Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
1) Yes, it is featured in Gods And Magic and Inner Sea World Guide. Both books are legal for PFS.
2) Yes, as it's a legal spell.
3) No, as no price is listed for the component.
4) See the Additional Resources page, with things bolded by me for emphasis:
Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea World Guide
Domains: Scalykind and Void domains; Equipment: all weapons, armor, and adventuring gear on pages 290–293 with the following restriction: only gunslingers may purchase firearms except cannons, which are not available to anyone; Feats: all feats on pages 284–289 except Cypher Magic, Cypher Script, Eye of the Arclord, Fortune Teller, Hamatulatsu, Harrowed, and Shade of the Uskwood; Gods: All gods listed in the tables on pages 229, 231, and 234; Languages: all languages on page 251 may be learned via the Linguistics skill; Magic Items: goz mask, unguent of revivification, wayfinder, zoic fetish; Prestige Classes: Hellknight, Low Templar; Races: All human ethnicities are legal except Azlanti, humans begin play knowing all listed languages for their chosen ethnicity as racial languages; Spells: all spells on pages 294–297 except harrowing, extraplanetary teleport, and teleport trap
Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Gods and Magic
Equipment: Azlant pendant, barbed pentacle of Asmodeus, belt of the snake king, broken chain of the beast, bronze dagger of Erastil, cloak of the crusader, cloak of the Dark Tapestry, dawnflower sash, deathlurker's cloak, gossamer amberstone, hag's shabble, holy mask of the living god, icon of the midwife, inheritor's gauntlet, key of the second vault, mask of cutting flesh, nightstone of sorrow, orb of the waybringer, pallid crystal, Preklikin's Book of Cults, rhombocrystal, robe of the master of masters, sacrificial dagger of the blood mother, Shad'Gorum nugget, spellsight bracer, stinging stiletto, tankard of the drunken hero, veil of veils, vurra of the maker, windwave kilt; Gods: all of the gods listed on the inside front cover are legal choices for clerics; Spells: Abadar's truthtelling, blessing of the watch, burst of glory, channel the gift, channel vigor, Deadeye's arrow, defending bone, fallback strategy, Gorum's armor, Gozreh's trident, greater infernal healing, infernal healing, pick your poison, poisoned egg, shield of the dawnflower, traveling dream, unbreakable heart, waters of Lamashtu
I will note, even though this gets covered to no end in countless other threads, Infernal Healing is a spell with the [Evil] descriptor. In Gods And Magic, it also has the requirement that you be a worshipper of Asmodeus. Your GM may not like your use of spells with the [Evil] descriptor if they feel the spell is not necessary or for good reason. That is a whole different pot all together though.
|
|
Please note that according to Mike Brock,
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.
Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz68gc&page=2?Guide-42-changelog#63
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all fairness, I would like to take this opportunity to state that so far all three of the PFS GM's I have had have been nothing less than peaches and rainbows. A nicer bunch one shall not meet.
'Back in the day' though, I used to play at the games cons around the place... every now and then you'd find a GM who'd gone rogue, no rational explanation or forum posts would appease them, they had no pity, they couldn't be reasoned with...the horror...the horror. /thousand yard stare.
|
|
I will note, even though this gets covered to no end in countless other threads, Infernal Healing is a spell with the [Evil] descriptor. In Gods And Magic, it also has the requirement that you be a worshipper of Asmodeus. Your GM may not like your use of spells with the [Evil] descriptor if they feel the spell is not necessary or for good reason. That is a whole different pot all together though.
It is available in Inner Sea World Guide which has no such qualification. And that qualification is from a 3.5e book. There are Pathfinder specific spells that are only accessible to worshipers of a particular deity. Infernal Healing as presented in the Inner Sea World Guide is not marked specifically for that deity.
Also it's a wizard spell so it's simple to get a wizard to make the wand of Infernal healing (given that wands aren't specific to particular types of magic, AFAIK).
So unfortunately rules as written there is no way a PFS DM can say 'that's not allowed.'
All that said....
Alright, got in a minor truffle with the GM at the local game store today, so my question's (more sources I need) are:
1) Is Infernal Healing Legal?
2) Can you buy a wand of it?
3) Is Devils blood considered an expensive component?
4) Any source saying any of this?He almost TPK'd us, because he said it wasn't legal. Everyone else I talk to says it is legal. Trying to get source for next time. Thanks.
Some players are willing to restrict themselves from taking things that are clearly too good. In this case, wands of infernal healing are 200% better then a cure light wounds wand and is ideal for out of combat healing. You effectively save 75gp per wand when you use a wand of infernal healing.
To me that is an example of splat book creep and is something I would advocate other players to willingly refrain from using such items.
Also don't confuse this with me having an issue with the spell. I think it's an awesome spell and I have a non-Society Wizard who happily casts it whenever he can. But I'm using spell splots to use it in those cases, rather than simply saving 75gp per wand of CLW.
|
Some players are willing to restrict themselves from taking things that are clearly too good. In this case, wands of infernal healing are 200% better then a cure light wounds wand and is ideal for out of combat healing. You effectively save 75gp per wand when you use a wand of infernal healing.
To me that is an example of splat book creep and is something I would advocate other players to willingly refrain from using such items.
Also don't confuse this with me having an issue with the spell. I think it's an awesome spell and I have a non-Society...
This is a great spell, absolutely. I'd recommend almost all casters take it at some point in their PFS careers.
But picking between a wand of CLW over Infernal Healing sometimes is still a great excuse to mix up your character concepts instead of playing for the most optimised characters you can think of. They do both have their advantages - a CLW wand will still save your butt in some cases where an Infernal Healing wand will leave you dead.
As an example, my druid uses CLW, my (serpentine-based) summoner used infernal healing, my witch actually has both (best of both worlds).
The type of wand you carry adding a dash of flavour to your concept can be surprisingly good icing on your charactercake.
|
Here is how I see it:
Technical and cost wise Infernal Healing is the best option in regard to cost per HP healed between combats.
Roleplay wise: Infernal healing comes with draw backs - be it association with Asmodeus, the evil aura, and the use of devil blood.
What does this mean:
From a technical point of view it is the best solution for every single character.
From a roleplay point of view I can only see a single of my 8 characters ever buying one - my Chelaxian Half-Orc barbarian. He has Fiend Totem and is a Soul Drinker. He wouldn't care.
Other characters - they wouldn't buy such a wand - ever. They would accept it to be used on them instead of dying - but would reject it if half HP down between fights ahead of the end fight with no other healing available - even if this might turn out suboptimal play.
As GM:
It is the decision of the player to make. But I would mention the 'fluff' attached to infernal healing for a character who in my eyes wouldn't use it for any other reason as that it is the cheapest way to heal HP.
|
Infernal healing is also available to many arcane casters. In my experience, most clerics are still carrying wands of cure light wounds, most wizards are carrying wands of infernal healing. Dhampir characters too, even melee types, carry infernal wands so they can get some healing from party arcane casters and neutral clerics. That's just what I've seen during PFS play.
|
|
There has been some debate over it locally, but it's primarily a matter of people rejecting "in-character" the use of an Evil spell. You can buy a wand of it, but my PC may not be willing to activate it with UMD.
While infernal healing may be more efficient, it is also slower. That may or may not be a factor in a given situation.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as people insist that cure light wounds is a better spell during combat than infernal healing, I must demur.
If my Fighter/Magus has a spare round to prepare for combat, he will cast infernal healing on the main melee fighter in the party.
Infernal healing:
- shuts down any bleed effects.
- automatically stabilizes any character who goes unconscious. Heck, if the fighter is inly lightly unconscious, it may bring him back in two or three rounds.
- works just fine on dhampyrs and other Negative Energy Aligned characters.
- disguises characters against the effects of unholy blight, blasphemy, and other spells that affect good-aligned targets.
In short, it's a much more practical utility spell than many people consider.
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm the GM in question here, and I apologize for any confusion. The ruling wasn't made over any specific issue with the Infernal Healing spell or its application, but with the sourcebook the spell comes from. The way the player described the spell confused me, and the only example he had of it was from an app on his phone. The app said it required unholy water, which though the app didn't list a GP value for, I believed had a GP value (as listed in the core rulebook). Since Infernal Healing is not in the core assumption, and I didn't fully understand it, and he didn't have a printed copy or pdf of the sourcebook in which to clarify my misunderstanding, I suggested he not use it.
I've since become familiar with this specific spell, and should Worldbuilder wish to use his wand in a future scenario in which I am GM, I won't have an issue with it.
I do recommend bringing a copy of any rule/item/whatever if it's not in the core assumption. I'm sure I'm not the only GM who hasn't memorized everything ever published.
|
Actually for him to use it he needs to have a copy of the book it is in, or a watermarked pdf of it, not an app on his phone. This is a rule in the Guide to Organized play as it is not your responsibility as a GM to provide materials for his character. Your ruling was correct in that he didn't have the material so he could not use it. Believe it or not but this is a common problem where players have something they found online and do not even own the source material, but have the item reguardless.
|
|
disguises characters against the effects of unholy blight, blasphemy, and other spells that affect good-aligned targets.
The character detects as an evil creature, he's not treated as an evil creature for all spells. Pretty much only detect evil or detect good are impacted by this, not spells which affect good/neutral/evil creatures.
You can compare this with the Evil Domain's ability, which does impact:
Touch of Evil (Sp): You can cause a creature to become sickened as a melee touch attack. Creatures sickened by your touch count as good for the purposes of spells with the evil descriptor.
|
|
Perhaps in the future I will bring up particulars of my characters before a game, as most have obscure source material.
That's a good courtesy, but you still need to bring an official source to the game to use it. As others have stated, an app on a phone isn't enough - you need a PDF on a tablet or a printed sheet from the book.
|
|
Ya, and honestly, I don't carry it for any of my characters. If PFS is going to become more of a chore than it is, I can cut out that particular game store, as the others I play at are all cool. I don't think that is an issue though, I just think it was a scuffle and we got it clarified. I also know because I do this that sometimes I might get beat down with the nerf stick. Perhaps in the future I will bring up particulars of my characters before a game, as most have obscure source material.
And Dust Raven is a godsend at that particular location, where the GM talent the last times I have been there has been...not to par. Actually if him and the VC were not there yesterday, I would not be going back at all in the future.
I would suggest the PDFs combined with a tablet. It's much lighter and cheaper.
|
|
Can get some pretty cheap android tablets from DealExtreme, the tech is pretty cheap and accessible these days.
Now I know I'm going to be 'that customer', however...
The PDFs are now becoming 'somewhat plentiful' and chasing around them is starting to suck.
In game I now use the D20PFSRD as it is simply a 'better' choice for play (everything is cross referenced). I'd love a more comprehensive offering from Paizo that contained all the 'legal' material. I'm happy with just getting the crunch, I don't need the fluff or the artwork for everything, and if I do I can get a hold of a full copy (PDF or Hardcopy)
|
|
As much as people insist that cure light wounds is a better spell during combat than infernal healing, I must demur.
If my Fighter/Magus has a spare round to prepare for combat, he will cast infernal healing on the main melee fighter in the party.
.....
Most people misplay the casting time of infernal healing. It has a one round cast, not a standard action cast.
It is that casting time that makes it less useful in combat - but i agree that infernal is a great before combat spell (so is greater infernal healing, a spell my character has cast occasionally).
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
Actually for him to use it he needs to have a copy of the book it is in, or a watermarked pdf of it, not an app on his phone. This is a rule in the Guide to Organized play as it is not your responsibility as a GM to provide materials for his character. Your ruling was correct in that he didn't have the material so he could not use it. Believe it or not but this is a common problem where players have something they found online and do not even own the source material, but have the item reguardless.
Ah... This brings back memories of Gen Con... :)
|
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs
|
Wow, I never realized this. I have been in a few games(both as GM and player) where a sleep enchanter (wizard or sorcerer) just steam-rolled an entire scenario with that spell. Crazy no one at any of those tables have ever realized that.
Heh, what I keep forgetting is that full round casting time means it doesn't go off until the start of the character's next action.
|
A spell with a casting time of one round(sleep, summon, etc.), do you still get your move action?No. "A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action"
Right, but as far as I know, you can split it between two rounds. Use your standard this round, and your move the next, and then it pops. Gets you a bit of extra mobility off of it.
|
|
Right, but as far as I know, you can split it between two rounds. Use your standard this round, and your move the next, and then it pops. Gets you a bit of extra mobility off of it.
No. That would effectively remove the limitation of the 1 round cast.
"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action"
"A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The "start full-round action" standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw."
From the chapter on actions in combat.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Actions-In-Combat
|
|
There is this option:
Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
I'm not 100% sure how that interacts with a one round casting time spell:
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
It looks like you trade one standard action for a move action, and in return, you get to move before you cast the spell.
EDIT: Ninjad a bit.
|
|
Note that uses your standard action from _both_ rounds, not a standard and a move.
Almost 1 in 5 spells have a casting time longer than a standard action, so its not a short list, and even very experienced folk make mistakes here - and especially when the spell is from a non-core source book.
Though the player should absolutely know these things for their spells, especially after first level. It should also be a primary consideration when picking spells to use.
GMs tend to know the common first level combat spells so they can guide newbies. But there is no way they can remember the list of 270+ spells.
Common spells include: All summons, Sleep, Enlarge Person, Infernal Healing, Hypnotism, Silence.
I was amazed to see that 'devil's blood' didn't have a gp cost to it... Made my infernal sorcerer THAT much cooler!!! :)
