Glorious Heat + Spark = Unlimited Healing


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

9 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

The Glorious Heat feat allows a character to heal an ally half his levels in hit points each time he casts a divine spell with the fire descriptor. Spark is an orison with the fire descriptor.
So, for a single feat, a character now has the option to heal his companions for free as long as he has sufficient fine objects to burn.

That should really hurt the wand of CLW market. And now all clerics are pyromaniacs.


Jadeite wrote:

The Glorious Heat feat allows a character to heal an ally half his levels in hit points each time he casts a divine spell with the fire descriptor. Spark is an orison with the fire descriptor.

So, for a single feat, a character now has the option to heal his companions for free as long as he has sufficient fine objects to burn.

That should really hurt the wand of CLW market. And now all clerics are pyromaniacs.

Well, technically you don't even need a potentially burning fine object, all you need is a fine object, if it is fireproof it's better since you can cast spark on it multiple times ;)

RAW the combo seems legal... so why not ? And don't forget the +1 morale bonus to attack... :p


Jadeite wrote:

The Glorious Heat feat allows a character to heal an ally half his levels in hit points each time he casts a divine spell with the fire descriptor. Spark is an orison with the fire descriptor.

So, for a single feat, a character now has the option to heal his companions for free as long as he has sufficient fine objects to burn.

That should really hurt the wand of CLW market. And now all clerics are pyromaniacs.

Glorious Heat feat? In the UM? I don't see it anywhere.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

We could discuss at lenghts if a feat in Faith o Purity, under
Sarenrae (even if not exclusive) can be freely used by clerics of a deity that hasn't fire between his domains.

Then we can spend the next week discussing if orison/cantrips are "true" spells or not.

Or we can use the easy solution and say: it is cheese, it don't work.

All the above as ROI, obviously.

Dark Archive

Slaunyeh wrote:
Glorious Heat feat? In the UM? I don't see it anywhere.

It's in Faiths of Purity. Spark is in the APG. And it's explicitly said that the feats from Faiths of Purity are open to everyone.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Jadeite wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Glorious Heat feat? In the UM? I don't see it anywhere.
It's in Faiths of Purity. Spark is in the APG. And it's explicitly said that the feats from Faiths of Purity are open to everyone.
Quote:

The feats detailed below are not necessarily unique to the followers of these gods, but appear far more commonly among the congregations of these gods.

I read that as a far cry from "open to everyone".


Jadeite wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Glorious Heat feat? In the UM? I don't see it anywhere.
It's in Faiths of Purity. Spark is in the APG. And it's explicitly said that the feats from Faiths of Purity are open to everyone.

Ah alright, that explains it. If it's not from PF it's hardly 'every cleric'. But sounds useful.

Dark Archive

Diego Rossi wrote:

We could discuss at lenghts if a feat in Faith o Purity, under

Sarenrae (even if not exclusive) can be freely used by clerics of a deity that hasn't fire between his domains.

Then we can spend the next week discussing if orison/cantrips are "true" spells or not.

Or we can use the easy solution and say: it is cheese, it don't work.

All the above as ROI, obviously.

Those feats are not even cleric exclusive. They are mostly meant for followers of those deities, but are free for anyone.

Orisons:

Quote:
Orisons: Clerics can prepare a number of orisons, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Cleric under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again.

Are you really trying to argue that cantrips and orisons aren't "true" spells?


Jadeite wrote:

Orisons:

Quote:
Orisons: Clerics can prepare a number of orisons, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Cleric under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again.
Are you really trying to argue that cantrips and orisons aren't "true" spells?

If I read that correctly, he's just pointing out how people get buthurt over silly things and complain endlessly about them.

Dark Archive

Slaunyeh wrote:
Ah alright, that explains it. If it's not from PF it's hardly 'every cleric'. But sounds useful.

Considering that it's Society legal, it should be a pretty popular choice for clerics, druids and oracles.

Diego Rossi wrote:

I read that as a far cry from "open to everyone".

Would you also argue that only characters from Qadira can take Dervish Dance?


Jadeite wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Ah alright, that explains it. If it's not from PF it's hardly 'every cleric'. But sounds useful.

Considering that it's Society legal, it should be a pretty popular choice for clerics, druids and oracles.

Diego Rossi wrote:

I read that as a far cry from "open to everyone".

Would you also argue that only characters from Qadira can take Dervish Dance?

Just because something isn't exclusive to one faction/deity/whatever doesn't mean it's common everywhere. The campaign setting doesn't care about minmaxing or game balance, it cares about what makes sense for characters from a given region. So no, I don't expect to see to many dervishs outside of Qadira or characters from Qadira.

Contributor

Since the "Heal 1 HP" orison was specifically dropped out when orisons were made autofire to prevent infinite healing, it's only reasonable to say that pyro-cleric isn't an infinite healer. I would house rule that the spell has to be sacrificed to get the healing to stick.

In other words, yes, it's a loophole, but it's not one any sane GM would allow.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Jadeite wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Ah alright, that explains it. If it's not from PF it's hardly 'every cleric'. But sounds useful.

Considering that it's Society legal, it should be a pretty popular choice for clerics, druids and oracles.

Diego Rossi wrote:

I read that as a far cry from "open to everyone".

Would you also argue that only characters from Qadira can take Dervish Dance?

If you are only interested in Society play use it would be better to post in that section where the you will get replies by the official Society GMs.

In a home game I would require some very lengthy explanation why a cleric of Gozreh would take that feat. And then I would probably refuse it the same.
Campaign background consistency has some importance to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jadeite wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

I read that as a far cry from "open to everyone".

Would you also argue that only characters from Qadira can take Dervish Dance?

Well as the DM I would say "yes, if I choose so, so it will be" ;) (But I don't restrain this one though :p )

Even if I don't restrain Glorious Heat to Sarenrae Cleric I will surely restrain it to Golarion Campaign only (and since I have already houseruled dervish dance to "choose a 1H light or finessable weapon when picking this feat, this feat apply to this weapon only, you can take it multiple times" and call it "flourish of blade" - yeah I know not the best name but you can't be at your best all the times heh ;) - then I can said that Dervish dance is already banned even from Quadiran characters... :p
But that's at my table... ;)

Since it's PFS legal per RAW there's nothing going against this combo... And to be honest I don't think it's so unbalanced... In fight it's really crappy (not enough heal to be significant) and out of combat it only saves you some gold (and not a lot at that) at the expense of a feat... Why not ? I don't see this as really over powered and I can't see this breaking the balance of the game... But I could be wrong, I don't play PFS...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
In other words, yes, it's a loophole, but it's not one any sane GM would allow.

Oh, so I think I'm not sane because I will allow it in my game... For me, at level 5, a cleric willing to trade a feat that will heal 3 HP is far from an optimal choice, especially since you can have a wand for a mere 750GP... But you know, YMMV so... ;)

Guess it depends of the players... Well since mine doesn't even bother to read the rules I think I have nothing to fear from them except if I put their nose on it :p


Your choice, I would houserule it not to work without expending the spell slot, and I'd even dare to do so in pathfinder society. At some point even the biggest raw pinprick should see reason or play another game imo.

Dark Archive

Loengrin wrote:
Since it's PFS legal per RAW there's nothing going against this combo... And to be honest I don't think it's so unbalanced... In fight it's really crappy (not enough heal to be significant) and out of combat it only saves you some gold (and not a lot at that) at the expense of a feat... Why not ? I don't see this as really over powered and I can't see this breaking the balance of the game... But I could be wrong, I don't play PFS...

This. All the feat does is saving the money for wands of cure light wounds. The healing of the wand costs about 3 gp per hp. Wands of lesser infernal healing are even more efficient with 1.5 gp per hp. At high levels, that cost is neglectable.

As for those arguing that feats like Dervish Dance should be limited to a region, a certain Creative Director disagrees with you:
You only need to meat the feat's prerequisites to take the feat, and being a member of the Qadira faction is not one of those prerequisites.

Cure Minor Wound at will = unlimited healing at first level for any cleric or druid
Glorious Heat + Spark = unlimited healing at fifth level at the cost of a feat
See any difference?

You need a CL of 5 to take Glorious Heat. At this point, Wands of CLW should be available. It's still an very good choice for clerics, but that does not make it overpowered, not any more than Power Attack for fighters or Natural Spell for druids.

Oh, and inquisitors can use this neat little trick, too, if they take the Two World Magic trait to gain access to spark.
As for preventing clerics of Gozreh from taking the feat? Congratulations, you just made them even more suboptimal than they already were.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I might allow it in a home game, as a feat to use standard action to heal 2 hp is not terribly broken as far as action expenditure. However, I would insist on it only being available to a worshiper of a Good fire deity.

However, I hope that it is not a legal combo for Society play, as wealth balance is far more critical in Organized Play.

Dark Archive

Scribbling Rambler wrote:
However, I hope that it is not a legal combo for Society play, as wealth balance is far more critical in Organized Play.

It is:

Quote:
Pathfinder Player Companion: Faiths of Purity Feats: all feats on pages 24–25; Spells: all spells on pages 28–29; Traits: all traits on pages 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 18–21. Note that Eye of the Father grants Appraise as a class skill, not Perform, as written.

Link

Note, that the feat only allows you to heal others, so you are using one of your feat slots to save others money.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh, I am quite aware that the feat is legal. It is a question as to whether that particular combo works the way you think it does in PFS play.


<checks d20pfsrd>
I see that I would houserule it that it heals 1 hp per level of the spell being cast. Or maybe 2 hp per level of spell being cast to make it more worthwhile as cleric does not have so much fire spells to start with.

By RAW it works with orisons but I don't think that it is RAI - cure minor wounds went away for a reason.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Oh, I am quite aware that the feat is legal. It is a question as to whether that particular combo works the way you think it does in PFS play.

Why shouldn't it work? Spark is legal, Glorious Heat it legal, the way it works is obvious. Unless you are playing with some of those RAI people who think their psychic powers of reading a game designers mind are superior to the simple logic of just using the rules as they are written.


Yes, however silly it may sound to individuals, RAW it works. While some of the similar abilities that utilise spells have "you cannot use 0-level spell slot to do this" kind of clause, this feat clearly lacks such specifications and unless errata'd otherwise or an official answer is made by one of the developers, it is entirely up to the DM to decide whether he would allow it in his game or not. After all, the DM is the final arbitor of such decisions.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Jadeite wrote:
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Oh, I am quite aware that the feat is legal. It is a question as to whether that particular combo works the way you think it does in PFS play.
Why shouldn't it work? Spark is legal, Glorious Heat it legal, the way it works is obvious. Unless you are playing with some of those RAI people who think their psychic powers of reading a game designers mind are superior to the simple logic of just using the rules as they are written.

The argument Scribbling Rambler is making is not that it isn't legal, just that it probably shouldn't be legal for PFS play. PFS play is designed with a very specific wealth curve at every level, and one that a spell like this could seriously throw out of whack. I've seen players burn through entire CLW wands in a single adventure, so to claim that the cost of healing at high levels is negligible is disingenuous. Mark has to think of a lot of strange combos and this one likely just slipped his mind. If you want to think of me as one of "those RAI people who have psychic powers of reading a game designers mind are superior to the simple logic of just using the rules as they are written", so be it but I would tend to agree with SR. The combo is legal now, but I hope it doesn't stay that way.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jadeite wrote:
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Oh, I am quite aware that the feat is legal. It is a question as to whether that particular combo works the way you think it does in PFS play.
Why shouldn't it work? Spark is legal, Glorious Heat it legal, the way it works is obvious. Unless you are playing with some of those RAI people who think their psychic powers of reading a game designers mind are superior to the simple logic of just using the rules as they are written.

Psychic? No.

However, my experience with the PFS campaign since June of 2008 occasionally allows me to make educated guesses.
And if you re-read my posts, I never said the feat or spell was illegal. I said the combination affected wealth balance, and that it may not be legal for Org Play.
What is obvious is that your interpretation goes against the spirit of the PFS campaign, and against the goals of the designers in removing cure minor wounds when orisons became unlimited.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd still say anything that reduces the need for a rest is a good thing. This combo allows a divine caster to retain his healing spells and energy channels for emergency and combat healing.
A plentiful source of weak healing isn't a problem if the price is sufficient. It wasn't a problem with the 3.5 dragon shaman, it wasn't a problem with the healing reserve feat and it isn't a problem with channel energy, even though many people complained about it back then.
It's a nice combo, but so are others.
A magus getting 20 full attacks in a row is overpowered and broken. This ability is merely useful.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jadeite wrote:
Why shouldn't it work? Spark is legal, Glorious Heat it legal, the way it works is obvious. Unless you are playing with some of those RAI people who think their psychic powers of reading a game designers mind are superior to the simple logic of just using the rules as they are written.

As more rules are released for Pathfinder, it will occasionally cause some of the same issues that 3.5 encountered. The designers cannot anticipate every single impact a new rule has on the existing rules set. Perhaps this combo is one they failed to see.

Since Faiths of Purity has been out for, what a month now (?), and you are the first to bring this up, perhaps it was not very transparent an issue.

One thing is sure. The designers removed Cure Minor Wounds with the advent of the unlimited orison casting. This combo seems to violate that intention.

What you have to understand is that if you have unlimited healing that essentially takes no resources, the resources utilization vs. challenge curve gets skewed in favor of the players. In a home game, you can compensate by increasing the challenges or by reducing other rewards for balance. In PFS, the encounters are specific and unalterable. Going into every encounter with full hit points, without the expenditure of resources, diminishes the challenge and skews the wealth curve.

Of course, this is the general rules forum, but my comments are mostly directed for PFS play.

IMO, something that bypasses a fundamental concept in the game is almost always cheese. The phrase that has become a front-runner in my mind, "Just because something CAN be done (RAW), does not mean it SHOULD be done." YMMV

Dark Archive

Unlimited out of combat healing merely reduces attrition. So, traps are even more useless. And attrition is mostly a problem at lower levels till wands of CLW become available. As I've written before, there is a certain difference between a 1st level character having access to unlimited healing at no extra cost and a 5th level character paying a feat for that.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I had A oracle player who wanted to use this combo when the FoP came out. After looking at it I decided that he needed something to light on fire to make the Spark Spell work. He choose a Candle after seeing that a candle lasted one Hour I told him that every time he used Spark it uses up one round from the candle and he has to use a move action to "Blow the Candle out". So now we have a Blind Oracle that lights the way in the darkness.

Thou I agree that Infinite healing is kind of a role killer " for rouges failing traps and taking damage for doing stupid things" most adventures and modules in pathfinder are too fast paced if he uses 10 rounds to heal up the party then duration spell are running out "Buffs, Summons Ect"

The Exchange

That's a bunch of cheese right there. It definitely needs to get errata'd, and right quick for PFS.

If gold at high levels isn't an issue for players, than sure you won't mind it if they errata'd the Glorious Heat / Spark combo?

/If you build a healbot cleric right, you don't need to use such cheesiness.


Joseph Caubo wrote:

That's a bunch of cheese right there. It definitely needs to get errata'd, and right quick for PFS.

If gold at high levels isn't an issue for players, than sure you won't mind it if they errata'd the Glorious Heat / Spark combo?

/If you build a healbot cleric right, you don't need to use such cheesiness.

+1

Not illegal by RAW, but certainly smells of saganaki. A 5th level cleric gets 1200 HP out of a 0.01 GP candle. Compared with an average of 275 HP (max of 450, if you manage to roll 8 on a 1d8 50 times) out of a 750 GP wand.

Lets do a little more math. Using the wand's average as a baseline, 1 HP is worth 2.72 GP. So you can get 3,272 GP worth of HP out of a single 0.01 GP candle, for the cost of a feat. Bought 100 candles for 1 GP? That's 327,000 GP worth of cure light wounds wands.

No, not unbalanced at all... </sarcasm>

Dark Archive

Joseph Caubo wrote:
/If you build a healbot cleric right, you don't need to use such cheesiness.

If such a character has no need for it, how is it cheesy or overpowered?

Or did you want to say 'If you build your character right (by using this combination), he does not have to be a healbot'?


Jadeite wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
/If you build a healbot cleric right, you don't need to use such cheesiness.

If such a character has no need for it, how is it cheesy or overpowered?

Or did you want to say 'If you build your character right (by using this combination), he does not have to be a healbot'?

I think what he means is that a cleric is already a more than capable healer, and you can build them in such a way that they are fantastic healer. This particular combination makes all of those options obsolete.

A rule of thumb for 'overpowered' is if you can think of no reason NOT to take an option, it's probably overpowered. This option gives you the ability to complete heal the entire party... an entire ARMY even, for nothing but the cost of a candle or scraps of paper, and sufficient time. This is also an option that Paizo explicitly removed from the game, by removing the Cure Minor Wounds orison. I can't think of any reason not to believe this is overpowered.

On top of that, it also messes with WBL as it makes cure potions/wands almost obsolete. I say almost because you still want a couple handy in case the Cleric goes down. Other than that, why would you need them when a 1 CP candle is worth 4+ wands of cure light wounds?


Technically a feat is more valuable than saving 750 to 1500 gp.
In PFS, clerics are only going to get 6 feats to throw around. I think expending 17% of your feats is a bigger expenditure than spending 750gp out of 10500 at lvl 5(7%).

I think we need to ban the word cheese because people use it to misconstrue how things really are. There is no breaking the economy of out of combat healing since out of combat healing is already pointlessly cheap.


thepuregamer wrote:

Technically a feat is more valuable than saving 750 to 1500 gp.

In PFS, clerics are only going to get 6 feats to throw around. I think expending 17% of your feats is a bigger expenditure than spending 750gp out of 10500 at lvl 5(7%).

I think we need to ban the word cheese because people use it to misconstrue how things really are. There is no breaking the economy of out of combat healing since out of combat healing is already pointlessly cheap.

See my math above. It's much more gold than that. Don't forget that the feat will last the lifetime of the PC.

Contributor

Jadeite wrote:
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Oh, I am quite aware that the feat is legal. It is a question as to whether that particular combo works the way you think it does in PFS play.
Why shouldn't it work? Spark is legal, Glorious Heat it legal, the way it works is obvious. Unless you are playing with some of those RAI people who think their psychic powers of reading a game designers mind are superior to the simple logic of just using the rules as they are written.

It's not psychic powers so much as reading retention and the ability to interpret precedent.

The game designers have explained on these very boards that they removed the 0 level healing orison (replacing it with Stabilize) specifically so that a first level cleric wouldn't be able to heal an army by just sitting there and poking them with his finger for 1 HP of healing until they're all better.

Letting the same thing be allowed for a 1st level cleric of Sarenrae who spends a feat and brings a candle? The difference precisely?

It's broken, and while I can't say for certain what patch is going to be applied to the situation, I'd say the fair one is to add a line to the Feat explaining that if an orison is used to fuel the Feat, the orison is expended for the day. The cleric can still memorize three copies of the orison, however, so it still might be useful for extra healing.

Otherwise we have to start looking at a world where rather than buying a wand of healing, a wiser purchase is a halfling eunuch slave who's also a 1st level cleric of Sarenrae. That should be cheaper than the wand and doesn't burn out.

Or the GM can just say "No." That works too.


Quote:


See my math above. It's much more gold than that. Don't forget that the feat will last the lifetime of the PC.

that is correct. for the lifetime of this pc, they are going to have 1 less feat to spend on abilities that just improve their build.

See your calculations aren't terribly relevant because how much you can heal with that single candle is unimportant. We could just push it down to 0 gp spent for the healing. when you have 10500 gp to spend, spending 750 vs 0gp spent is not a big difference.

The only area where you are correct is that this trick would make healing an army too easy. But players rarely have to heal an army. The average party has 4 people to heal. The scale is small enough in a party that you are spending a feat to save pennies.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Oh, I am quite aware that the feat is legal. It is a question as to whether that particular combo works the way you think it does in PFS play.
Why shouldn't it work? Spark is legal, Glorious Heat it legal, the way it works is obvious. Unless you are playing with some of those RAI people who think their psychic powers of reading a game designers mind are superior to the simple logic of just using the rules as they are written.

It's not psychic powers so much as reading retention and the ability to interpret precedent.

Letting the same thing be allowed for a 1st level cleric of Sarenrae who spends a feat and brings a candle? The difference precisely?

I think you should read and realize that it requires a caster lvl of 5.

Which makes the miracle of cheap/free out of combat healing much less impressive.
Quote:


Otherwise we have to start looking at a world where rather than buying a wand of healing, a wiser purchase is a halfling eunuch slave who's also a 1st level cleric of Sarenrae. That should be cheaper than the wand and doesn't burn out.

Or the GM can just say "No." That works too.

or the gm could read the prerequisites.

Contributor

Caster level 5 means that people just take the character with this feat as a Follower instead, leading to the same trouble with the army and free magical healing. Not to mention the world building trouble with cities with hospitals with infinite free healing.

Dark Archive

Free healing like the one a magus or witch can give?
Don't try to apply the rules to worldbuilding, you'll only get yourself hurt.


thepuregamer wrote:
Quote:


See my math above. It's much more gold than that. Don't forget that the feat will last the lifetime of the PC.

that is correct. for the lifetime of this pc, they are going to have 1 less feat to spend on abilities that just improve their build.

See your calculations aren't terribly relevant because how much you can heal with that single candle is unimportant. We could just push it down to 0 gp spent for the healing. when you have 10500 gp to spend, spending 750 vs 0gp spent is not a big difference.

The only area where you are correct is that this trick would make healing an army too easy. But players rarely have to heal an army. The average party has 4 people to heal. The scale is small enough in a party that you are spending a feat to save pennies.

Your error here is that your thinking of only one wand. This negates the need for any number of wands, which is in effect an infinite amount of gold given enough time. Thats where this combo becomes a problem. You also have negated the need to actually find, make, or purchase healing wands, scrolls, potions, etc.


ZappoHisbane wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:

That's a bunch of cheese right there. It definitely needs to get errata'd, and right quick for PFS.

If gold at high levels isn't an issue for players, than sure you won't mind it if they errata'd the Glorious Heat / Spark combo?

/If you build a healbot cleric right, you don't need to use such cheesiness.

+1

Not illegal by RAW, but certainly smells of saganaki. A 5th level cleric gets 1200 HP out of a 0.01 GP candle. Compared with an average of 275 HP (max of 450, if you manage to roll 8 on a 1d8 50 times) out of a 750 GP wand.

Lets do a little more math. Using the wand's average as a baseline, 1 HP is worth 2.72 GP. So you can get 3,272 GP worth of HP out of a single 0.01 GP candle, for the cost of a feat. Bought 100 candles for 1 GP? That's 327,000 GP worth of cure light wounds wands.

No, not unbalanced at all... </sarcasm>

Wand of Infernal Healing heals 500HP for 750GP. So the average cost to heal is 1.5gp/hp healed.

The question becomes whether this is more or less economical than a cleric spending a feat to be able to perform out-of-combat healing for free.

If you look at the other primary feat-economics comparison, item creation, It's not that great a deal. Craft Wondrous gets a 50% discount on all magical items. So for the average party, which probably spends about 75%+ of its overall wealth on magic items, at 10th level, according to the Character Wealth By Level table, each member of the party should have about 62K of good stuff. Assuming (pulling numbers out of my ass..er..air), lets say that they've spent about 1/3 of their wealth on wondrous items. A Six member party would have spent a total of 120K on wondrous items, which means that with the Craft Wondrous feat, they would be able to make 240K of items.

120K of wealth in craft wondrous items for the cost of one feat seems to me considerably more powerful than the ability not to purchase healing at 1.5gp/hp.

If you were choosing based on power level, how would you rate each of the following feat combinations in terms of "most bang for the buck"?

1) Craft Wondrous Item - 50% discount on all wondrous items for the rest of the adventurer's career.
2) Craft Wand - 50% discount on all wands. (including reducing the cost of out-of-combat healing from 1.5gp/hp to 0.75gp/hp)
3) Glorious Heat (plus dedication of one of the four 0-level spell slots) - free out-of-combat healing

Paizo Employee Franchise Manager

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 10 people marked this as a favorite.

Since we only publish errata when we reprint a book, a forum clarification will have to suffice on this issue.

Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level. This keeps unlimited use orisons from being spammed, and 1st level spells from being abused at higher levels.

This clarification will appear in the July update to the Pathfinder Society Additional Resources document.


Mark Moreland wrote:

Since we only publish errata when we reprint a book, a forum clarification will have to suffice on this issue.

Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level. This keeps unlimited use orisons from being spammed, and 1st level spells from being abused at higher levels.

This clarification will appear in the July update to the Pathfinder Society Additional Resources document.

This is a fairly confusing post.

Are you saying that for PFS play, you are going to change the text of the feat to something other than what is printed in the source book?

Or are you saying that you are going to disallow the feat as written for PFS play?

(Since the chance of the source book ever actually receiving errata is reasonably small, as it does not appear that any (or very very little) non-book material has ever gone to the reprint cycle).


Mark Moreland wrote:

Since we only publish errata when we reprint a book, a forum clarification will have to suffice on this issue.

Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level. This keeps unlimited use orisons from being spammed, and 1st level spells from being abused at higher levels.

This clarification will appear in the July update to the Pathfinder Society Additional Resources document.

Thank you sir, much appreciated. :)

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Fozzy Hammer wrote:

This is a fairly confusing post.

Are you saying that for PFS play, you are going to change the text of the feat to something other than what is printed in the source book?

Or are you saying that you are going to disallow the feat as written for PFS play?

(Since the chance of the source book ever actually receiving errata is reasonably small, as it does not appear that any (or very very little) non-book material has ever gone to the reprint cycle).

We will have to wait until Mark gets a chance to update the Additional Resources page but my read on this is that since the book will not be reprinted, Mark will use the adjusted feat text on the additional resources page.

Contributor

Mark Moreland wrote:

Since we only publish errata when we reprint a book, a forum clarification will have to suffice on this issue.

Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level. This keeps unlimited use orisons from being spammed, and 1st level spells from being abused at higher levels.

This clarification will appear in the July update to the Pathfinder Society Additional Resources document.

That solves the problem elegantly. Thanks.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:

Since we only publish errata when we reprint a book, a forum clarification will have to suffice on this issue.

Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level. This keeps unlimited use orisons from being spammed, and 1st level spells from being abused at higher levels.

This clarification will appear in the July update to the Pathfinder Society Additional Resources document.

That solves the problem elegantly. Thanks.

Actually, if he's simply changing the text of the feat for PFS play, but no errata is to be issued, then this is probably the most inelegant solution possible. This creates two different rules. One - the printed rule, and two - the unprinted rule as updated in a document that previously contained no rewordings of any other feats.

The elegant solution, if Mark feels that the feat as printed is too powerful for PFS play is to simply disallow it. This is the established procedure that Paizo staff has used for feats that they did not want in PFS play.

The wording of Mark's post was vague as to the actual change that might occur in the July Additional Resources update.

The Exchange

ZappoHisbane wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
/If you build a healbot cleric right, you don't need to use such cheesiness.

If such a character has no need for it, how is it cheesy or overpowered?

Or did you want to say 'If you build your character right (by using this combination), he does not have to be a healbot'?
I think what he means is that a cleric is already a more than capable healer, and you can build them in such a way that they are fantastic healer. This particular combination makes all of those options obsolete.

This would be the correct RAI of what I said.

Also, thanks Mark for giving a quick ruling on this. Like Kevin said, adjusting so that the damage healed is equal to the spell's level is quite elegant. :)


Fozzy Hammer wrote:

Actually, if he's simply changing the text of the feat for PFS play, but no errata is to be issued, then this is probably the most inelegant solution possible. This creates two different rules. One - the printed rule, and two - the unprinted rule as updated in a document that previously contained no rewordings of any other feats.

The elegant solution, if Mark feels that the feat as printed is too powerful for PFS play is to simply disallow it. This is the established procedure that Paizo staff has used for feats that they did not want in PFS play.

...

By now there are probably already a dozen different rules in play with regard to the Glorious Heat feat, since GMs have the power to allow/disallow/modify any content in their campaign.

Pathfinder Society Organized Play is Mark and Hyrum's campaign and you should trust them to make what they consider the most appropiate solution for this particular campaign.

Finally arguing that something should not be done simply because it has never been done before is an argument that would have us all living in caves this day.

1 to 50 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Glorious Heat + Spark = Unlimited Healing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.