|
Two questions:
1. This spell gives a person Fast Healing 1, so they heal 1 HP per round. When does this healing take place? On their own turn, or on the turn of the person who cast it? Does the first HP of healing take place immediately if you cast it on yourself, or not until the next round?
2. Does Infernal Healing stack with itself? ie If I cast it on someone to give them Fast Healing 1 for 10 rounds, can I then cast it again on the same person the following round to give them Fast Healing 2 while the two spell durations overlap?
I realize that this spell is best used between fights. But it does seem like a decent choice for a sorc/wizard to pick up as a wand, and I'm wondering how useful it can be during a fight.
1. Typically at the beginning of the creatures turn.
2. How does having Fast healing(1) twice help you? It's still only fast healing(1). Either you have the ability or you don't, it isn't additive.
1) I'd say it gives a HP per round that you want to count against the timer.
2) Similar bonuses don't stack, so I'd assume no stacking for this spell either.
1. This spell gives a person Fast Healing 1, so they heal 1 HP per round. When does this healing take place?
I can't find any place it specifies, but I would agree with Abe and say at the start of the creatures turn.
2. Does Infernal Healing stack with itself?
Nope.
But it does seem like a decent choice for a sorc/wizard to pick up as a wand, and I'm wondering how useful it can be during a fight.
Just remember it has a casting time of 1 round, so you'll have to wait until the start of your next turn, and still be able to touch your target. Also be sure your party won't freak out about having evil magic used on them. Also, make sure your DM isn't going to hose you on the drop of devil blood being in your spell component pouch.
Devils blood OR unholy water
Unholy water is 25 gp per flask, so that'll get expensive quickly. Devil Blood has negligible cost, so it's considered part of the spell component pouch.
Devils blood OR unholy waterUnholy water is 25 gp per flask, so that'll get expensive quickly. Devil Blood has negligible cost, so it's considered part of the spell component pouch.
A drop of holy water per casting. How many drops do you suppose are in the average flask? Probably not enough to concern one-self with the price very much.
A drop of holy water per casting.
A dose, not a drop.
Yes, it's 1 drop of blood or 1 dose of unholy water.
For making a wand it's probably not a big problem, increases the price once by 25gp, but for regular casting its a problem.
I don't know, could you summon a devil with Summon Monster (the lowest seems to be a Lemure with SM 2) and "convince" it to give you some of it's blood? :)
That practice might eventually draw the ire of higher level demons though... unless they think it's funny.
Yes, it's 1 drop of blood or 1 dose of unholy water.
For making a wand it's probably not a big problem, increases the price once by 25gp, but for regular casting its a problem.
Creating Wands: "Fifty of each needed material component are required (one for each charge)."
Since a 'dose' is one usage of an item, that means each dose is one flask, which is 1,250 gp worth of holy water to make a wand of infernal healing with 50 charges. Or use devil blood, which is apparently free.
I don't know, could you summon a devil with Summon Monster (the lowest seems to be a Lemure with SM 2) and "convince" it to give you some of it's blood? :)
That practice might eventually draw the ire of higher level demons though... unless they think it's funny.
I've always understood that, since the creature is sent back to wherever it came from, it's corpse (and any leavings) would disappear also.
The other option is to find a tiefling or some other crossblooded race and have them donate a bit of blood in exchange for spellcasting or other 'services rendered.'
Oh you're absolutely right about the cost of the wand. I mixed it up with "you only need 1 spell to make a wand with 50 charges" (per day of crafting).
Of course it might just be bad wording from the creator of the spell, who hadn't realised that Unholy Water is an actual item that costs 25gp a dose. Maybe he just figured "dose of unholy water" sounds better than "drop"?
Remember usually when costly material components are involved they are spelled out like "needs an Onyx gem worth at least 50 gp" etc. I think it even mentiones somewhere in the magic rules that as long as no price is given in the spell it's assumed to be in the spell component pouch.
Also, Sorcerers get Eschew Materials, so they at least can cast it for free :)
Ah yes, here:
Material (M)
A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.
So maybe the Unholy Water used for the Infernal Healing spell is not quite as Unholy as the Unholy Water made with the Curse Water spell
|
|
I think the lack of stacking makes this pretty much an out of combat only spell, with the possible exception of using it in combat to stabilize a fallen friend while the cleric is busy. That's really what I wanted to know.
My character's a sorcerer, so the component is irrelevant.
How does the evil descriptor affect gameplay? I know a good cleric couldn't cast it, but I think my sorcerer would be fine, even if I go good alignment. It's a new character, so I haven't decided his alignment yet. Definitely chaotic, but I haven't chosen between good and neutral. I think I'm leaning neutral, anyway.
But what about casting it on good characters? Would a good cleric or paladin object to having this spell cast on them? If I hid the exact nature of the spell from them (or cast it on them while they're unconscious), would it work correctly, even on characters who can't cast it themselves because of the evil descriptor?
This is a Pathfinder Society sorcerer, so I'm figuring I'll pick up a Wand of Infernal Healing with my first 2 prestige points, just because a Wand of CLW would require a UMD roll. So this would be more reliable for this character, and allow me to bring my own healing to the table, although it's only useful out of combat.
It's tapping into primal evil energies to heal someone by giving them basicly devilish regeneration powers.
Targets are aware of the evil nature of the spell, so I bet a good cleric and especially a paladin will frown on that spell, and definitely object on being the target.
It heals 10 HPs, how do you know the cleric or paladin won't wake up and realise what you cast on them while they were helpless?
For a good character I would see this spell as a last resort option, to be used when all other options fail. Pact with the devil kind of thing, almost literally in this case. I don't think a good character would use it lightly.
Also I'm pretty sure the [Evil] descriptor makes casting that spell an evil act, so doing it too often... well...
|
|
It's tapping into primal evil energies to heal someone by giving them basicly devilish regeneration powers.
Targets are aware of the evil nature of the spell, so I bet a good cleric and especially a paladin will frown on that spell, and definitely object on being the target.
It heals 10 HPs, how do you know the cleric or paladin won't wake up and realise what you cast on them while they were helpless?For a good character I would see this spell as a last resort option, to be used when all other options fail. Pact with the devil kind of thing, almost literally in this case. I don't think a good character would use it lightly.
Also I'm pretty sure the [Evil] descriptor makes casting that spell an evil act, so doing it too often... well...
I'm not sure I agree with all this.
How exactly are the targets aware of the evil nature of the spell? I can see someone with spellcraft knowing what it is, and a paladin might detect it because of their built in Detect Evil ability. But if I cast it on a good aligned fighter with no magical training, how would they know there's something evil going on?
About the evil descriptor making it an evil act to use this spell, I'm not sure I agree with that, either. It's not the type of evil that causes anyone to get hurt, and I'd be using the spell to heal people. Healing someone is often a "good" act, though possibly neutral if done for selfish reasons, such as self-healing, or just healing teammates so they can continue to help me, not because I care about their well being.
I do get your point about good aligned characters being reluctant to use this spell, even if it is allowed. I think a Chaotic Good character using it for the greater good would have an easier time with that than a Lawful Good character. As I said, I've already decided my sorcerer will be chaotic, but I haven't decided for sure between CG and CN, though I'm leaning CN.
Fromper, the spell specifically states that the target is aware of the evil nature of the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How exactly are the targets aware of the evil nature of the spell?
They sense it.
Infernal Healing: "The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment."
As for evil acts, I figure it's not any more evil than stabbing something in the face with a sword. Not a good thing, but in many cases it's justified.
For PFS, I would -always- get the player's permission before casting this on their character. In character, I would either just do it (especially if the character is at risk of death, or if I'm just very chaotic) or tell them "Hey, you look injured. How about I heal you with some spooky magic?" If they're not OK with it, well, more charges for me.
|
|
Fromper, the spell specifically states that the target is aware of the evil nature of the spell.
Ahh. This is what I get for speed reading. Thanks for pointing that out.
Now there's an interesting question. If the evil of the magic is that obvious, would a Wand of Infernal Healing be sensed by a Detect Evil?
If the evil of the magic is that obvious, would a Wand of Infernal Healing be sensed by a Detect Evil?
Detect Evil has a chart for that. An Aligned magic item with caster level 5th or lower has no aura.
If you're DM want's to be picky about it just take Eschew materials (or a level of sorcerer) and ignore having to find blood/holy water entirely since the price isnt listed in the spell (regardless of it's cost otherwise).
Seriously though, who (other than pallys) generally bothers with detecting evil on party members? Plus it's only for a minute regardless.
Most DM's i've played with think the evil-ness of the spell is stupid and ignore it entirely. However, that's obviously a house ruling.
It is a silly thing tacked onto the healing spell just to make it harder for PC's to get access to it. Its really turning something that /should/ be fluff into crunch just to penalize an arcane caster for getting a weak healing spell.
If i was the arcane caster I'd just go research an identical spell at an identical level that was of the freely given essence of Angels (at no cost) or with a vial of holy water, as the material component and the Good descriptor.
There's absolutely no reason not to.
-S
It is a silly thing tacked onto the healing spell just to make it harder for PC's to get access to it.
It was originally restricted to ... Asmodeus? One of the evil deities. When it was reprinted in the campaign setting they removed that part.
Its really turning something that /should/ be fluff into crunch just to penalize an arcane caster for getting a weak healing spell.
It's really not that weak. Outside of combat, its far better than Cure Light Wounds.
Since the assumption is the player characters are generally good (or at least not evil) leaving the evil flavor to the spell meshes well with the concepts of the seduction of power, bargaining of infernals, that sort of thing.
CLW at CL 1 heals 1d8+1, or 5.5 on average, but it can change between 2 and 9 with equal chance. Infernal Healing always heals exactly 10 HPs. Sure it takes 10 rounds to do so, instead of just 1, but from an efficiency factor its the best spell as long as you got a couple of minutes to heal the group back up.
I think the evil flavor of it is pretty nice.
Theres the Lesser Vigor spell in 3.5 (a druid/cleric one though, not arcane) that basicly did the same without the evilness. But most PF games these days don't allow 3.5 stuff anymore.
Appearing on the same line as the school and sub-school, 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, curse, darkness, death, disease, earth, electricity, emotion, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, pain, poison, shadow, 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.
Casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is not an evil act. Besides, there are other spells that have the Evil descriptor, but when you read the effect of the spell, nothing makes it evil. Off the top of my head is Signifer's Rally, a spell I planned on taking for my own wizard. All it does is teleport your allies to you in a time of need. It has Will negates (harmless) and SR yes (harmless). Everything about the spell is harmless, yet it has the evil descriptor. Why should bringing your allies to your in order to combat a foe, be an evil act? Hell, the only reason I can come up with for the spell to have the Evil descriptor, is that it was printed in Cheliax, Empire of Devils.
Let me bold another part of that sentence:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves
And that spell you mentioned has one little sentence at the end: "The spell does not function in areas warded against intrusion by evil creatures (such as a magic circle against evil effect)."
Why would that be the case if there's not some evil involved?
Also (harmless) does not mean "good". It just means "not harmful to the target, so usually no saving throw is made"
I have never read of any spell where the descriptor changes the mechanics of the spell. The best I could come up with is "This spell does 1d8 damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d8) against good/evil creatures (or 1d6 damage per caster level maximum 10d6 against good/evil outsiders)."
Even then, it's not the descriptor of the spell that determines the effect, it's the description of the spells effect, that determines the effect.
I did read that part about being warded against intrusion by evil creatures but nothing in the spell dictates it as evil. Again the only reason I think it has the evil descriptor is that it was printed in the Cheliax book.
Casting Animate Dead is not an evil act, though many people would argue otherwise.
Even though Blasphemy can kill people, casting it is not an evil act.
Vision of Hell gives the shaken condition, but it's not an evil act.
Inflicting a bad guy with a disease through Contagion, is not an evil act.
Blood Transcription, while squicky, is not an evil act.
Just because a spell has the evil descriptor, doesn't mean it is an evil act and can change your alignment.
Just because a spell has the evil descriptor, doesn't mean it is an evil act and can change your alignment.
I'll post this without comment.
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor...casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment[.]
|
Just because a spell has the evil descriptor, doesn't mean it is an evil act and can change your alignment.I'll post this without comment.
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor...casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment[.]
Gee, I cast this just because it comes naturally... I'm not the most conventional person (CN, tiefling witch) but my little familiar assures me it is ok for me to cast it. ^_^
Just because a spell has the evil descriptor, doesn't mean it is an evil act and can change your alignment.I'll post this without comment.
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor...casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment[.]full quote
Wow, that is one of the dumbest things I've seen JJ say. So, because JJ said so, if one were to cast Signifer's Rally repeatedly, he'd become evil? Even though the spells effect is in no way evil, doesn't harm anyone, doesn't inflict a negative condition on anyone, and does nothing more than call your allies to you, which they can deny if they choose?
That's a stupid ruling.
Tels,
Yes, you would. I think it would be because from the description of the spell, it teleports your ally's through hell. Much the same that using summon monster to summon a devil is a [Lawful][Evil] spell.
They are teleported as if you had cast teleport on them. Teleport doesn't allow interplanar travel. So they aren't actually teleported through hell.
To be technical, "Teleportation is instantaneous travel through the Astral Plane. Anything that blocks astral travel also blocks teleportation."
How about... the teleportation is powered by the plane of hell?
Really, its up to the GM. From the alignment chapter, "In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil."
Healing your friends? Probably not evil. Calling your friends for aid? Probably not evil.
Healing the guy you're torturing so you can continue to torture? Evil. Laying a trap for your friends then casting signifier's rally? Evil.
True, but that requires more than just casting the spell with the descriptor. Healing spells don't have the good descriptor, or your'd run foul of things like Evil Clerics being unable to use them.
But arcane casters don't run into that problem. One could cast Magic Circle against Evil, then hit someone with Hellfire Ray, and have no net gain either way, according to JJ's post.
Also, found this posted later on in the thread...
This isn't a computer game. Not everything needs to be spelled out in black and white; my suggestion above is how I would run things in my game, but as pointed out it's not 100% entirely accurate/supported by the rules. This is not a flaw in the game, though; the fact that there's so much open for interpretation is a strength. It lets every GM customize the game as he/she prefers. That might just be a pet peeve of mine, though...
I would have to add to this discussion that the "Evil" Nature of the spell helps balance its 'too powerful for a 1st level spell' character.
Why is it normally too powerful for a L1 spell?
1. It heals 10HP, Guaranteed. (CLW does 2HP or more)
2. It stops 'Bleed' damage
3. It instantly stabalizes the user if they drop below 0.
4. It can bring those below zero (or staggered) back to positive HP
Therefore chracters who cannot use spells with an evil descriptor are limited in terms of using it.
A DM needs to treat this powerful spell as having severe drawbacks.
I would even argue a Pally would lose his abilities if he failed his saving throw if it is cast on him. Evil is coursing through him, so that must have some effect. Since it is a L1 spell, the chances are high he'll succeed in saving against it.
Question: would a tiefling's blood count for the component?
"Tieflings are humans with demonic, devilish, or other evil outsider blood in their ancestry."
So if it's a Tiefling with devil blood, I would say sure.
I would even argue a Pally would lose his abilities if he failed his saving throw if it is cast on him.
I don't see how failing to save against a spell, any spell, consists of ceasing to be lawful good, willfully committing an evil act, or violating the code of conduct.
Even if you dominate a paladin and order him to burn down an orphanage, he's not willfully doing any of that.
How about... the teleportation is powered by the plane of hell?
someone's been playing too much Doom!
someone's been playing too much Doom!
It's impossible to play too much Doom.
Here comes the night train!
|
|
I would even argue a Pally would lose his abilities if he failed his saving throw if it is cast on him.I don't see how failing to save against a spell, any spell, consists of ceasing to be lawful good, willfully committing an evil act, or violating the code of conduct.
Even if you dominate a paladin and order him to burn down an orphanage, he's not willfully doing any of that.
Agreed. For a paladin to fall, his evil must be intentional. I could see getting an Atonement after being affected by evil this way, but even that shouldn't be mandatory after being the subject of one evil spell.
@Chovesh: hang on, if being affected by an evil spell is enough to make a paladin fall, does that make smite good an 'i win' button against paladins?
is that what you're saying? ;)
seconding (thirding?) that a paladin has to intentionally break his code to fall (personally say that a paladin can't fall in a no-win situation provided his intent is pure and he tries to do the right thing. but that thread's been done to death.)
as to infernal healing: if you don't mind detecting as evil, it makes an awesome eternal potion for an alchemist.
|
Also, found this posted later on in the thread...
This isn't a computer game. Not everything needs to be spelled out in black and white; my suggestion above is how I would run things in my game, but as pointed out it's not 100% entirely accurate/supported by the rules. This is not a flaw in the game, though; the fact that there's so much open for interpretation is a strength. It lets every GM customize the game as he/she prefers. That might just be a pet peeve of mine, though...
Personally, I disagree with a ton of rulings and decisions Paizo members make in their own games.
But I do go with spells with Evil descriptor is evil, and will taint your soul and change your alignment.
Although most people play with shades of gray, the mechanics are very black/white, so I go with that even though I dislike doing it.
|
|
I can understand how a good character routinely using an evil descriptor spell might end up shifting towards neutral. But just using it once in a while should be ok, even with a good alignment, as long as the character is using it for a good cause (and I'd say healing people usually counts).
And a neutral character who routinely does good acts as part of a good/neutral adventuring party should be able to use an evil descriptor spell regularly without an alignment shift. I think that's what I'm leaning towards with my sorcerer. I definitely wanted him to be chaotic, but I hadn't settled on good vs neutral. But I think CN with a Wand of Infernal Healing shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
I can understand how a good character routinely using an evil descriptor spell might end up shifting towards neutral. But just using it once in a while should be ok, even with a good alignment, as long as the character is using it for a good cause (and I'd say healing people usually counts).
And a neutral character who routinely does good acts as part of a good/neutral adventuring party should be able to use an evil descriptor spell regularly without an alignment shift. I think that's what I'm leaning towards with my sorcerer. I definitely wanted him to be chaotic, but I hadn't settled on good vs neutral. But I think CN with a Wand of Infernal Healing shouldn't be an issue.
It depends on how a person looks at it.
Is using evil to fight evil evil or not?
If no, then there's basically a good/evil points system. If I help a lot of people today, that means I can spend those "good" points to murder somebody in cold blood.
Isn't a part of being good is not to do acts that would be considered evil? Are good people being dragged down to evil's level?
It's extremely subjective without any clear answers. Paizo and other gaming companies have made things more clear by saying spells with "evil" descriptors are evil, so using them is an evil act. Good/evil in D&D and PF are, going by the rules and campaign materials, very black and white. Evil (and/or the Dark Side of the Force) are a tangible force that controls their part of the Multiverse. Good controls their side. The fight is never-ending, but it actually matters since souls fuel creation and the cycle of existence as we know it. There are examples were the cycle doesn't apply (Dark Tapestry, qlippoths in the Abyss), but it's how the Multiverse works for the most part now. Actions matter, even if they are small and seemingly inconsequential.
Fighting evil with evil is wrong, and should be avoided. It's a luxury that heroes often do not have however.
This is partly a game balance thing, as the spell is both arcane and divine. Arcane casters generally don't have much by way of healing magic, and I think it's a nice touch from that perspective.
The way I play it in my game is that being a target of an infernal healing spell conflates the feeling of evil coursing through you with the pleasurable feeling of having your wounds heal. This will create a subconscious association that "feeling of evil = pleasure", and is just a tiny nudge in the direction of evil.
In my game, the spell actively taps into evil power to heal-- that makes it an evil spell, and while it is a beneficial spell, it's still evil. Using the spell means that you're willingly allowing diabolical energy into your body, and that nibbles on your soul a little bit.
So, once in a while, it's probably not that much of a big deal. If you rely on it as a major source of healing? Well, that might be a different story.
Certainly, a good-aligned divine-powered character (cleric, oracle, paladin, ranger) would not voluntarily accept infernal healing being cast on her, much like they probably wouldn't accept being healed by a cleric of an opposed god.
|
|
I disagree with the whole black and white thing. Murdering someone in cold blood is obviously evil. A spell like this with the evil descriptor that doesn't hurt anyone isn't.
It falls into the grey area, which is why I think it should be ok for good characters (other than paladins and good clerics who are expressly forbidden) to cast it occasionally, and neutral characters to cast it regularly, without becoming evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the whole black and white thing. Murdering someone in cold blood is obviously evil. A spell like this with the evil descriptor that doesn't hurt anyone isn't.
It falls into the grey area, which is why I think it should be ok for good characters (other than paladins and good clerics who are expressly forbidden) to cast it occasionally, and neutral characters to cast it regularly, without becoming evil.
The "Evil" descriptor is a vehicle for a certain kind of trope in the heroic fantasy genre. We live in a world where morality is based on decisions we make- as Fromper wrote, "Murding someoene in cold blood is obviously evil. A spell like this... that doesn't hurt anyone isn't." So if you look at the use of a healing spell purely from that viewpoint, you may be right.
But heroic fantasy (and high fantasy in particular) tends toward the unambiguous Evil with a capital E and Good with a capital G. In a world which this trope is central to the design of the world, using Infernal (Evil) power, whatever the intent, lends spiritual strength to that power and opening a window to corruption by it... an "evil act".
The choice to make a campaign high, medium, or low fantasy will dictate how morality functions. The Evil descriptor in this case is for folks who want "the black and white thing" to be part of their campaign.
The "Evil" descriptor is a vehicle for a certain kind of trope in the heroic fantasy genre. We live in a world where morality is based on decisions we make- as Fromper wrote, "Murding someoene in cold blood is obviously evil. A spell like this... that doesn't hurt anyone isn't." So if you look at the use of a healing spell purely from that viewpoint, you may be right.But heroic fantasy (and high fantasy in particular) tends toward the unambiguous Evil with a capital E and Good with a capital G. In a world which this trope is central to the design of the world, using Infernal (Evil) power, whatever the intent, lends spiritual strength to that power and opening a window to corruption by it... an "evil act".
The choice to make a campaign high, medium, or low fantasy will dictate how morality functions. The Evil descriptor in this case is for folks who want "the black and white thing" to be part of their campaign.
Agreed.
I would also add that the Black/White vision also includes the notions "No Good ever came of an Evil deed" and "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"... meaning that trying to use Evil means to do Good things is self-defeating because, in that approach, the Evil corrupts even the best intention on the one hand, and Evil deeds done in the name of a greater Good are still Evil deeds, and their seductive effect is to make it more likely you will do some other, more Evil deeds.