|
1. Is the benefit of Infernal Healing well balanced with similar first level spells such as CLW?
2. Is Infernal Healing too good as a 1st level spell available to cleric/oracle, magus, sorcerer/wizard, summoner, witch?
3. Is it a problem that neutral casters and good-aligned arcane casters can use the spell freely while good-aligned divine casters cannot?
4. If question 2 was answered with a yes, would the creation of a similar good-aligned spell like Lumiere's Celestial Healing resolve the issue?
Purely in my own opinion, here goes:
I'm choosing to ignore the witch's healing spells to keep this brief.
1. Mmmmmaybe? IH is essentially a maximized CLW spell for downtime healing, while being useless for in-combat healing. Since 1st level spell slots are used less and less frequently in combat as character level progress, the utility benefit of this spell rises with the character level. However CLW actually benefits from a higher caster level and at CL 5 heals 1d8+5 vs 10 flat from IH - an average of instantly healing 9.5 vs 10 over one minute. I'd say that's fairly well balanced.
If you buy it in wand form or the like it's a very cheap way to keep hit point pools topped up. If that's a problem for the campaigns you like to play you should consider taking steps to balance it out.
2. No, I don't think it's too good. Both divine and arcane casters have access to the spell. That means divine casters can now choose between efficiency (10 hp per cast, but takes a minute - minimal effect in combat) and potency through cxw (less healing per cast, but takes effect immediately - moderate to high effect in combat depending on the lethality of your games). On the other hand, arcane casters can use their low level spell slots to aid with downtime healing (only) which in my opinion is a good thing since it puts less pressure on the player with the divine spell list to "play the healbot", while the cleric still has by far the greater selection of healing and restoration spells.
3. Yes. The benefit of IH is significant in that it offers a new form of efficient downtime healing. Not granting that benefit to good-aligned characters is an unnecessary limitation. That and it just plain doesn't make sense - a good-aligned caster should have researched a version of IH that didn't involve 'tapping the dark side' by now.
4. Yes it would, but I'd strongly consider only letting that spell be available to divine casters (adding the spell to the paladin's spell list as well). I would probably also write a similar spell with a 'nature' theme so that druids and rangers wouldn't be left out in the cold.
1: To heal the same amount of HP a CLW wand should cast the spell at level 5 . That wand would cost five times what a Infernal healing wand curing the same amount of hp would cost.
Pretty unbalanced in any world where magic items are available or can be made by the players (4 days to make the CLW wand at CL 5 agaist 1 day to make the Infernal healing wand).2: Too good for maguses, sorcerers and wizards. the spell is equivalent or better than same level healing effects of classes that have healing as their stitch.
No problem as a divine spell.
3: yes, it is a problem.
4: I replied No to 2.
|
|
IIRC, there was a line of spells back in 3.0 for druids that granted fast healing 1/3/5 for a short while.
Kudaku, not to pick on one line out your lengthy post, but I haven't seen anyone argue that infernal healing should permanently shift the target's alignment, just the caster's. Even most people arguing that think it shouldn't be casting the spell alone that does it.
To me, using infernal healing is like a very minor version of selling your soul to the devil in order to cure a relative's cancer - sure, you're getting a positive effect from healing but surely there must be a price for an infernal bargain. I think those issue make the spell interesting. Some people don't like to play that way (evidence: this thread). Personally, good characters I play would refuse to use the spell and refuse to allow it to be cast on them, but that is a roleplaying choice I make.
I think all the non-evil alignments could use a little developer love when it comes to unique effects - most of what we have are a bunch of same-y effects like holy smite, holy word, protection from foo, magic circle against foo, holy aura, etc., where each version has all four extremes represented. It's nice to have effects like infernal healing which is a toy for one side but not the other - sadly, right now, evil gets those toys.
Maybe the fact that the boards erupt in fits over alignment stuff is why less gets developed - I don't know for sure. It sure would be nice for good, law, and chaos to have some exclusive tricks, and it would give the divine casting restriction some meaning (when was the last time an evil cleric was sad they couldn't cast holy word?)
Agreed. Good has a specific toys (mostly abilities for the paladin) but little in the spell department.
Why so resistant to downtime healing Diego? You talk about it like its a bad thing that parties have access to an efficient downtime healing. If anything putting some of that on the arcane sorcerers, without taking the in combat healing role, means the divine casters would have room to prepare something else wouldn't it? Maybe something used in combat where the game is actually exciting instead of rolling the D8 a few times out of combat.
|
|
Why so resistant to downtime healing Diego? You talk about it like its a bad thing that parties have access to an efficient downtime healing. If anything putting some of that on the arcane sorcerers, without taking the in combat healing role, means the divine casters would have room to prepare something else wouldn't it? Maybe something used in combat where the game is actually exciting instead of rolling the D8 a few times out of combat.
I am resistant to party getting healing from the wizard at a cheaper "price" than getting the same healing from classes that are dedicated to healing to some extent.
If that is the trend, it would be more honest to give the fighters and other non spellcasting classes a "Wholeness of Body"-like ability to use a few times a day instead of gifting Infernal healing to classes that already have plenty of toys.
For downtime healing a wand of CLW is more than adequate. As I already pointed out above, a wand of CLW that cure as well as a wand of Infernal healing cost five times as much. That alone show that the spell has problems.
What positively amaze me is that we don't have people arguing that a item with a continuous Infernal healing effects will cost 4 or 8,000 gp. But sooner or later some of the Continuous Shield shirt guys will discover this spell.
I am resistant to party getting healing from the wizard at a cheaper "price" than getting the same healing from classes that are dedicated to healing to some extent.
Cheaper? Its the same price. Its on a lot of spell caster's list, including the cleric. Its exactly the same, just available to a wider group.
If that is the trend, it would be more honest to give the fighters and other non spellcasting classes a "Wholeness of Body"-like ability to use a few times a day instead of gifting Infernal healing to classes that already have plenty of toys.
I'm not against that idea really, 4E had something like it didn't it? Some people are pretty resistant to the idea that you can heal without magic though.
|
|
I am resistant to party getting healing from the wizard at a cheaper "price" than getting the same healing from classes that are dedicated to healing to some extent.Cheaper? Its the same price. Its on a lot of spell caster's list, including the cleric. Its exactly the same, just available to a wider group.
Cheaper. At lower levels is more efficient, at level 5+ it is on par (actually 1/2 hp better on average).
A wand of CLW cure, on average, 5.5*50= 275 hp for 750 gp at a cost of 2.73 gp for each hp.
A wand of infernal healing cure 10*50= 500 hp, at a cost of 1.5 gp for each hp.
What do you call something with a 45% discount?
Your ignoring the fact its on both casters list I think.
Your ignoring the fact its on both casters list I think.Not when good divine casters can't use it.
So every divine caster in every party is a good aligned cleric?
Edit: hate to make a strawman, but should clerics in your opinion be forced into a healbot role? Even being niched into being the only ones for out of combat healing?
|
|
Your ignoring the fact its on both casters list I think.Not when good divine casters can't use it.So every divine caster in every party is a good aligned cleric?
Edit: hate to make a strawman, but should clerics in your opinion be forced into a healbot role? Even being niched into being the only ones for out of combat healing?
If you hate to use a strawman, why you use it repeatedly in this thread?
There are plenty of classes, even arcane classes, that have some healing capacity, so no one is forcing a cleric in any role. Gifting the 3 base spellcasting classes with it thanks to this spell cheapen the healing access of all the other classes.
Let's make the opposite example. We should give to bards/druid/clerics/witches/inquisitors a first level spell that fire globes of force that always hit, do 1d8+1/level damage a round and last 1 round/level (with a maximum duration of 5 rounds), all against a single target that you select when you cast the spell?
Or a first level Divine armor spell that give a Armor bonus to AC equal to 1+wisdom bonus for 1 hour level to the touched creature?
That is treading on the wizard toes. The divine casters that get something similar generally get it as a Domain power or as some other ability with specific limitations, not as a general spell.
Well, to be fair, with the divine armor thing oracle does actually have access to mage armor for instance, and a spell that scales with wisdom+1 to any creature is a little over the top and actually has implications for in combat balance. Infernal healing is a healstick that doesn't cause any ingame implosion. So the analogy is a little lost. None of your examples involved the person your 'treading on toes' with actually getting the spell either.
Bah.
While it's true that it would be nice if the game retained a semblance of balance, what with certain healing spells not glaringly overpowering other healing spells of the same level, I cannot fathom why that should mean we're not allowed to have nice things.
If neutral and evil clerics get some healing mojo that is more potent that the good clerics, but come with the added flavour the infernal healing presents, then I say good for them.
Alignment is the spice of the game, it adds nuance and perspective to a game that could simply be based on numbers. Evil clerics also get the opportunity to animate dead and carry 4 times their own HD worth of mindless minions with them, but nobody cries foul(maybe someone does, but if you do, go away, I don't liek u >:[ ). It's all okay, because the good guys get some toys that only they can use, and meanwhile the game continues to present loads of nice flavourful material for the players and GM to sink their teeth into, to really get into their characters.
Where it falls flat IMO, is when people start pretending like evil > good and that magic should somehow rub off on you. To me that just diminishes player choice and raises a boatload of stupid issues, but to each their own, eh?
-Nearyn
it adds nuance and perspective to a game that could simply be based on numbers.
It adds more numbers where you could have freedom and painting your targets(black and white morality) reduces nuance and perspective actually. Edit: Its an awesome idea to give morality and the like mechanical effects, but in practice when it actually becomes a block that keeps you from doing something it can fall pretty flat.
it adds nuance and perspective to a game that could simply be based on numbers.It adds more numbers where you could have freedom and painting your targets(black and white morality) reduces nuance and perspective actually.
It does not only subtract I feel. While I'll be the first to admit that if alignment was not tied into certain game mechanics, I would have just skipped that chapter, the fact of the matter is that it IS intertwined with mechanics, and tries its best to provide flavour, I would think.
As long as we have classes who can fall(no pun intended) on their arse for committing acts that fall within a certain place in the alignment system i.e paladins, there needs to be a clear-cut good/evil chaotic/lawful axis, or the class needs to have its mechanics restructured(the favorable option, I personally feel).
I don't believe people(myself included) would make alignment an issue, if it didn't have direct bearing on game-mechanics. So when I see these discussions, I see people arguing over mechanics, not flavour. Which begs the question: Are the mechanics of Infernal Healing so unbalanced that people need to get up in arms over them? My personal take is "No, they are not" but YMMV.
-Nearyn
1: To heal the same amount of HP a CLW wand should cast the spell at level 5 . That wand would cost five times what a Infernal healing wand curing the same amount of hp would cost.
Pretty unbalanced in any world where magic items are available or can be made by the players (4 days to make the CLW wand at CL 5 agaist 1 day to make the Infernal healing wand).
But IH doesn't work for in combat healing. Just comparing amount of HP healed gives you a skewed perspective.
A better way to look at it is like this:
IH is a maximized CL1 CLW with a 1 minute casting time. It has minimal combat utility compared to CLW, but it has excellent promise for OOC healing at low caster levels. At higher CL CLW averages to roughly the same hp healed per cast (9.5 vs 10) and it does it faster.
Though I will admit that wands of IH are by far superior to wands of CLW for downtime healing (as long as you have the time to spare).
Though I will admit that wands of IH are by far superior to wands of CLW for downtime healing (as long as you have the time to spare).
Usually you have time to spare, but it would be a little ridiculous to argue about out of combat healing. I think anyway. Its not really something you would have to balance if you intend to heal up between fights, because healing 5 or 10, both ways your just healing to full and you almost always just burn consumables to do it anyway.
|
|
1: To heal the same amount of HP a CLW wand should cast the spell at level 5 . That wand would cost five times what a Infernal healing wand curing the same amount of hp would cost.
Pretty unbalanced in any world where magic items are available or can be made by the players (4 days to make the CLW wand at CL 5 agaist 1 day to make the Infernal healing wand).
But IH doesn't work for in combat healing. Just comparing amount of HP healed gives you a skewed perspective.
A better way to look at it is like this:
IH is a maximized CL1 CLW with a 1 minute casting time. It has minimal combat utility compared to CLW, but it has excellent promise for OOC healing at low caster levels. At higher CL CLW averages to roughly the same hp healed per cast (9.5 vs 10) and it does it faster.
Though I will admit that wands of IH are by far superior to wands of CLW for downtime healing (as long as you have the time to spare).
Repeating the same fallacy don't make it true. The spell, even in wand form, has a casting time of 1 round. You can have as many Infernal healing running as there are party members, so, the larger your party is (and with animal companions, eidolong and c. it can become decidedly large), the more efficient the wand become.
@Nearyn No problem with evil cleric having the spell, not even with wizard having it if you take in consideration the "fluff" and using the spell has consequence on your alignment (only for long term abusers). I disagree with people that claim that they should have the spell at no cost without any consequence.
It is like claiming that doping has no consequences.
It don't drop you dead 3 minutes after using it. If you are lucky, very careful and know very well what you are doing you could even avoid negative consequences, but most people using doping suffer from long term negative effects.
The problem is that the game generally don't reflect well long term consequences. The pace is to fast to reflect something that will have consequences after years of abuse.
Infernal healing is like a drug, your mind make the connection "sensation of evil = getting better" as you are healed while feeling Evil running over you.
That would slowly push you toward searching the evil sensation to feel better. It is a standard Pavlovian reflex. So it will slowly push you toward doing evil deeds to feel a good sensation.
If you remove all that and say "it is a spell, I can cast spells", end of the matter, the spell become unbalanced and too convenient.
If you are already evil the spell is simply more power for you. No problem with that. Paladins have their special tools, antipaladins theirs, evil spellcasters have this spell (and several others).
Are we comparing spells in a board game to serious substance abuse now? I think there's a difference, a really big one!
How is it a fallacy? One spell takes 6 seconds to have its full effect, one takes 66 seconds. In situations where you have a few minutes to spare it's not an issue, while midfight the difference is crucial. IE one spell is useable both in and out of combat while the other is useful only out of combat. The value of that difference might vary from group to group, but surely you agree that there is a difference between the two spells?
Also, for my post I edited the numbering of the questions and forgot to change the start of question 4 - it's meant to refer to question 3 when it asks "if question 2 was answered with a yes", not question 2 >__<. Sometimes I really miss a long-duration edit button on these forums.
Diego, could you post a page reference or quote the fluff you've mentioned? I looked the spell up in the ISWG (the source for the PFSRD version of the spell at least) and there didn't seem to be anything listed there, other than the [Evil] tag - the spell description makes no mention of Asmodeus.
@Diego:
I'd argue against the game trying to implement long term consequences for using certain forms of magic, unless the designers made a school of magic where that was a built in mechanic from the get-go, and part of the designdecision.
If we're discussing rules, I much prefer it the way it presently is: That is to say, I prefer that there are no consequences if you just run it by the numbers, and then have individual GMs come up with their own versions of these consequences. Every GM can run the gameworld as he pleases, whether homemade, FR, Golarion or whatever. If the GM rules that big bad [evil] spells should be some form of insidious poison that creeps into characters, then he is well within his right to do so, and should inform his players that he intends to run it that way.
But I don't agree that it should be part of the overall design, as it adds an unnecessary extra level of administration to the core game. So I say keep the option there, but leave the basic framework free of it.
-Nearyn
How is it a fallacy? One spell takes 6 seconds to have its full effect, one takes 66 seconds. In situations where you have a few minutes to spare it's not an issue, while midfight the difference is crucial. IE one spell is useable both in and out of combat while the other is useful only out of combat. The value of that difference might vary from group to group, but surely you agree that there is a difference between the two spells?
Also, for my post I edited the numbering of the questions and forgot to change the start of question 4 - it's meant to refer to question 3 when it asks "if question 2 was answered with a yes", not question 2 >__<. Sometimes I really miss a long-duration edit button on these forums.
Diego, could you post a page reference or quote the fluff you've mentioned? I looked the spell up in the ISWG (the source for the PFSRD version of the spell at least) and there didn't seem to be anything listed there, other than the [Evil] tag - the spell description makes no mention of Asmodeus.
hell, you could give good characters access to celestial healing, which uses angel tears, and it would be no less balanced.
fluff and roleplaying consequences should not be used as a means to balance mechanics. it is the paladins fallacy.
the code of conduct and alignment restriction that serve as a straightjacket, limit a paladin's options, rather than actually encourage creativity
in fact, instead of 9 paladin variants and 3 monk variants i'd rather we have
a paladin and martial artist class of unrestricted alignment without the baggage. not every paladin is Sir Gallahad and even deities make mistakes. in fact, opening up paladin to at least, any non-evil would open up many concepts.
but the same can be said of the anti paladin and any non-good
i want to play my holy knight of freedom (Chaotic Neutral), my Templar (Lawful Neutral), my benevolent knight errant (Neutral Good) or my blackguard (Lawful evil)
the paladin classes can do none of these without producing 7 more classes
but i think the game should be divorced from alignment, and that alignment be dropped entirely.
|
|
How is it a fallacy? One spell takes 6 seconds to have its full effect, one takes 66 seconds.
It is a fallacy when you say:
IH is a maximized CL1 CLW with a 1 minute casting time.
Put that way it is the caster can't do anything for 1 minute and you can't have multiple versions of the spell working on different persons during that mminute.
IH is a maximized CL1, spell level 1 CLW with a casting time of 1 round that require 1 minute to have full effect.
|
|
@Diego:
I'd argue against the game trying to implement long term consequences for using certain forms of magic, unless the designers made a school of magic where that was a built in mechanic from the get-go, and part of the designdecision.
If we're discussing rules, I much prefer it the way it presently is: That is to say, I prefer that there are no consequences if you just run it by the numbers, and then have individual GMs come up with their own versions of these consequences. Every GM can run the gameworld as he pleases, whether homemade, FR, Golarion or whatever. If the GM rules that big bad [evil] spells should be some form of insidious poison that creeps into characters, then he is well within his right to do so, and should inform his players that he intends to run it that way.
But I don't agree that it should be part of the overall design, as it adds an unnecessary extra level of administration to the core game. So I say keep the option there, but leave the basic framework free of it.
-Nearyn
I am not arguing for a numeric system where you keep track of the how many times you have used a evil spell and so on. It is the GM that should decide if the Evil spells are overused and the character is turning to a Evil path.
I am arguing against people saying "it has no consequences".But it is very evident that some people love their Evil spell without consequences. Especially if it is better in 90% of the situations than the non aligned version of the spell.
I am not arguing for a numeric system where you keep track of the how many times you have used a evil spell and so on. It is the GM that should decide if the Evil spells are overused and the character is turning to a Evil path.
I am arguing against people saying "it has no consequences".
But it is very evident that some people love their Evil spell without consequences. Especially if it is better in 90% of the situations than the non aligned version of the spell.
What would you suggest as a consequence? In a campaign where, for the longest time, your players had used devil-blood and evil magic to heal their wounds, what would be the consequence? I'm thinking something along the line of taking a -1 to -2 penalty on will saves vs Mind-Effects used by Devils. I am one of the people who maintain that the use of [evil] magic, should not have built-in consequences by default. And I understand those who want to use Infernal Healing over CLW.
Faced with the option of getting an old, wooden train-set for christmas, or a shiny, new, battery driven metal/plastic train-set, many people would chose the latter. It's shiny and it looks more fun to play with.
I can appreciate a narrative where evil is a form of poison. That the cosmic forces might actually take hold of, and change a person, so that regular use of evil artifacts (The One Ring of Power), or frequent use of [evil] spells might actually corrupt.
Personally I prefer a narrative where the cosmic powers are just there. Building blocks of the universe, definitely capable of influencing people, but simply, usually not doing it. I prefer the narrative where the alignment of an act is judged by the content of the deed, and the motivation of the one who commits it. And consequences for using [evil] to commit acts, whether good or evil in nature, is determined by the context in which they are used, and causality.
-Nearyn
Honestly, why are people against lettings some other people do simple OOC healing??? Hell I am glad the wizard got it, because now I can play a cleric and NOT be pigeon-holed into healing. Heck, the game I am in now, our oracle made it a point of being a negative energy oracle of bones. But guess what? People are STILL trying to for him to play the role of the healer because of the "Oh your divine! Heal me!" mentality. So he needs to waste his spells to heal as opposed to doing what he is built to do, kill things (he is kind of taking the role of the BfC/Blaster/necromancer[his biggest thing] since we lack a wizard). But if we did have a wizard it would allow the two of them to tag team "healing duty" while also being able to be effective in combat. (oh and our party is made up of a Death Knight[3pp anti-paladin focued on necromancy and undeath], a CAGM barbarian, and a ranger).
Fair enough, it's a poor comparison - I wanted to contrast the difference between instantaneous healing and healing that takes a full minute to kick in, not imply that CLW should or would require a full minute of casting time.
Diego, did you have any luck tracking down that page reference? The ISWG version doesn't actually mention any kind of implied "consequence" of using the spell, fluff or mechanical, apart from casting a spell with the [Evil] tag.
|
|
Diego, did you have any luck tracking down that page reference? The ISWG version doesn't actually mention any kind of implied "consequence" of using the spell, fluff or mechanical, apart from casting a spell with the [Evil] tag.
I hadn't replied to that part as I was convinced you were trolling, but in the instance that you aren't:
It is implied by it initially being distributed by the church of Asmodeus and by normal human psychology. I thought that is was very clear that I was speaking of how a normal human beings would react to its use, not of how a piece of paper will react to having some number added under the HP listing.@Noireve
Why we always return to the "without this spell we are healbot" argument?
Really no one in any campaign ever take Use magic device and buy a wand of CLW?
No alchemist take the spontaneous healing and Healing touch discoveries (and, BTW, they can sue CLW wands without the need for a UMD check)?
No ranger, paladin, inquisitor, bard with a CLW wand or a cure spell?
The "My divine caster is treated as an healbot" seem a meme that has made his time. Out of 19 classes 8 have access to the healing spells and another 2 (monk and summoner) have access to some special healing ability.
So... Basically it's guesswork? I thought there was a note about Asmodeus and his church spreading the spell for their own gain in a previous iteration of the spell.
@Diego
Because guess what? In alot of groups it tends to happen no matter what. If you are a cleric/oracle, you are going to get stuck with healbot duty. More than a few people auto assume that EVERY oracle/cleric "haz teh healz" and will demand that you waste your precious spell slots to fix the fighter or the rogue's stupidity.
And if we assume everyone has Wands of CLW than what problems do you have with Infernal Healing? If that is the case then this spell becomes redundant and there, removes the arguement that this spell "steps on the toes of the healer" since the wand of CLW is just as guilty.
It is weird to see Mr Byers comment on the actual topic instead of telling people to behave themselvesI'm getting used to it.
Ross:
I just noticed that you didn't have the Paizo logo next to your name any more. I hadn't realized you'd left Paizo earlier this summer. LinkedIn says you're at Google now. I bet it's a relief not having to put trolls in their place any more!|
|
@Diego
Because guess what? In alot of groups it tends to happen no matter what. If you are a cleric/oracle, you are going to get stuck with healbot duty. More than a few people auto assume that EVERY oracle/cleric "haz teh healz" and will demand that you waste your precious spell slots to fix the fighter or the rogue's stupidity.
And if we assume everyone has Wands of CLW than what problems do you have with Infernal Healing? If that is the case then this spell becomes redundant and there, removes the arguement that this spell "steps on the toes of the healer" since the wand of CLW is just as guilty.
Infernal healing as the same efficiency of a CLW spell cast the spell at 5th level. Or, put in another way, you get a 45% discount in healing cost when using the IH wand against a CLW wand.
That is why people playing PFS where there is no tracking of the use of evil spells love it so much.The CLW wand has a opportunity cost (the need for UMD, the cost of the wand against what it heal), the IH wand has a lower opportunity cost (no need to use UMD for 3 more classes, 45% discount on the money cost). The IH spell give access to healing abilities to 3 classes that before it had none.
A spell that get the same result of a another spell at half of the cost or that open access to an ability at classes that previously had none is very dubious. Generally the bonuses are balanced by some kind of drawback, but the only drawback of IH is that it is a Evil spell, and here we have plenty of people arguing that that Evil descriptor is meaningless.
- * -
It is not the that "oracle/cleric haz teh healz". 8 classes out of 19 have the ability to heal. On the other hand claiming that the fighter or the rogue take damage because they are stupid sound extremely ungenerous.
Front line classes take damage. The rogue isn't necessarily a frontliner, but he is exposed to a lot of damage. There is a mid point between being a healbot and claiming that all your spell are for you so that you will kill and avoid all damage better.
A spell that get the same result of a another spell at half of the cost or that open access to an ability at classes that previously had none is very dubious.
Aye, but this one doesn't throw any sort of in combat business out of balance, nor does it solve problems. It does reduce my out of combat healing because less rolling and math though. In fact it adds a utility your expected to have to function to a few classes, which doesn't sound bad at all does it?
@Diego
Because guess what? In alot of groups it tends to happen no matter what. If you are a cleric/oracle, you are going to get stuck with healbot duty. More than a few people auto assume that EVERY oracle/cleric "haz teh healz" and will demand that you waste your precious spell slots to fix the fighter or the rogue's stupidity.
And if we assume everyone has Wands of CLW than what problems do you have with Infernal Healing? If that is the case then this spell becomes redundant and there, removes the arguement that this spell "steps on the toes of the healer" since the wand of CLW is just as guilty.
Infernal healing as the same efficiency of a CLW spell cast the spell at 5th level. Or, put in another way, you get a 45% discount in healing cost when using the IH wand against a CLW wand.
That is why people playing PFS where there is no tracking of the use of evil spells love it so much.
The CLW wand has a opportunity cost (the need for UMD, the cost of the wand against what it heal), the IH wand has a lower opportunity cost (no need to use UMD for 3 more classes, 45% discount on the money cost). The IH spell give access to healing abilities to 3 classes that before it had none.
A spell that get the same result of a another spell at half of the cost or that open access to an ability at classes that previously had none is very dubious. Generally the bonuses are balanced by some kind of drawback, but the only drawback of IH is that it is a Evil spell, and here we have plenty of people arguing that that Evil descriptor is meaningless.- * -
It is not the that "oracle/cleric haz teh healz". 8 classes out of 19 have the ability to heal. On the other hand claiming that the fighter or the rogue take damage because they are stupid sound extremely ungenerous.
Front line classes take damage. The rogue isn't necessarily a frontliner, but he is exposed to a lot of damage. There is a mid point between being a healbot and claiming that all your spell are for you so that you...
I meant for there to be a comma between fighter and the rogue being stupid (which has happens more often than I care to think about [I have really bad luck when it comes to rogues and being in my party]). And it is not a matter of "I want to hog all my spells to myself" as it is more of a matter of "I only have 3 level 3 spells and 4 level 2 spells left" and 3 of those spells are going to end up going to the tank/glass cannon to buff them (because the other role the cleric has to fill by default is party buffer, regardless if you want to or not) which leaves you with 4 spells left, and if you have to pull heal duty, they is pretty much the remainder of yours spells. Playing cleric almost pigeonholes you into a very limited set of roles since you are expected to heal and buff (pretty much pigeonholed into being the party healbot/party buffer since most of your rounds will end up being spent casting Blessing of Ferver on this guy, divine might on that guy, bless on that other guy, ect). The only full divine caster that gets away from that duty is the druid (since he can say he is built around his wildshape ability or his pet and buffing his pet/animal form and people will generally leave him alone).
|
|
Playing cleric almost pigeonholes you into a very limited set of roles since you are expected to heal and buff (pretty much pigeonholed into being the party healbot/party buffer since most of your rounds will end up being spent casting Blessing of Ferver on this guy, divine might on that guy, bless on that other guy, ect).
There is something non computing here. Several something actually.
Blessing of fervor and bless are area spells that affect several characters, so if you use them to buff only 1 character you are doing something seriously wrong.
Both Divine power and Righteous Might (Divine might don't exist, AFAIK) have a range of "personal" and a target of "you". You can't cast them on another character.
You have played a cleric or oracle or are you going from hearsay?
In my Carrion Crown campaign, the Tiefling magus uses Infernal Healing while being Chaotic Good. I have no problem with him using the spell, and have not intended changing his alignment.
However, now that he has the Familiar arcana, and the Improved Familiar feat, he has been contacted by an imp and has agreed to a contract (a Familar contract, not an Infernal one), binding the imp to his will in exchange for minor animal sacrifices, monthly.
So far, the imp has already orchestrated a contract (Infernal, this time) between his superior in Hell and another PC who died and needed a resurrection :)
So yeah, the cost is sometimes paid by others. The Magus, since he is not seeing what's wrong with damning a party member's soul, had his alignment shifted to Chaotic Neutral. His imp is trying to get him to Lawful now, and Evil is only a few selfish acts away...
Doesn't the Magus need to be either LE,NE or LN to have an Imp Improved Familiar?
In my Carrion Crown campaign, the Tiefling magus uses Infernal Healing while being Chaotic Good. I have no problem with him using the spell, and have not intended changing his alignment.
However, now that he has the Familiar arcana, and the Improved Familiar feat, he has been contacted by an imp and has agreed to a contract (a Familar contract, not an Infernal one), binding the imp to his will in exchange for minor animal sacrifices, monthly.
So far, the imp has already orchestrated a contract (Infernal, this time) between his superior in Hell and another PC who died and needed a resurrection :)
So yeah, the cost is sometimes paid by others. The Magus, since he is not seeing what's wrong with damning a party member's soul, had his alignment shifted to Chaotic Neutral. His imp is trying to get him to Lawful now, and Evil is only a few selfish acts away...
It's very unlikely that a Good character would use an Evil descriptor spell unless it was immediately very necessary. A Neutral character would be more inclined to, but would still be a bit wary of overusing it. Also note that Good-aligned allies would probably be a little wary as well if their traveling buddy is using Evil spells frequently.
That PC was True Neutral at best from the start. Contracting devils with scheduled ritual sacrifices, liberal use of Evil descriptor spells, no regard for others' well-being, actively seeking out more devilish power... I don't think a Tiefling displaying that little self-control in regards to urges toward fiendish influence ever was ever Good-aligned.
Doesn't the Magus need to be either LE,NE or LN to have an Imp Improved Familiar?
Yes, but in this instance, the Imp has offered the deal, hoping to corrupt the master to LE alignment... So far, I have had trouble getting them to act more lawful, but he is no longer Good because of selfish behavior and power hunger, but he is also being aware of the spot he put himself in and trying to get out of the deal and atone.
Fun had by all, in any case :)