-29-07, 08:08 AM	I wanted to see if I could get a consistent answer from Customer Service (I realize they are human and make mistakes as do all of us). I think I worded my question objectively and thoroughly enough. I just wanted to post what I got here, though I don't intend to argue the point any further... Does Fast Healing (Ex) work on character in the following conditions? 1) The character has just taken damage enough to drop his hit points to 0 and the character is now 'disabled'. 2) The character has just taken damage enough to drop his hit points to between -1 and -9 and the character is now 'dying'. 3) The character was 'dying' but received help from another character to stabilize and the character is currently 'stable'. 4) The character was 'dying' but became stable by rolling 10% at the end of the round and the character is currently 'stable.' Thank you for your help. Hi there John, Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support! Fast Healing works just fine even when a character is at negative hit points. There's no need to try and read more into the ability. Take Care and Good Gaming! :) We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire. To login to your account, or update your question please click here. Sam Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
rironin 06-29-07, 08:29 AM	Response to Harliquinn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40) Pentar, this is why most of us yawned when we got the first Customer Service response. Their (surely accidental and innocent) self-contradiction has left us to our own devices :)
Pentar 06-29-07, 10:23 AM	Response to Harliquinn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40) Pentar, this is why most of us yawned when we got the first Customer Service response. Their (surely accidental and innocent) self-contradiction has left us to our own devices :) Now this makes me curious. Which Customer Service rep would win in a duel? Whoever is the winner is the answer we'll go with. How's that sound? I'll bring the weapons if someone else brings the wet naps to clean up the blood afterwards. Saw dust works well too, I'm told.
Vincentmun 06-29-07, 12:52 PM	It's like asking if fast healing works within 15 feet of a squirrel, as my older post makes clear. I can't find you a rule that says "Fast healing totally works within 15 feet of a squirrel," but I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that there is no rule that says it doesn't work near squirrels, so we can safely say that you can heal quite fast in the presence of squirrels - even if you're dying near one :) It would depend on the squirrel. I just so happended to find this in a secret hidden link in the SRD monster section- Anti-life Squirrel Tiny Magical Beast Hit Dice: 1/4 d10 (1 hp) Initiative: +2 Speed: 15 ft. (3 squares), climb 15 ft. Armor Class: 14 (+2 size, +2 Dex), touch 14, flat-footed 12 Base Attack/Grapple: +!/–11 Attack: Bite +5 melee (1d3–4) Full Attack: Bite +5 melee (1d3–4) Space/Reach: 2-1/2 ft./0 ft. Special Attacks: Anti-Life Aura Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., Low-light vision, scent Saves: Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +1 Abilities: Str 2, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 2 Skills: Balance +10, Climb +12, Hide +16, Move Silently +12 Feats: Stealthy, Weapon FinesseB Combat Ant-life squirrels look and act like normal squirrels. The usually run away when threatened, relying on thier bite only as a last resort. Anti-life Aura (Su): An anti-life squirrel projects a nasty aura that inhibates healing, The aura extends for 15 ft. and prevents any type of natural or magical healing, including fast healing and regeneration. Also, a dying creature close to an anti-life squirrel is sure to perish. Heal checks made to stablize a dying character as well as the 10% chance to stablize on your own automaticly fail while in the aura Skills: Anti-life squirrels have a +4 racial bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks, and a +8 racial bonus on Balance, Climb, and Swim checks. An anti-life squirrel can always choose to take 10 on Climb checks, even if rushed or threatened. An anti-life squirrel uses its Dexterity modifier instead of its Strength modifier for Climb and Swim checks.
G_Mancer 06-29-07, 04:31 PM	i'm starting to think that customer service is acually a toy computer that identifies key words and phrases like "fast healing" and "works when" and adds random (d%) phrases to form an answer to which they dont give any hint of proof.
rironin 06-29-07, 04:37 PM	i'm starting to think that customer service is acually a toy computer that identifies key words and phrases like "fast healing" and "works when" and adds random (d%) phrases to form an answer to which they dont give any hint of proof.Ha! I've never been in a sig before. Neat :D
ravenshrike 06-29-07, 11:15 PM	The Vigor spells provide Fast Healing and auto stabilization benefit. The benefits are separated by the "and" word. Except that the word "and" is in no way, shape, or form grammatically a separator. Sheeit, you're worse than the people who argue the US 2nd amendment has a collective meaning. Now, had they instead used the phrase "as well as" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Hell, they could have said "and in addition" and you would be right Risner. They used neither of these grammatical conventions however, and thusly we cannot infer your postion from the vigor line of spells. /pedantic rant.
rironin 07-02-07, 10:57 PM	I just brought home Complete Champion, and noticed some more text that backs up the idea that fast healing functions just fine for dying characters.Healing Devotion [DOMAIN] ... Benefit: Once per day, you can gain fast healing 1, +1 for every five character levels you possess (maximum fast healing 5 at 20th level). This effect lasts for one minute. You can activate this feat as an immediate action or, if you have a daily available, it automatically activates if you are reduced to 0 hit points or below (but not killed).More evidence, just in case anyone is still reading :P
Leilond 07-03-07, 06:45 AM	I just brought home Complete Champion, and noticed some more text that backs up the idea that fast healing functions just fine for dying characters.More evidence, just in case anyone is still reading :P Special powers can override general rules. This doesn't prove any of the points, it's only a special power that grant a particular form of fasthealing.
rironin 07-03-07, 08:29 AM	Special powers can override general rules. This doesn't prove any of the points, it's only a special power that grant a particular form of fasthealing.Take it however you wish :)
Thiez 07-03-07, 09:33 AM	Special powers can override general rules. This doesn't prove any of the points, it's only a special power that grant a particular form of fasthealing. Nay, it says it grants fast healing, and doesn't specify that it works when you are dying (I've got the complete feat description here). Whoever wrote that feat was either under the assumption that fast healing works on dying characters, or wanted to screw the players by wasting their fast healing when they got below 0 hitpoints.
Ellone 07-03-07, 09:48 AM	This argument brought me to a way to effectively avoid fast healing of working on a daying character. take a dying character, let him stabilize by his own (rolling less than 10% on stabilisation test), and send him to the positive energy plane. He gets fast healing 10 (or 30, don't remember) but won't heal because he is actualy unable to recover naturaly... Still, a fast healer put under 0hp will recover hp from fast healing, the natural healing is still not disabled at this point... Question? is stabilization test made before or after fast healing increase hp?
goawayugh 07-03-07, 10:26 AM	Let me start by saying that I have only read the first 20 posts and the last 4 or 5. I started reading this thread under the impression that fast healing would work as long as you were still alive. Why wouldn't it? It makes sense that it should. My mind is now changed. From the SRD: "Fast Healing (Ex): A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptionally fast rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature’s entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, and it does not allow a creature to regrow lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached." Also note the boldened line. It is just like natural healing so it follows the rules just like natural healing, which state that you do not recover hit points through natural healing while unconcious and Dying (see my previous post for these rules). Fast Healing is natural healing, just at a faster rate. As far a vigor and this CChamp feat goes...spells/special abilities can override/change normal rules. Quoting a specific spell/feat and trying to apply something in there as a general rule is wrong.
Eerongal 07-03-07, 10:26 AM	This argument brought me to a way to effectively avoid fast healing of working on a daying character. take a dying character, let him stabilize by his own (rolling less than 10% on stabilisation test), and send him to the positive energy plane. He gets fast healing 10 (or 30, don't remember) but won't heal because he is actualy unable to recover naturaly... Still, a fast healer put under 0hp will recover hp from fast healing, the natural healing is still not disabled at this point... Question? is stabilization test made before or after fast healing increase hp? I would say fast healing comes first, going strictly off the fact that fast healing specifically says that it functions at the beggining of your turn, whereas the stabilization roll merely says 'on your turn'
Thiez 07-03-07, 11:52 AM	Let me start by saying that I have only read the first 20 posts and the last 4 or 5. I started reading this thread under the impression that fast healing would work as long as you were still alive. Why wouldn't it? It makes sense that it should. My mind is now changed. As far a vigor and this CChamp feat goes...spells/special abilities can override/change normal rules. Quoting a specific spell/feat and trying to apply something in there as a general rule is wrong. As I said, the CChamp feat does not alter fast healing in ANY way, except that it only lasts 1 minute and it can be activated as an immediate action, or automagically when you go below 0 hitpoints. Nowhere does it mention "the fast healing granted by this feat applies even when you are dying". Since no changes are made to how fast healing works with this feat, it can be applied as a general rule. You should read the whole thread, it contains a lot of useful stuff.
rironin 07-03-07, 11:52 AM	I started reading this thread under the impression that fast healing would work as long as you were still alive. Why wouldn't it? It makes sense that it should. My mind is now changed.Go with whatever makes the most sense to you, but if you feel that that line means what you now think it means, I recommend checking out more of this thread - taking that rule as literally as you're taking it leads to a lot of contradictions and weirdness.
Leilond 07-03-07, 11:55 AM	Go with whatever makes the most sense to you, but if you feel that that line means what you now think it means, I recommend checking out more of this thread - taking that rule as literally as you're taking it leads to a lot of contradictions and weirdness. I don't see any contraddiction and weirdness at all in making fasthealing don't work when dying
Pentar 07-03-07, 12:08 PM	I don't see any contraddiction and weirdness at all in making fasthealing don't work when dying If you take the RAW of the Natural Healing rules and applied it sans gravy to Fast Healing and Dying, you will get some weird results. That is, technically strictly by RAW, if you go into a state of "dying", fast healing will heal you X hit points as per normal. You then immediately stabilize. However, now that you are stable, unless you receive aid (i.e. further healing from an ally, or someone performing a Heal check on you), your Fast Healing stops working and only continues once you start getting help. Yes, it is weird. No, I don't think that is how it should work. Further note, any time I see a description that explicitly states a condition as if it were not true before, leads me to believe that it is specifically there to override the general rules and become an exception. So if anything the Complete Champion feat that talks about how that particular form of Fast Healing automatically kicks in when you're dying, means to me that it overrides and is an exception to the existing rules which says Fast Healing stops working below 0 hp. But I'm still waiting for those two CSRs to duel to the death so that we know which of their answers reigns supreme.
Ellone 07-03-07, 12:18 PM	That is, technically strictly by RAW, if you go into a state of "dying", fast healing will heal you X hit points as per normal. You then immediately stabilize. However, now that you are stable, unless you receive aid (i.e. further healing from an ally, or someone performing a Heal check on you), your Fast Healing stops working and only continues once you start getting help. false argument by the RAW If any sort of healing cures the dying character of even 1 point of damage, he stops losing hit points and becomes stable. Recovering without Help: A severely wounded character left alone usually dies. He has a small chance, however, of recovering on his own. A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) the recovering without help case is very specific, that's why i was wondering if, by any way, stabilization test could come before fast healing hp recovery, pushing a character in this state before he could stabilize using fast healing (entering the Recovering with Help state, and anyway regaining consciousness in a few round thanks to fast healing)
rironin 07-03-07, 12:20 PM	Further note, any time I see a description that explicitly states a condition as if it were not true before, leads me to believe that it is specifically there to override the general rules and become an exception. So if anything the Complete Champion feat that talks about how that particular form of Fast Healing automatically kicks in when you're dying, means to me that it overrides and is an exception to the existing rules which says Fast Healing stops working below 0 hp.Could be that that's so, but I quoted the whole shebang from that Complete Champion feat. From where I'm sitting, the feat does not "explicitly state a condition as if it were not true before." The part of the feat that is "special" is that it automatically kicks in if you are reduced to less than 0 hit points (but not killed). There is nothing "special" listed or described as regards to fast healing. It is described as fast healing, with no strings attached and no special rules. However, if you interpret this case, where fast healing certainly works on a dying character, as a special exception, that's your prerogative.
Pentar 07-03-07, 01:46 PM	false argument by the RAW Not really. We hashed this out already in previous pages of this thread. Review it at your leisure... or don't. You'll find I won't care one way or the other. the recovering without help case is very specific, that's why i was wondering if, by any way, stabilization test could come before fast healing hp recovery, pushing a character in this state before he could stabilize using fast healing (entering the Recovering with Help state, and anyway regaining consciousness in a few round thanks to fast healing) By RAW, there is no interaction between Fast Healiing and stabilizing. That is to say, nothing says which works first, or which you test for first. To me, this is further proof that you simply don't fast heal when dying, because the only ways the rules have explicitly stated that allows you to stabilize is through the efforts of allies, or by yourself via a 10% chance per round. However, there is nothing stating that explicitly one way or another. So whether you roll for stabilization first, or whether you gain Fast Healing first, who knows. To some, the lack of rules says that it should work as normal, and vice versa to others. Do what you will.
Thiez 07-03-07, 02:15 PM	I think it's fair to say the PHB was written under the assumption that PCs wouldn't have access to Fast Healing. We probably shouldn't draw conclusions from those rules, or lack of them.
Ellone 07-05-07, 06:18 AM	Not really. We hashed this out already in previous pages of this thread. Review it at your leisure... or don't. You'll find I won't care one way or the other. Nothing was washed, visibly an answer of customer service was given, in contradiction with rules. That's fine, and that's an argument. Still, this don't change the raw, witch are still stoping natural healing only for a character stabilized by the roll under 10%. I think it's fair to say the PHB was written under the assumption that PCs wouldn't have access to Fast Healing. We probably shouldn't draw conclusions from those rules, or lack of them. I think the same, people writing the rule over character under 0hp were absolutly not thinking about very specific monster designed ability like fast healing or regeneration. Now where should be the details about this? if not in fast healing and regeneration ability description?