|
Is there a spell in Pathfinder that replaces Panacena.
In 3.5 it was a nice higher level spell you could take to replace many low level ones that each removed different minor conditions.
Panacea (Spell)
Conjuration (Healing)
Level
Cleric 4, druid 5
Components
V, S
Casting Time
1 standard action
Range
Touch
Target
Creature touched
Duration
Instantaneous
Saving Throw
Will half (harmless), see text
Spell Resistance
Yes (harmless)
You kneel next to your afflicted comrade and speak the soft words of this spell. At your touch a golden radiance infuses your companion.
This spell channels positive energy into a creature to wipe away its afflictions. It immediately ends any of the following conditions affecting the subject: blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, frightened, nauseated, panicked, paralyzed, shaken, sickened, and stunned. It negates sleep effects and the effect of the feeblemind spell, and ends any additional effects from poison, as the neutralize poison spell. It also cures 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +20).
Panacea does not remove ability damage, negative levels, or drained levels.
Used against an undead creature, panacea deals damage instead of curing the creature (which takes half damage You smell an otyugh swarm before you see it if it makes a Will saving throw), but it has no other effect.
Source: Spell Compendium
This is the sort of post that confuses me. Pathfinder and 3.5 are *very* similar and about 90% compatible as is. Why do you need to see it written in a book with the word "Pathfinder" on the cover? I'd just use it as is--and if I were the DM, I'd certainly allow it.
This sort of reminds me of the time back in my day when I was in a campaign that switched from 1st Edition to Second Edition. I was playing a Paladin and I wanted to use a Broadsword--for which I had stats in 1st edition--it was suspiciously like a longsword, except the damage was 2d4 instead of 1d8. My DM at the time (stubbornly, in my opinion) refused to allow me to keep using it, because it "wasn't second edition"--even though there was no mechanical difference in the rules that would have prevented it or that even required any tweaking.
This seems like the same sort of deal. Why throw out the whole Spell Compendium just because it wasn't published by the fine people at Paizo? It is still a viable resource--unless you have "one of those" types of DMs...err...GMs.
I'm currently playing a Scout from the "Complete Adventurer" in a Pathfinder campaign, because my GM shares my point of view. "Converting" the class took about 2 minutes--I had to update the skill list and then calculate CMB and CMD. BAM! Converted!
|
|
This is the sort of post that confuses me. Pathfinder and 3.5 are *very* similar and about 90% compatible as is. Why do you need to see it written in a book with the word "Pathfinder" on the cover? I'd just use it as is--and if I were the DM, I'd certainly allow it.
This sort of reminds me of the time back in my day when I was in a campaign that switched from 1st Edition to Second Edition. I was playing a Paladin and I wanted to use a Broadsword--for which I had stats in 1st edition--it was suspiciously like a longsword, except the damage was 2d4 instead of 1d8. My DM at the time (stubbornly, in my opinion) refused to allow me to keep using it, because it "wasn't second edition"--even though there was no mechanical difference in the rules that would have prevented it or that even required any tweaking.
This seems like the same sort of deal. Why throw out the whole Spell Compendium just because it wasn't published by the fine people at Paizo? It is still a viable resource--unless you have "one of those" types of DMs...err...GMs.
I'm currently playing a Scout from the "Complete Adventurer" in a Pathfinder campaign, because my GM shares my point of view. "Converting" the class took about 2 minutes--I had to update the skill list and then calculate CMB and CMD. BAM! Converted!
It's not that we won't use it from the spell compendium (although we are careful what we use from that book as some of the spells are very unbalanced) I was just wondering if it was renamed in PF like Revivify became Breath of life.
A Paladins Mercy is very similar to this. It allows him to remove conditions in addition to healing when laying on hands. Merciful Healer archetype of the cleric gains something similar.
Extant PF cleric spells that do something like this: Surmount affliction (You temporarily overcome one harmful condition)
...but the winner is:
Cleanse:
School evocation; Level cleric/oracle 5, inquisitor 6; Domain divine 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components S, DF
Range personal
Targets you
Duration instantaneous
Positive energy infuses and cleanses your body. This spell cures 4d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +25) and ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting you: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, nauseated, poisoned, and sickened.
In addition, cleanse functions as break enchantment upon a single additional effect of your choice that is affecting you and that can be legally affected by this effect.
If used by undead or other creatures healed by negative energy, the spell cleanses with negative energy rather than positive.