Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Infernal Healing (again, I'm sure)


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
*** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Ok, for PFS play, with Infernal Healing's material component...

It the 'drop of devil blood' assumed to be in the spell component pouch, or does it have a cost/paid for?

Likewise, since unholy water has a cost, can a sorcerer 'eschew components' the devil blood part and not worry about 25 gp a pop (still a bargain)

Qadira ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Michigan—Detroit

Matthew Morris wrote:

Ok, for PFS play, with Infernal Healing's material component...

It the 'drop of devil blood' assumed to be in the spell component pouch, or does it have a cost/paid for?

Likewise, since unholy water has a cost, can a sorcerer 'eschew components' the devil blood part and not worry about 25 gp a pop (still a bargain)

Unless it actually lists the cost of the material component in the spell description, it is assumed for organized play that you have the component in your pouch.

Eschew Spell Components wrote:
Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

*** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Doug Miles wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

Ok, for PFS play, with Infernal Healing's material component...

It the 'drop of devil blood' assumed to be in the spell component pouch, or does it have a cost/paid for?

Likewise, since unholy water has a cost, can a sorcerer 'eschew components' the devil blood part and not worry about 25 gp a pop (still a bargain)

Unless it actually lists the cost of the material component in the spell description, it is assumed for organized play that you have the component in your pouch.

Eschew Spell Components wrote:
Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

Thanks Doug! It's just that since the vial of holy water has a cost, I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a cost somewhere for 'devil blood'

Ok, off to heal some Paladins! ;-)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Ok, off to heal some Paladins! ;-)

You're my hero. :D

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Ok, off to heal some Paladins! ;-)

I am most grateful for your assistance!

Silver Crusade *

BTW to cast Infernal Healing yoou must worship Asmodeus.

Taldor ***

I'm sure it's been discussed before.. but I'm curious about the EVIL descriptor and its implications for PFS.

Since PFS characters can't be evil, what's the limitation of performing evil acts? Three 'freebies' before your alignment turns to evil and you're auto-retired? :D

*** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Lou Diamond wrote:
BTW to cast Infernal Healing yoou must worship Asmodeus.

Um, not that I see.

Andoran ***

Lou Diamond wrote:
BTW to cast Infernal Healing yoou must worship Asmodeus.

This requirement was removed with a later source for it. It no longer has any real restrictions, other than the target radiating evil during the spell's duration.

Shadow Lodge

It still has the evil descriptor, so good-aligned clerics or clerics of a good-aligned god can't use it.

Silver Crusade *****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

It's a fun spell, especially if there is a paladin of Iomedae in the group.

Last thursday i was playing Echos of the over watched.

I was playing my 5th level elf magus. He had a wand of infernal healing.

After one of the battles I offered to help with the healing. The paladin said ok. My magus pulled out a wand and said "this is a wand of infernal healing. might i be of some assistance" the paladin cut my character off with a curt "no"

Later on my magus " sir thou art grievously wounded, " Waves wand at paladin " nope i can heal myself".

My character earned the nick name..... "Mithos the morally ambiguous Magus"

we all had a good laugh. we had a good time.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

I can't refer to the spell right now, but I think that even the unholy water is a negligible cost component.
Does it say it requires a complete vial? If not, I would expect a gp cost to be associated, if one were intended.

Qadira ** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

Maybe there is another version of the spell, I'm not seeing a requirement for unholy water in the verison I have.

Shadow Lodge

The Inner Sea Guide lists a couple material components (unholy water or demon's blood) but gives no gp value, so they are assumed in a spell component pouch.

*****

A couple of weeks ago, I was running a group of players through "You Only Die Twice".

Spoiler:
The guys were trying to figure out how to deal with healing, since their regular CLW wands wouldn't work. They had decided on getting a wand of infernal healing because it would heal more HP per casting and be useful beyond the one scenario than a wand of inflict light wounds. At this point, I reminded the paladin that the spell had the evil descriptor. After much debate, they decided on another option. It probably would have been a TPK if the paladin had lost his abilities due to using this spell!

Good times!

Taldor ***

Huh, I thought the Guide had a line about "fireball being as evil as raise dead," but I couldn't find it. Was it in an old guide version, or am I going crazier?

Cheliax

El Baron de los Banditos wrote:
Huh, I thought the Guide had a line about "fireball being as evil as raise dead," but I couldn't find it. Was it in an old guide version, or am I going crazier?

I think you are going crazier, I certainly haven't read such a line in any Pathfinder guide, new or old. Also James Jacobs has clearly stated, that casting a spell with evil descriptor is an evil act, no matter the spells purpose.

*

Just a few questions.

If my PC were to give a wand of Infernal Healing to another PC, that PC would know exactly what spell they were about to activate, correct?

Also, if a PC were about to heal a Paladin with this spell, the Paladin wouldn't know what spell was incoming without making a Spellcraft check right? :) If he makes the Spellcraft, he could try to resist it.

If the spell was coming from a wand, he wouldn't have any chance of using Spellcraft to detect the spell until it affected him, since it's command word activated only, correct? :)


Jason S wrote:
If my PC were to give a wand of Infernal Healing to another PC, that PC would know exactly what spell they were about to activate, correct?

Unless you were triggering it blindly using UMD, yes.

From the description of spell trigger items:
"The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it."

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Jason S wrote:

Just a few questions.

If my PC were to give a wand of Infernal Healing to another PC, that PC would know exactly what spell they were about to activate, correct?

Depends; is that wand labeled? ;)

Quote:
Also, if a PC were about to heal a Paladin with this spell, the Paladin wouldn't know what spell was incoming without making a Spellcraft check right? :) If he makes the Spellcraft, he could try to resist it.

Sounds right.

Quote:
If the spell was coming from a wand, he wouldn't have any chance of using Spellcraft to detect the spell until it affected him, since it's command word activated only, correct? :)

I think this is correct, though I haven't really delved into it.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Taldor ***

Taesla wrote:
El Baron de los Banditos wrote:
Huh, I thought the Guide had a line about "fireball being as evil as raise dead," but I couldn't find it. Was it in an old guide version, or am I going crazier?
I think you are going crazier, I certainly haven't read such a line in any Pathfinder guide, new or old. Also James Jacobs has clearly stated, that casting a spell with evil descriptor is an evil act, no matter the spells purpose.

Found the old guide in one of my backups. It was talking about poisons being as evil as fireball, not [evil] spells. Page 21 of the 3.02, under "Special Rules for Alchemists and Poisoner Rogues."

Well, off to math my laser gun made of burnt pudding!

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Jason S wrote:

Just a few questions.

If my PC were to give a wand of Infernal Healing to another PC, that PC would know exactly what spell they were about to activate, correct?

Also, if a PC were about to heal a Paladin with this spell, the Paladin wouldn't know what spell was incoming without making a Spellcraft check right? :) If he makes the Spellcraft, he could try to resist it.

If the spell was coming from a wand, he wouldn't have any chance of using Spellcraft to detect the spell until it affected him, since it's command word activated only, correct? :)

Sounds about right, within the rules, but I hope no one is going around duping paladins into taking Infernal Healing and putting their powers at risk. If it did happen, that would be a "jerk" move by the player. Of course, it is probably the GM's decision whether or not the paladin would lose power, or even if the Infernal Healing would cause it, so perhaps the idea is moot.

It may not be PvP in the way it is described in the Guide, but thematically, it could be. I know my pally would be quite pissed, as would his player :-), if an Infernal Healing was dropped on him by someone who knew better.

I would just suggest that there is already enough potential conflict with regards to paladins already, no need to consciously create more.

Qadira ** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

You're just a paladin apologist Bob.

Shadow Lodge **

I'd say casting the spell would count as an evil act due to the [evil] descriptor. The spell does point out that you only appear evil while under the effects and that the spell doesn't actually effect your alignment. so a paladin wouldn't lose their powers, it's not an evil act to be effected by an evil spell now is it?


Skerek wrote:
I'd say casting the spell would count as an evil act due to the [evil] descriptor. The spell does point out that you only appear evil while under the effects and that the spell doesn't actually effect your alignment. so a paladin wouldn't lose their powers, it's not an evil act to be effected by an evil spell now is it?

What about if it was willingly? The road to hell and all that.

Cheliax ***

Skerek wrote:
I'd say casting the spell would count as an evil act due to the [evil] descriptor. The spell does point out that you only appear evil while under the effects and that the spell doesn't actually effect your alignment. so a paladin wouldn't lose their powers, it's not an evil act to be effected by an evil spell now is it?

It's been mentioned before on the boards that the 'Evil' spell descriptor thing isn't something that really matters in PFS. In fact, does it say anywhere in the rules these days that casting spells with a given alignment descriptor counts as an act of that alignment?

Add to this Mike Brock's rules on 'alignment infraction' that are now in the PFS FAQ, and I wouldn't worry too much about it. A paladin might - might - be commiting an alignment infraction by repeated use of this spell. Anyone else, I think you're good.

Final point - clerics who worship a good deity or who are good themselves are already barred from using this spell. I'm not sure that many neutral deities in PFS would care.

EDIT: Oh, hey:

'Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.

The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.'

Bolding mine, as usual.

So again - does the alignment descriptor of a spell actually do anything besides let you know which alignments of clerics are prohibited from casting it?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Skerek wrote:
I'd say casting the spell would count as an evil act due to the [evil] descriptor. The spell does point out that you only appear evil while under the effects and that the spell doesn't actually effect your alignment. so a paladin wouldn't lose their powers, it's not an evil act to be effected by an evil spell now is it?

Perhaps, but I would propose that a paladin would not willingly allow a spell to be cast upon them that would make them eminiate an aura of evil. I know mine wouldn't and he's not even a zealot of a LG deity. IMO, there is a big difference between traveling with PC's of questionable moral character and actively participating in an act tainted with evil.

Ninjaiguana wrote:
In fact, does it say anywhere in the rules these days that casting spells with a given alignment descriptor counts as an act of that alignment?

Well if you give any weight to what the designers say in the forums there is. THIS post from James Jacobs clearly says that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. The "wonkiness" is due to the nature of PFS where we are allowing it. By RAW (read: non-PFS), repeated castings of [evil] spells would, GM permitting, shift you to an evil alignment. However, in PFS we are sort of handing waving it. No evil alignments, but evil acts, within reason, are okay. IMO, that does not mean that staunchly good characters would "choose" to participate in [evil] spells. For me it is a case of "what would the character do" vs. "what can the player get away with under the rules."

James Jacobs wrote:
...casting animate dead is an evil act because the spell has the Evil descriptor. This means that a paladin, ESPECIALLY a paladin of Pharasma, would not approve. It'd certainly start the spellcaster down the path to an alignment shift to evil...

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

What's "a paladin of Pharasma"? (See Faiths of Balance, pg 27.)

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Chris Mortika wrote:
What's "a paladin of Pharasma"? (See Faiths of Balance, pg 27.)

Don't quibble...and we wonder why the designers don't comment as often as we'd like ;-)

Silver Crusade ****

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
What's "a paladin of Pharasma"? (See Faiths of Balance, pg 27.)
Don't quibble...and we wonder why the designers don't comment as often as we'd like ;-)

I can only imagine after they've been torn apart so many times on honestly extremely minor differences which can easily attributed to an on the fly not having the book in front of their nose answer that they feel like they need to have a team of rules lawyers look over their responses before they post...

People need to remember that they are human, and not gods.

PS: Not targeted at anyone, just venting how mean people are to our developers.


Dan Luckett wrote:

.

People need to remember that they are human, and not gods.

BLASPHEMY!!!

Silver Crusade ****

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Dan Luckett wrote:

.

People need to remember that they are human, and not gods.
BLASPHEMY!!!

Where's the "minus" button to show a dislike!


Dan Luckett wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Dan Luckett wrote:

.

People need to remember that they are human, and not gods.
BLASPHEMY!!!
Where's the "minus" button to show a dislike!

Get thee behind me. :-)

Cheliax ***

Bob Jonquet wrote:


Perhaps, but I would propose that a paladin would not willingly allow a spell to be cast upon them that would make them eminiate an aura of evil. I know mine wouldn't and he's not even a zealot of a LG deity. IMO, there is a big difference between traveling with PC's of questionable moral character and actively participating in an act tainted with evil.

Ninjaiguana wrote:
In fact, does it say anywhere in the rules these days that casting spells with a given alignment descriptor counts as an act of that alignment?

Well if you give any weight to what the designers say in the forums there is. THIS post from James Jacobs clearly says that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. The "wonkiness" is due to the nature of PFS where we are allowing it. By RAW (read: non-PFS), repeated castings of [evil] spells would, GM permitting, shift you to an evil alignment. However, in PFS we are sort of handing waving it. No evil alignments, but evil acts, within reason, are okay. IMO, that does not mean that staunchly good characters would "choose" to participate in [evil] spells. For me it is a case of "what would the character do" vs. "what can the player get away with under the rules."

Hmm, another question - is there a difference between casting an evil spell you have prepared and triggering a wand containing an evil spell? You're not 'casting' the spell when you trigger a wand, after all. Is the wand evil? Is the use of said wand evil? Is crafting a wand of an evil spell as evil as casting that spell 50 times?


I see this spell as a new excuse for jerk players to troll the group Paladin and the occasional good-aligned Cleric. As a DM, I would ban it because of the potential abuse you guys have shown me that this spell is capable of causing...

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Ninjaiguana wrote:
Hmm, another question - is there a difference between casting an evil spell you have prepared and triggering a wand containing an evil spell? You're not 'casting' the spell when you trigger a wand, after all. Is the wand evil? Is the use of said wand evil? Is crafting a wand of an evil spell as evil as casting that spell 50 times?

This is all in the eyes of the GM and, honestly, is going to devolve into arguments over the nuances of the game. There are too many factors to consider.

If I have to answer, yes, using a spell with an [evil] descriptor, even from a wand would be an evil act, IMO. Just as creating said wand would be evil as well. Being a recipient of the effects of said wand, could have moral implications as well. Regardless of the source, my Cleric of Sarenrae and Paladin are not going to allow Infernal Healing be cast upon them, even if the alternative is death.

As far as the 50 charges are concerned, it seems that repeated and intentional performance of evil acts, should by Core, shift your alignment. However, in PFS, that is largely hand-waived, unless the acts are excessively evil and the frequency occurs in a very short period of time (in the same scenario).

IMO, I think we would be better served to disallow spells with [evil] descriptors, but I am also in favor of player choice and character options. As long as we all play "nice" and don't try to be "jerks" towards either the CN/LN character with evil intentions and the LG character, we'll all be fine.

Cheliax ***

Icyshadow wrote:
I see this spell as a new excuse for jerk players to troll the group Paladin and the occasional good-aligned Cleric. As a DM, I would ban it because of the potential abuse you guys have shown me that this spell is capable of causing...

What abuse? It's an efficient out of combat healing spell that paladins and some more strongly good-aligned characters may not want used on them. That's it, period. Any abuse beyond that is abuse that the GM is either allowing or actively participating in.

The spell isn't overpowered or contentious - it's just [evil]. How much that means is purely up to the GM, since as I mentioned up thread, nothing in the Core penalises you for casting [evil] spells. The fact it has that descriptor bars good clerics from preparing the spell, and in my opinion that's all it should mean.

I'd also agree that paladins probably want to steer clear of it, but that's only going to be an issue if you have a...troublesome...player trying to troll the paladin.

Cheliax ***

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Ninjaiguana wrote:
Hmm, another question - is there a difference between casting an evil spell you have prepared and triggering a wand containing an evil spell? You're not 'casting' the spell when you trigger a wand, after all. Is the wand evil? Is the use of said wand evil? Is crafting a wand of an evil spell as evil as casting that spell 50 times?

This is all in the eyes of the GM and, honestly, is going to devolve into arguments over the nuances of the game. There are too many factors to consider.

If I have to answer, yes, using a spell with an [evil] descriptor, even from a wand would be an evil act, IMO. Just as creating said wand would be evil as well. Being a recipient of the effects of said wand, could have moral implications as well. Regardless of the source, my Cleric of Sarenrae and Paladin are not going to allow Infernal Healing be cast upon them, even if the alternative is death.

As far as the 50 charges are concerned, it seems that repeated and intentional performance of evil acts, should by Core, shift your alignment. However, in PFS, that is largely hand-waived, unless the acts are excessively evil and the frequency occurs in a very short period of time (in the same scenario).

IMO, I think we would be better served to disallow spells with [evil] descriptors, but I am also in favor of player choice and character options. As long as we all play "nice" and don't try to be "jerks" towards either the CN/LN character with evil intentions and the LG character, we'll all be fine.

Hi Bob, thanks for the response. I would like to mention here that I totally understand your viewpoint. Some of my characters buy cure wands, because they're less comfortable with or downright opposed to infernal healing, while others buy the infernal wands. I agree that every character should have the option to refuse infernal healing, and that players who buy wands of it should be prepared for that to happen sometimes.

Certainly every time the spell has come up in games I've run or played in, it's been fine. No-one's tried to jerk around characters who want to refuse infernal healing, and no-one's tried to stop people casting the spell on account of it being [evil]. I think live and let live is the right response to the spell, and it's certainly been working for me.


I can't find the thread anymore, but there was one guy talking about using Infernal Healing in a way that will trick a Paladin (who was played out as Lawful Stupid for the whole thing to actually work) into killing an innocent young lady who had the spell cast on her without her knowing of it. What surprised me was the support such a meanspirited notion gave, as the guy seriously not only expected the Paladin to actually kill her just because of an Aura of Evil (instead of restraining or KOing her) but also the fact that I was the only one to call the guy out on this and to present evidence that a reasonable player could work around such a hoax rather easily...

Cheliax ***

Icyshadow wrote:
I can't find the thread anymore, but there was one guy talking about using Infernal Healing in a way that will trick a Paladin (who was played out as Lawful Stupid for the whole thing to actually work) into killing an innocent young lady who had the spell cast on her without her knowing of it. What surprised me was the support such a meanspirited notion gave, as the guy seriously not only expected the Paladin to actually kill her just because of an Aura of Evil (instead of restraining or KOing her) but also the fact that I was the only one to call the guy out on this and to present evidence that a reasonable player could work around such a hoax rather easily...

Ugh, one of those. The thing about these scenarios is they always seem to assume that the paladin is utterly unaware that there are spells that mess with your alignment detection (such as misdirection, for one) and that said paladin's response to an evil 'ping' is straight-up murder.

I admit, I've never had someone try and pull that sort of stuff at my table. But I don't believe it necessitates banning spells - it just involves players not being jerks, and GMs refusing to enable them if they try to be jerks.

My two cents, etc.


Here's the post itself.

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4tn3?Whats-truly-evil-about-Infernal-healing#14

I don't know about you, but I am seeing a lot of potential jerks even in Society Play, the kind of guys who go Chaotic Neutral and try to justify Evil behaviour or accuse the Good-aligned players of being obstructive and ruining their fun. I feel sorry for the DMs involved, but I cannot help but feel angry at the morons who play that way and expect the DM to be nice with them just because the other guy is playing a Paladin.

Cheliax ***

Icyshadow wrote:

Here's the post itself.

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4tn3?Whats-truly-evil-about-Infernal-healing#14

I don't know about you, but I am seeing a lot of potential jerks even in Society Play, the kind of guys who go Chaotic Neutral and try to justify Evil behaviour or accuse the Good-aligned players of being obstructive and ruining their fun. I feel sorry for the DMs involved, but I cannot help but feel angry at the morons who play that way and expect the DM to be nice with them just because the other guy is playing a Paladin.

All I can say is, I've seen a lot of hypothetical jerk situations on the Paizo boards, but I've run over 40 tables of PFS and played another 20+, and I have encounted exactly 0 such situations 'in the wild'.


Glad to hear they aren't free to run around then. Because this Kevin here would fly out of my table like a thrown Javelin if he ever tried to pull something like that off when I'm the DM (or even a player).

Anyway, I would say creating a Wand of Infernal Healing is an evil act, as it is not only quite likely an evil individual will find use for it, but also because it's associated with the corrupting powers of Asmodeus. Then again, that might just be my view on this case.


Sorry to bring this back up, but is there any issue with my good alligned Oracle useing this spell?

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thefurmonger wrote:
Sorry to bring this back up, but is there any issue with my good alligned Oracle useing this spell?

FWIW, you get CLW as a spell known for free. Infernal Healing is superior out of combat and thus far better to use from a wand.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Thefurmonger wrote:
Sorry to bring this back up, but is there any issue with my good alligned Oracle useing this spell?

There's a section on Alignment Infractions in the Guide. If you read through it, you'll find that using a healing spell that happens to have the [evil] descriptor is a far cry from being grounds for an alignment shift in PFS.

That said, it's up to you to decide how your character would actually feel about using such a spell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Remember, even though your paladin would rip the character who cast it on you to shreds, there's that pesky no PvP rule :)

It's also an evil act, so use it often enough and you will become closer to evil. Thankfully, you don't have to stay within a step of a god, so it isn't a huge problem.


My character would not give two half-eaten rat craps about it.

He is CG and happy to do the right thing, how that happens is another matter.

And just to double check, I can spend 2 PP to buy a wand of it can't I?

500 Points of healing from a wand sounds a LOT better then 350 from a CLW one.

Thanks for the info Jiggy.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Thefurmonger wrote:
And just to double check, I can spend 2 PP to buy a wand of it can't I?

Correct, just like any other wand of a 1st-level spell.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Thefurmonger wrote:
Sorry to bring this back up, but is there any issue with my good alligned Oracle useing this spell?

The spell has the evil descriptor, so I’d say so.

Although I don't see anything in the Oracle class that would indicate they are restricted.

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Infernal Healing (again, I'm sure) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.