Lay on Hands vs. Infernal Wounds in PF 1e

[Glarnog]

Ended the session in the middle of combat. Some bearded devils had just joined the fray.

My reading is that the caster level check for magic healing to stop the bleeding is for 'spells'. Would lay on hands and channel by pass this?

Thanks

[Tzardok]

For supernatural abilities like those I'd suggest a class level check in place of a caster level check.

[Saintheart]

For supernatural abilities like those I'd suggest a class level check in place of a caster level check.

If it's the Paladin Lay On Hands and it's a (Su) ability, then per the SRD, "Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice." So I'd tend to make the roll 1d20+creature's total HD.

I mean, that's what I'd go with. By RAW, laying on hands isn't a spell - cure or otherwise - and it's not a Heal check either.

[Paragon]

Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic


The wound does not heal naturally and resists healing spells

Ergo it should work by RAW.
RAI I don't know but I'm all for giving the Paladin class some love

[Beni-Kujaku]

Ergo it should work by RAW.
RAI I don't know but I'm all for giving the Paladin class some love

Now hold on, there's no tag, so maybe they were reasonable and using the Pathfinder version, we can still hope! Barbazus are the same in both systems after all.

[Glarnog]

I am so sorry. Yes this is for Pathfinder 1e. And yes I am speaking about a Paladin's lay on hands and base channel.

I'm not sure how to add tags on mobile.

[Kurald Galain]

Would lay on hands and channel by pass this?

PF's barbazu states that "any attempt to heal a creature suffering from an infernal wound must succeed on a DC 16 caster level check or the spell does not function".

I find this ambiguous; I'd rule that LOH and Channel still fall under "any attempt to heal" and therefore must make a CL check.

[Remuko]

PF's barbazu states that "any attempt to heal a creature suffering from an infernal wound must succeed on a DC 16 caster level check or the spell does not function".

I find this ambiguous; I'd rule that LOH and Channel still fall under "any attempt to heal" and therefore must make a CL check.

they do fall under "any attempt to heal" but it also says "or the spell does not work" its not a spell so theres nothing in the barbazu ability saying it does not work, only spells are effected, according to the text.

[Kurald Galain]

they do fall under "any attempt to heal" but it also says "or the spell does not work"

Yes, that is precisely why it's ambiguous :smallamused:

[pabelfly]

Lay on Hands is a Supernatural ability, not a spell. Seems reasonable it bypasses restrictions specifically on spell-based healing

[Kurald Galain]

Lay on Hands is a Supernatural ability, not a spell. Seems reasonable it bypasses restrictions specifically on spell-based healing
I agree; however, a restriction on "any attempt to heal a creature" is not a restriction specifically on spell-based healing. Otherwise it would have said "any attempt to use spells to heal a creature".

[pabelfly]

I agree; however, a restriction on "any attempt to heal a creature" is not a restriction specifically on spell-based healing. Otherwise it would have said "any attempt to use spells to heal a creature".

But that's not even the whole of the sentence.

"Bleed caused from an infernal wound is particularly difficult to stanch—a DC 17 Heal check stops the damage, and any attempt to heal a creature suffering from an infernal wound must succeed on a DC 16 caster level check or the spell does not function."

Clearly, the writers did not consider sources of healing that aren't based on spells, but the consequences of what happens if the caster level check fails is that the spell fails. Lay on Hands isn't a spell.

This is obviously an interaction that needs to be adjudicated by a DM but it seems to me saying "Lay on Hands works fine" isn't going to be a big issue.

[Darg]

If a supernatural ability requires a caster level check, so does that heal check as it says "any attempt to heal."

[Kurald Galain]

If a supernatural ability requires a caster level check, so does that heal check as it says "any attempt to heal."

That is correct. Designer intent is probably that mundane healing fails entirely on these cursed wounds.

[Darg]

That is correct. Designer intent is probably that mundane healing fails entirely on these cursed wounds.

Except the only fail condition is on spells. Even if the heal check requires a caster level check, only spells fail to function.

[Paragon]

I agree with the "it's not a spell, it can't fail" side

Otoh if you want this ability to be meaningful, as said before Su abilities have a CL that is usually 10+1/2HD+Cha which means the Paladin still needs to bypass it but he doesn't waste anything trying to do so.; It's a risk in combat but it's easily overcome outside of it

[KillianHawkeye]

Personally, I think if anyone deserves a special healing ability that works against the infernal wounds inflicted by devils, it's the Paladin. The Paladins deserve a little something special once in a while.

[Chronos]

The RAW is poorly written, but I think that the more accurate reading would be that a caster level check is needed for any form of healing.

Rules as I'd houserule it, though, paladin healing would work, because opposing fiends is kind of the whole point of paladins, and as-is, they need some help in achieving that design.

I might not necessarily rule the same way for some other non-spell form of supernatural healing, like one based on alchemy or morale.