Alchemist: Cure Light Wounds + Infusion vs. Ghosts


Rules Questions

Grand Lodge

Ordinarily casters can use cure spells to deal positive energy damage to undead creatures like ghosts. Can an alchemist with the Infusion discovery use cure extracts offensively in this way? Technically the ghost wouldn't be "drinking" the extract, but given that you can pour holy water on a ghost it seems reasonable enough. I could also imagine that the alchemist drinks the extract himself and then uses a melee touch attack to deliver the magic to the target - there are other extracts like Touch of Slime that seem to behave that way. Thoughts?


I would say this doesn't work. Extracts affect only the imbiber, so drinking CLW and slapping the ghost in its incorporeal face would have the cure go to you. Dumping the infusion on them is more ambiguous, though I would still say no.

Thoughts on the Mechanics of Alchemist Extracts:
Usually, an extract is usable only by it's creator. This implies that extracts in some way rely on the innate magic of the alchemist in question. This shortcut is in place so that extracts do not require the resources that potions do.

The infusion discovery explicitly states that infusions are prepared using fragments of the alchemist's magic reserves. However, since there is no additional cost to producing infusions instead of other extracts, the amount used to produce an infusion must be minimal.

From this, we can presume that infusions still require some sort of energy from their imbiber to function.

Pouring a potion on oneself does not activate it, so I believe the same goes for infusions


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, but CLW is a touch spell. Imbibing a CLW extract gives you a free touch, and if the target is unwilling, a free touch attack. One could argue that this means CLW offers an opportunity to touch even without infusion. This is an interesting question, IMO. I have an investigator NPC for my Sunday crew that this would impact (though typically, he doesn't give away CLWs).


I haven't found a ruling with normal extracts, but an alchemist using words of power can only target the drinker of the extract.

Words of Power, Ultimate Magic wrote:


Alchemist: The alchemist only learns the personal and selected target words. He uses words to create extracts as normal, but they can only target the drinker (in most cases, the alchemist himself).


Given that you can't heal someone by dousing them with a CLW extract, it goes to reason that you can't plan on affecting ghosts (which ARE incorporeasl BTW) that way either.


You could just take the Healing Bombs discovery and use CLW that way.

The Exchange

Azten wrote:
You could just take the Healing Bombs discovery and use CLW that way.

Lots of issues with Healing Bomb - be sure and go over how it works with your GM.


another reason I wish that Extracts would also be allowed to be thrown using splas hweapon rules (without splash effect) and have the effect hit the target. keeping the standard action thing though. so no bab spamming it.


There's also ectoplasmic bombs from the Undead Slayer's Handbook (Player Companion) that allows you to do full damage to Incorporeals.

There is also the Crypt Breaker archetype from Inner Sea Magic that has special bombs just for hitting undead/constructs.


Da Brain wrote:
Azten wrote:
You could just take the Healing Bombs discovery and use CLW that way.
Lots of issues with Healing Bomb - be sure and go over how it works with your GM.

No issue here at all. From Healing Bomb:

"A creature that takes a direct hit from a healing bomb is healed as if she had imbibed the infusion or potion used to create the bomb. Creatures in the splash radius are healed for the minimum amount of damage the cure spell is capable of healing."

The only time it deals damage, and thus gets the Intelligence bonus to damage, is when you throw a healing bomb at an undead creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I read up on it and, it seems, that one of your premises of your argument (the function of extracts of Touch spells) is erroneous, thus invalidating your conclusion. Nothing I could find indicates that an Alchemist can direct the effect of a Touch spell extract towards a foe; Extracts always function as potions, by default, and cast the effect upon the drinker. So if the Alchemist drinks an Extract of Slime Touch, it doesn't allow him to touch a target to give them green slime but, rather, it affects the Alchemist himself. This would go for any spell with a range of Touch. Now, he can use Infusion and, maybe, try to trick a target into drinking a harmful touch extraction, and he can also use a Wand to cast the spell against some other target since he can use Spell Trigger items, but he can't drink a Touch Spell in order to use it offensively. I would think this is an oversight on their part and it probably should be addressed officially.

Grand Lodge

To give a bit of background, I'm building a PFS alchemist with something of a focus on melee combat with Feral Mutagen, and I'm trying to evaluate my options for dealing with monsters with DR, fire resistance, or other properties that make them less receptive to being clawed to death or blown to smithereens. Ghosts probably aren't the worst thing I could run into, but they're on my mind due to a couple of recent scenarios I've played with other characters.

Sovereign Court

Kazaan's got the right of it. Extracts function like potions, and the target of a potion is the one who drinks it. So if you drink an extract of CLW, you're healing yourself.

As for throwing healing potions/extracts at ghosts, there's just no rules that let you do it. It's a flavourful idea and perfect for a home game, but it's not supported by the standard rules.

So for PFS this isn't going to fly.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kazaan wrote:
I read up on it and, it seems, that one of your premises of your argument (the function of extracts of Touch spells) is erroneous, thus invalidating your conclusion. Nothing I could find indicates that an Alchemist can direct the effect of a Touch spell extract towards a foe; Extracts always function as potions, by default, and cast the effect upon the drinker. So if the Alchemist drinks an Extract of Slime Touch, it doesn't allow him to touch a target to give them green slime but, rather, it affects the Alchemist himself. This would go for any spell with a range of Touch. Now, he can use Infusion and, maybe, try to trick a target into drinking a harmful touch extraction, and he can also use a Wand to cast the spell against some other target since he can use Spell Trigger items, but he can't drink a Touch Spell in order to use it offensively. I would think this is an oversight on their part and it probably should be addressed officially.

My only argument was a hypothetical, so there was no premise nor any subsequent conclusion. "I read up on it" hardly constitutes an official ruling, just an opinion based on your interpretation of the rules, equally hypothetical - unless you have some other citation than the PRD? Indeed, the formula list includes at least one spell that grants a touch attack, which at the very least makes it an ambiguous point.

Sovereign Court

Alchemist wrote:


... potion-like extracts in which they can store spell effects. In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract.

(...)

Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist's level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.

So, extracts work like potions except where specified otherwise.

CRB > Magic Items > Potions wrote:
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
Alchemist wrote:


... potion-like extracts in which they can store spell effects. In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract.

(...)

Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist's level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.

So, extracts work like potions except where specified otherwise.

Except that's not what the quoted text says. It merely states that they behave like spells in potion form, in many ways, so not all ways. Furthermore, it states "Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not" which leaves the rules a bit ambiguous.

I've not played alchemists (nor investigators) enough to have encountered this issue. I don't know how I'd rule as a GM, likely "no, not until I've seen it FAQ'd."

There are only a handful of formulae that would fall into this gray area anyway. Unfortunately, the cure spells are the ones that are most likely to be abused.

EDIT: removed redundant text.

Sovereign Court

taks wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Alchemist wrote:


... potion-like extracts in which they can store spell effects. In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract.

(...)

Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist's level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.

So, extracts work like potions except where specified otherwise.

Except that's not what the quoted text says. It merely states that they behave like spells in potion form, in many ways, so not all ways.

Yes; anything they do different from potions will be called out. If something isn't said to be different, it works just like potions.

taks wrote:
Furthermore, it states "Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not" which leaves the rules a bit ambiguous.

That is most likely referring to the fact that the alchemist spell list contains spells that you normally can't get as potions, such as See Invisibility or Monstrous Physique. Or that it goes up to level 6 and potions normally only contain level 0-3 spells.

It is indeed nebulous, but that just suggests that it's a line of introductory text for an explanation that'll follow later on (which it does).

"Some things are different" isn't the same as "the rules don't apply anymore".

taks wrote:

I've not played alchemists (nor investigators) enough to have encountered this issue. I don't know how I'd rule as a GM, likely "no, not until I've seen it FAQ'd."

There are only a handful of formulae that would fall into this gray area anyway. Unfortunately, the cure spells are the ones that are most likely to be abused.

EDIT: removed redundant text.

The cure spell extracts should work just like cure spell potions, because there are no rules saying they would work any different.

(Aside of course from the issue that you'd need Infusion to even make them useful to other people.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can not simply force someone to drink a potion/extract/infusion, which is needed for it to take effect. There are, however, other means to deliver infusions by attacks. For example: Poisoner's Gloves and Touch Injection.


There are also syringe spears, and the far more useful (but sadly exotic) Injection Spear.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
Yes; anything they do different from potions will be called out. If something isn't said to be different, it works just like potions.

Really? It says that, too? I'm not buying your opinion over RAW or RAI. RAW does not state that extracts are potions, only they behave "like potions in many ways," but not all, nor is there EVER a clarification in any spell (that I have seen) that says otherwise. If they do not behave like potions in some ways, but those ways are never defined, then the claim "if something isn't said to be different, it works just like potions" is invalid.

Quote:
That is most likely referring to the fact that the alchemist spell list contains spells that you normally can't get as potions, such as See Invisibility or Monstrous Physique. Or that it goes up to level 6 and potions normally only contain level 0-3 spells.

"Most likely" is more opinion, indicating you don't know, but you are asserting you are correct "just because." It is ambiguous, plain and simple.

Quote:

It is indeed nebulous, but that just suggests that it's a line of introductory text for an explanation that'll follow later on (which it does).

"Some things are different" isn't the same as "the rules don't apply anymore".

Except there are no rules for this. Here you actually admit it is ambiguous, yet continue to claim it is not. Potions SPECIFICALLY state that you are the caster and the target. Extracts do not, except to state that another cannot use your extracts (without infusion). Nowhere does it state that extracts with a range of touch cannot be used on another.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Here's another bit that at first makes it seem obvious that "no" is the answer:
"An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist."
Unfortunately, touch of slime is very clearly an offensive spell only that creates a condition, not unlike shocking grasp, in which you have to touch an enemy to obtain the desired effect. But that's how other touch spells work, too (by RAW and RAI). Why would it be on the formula list if touch spells did not work this way?

Ambiguous.

EDIT: cleaned up touch of slime part of the comment.


taks wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
I read up on it and, it seems, that one of your premises of your argument (the function of extracts of Touch spells) is erroneous, thus invalidating your conclusion. Nothing I could find indicates that an Alchemist can direct the effect of a Touch spell extract towards a foe; Extracts always function as potions, by default, and cast the effect upon the drinker. So if the Alchemist drinks an Extract of Slime Touch, it doesn't allow him to touch a target to give them green slime but, rather, it affects the Alchemist himself. This would go for any spell with a range of Touch. Now, he can use Infusion and, maybe, try to trick a target into drinking a harmful touch extraction, and he can also use a Wand to cast the spell against some other target since he can use Spell Trigger items, but he can't drink a Touch Spell in order to use it offensively. I would think this is an oversight on their part and it probably should be addressed officially.
My only argument was a hypothetical, so there was no premise nor any subsequent conclusion. "I read up on it" hardly constitutes an official ruling, just an opinion based on your interpretation of the rules, equally hypothetical - unless you have some other citation than the PRD? Indeed, the formula list includes at least one spell that grants a touch attack, which at the very least makes it an ambiguous point.

Ok, first off, cut the sass. This is a rules discussion so I researched the pertinent rules from the rules books (official sources) and applied standard logic to determine how they would apply; you've got no business getting offended by that, especially since I wasn't responding to you in the first place, I was referring to the OP. And don't confuse matters of fact with matters of opinion; just because I constructed a logical interpretation of the available rules doesn't magically make it a matter of opinion. Opinions are things like, "I like cheese". Two people can differ on a matter of opinion, but neither is "wrong". But two people cannot differ on a matter of fact while neither being wrong. Also, just because your argument was hypothetical doesn't mean it has no premise nor conclusion. That's part of being an argument. You formulated your own logical position and that involves looking at the information at hand (your premises) and coming to a result (conclusion). If you had neither, then you were just blathering for no purpose. Lastly, are you seriously asking for rules citations other than the rules in order for the conclusion to be valid? That's not how this works; that's not how any of this works. If there is some other official citation that contradicts or changes the rules in the book, that takes priority, but in the absence of such, the rules in the book take priority. There are no other pertinent citations that counter the analysis I presented, thus, the currently available information (the actual rules in the book) takes precedence.

Now, Paizo might make an official comment on the matter. It might be something along the lines of, "Oh, yeah, we flubbed. Add a line into extracts that says, 'When you drink an extract of a spell with a range of touch, you are only the caster, not the target.' Sorry, our bad." Or, it could be along the lines of, "Yeah, certain spells were included thematically even though it doesn't make sense to make an extract out of them. This allows the Alchemist to apply other rules elements like using wands, syringe spears, etc." Who knows, but that's neither here nor there. I even said at the end, earlier, that I suspect it might be an oversight on their part so I'm leaning more towards the "they flubbed" option. But just because my conclusion is different from your is absolutely no good justification for the manner in which you responded.


Keep in mind that specific spells, feats, traits (and etc) does not prove anything about how a class functions. What's writen within the class' rules does not change because certain spells/feats/traits/etc are worded strange. Slight indications should not be held as highly as explicit rules.

I'll admit that Touch of Slime is a weird spell, it doesn't have a listed range (not even personal, which it probably should have).
The only way I can interprit it (aside from it being a suicide spell) is that Touch of Slime produces an effect that allowes you to perform a touch attack with a special effect. Unlike Shocking Grasp/Cure Light Wounds (where the touching is part of the delivering of the spell before it takes effect), Touch of Slime does not require a touch attack to take effect, as the slime in your hands are already part of the effect (like Produce Flame). It's still strange, since the duration is instantaneous, which would either mean that you still need to hold the charge (unlike Produce Flame) or that it stays untill the slime is delivered/destroyed.
This, however, does not prove anything about the Alchemist's class features.

There's plenty of ambiguous cases within the Alchemist as a class, this is not one of them.


Rub-Eta wrote:

Keep in mind that specific spells, feats, traits (and etc) does not prove anything about how a class functions. What's writen within the class' rules does not change because certain spells/feats/traits/etc are worded strange. Slight indications should not be held as highly as explicit rules.

I'll admit that Touch of Slime is a weird spell, it doesn't have a listed range (not even personal, which it probably should have).
The only way I can interprit it (aside from it being a suicide spell) is that Touch of Slime produces an effect that allowes you to perform a touch attack with a special effect. Unlike Shocking Grasp/Cure Light Wounds (where the touching is part of the delivering of the spell before it takes effect), Touch of Slime does not require a touch attack to take effect, as the slime in your hands are already part of the effect (like Produce Flame). It's still strange, since the duration is instantaneous, which would either mean that you still need to hold the charge (unlike Produce Flame) or that it stays untill the slime is delivered/destroyed.
This, however, does not prove anything about the Alchemist's class features.

There's plenty of ambiguous cases within the Alchemist as a class, this is not one of them.

Uh, Touch of Slime has a range of Touch. It functions exactly like any other touch spell (eg. Shocking Grasp, Cure/Inflict spells, etc.).


Kazaan wrote:
Uh, Touch of Slime has a range of Touch. It functions exactly like any other touch spell (eg. Shocking Grasp, Cure/Inflict spells, etc.).

So, if someone drinks a potion of cure light wounds, they can then touch someone to heal them?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kazaan wrote:
Ok, first off, cut the sass. This is a rules discussion so I researched the pertinent rules from the rules books (official sources) and applied standard logic to determine how they would apply;

Nonsense. You provided your interpretation of the rules books and presented them as fact.

Quote:
you've got no business getting offended by that, especially since I wasn't responding to you in the first place, I was referring to the OP.

I reserve the right to be offended at anything I want; it is not your decision to make for me. I was not offended, however, and I simply pointed out the problem with your interpretation. You seem to be the one that is offended by that.

Quote:
And don't confuse matters of fact with matters of opinion; just because I constructed a logical interpretation of the available rules doesn't magically make it a matter of opinion. Opinions are things like, "I like cheese". Two people can differ on a matter of...

You are clearly offering your interpretation of the rules which is an opinion by definition. You said, and I quote "Extracts always function as potions, by default." No, they don't, and the rules don't say that anywhere. That's not logic, it is your opinion. Not only that, I presented a logical contradiction that is apparent in the rules. If you want to argue logic, then you need to deal with these things. The contradiction exists in the rules, plain and simple, and it invalidates your interpretation.

If you allow touch of slime to obey the normal touch rules, then the same applies to all of the alchemist touch spells. It's really that simple, and yes, logical.

If the appearance of touch of slime on the alchemist formula list is an error, then it should be errata'd. Given that it was added after the original implementation of the alchemist (in Ultimate Magic), then the only LOGICAL conclusion is that it is intended to function as a normal touch spell. Nowhere in the description of the spell does it state that "unlike other alchemical formulae" nor does it offer up any other exception. In other words, RAI says "touch spells function as normal."

EDIT: nor, not or.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Uh, Touch of Slime has a range of Touch. It functions exactly like any other touch spell (eg. Shocking Grasp, Cure/Inflict spells, etc.).
So, if someone drinks a potion of cure light wounds, they can then touch someone to heal them?

Kinda looks that way, doesn't it?

I still think it would be nice to get a FAQ entry on this.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Oh, the d20pfsrd entry for touch of slime may be where the confusion arises. It does not have a range entry. The PRD has a "Range touch" entry, as does the version of UM (hardcopy) that I'm looking at now.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Uh, Touch of Slime has a range of Touch. It functions exactly like any other touch spell (eg. Shocking Grasp, Cure/Inflict spells, etc.).
So, if someone drinks a potion of cure light wounds, they can then touch someone to heal them?

Oh, I misread this. No, extracts, not potions.

Sovereign Court

So have you come up with a rule yet that clearly specifies how extracts allow you to target things that potions can't?

Because I suspect it's Touch of Slime that's in error; these things happen now and then. example


taks wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Uh, Touch of Slime has a range of Touch. It functions exactly like any other touch spell (eg. Shocking Grasp, Cure/Inflict spells, etc.).
So, if someone drinks a potion of cure light wounds, they can then touch someone to heal them?
Oh, I misread this. No, extracts, not potions.

Ok, extract of cure light wounds.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
So have you come up with a rule yet that clearly specifies how extracts allow you to target things that potions can't?

You don't need a rule, extracts are not potions. They do not carry the same text that rules out touch spells like potions, either.

Quote:

Because I suspect it's Touch of Slime that's in error; these things happen now and then. example

Perhaps, though still there is no FAQ entry.

Thats,what I figured you meant, _Ozy_.


Btw, this makes the infusion discovery much less important since you can now bestow buffs on your allies by drinking an extract and then touching them.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Not really. There aren't many touch spells to begin with (on the alchemy list) that can benefit others. The 3 cures (light, moderate, serious), and a handful of utility types. The rest are mildly offensive extracts. Buffs like bull's strength aren't touch, so they certainly wouldn't be included.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Uh, Touch of Slime has a range of Touch. It functions exactly like any other touch spell (eg. Shocking Grasp, Cure/Inflict spells, etc.).
So, if someone drinks a potion of cure light wounds, they can then touch someone to heal them?

No, because, when you drink a potion or an extract, you are the target of the effect. A potion/extract of CLW affects the imbiber with CLW; it heals them. A potion/extract of Shocking Grasp affects the imbiber with Shocking Grasp and should probably be labeled "Power Thirst: Rawberry".


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Except that as hard as you try to make the rules say the same limits apply to extracts as potions, it doesn't make it so. Your opinion is most certainly that, and RAI may be as well, but RAW is not. Find the relevant rule and make your case... it's not as if you haven't had the chance. Touch spells have been on the formula list since the class was first published, yet never an errata nor a FAQ.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Oh, and both Ultimate Intrigue and Occult Adventures have new spells that are range touch. The one in UI can be used on yourself, though the one in OA really can't (well, unless you want to make yourself helpless for 1 hour/level). There are only 2 spells listed for alchemist in OA, and one clearly violates what seems to be RAI. Maybe the designer in the link above (Mark Seifter) doesn't think touch spells can be used on anyone else, but other designers that keep adding them don't seem to agree.

The waters are muddy, at best.


taks wrote:
Not really. There aren't many touch spells to begin with (on the alchemy list) that can benefit others. The 3 cures (light, moderate, serious), and a handful of utility types. The rest are mildly offensive extracts. Buffs like bull's strength aren't touch, so they certainly wouldn't be included.

Er, ok, some of them aren't touch. That just means the drinker of the extract can cast the spell at the usual range, no?

And there are plenty of useful touch spells in the list:barkskin, ablative barrier, stoneskin, polymorph, true seeing, heal ... the list is actually quite large


Kazaan wrote:
Uh, Touch of Slime has a range of Touch. It functions exactly like any other touch spell (eg. Shocking Grasp, Cure/Inflict spells, etc.).

I really need to stop using the SRD.

Still, my point still stands: Touch of Slime can not change the general rules within the Alchemist class.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:

Er, ok, some of them aren't touch. That just means the drinker of the extract can cast the spell at the usual range, no?

And there are plenty of useful touch spells in the list:barkskin, ablative barrier, stoneskin, polymorph, true seeing, heal ... the list is actually quite large

Fair enough.

@Rub-Eta: the question isn't whether touch of slime breaks the mechanics of the alchemist, the question is whether the mechanics are actually as they are commonly understood to be. My quote above is from d20pfsrd and identical to the wording in the APG. That's the basic understanding of the mechanism, except it is worded differently than the mechanism for potions which states the potion affects you, and you are the target. Then you have designers that keep adding spells, such as touch of slime (it is not the only one) that have no use for an alchemist unless they are allowed to touch someone else.

As I have said several times, it is, at the very least, ambiguous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please don't take offence, but this class has been out for a very long time now. You should realise that you are far too late to find anything fundamentally class-chaning like this.

Nowhere does it say that an Alchemist can deliver an Extract to someone else via a touch, it's only stated to function as a potion (and you can't deliver potions either).
When the rules says "duplicate spells that a potion can't" it means that you're not limited to only existing potions, you can create any extract that is listed on the Alchemist's formula list. It does not contridict itself.

It is not ambiguous. Take a look at some of the Alchemist's Discoveries and you'll see ambiguous. You should probably also read this FAQ about Breath of Life Extracts, where it's clearly ruled that you don't deliver it via touch (like the normal spell) and that you need the Infusion Discovery for it to function.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Alchemist: Cure Light Wounds + Infusion vs. Ghosts All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.