[FAQ REQUEST] Infernal Healing Pricing


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 540 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Really a lot of this comes with how user-friendly magic has become in 3.5/Pathfinder. I don't think Paizo would dare in the modern era to include spells with the possibility to screw with the players if used poorly. When magic is on magic's terms it makes sense for a spell to have a morality in and of itself, but Pathfinder magic is all on the player's terms and thus really just a tool.

There is actually an item specifically from AD&D that does give a reason for fast healing being wrong. The Ring of Gaxx wasn't evil to use but if you used it too much it would make you dependent. It turned the user into a monster and was required to sustain their new monstrous form. After the transformation was complete, if the wearer was parted from the ring for 72 hours or more they would die.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Really a lot of this comes with how user-friendly magic has become in 3.5/Pathfinder. I don't think Paizo would dare in the modern era to include spells with the possibility to screw with the players if used poorly. When magic is on magic's terms it makes sense for a spell to have a morality in and of itself, but Pathfinder magic is all on the player's terms and thus really just a tool.

There is actually an item specifically from AD&D that does give a reason for fast healing being wrong. The Ring of Gaxx wasn't evil to use but if you used it too much it would make you dependent. It turned the user into a monster and was required to sustain their new monstrous form. After the transformation was complete, if the wearer was parted from the ring for 72 hours or more they would die.

*scratches head*

I can't think of any off the top of my head but I do believe there are spells in Pathfinder where's it's possible for bad things to happen to the caster.

There's also the new Hubris Subdomain introduced in Divine Anthology.


Rysky wrote:

*nods*

I'm perfectly fine with spells being spelled out why they're (and to me infernal healing is since it uses devil's blood or unholy water as a component) but the examples you just gave mention how a spell can go wrong, not how it's evil (aside from the creating shadows thing, but that's a give, not necessarily unique to those spells).

Actually looking back over them, aside from the shadow steed whose life is pain most of the shadow spells are just dangerous to use until you know what can happen. They only become consciously evil if you are aware of the dangers and still use them around others anyways.

A better example would be summoning elementals which is considered evil because they can't leave when the spell expires.


Rysky wrote:

*scratches head*

I can't think of any off the top of my head but I do believe there are spells in Pathfinder where's it's possible for bad things to happen to the caster.

There's also the new Hubris Subdomain introduced in Divine Anthology.

Yes but it's only a small subset of them. It used to be to almost all spells had to be handled carefully and thought through fully before being cast. Haste aged you, fireball filled a set volume and could back-blast you if used improperly, magic jar was both evil and forced a system shock check, etc.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
A better example would be summoning elementals which is considered evil because they can't leave when the spell expires.

Hmm? Which spell is that?


Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Really a lot of this comes with how user-friendly magic has become in 3.5/Pathfinder. I don't think Paizo would dare in the modern era to include spells with the possibility to screw with the players if used poorly. When magic is on magic's terms it makes sense for a spell to have a morality in and of itself, but Pathfinder magic is all on the player's terms and thus really just a tool.

There is actually an item specifically from AD&D that does give a reason for fast healing being wrong. The Ring of Gaxx wasn't evil to use but if you used it too much it would make you dependent. It turned the user into a monster and was required to sustain their new monstrous form. After the transformation was complete, if the wearer was parted from the ring for 72 hours or more they would die.

See if Infernal Healing forced the person benefiting it to make a will save or seek out more it and it had an expensive component that you might have to murder some people to get I would be fine labeling it an evil spell. As is devil blood, smevil mud, healing without really bad side effects ain't evil.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

*scratches head*

I can't think of any off the top of my head but I do believe there are spells in Pathfinder where's it's possible for bad things to happen to the caster.

There's also the new Hubris Subdomain introduced in Divine Anthology.

Yes but it's only a small subset of them. It used to be to almost all spells had to be handled carefully and thought through fully before being cast. Haste aged you, fireball filled a set volume and could back-blast you if used improperly, magic jar was both evil and forced a system shock check, etc.

Oh yeah, we no like being hasted to death -_-

Poor half-orcs...

I do like the backdraft for Fireball and bouncing for Lighting Bolts though :3

OOOOOOO Unchained Spells would be an awesome book.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Really a lot of this comes with how user-friendly magic has become in 3.5/Pathfinder. I don't think Paizo would dare in the modern era to include spells with the possibility to screw with the players if used poorly. When magic is on magic's terms it makes sense for a spell to have a morality in and of itself, but Pathfinder magic is all on the player's terms and thus really just a tool.

There is actually an item specifically from AD&D that does give a reason for fast healing being wrong. The Ring of Gaxx wasn't evil to use but if you used it too much it would make you dependent. It turned the user into a monster and was required to sustain their new monstrous form. After the transformation was complete, if the wearer was parted from the ring for 72 hours or more they would die.

See if Infernal Healing forced the person benefiting it to make a will save or seek out more it and it had an expensive component that you might have to murder some people to get I would be fine labeling it an evil spell. As is devil blood, smevil mud, healing without really bad side effects ain't evil.

Why is Devil's Blood not evil to you?

Why is Unholy Water not evil?

Why is it only evil if it's addictive?


Rysky wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Really a lot of this comes with how user-friendly magic has become in 3.5/Pathfinder. I don't think Paizo would dare in the modern era to include spells with the possibility to screw with the players if used poorly. When magic is on magic's terms it makes sense for a spell to have a morality in and of itself, but Pathfinder magic is all on the player's terms and thus really just a tool.

There is actually an item specifically from AD&D that does give a reason for fast healing being wrong. The Ring of Gaxx wasn't evil to use but if you used it too much it would make you dependent. It turned the user into a monster and was required to sustain their new monstrous form. After the transformation was complete, if the wearer was parted from the ring for 72 hours or more they would die.

See if Infernal Healing forced the person benefiting it to make a will save or seek out more it and it had an expensive component that you might have to murder some people to get I would be fine labeling it an evil spell. As is devil blood, smevil mud, healing without really bad side effects ain't evil.

Why is Devil's Blood not evil to you?

Why is Unholy Water not evil?

Evil materials, good effects. Effects > Materials.


My usual assumption for this is as follows:

Spells have costly material components it they either cite a specific number ("powdered diamond worth 20,000 GP") or refer exactly to a costly item ("potion of heroism"). If there is no listed cost for a material component, and there are no items actually matching the component, then my default assumption is that it is not a costly component and is either in the spell component pouch or can be eschew'd away.

Holy and Unholy Water are typically referred to as 'Flasks', not 'Doses', so I don't believe Infernal Healing is intended to have a costly component.


So I've been thinking and there's a few ways to make infernal healing actually evil.

The spell could only work on evil people. It could also make the body weaker, causing ability damage or sickening the target for 24 hours. The addiction method was also a thing. A will save to resist trying to conquer everything is also fine, though that might be difficult RP wise. Either way, evil s%#&'s supposed to be good in the short term and bad in the long term, so this spell should reflect that in its mechanics.

Of course it would also need a buff on how it heals...and better versions that heal better than the cure equivalent with worse side effects as they go up in level, risk/reward that s&**!

And of course celestial healing would need reworking as well...Yeesh if I keep this up I might have to head to the homebrew forum to make every aligned spell actually thematic.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:
Rysky wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Really a lot of this comes with how user-friendly magic has become in 3.5/Pathfinder. I don't think Paizo would dare in the modern era to include spells with the possibility to screw with the players if used poorly. When magic is on magic's terms it makes sense for a spell to have a morality in and of itself, but Pathfinder magic is all on the player's terms and thus really just a tool.

There is actually an item specifically from AD&D that does give a reason for fast healing being wrong. The Ring of Gaxx wasn't evil to use but if you used it too much it would make you dependent. It turned the user into a monster and was required to sustain their new monstrous form. After the transformation was complete, if the wearer was parted from the ring for 72 hours or more they would die.

See if Infernal Healing forced the person benefiting it to make a will save or seek out more it and it had an expensive component that you might have to murder some people to get I would be fine labeling it an evil spell. As is devil blood, smevil mud, healing without really bad side effects ain't evil.

Why is Devil's Blood not evil to you?

Why is Unholy Water not evil?

Evil materials, good effects. Effects > Materials.

-_-

Healing is neither good nor evil.

But to build off of this, if there was a spell that resurrected someone with no negative levels but consumed other people's souls to do so, it wouldn't be evil to you?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GM Rednal wrote:

My usual assumption for this is as follows:

Spells have costly material components it they either cite a specific number ("powdered diamond worth 20,000 GP") or refer exactly to a costly item ("potion of heroism"). If there is no listed cost for a material component, and there are no items actually matching the component, then my default assumption is that it is not a costly component and is either in the spell component pouch or can be eschew'd away.

Holy and Unholy Water are typically referred to as 'Flasks', not 'Doses', so I don't believe Infernal Healing is intended to have a costly component.

Unfortunately a 'dose' could be a flask, which is why using 'dose' annoys me so much.


I figure that if they meant flask, they would have said so. Also, I think of a 'dose' as being a much smaller amount than is normally contained in a flask, which helps. XD

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:

So I've been thinking and there's a few ways to make infernal healing actually evil.

The spell could only work on evil people. It could also make the body weaker, causing ability damage or sickening the target for 24 hours. The addiction method was also a thing. A will save to resist trying to conquer everything is also fine, though that might be difficult RP wise. Either way, evil s%%*'s supposed to be good in the short term and bad in the long term, so this spell should reflect that in its mechanics.

Of course it would also need a buff on how it heals...and better versions that heal better than the cure equivalent with worse side effects as they go up in level, risk/reward that s!+$!

And of course celestial healing would need reworking as well...Yeesh if I keep this up I might have to head to the homebrew forum to make every aligned spell actually thematic.

infernal healing wrote:
You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. 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.

"This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GM Rednal wrote:
I figure that if they meant flask, they would have said so. Also, I think of a 'dose' as being a much smaller amount than is normally contained in a flask, which helps. XD

oh I know from a medicinal standpoint doses tend to be in syringes, but they can also be IV bags which are about as big or bigger than a flask.

So the correct amount needed to weaponize a thrown flask like in its description would be a 'dose'.

They could have avoided this by saying a drop of unholy water as well, or just an actual measurement.

Scarab Sages

Or you can just have your cleric curse a flask of your water for it.

Or you can have your cleric create water over your target, curse the water immediately, and then use that 2 gallons/level of cursed water as your material focus. Hopefully that's enough cursed water for your spell. You might have to douse the guy a couple times just to be sure. It doesn't list how much you need EXACTLY, after all. [/eyeroll]

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Siegebeast2142 wrote:

Or you can just have your cleric curse a flask of your water for it.

Or you can have your cleric create water over your target, curse the water immediately, and then use that 2 gallons/level of cursed water as your material focus. Hopefully that's enough cursed water for your spell. You might have to douse the guy a couple times just to be sure. It doesn't list how much you need EXACTLY, after all. [/eyeroll]

Having a cleric around to create unholy water for you is besides the point.

Scarab Sages

If it can be done 3-5 times a day at first level for free, I'd say "eschewable" is a good way to describe it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Siegebeast2142 wrote:
If it can be done 3-5 times a day at first level for free, I'd say "eschewable" is a good way to describe it.

That's not a good way to say eschewable if it's eating up your buddy's resources. Well to you maybe. Your cleric probably isn't amused by it.


Rysky wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Rysky wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Really a lot of this comes with how user-friendly magic has become in 3.5/Pathfinder. I don't think Paizo would dare in the modern era to include spells with the possibility to screw with the players if used poorly. When magic is on magic's terms it makes sense for a spell to have a morality in and of itself, but Pathfinder magic is all on the player's terms and thus really just a tool.

There is actually an item specifically from AD&D that does give a reason for fast healing being wrong. The Ring of Gaxx wasn't evil to use but if you used it too much it would make you dependent. It turned the user into a monster and was required to sustain their new monstrous form. After the transformation was complete, if the wearer was parted from the ring for 72 hours or more they would die.

See if Infernal Healing forced the person benefiting it to make a will save or seek out more it and it had an expensive component that you might have to murder some people to get I would be fine labeling it an evil spell. As is devil blood, smevil mud, healing without really bad side effects ain't evil.

Why is Devil's Blood not evil to you?

Why is Unholy Water not evil?

Evil materials, good effects. Effects > Materials.

-_-

Healing is neither good nor evil.

But to build off of this, if there was a spell that resurrected someone with no negative levels but consumed other people's souls to do so, it wouldn't be evil to you?

Depends on the soul used and the person raised really. If it uses an evil soul, hey, less evil in the world and you bring someone back to life! Sounds like a good act in line with quite a few LG and CG deities. Meanwhile using a good soul denies it its reward in the afterlife, pretty evil if you ask me. It's when the neutral souls get in the mix is when it gets tricky, I don't really have an answer for that one.

Looks up.

Oh...so there is a downside compared to CLW. And as should be expected of Paizo, it doesn't make a lick of sense! "Yes, I'll make a healing spell, and make it not work against the biggest threats to my followers instead of not working against my greatest assets in case they get out of line! This plan is perfect, I'll attract so many followers! ...Why are angels knocking out my new followers and converting them back to the side of good?" Isn't Asmodeus supposed to be a cunning schemer? I'm a mortal with no more than 10 int and wis and the flaw in this is painfully obvious to me, a god from Pathfinder would figure out something better, and given who we're dealing with, would make this baby force a few will saves.

Seriously, that fighter dying in the battlefield, or that orphan just outside of the burning building? Cast some IH on him and let his weak will save draw him to your god's side. As it stands right now you can just smear bad juice on the kid and he'll be fine after a little bit with no repercussions. I can't take it seriously as an evil spell when I can just go around fixing people without repercussions. "You'll turn evil." Yeah, turn evil with no effects on my character's behavior. I'll be back to good within a few adventures, and if that's not enough supplement it with protection from evil a few times. Heck I'll cast it on the kid a few times to get the bad juju out of him.

...The more I talk about it the bigger the missed opportunity I realize it is. It could have been so cool and instead it's really lame.

Scarab Sages

If we're in town for a week on R&R, he makes 30 of them. We are now stocked.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Siegebeast2142 wrote:
If we're in town for a week on R&R, he makes 30 of them. We are now stocked.

Stocked. Not eschewable.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:
Depends on the soul used and the person raised really. If it uses an evil soul, hey, less evil in the world and you bring someone back to life! Sounds like a good act in line with quite a few LG and CG deities. Meanwhile using a good soul denies it its reward in the afterlife, pretty evil if you ask me. It's when the neutral souls get in the mix is when it gets tricky, I don't really have an answer for that one.

Wow, okay so you think Daemon tactics are perfectly fine. Good to know.

HyperMissingno wrote:


Looks up.

Oh...so there is a downside compared to CLW. And as should be expected of Paizo, it doesn't make a lick of sense! "Yes, I'll make a healing spell, and make it not work against the biggest threats to my followers instead of not working against my greatest assets in case they get out of line! This plan is perfect, I'll attract so many followers! ...Why are angels knocking out my new followers and converting them back to the side of good?" Isn't Asmodeus supposed to be a cunning schemer? I'm a mortal with no more than 10 int and wis and the flaw in this is painfully obvious to me, a god from Pathfinder would figure out something better, and given who we're dealing with, would make this baby force a few will saves.

You're really reaching at this point.

It makes perfect sense. You gain fast healing like a devil, so obviously things that would mess with Devils mess with the healing.

HyperMissingno wrote:


Seriously, that fighter dying in the battlefield, or that orphan just outside of the burning building? Cast some IH on him and let his weak will save draw him to your god's side. As it stands right now you can just smear bad juice on the kid and he'll be fine after a little bit with no repercussions. I can't take it seriously as an evil spell when I can just go around fixing people without repercussions. "You'll turn evil." Yeah, turn evil with no effects on my character's behavior. I'll be back to good within a few adventures, and if that's not enough supplement it with protection from evil a few times. Heck I'll cast it on the kid a few times to get the bad juju out of him.

...The more I talk about it the bigger the missed opportunity I realize it is. It could have been so cool and instead it's really lame.

There ARE repercussions. Yes, magically forcing your alignment to Evil would have an effect on your character's behavior. You're not the same person with a completely superfous "E" on their sheet now. You may want Alignment to be meaningless but it isn't.

Scarab Sages

Rysky wrote:
Siegebeast2142 wrote:
If we're in town for a week on R&R, he makes 30 of them. We are now stocked.
Stocked. Not eschewable.

Can I join your game? 1st level cleric, Imma spend a year creating and selling holy and unholy water and buy the planet. checkmate, DM. I own the world.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Siegebeast2142 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Siegebeast2142 wrote:
If we're in town for a week on R&R, he makes 30 of them. We are now stocked.
Stocked. Not eschewable.
Can I join your game? 1st level cleric, Imma spend a year creating and selling holy and unholy water and buy the planet. checkmate, DM. I own the world.

You own the world by doing what every NPC Cleric in a temple does?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

But s/he's a protagonist. The rules are different when they do things.


Even Pathfinder's screwy economy does not have infinite markets.
If you make it, there is no guarantee that anyone will buy it.
If they don't buy it right away, you will have to store it somewhere.
Would you like to rent some warehouse space?

Dark Archive

Rysky wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Rysky wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Apparently "over and over" is considered rules text now.
Over and over means doing something more than once. This is immediately followed by how many "more" is needed.

Checking the sidebar myself (don't own a copy but there's a picture online), it is clearly separated from the sentence about the specific number.

Horror Adventures wrote:
A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won't turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character's alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evil spells move the caster from nongood to evil.

"Over and over again" isn't defined anywhere, nor is it possible to divine a meaning by using its English definition. There is no specific range which "over and over again" refers to - it is a range determined by the GM, with a guideline given for typical instances.

If it was, then we could assume that "reasonable limit" is clearly defined as "two free actions a round" as per the following:

Free Action FAQ wrote:
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
If this were the case, whenever the phrase "over and over again" was used it would mean "2-3", and the phrase "reasonable limit" would always mean "2 free actions a round". This is not the case.
If by separate you mean immediately following it, then yes, their recommendation for over and over is "separate".

The phrase "over and over" neither has a specific or consistent definition, and is thus not rules text. It is descriptive text, and the actual rules text is the following sentence which gives a clear example of a general limit on evil spells cast. Unless you're actually claiming that from now on "over and over" always refers to the range "2 if good, 3 if nongood" when used to describe something in Pathfinder.

Since it is not rules text the meaning of the phrase cannot be used to argue that the guideline given is incorrect or too low somehow. That's what I'm getting at.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
LuniasM wrote:
Rysky wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Rysky wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Apparently "over and over" is considered rules text now.
Over and over means doing something more than once. This is immediately followed by how many "more" is needed.

Checking the sidebar myself (don't own a copy but there's a picture online), it is clearly separated from the sentence about the specific number.

Horror Adventures wrote:
A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won't turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character's alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evil spells move the caster from nongood to evil.

"Over and over again" isn't defined anywhere, nor is it possible to divine a meaning by using its English definition. There is no specific range which "over and over again" refers to - it is a range determined by the GM, with a guideline given for typical instances.

If it was, then we could assume that "reasonable limit" is clearly defined as "two free actions a round" as per the following:

Free Action FAQ wrote:
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
If this were the case, whenever the phrase "over and over again" was used it would mean "2-3", and the phrase "reasonable limit" would always mean "2 free actions a round". This is not the case.
If by separate you mean immediately following it, then yes, their recommendation for over and over is "separate".
The phrase "over and over" neither has a specific or consistent definition, and is thus not rules text. It is descriptive text, and the actual rules text is the following sentence which gives a clear example of a general limit on evil spells cast. Unless you're actually claiming that from now on "over and...

I wasn't arguing that the guideline is incorrect. It's a guideline.

A guideline that begins with "Typically".


As much as I love hearing bickering over this silly, silly advisement on how GMs should run their games, it is way off topic.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah.

*goes to sit in the corner*


Snowblind wrote:
As much as I love hearing bickering over this silly, silly advisement on how GMs should run their games, it is way off topic.

Honestly, I just read the entire thread straight through, and I can't figure out what the topic is supposed to be about. A spell has a negligible-cost material component. Spell component pouches mean you don't have to track negligible-cost material components. Everyone reading this thread knows that. Some people don't like spell component pouches, or don't like that they apply to some particular spells.

Is that it? That's my best impression of the actual thread's topic. The trouble is, it isn't a rules question, and this thread is in the Rules Question forum, so either I've grossly misunderstood the thread or else the entire thread is "off topic."

And if the entire thread is off topic, pushing it further off-topic doesn't seem like much of an issue:D

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
137ben wrote:
Honestly, I just read the entire thread straight through, and I can't figure out what the topic is supposed to be about.

Whether the 'dose' of Unholy Water is a negligible component or not, as detailed in the first post.

Dark Archive

Rysky wrote:

I wasn't arguing that the guideline is incorrect. It's a guideline.

A guideline that begins with "Typically".

Spoiler because off-topic:

I wasn't originally posting in response to you in particular, just laughing at the absurd thought that the phrase was rules text which contradicted the guideline given. I thought that was clear from my statement but perhaps I could've phrased it better.

I'm fairly certain that it's descriptive text, because the alternative seems strange.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
LuniasM wrote:
Rysky wrote:

I wasn't arguing that the guideline is incorrect. It's a guideline.

A guideline that begins with "Typically".

** spoiler omitted **

Spoileref Off-Topic Response:
Ah okay, then we're in agreement. The reading of your posts gave me the opposite of what you were intending, my apologies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Rysky wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Apparently "over and over" is considered rules text now.
Over and over means doing something more than once. This is immediately followed by how many "more" is needed.

Checking the sidebar myself (don't own a copy but there's a picture online), it is clearly separated from the sentence about the specific number.

Horror Adventures wrote:
A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won't turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character's alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evil spells move the caster from nongood to evil.

"Over and over again" isn't defined anywhere, nor is it possible to divine a meaning by using its English definition. There is no specific range which "over and over again" refers to - it is a range determined by the GM, with a guideline given for typical instances.

If it was, then we could assume that "reasonable limit" is clearly defined as "two free actions a round" as per the following:

Free Action FAQ wrote:
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
If this were the case, whenever the phrase "over and over again" was used it would mean "2-3", and the phrase "reasonable limit" would always mean "2 free actions a round". This is not the case.

This is why I dislike alignment. Certain classes can just ignore it. Others have to regularly look to the GM for permission to do something without losing all their class abilities.

I would have rathered "Casting an evil/good spell instantly shifts your alignment one step towards evil/good". At least then it would be easy to tell what the consequences of your actions are.

No class is like that (barring divine...

In theory yes but in practice nobody I have played with is willing to lose their class features and spend thousands of gold getting them back.

So if the GM says something will cause an alignment shift the player doesn't do it. In terms of actual influence on the game its no different from the GM just not letting them do it at all.


Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.

The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:

In theory yes but in practice nobody I have played with is willing to lose their class features and spend thousands of gold getting them back.

So if the GM says something will cause an alignment shift the player doesn't do it. In terms of actual influence on the game its no different from the GM just not letting them do it at all

While it may be true for your group you're still making a sweeping generalization that simply isn't true for everyone.

Conflating "if you do this there will be repercussions" with "you can't do this at all" is simply a false equivalence.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.

No, it is EXACTLY because of how he behaves, in this case choosing to do an aligned act.


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.
No, it is EXACTLY because of how he behaves, in this case choosing to do an aligned act.

What I mean is that it puts alignment firmly in the hands of the players based on hard rules instead of a vague sense of how the GM feels the character has behaved.

GM wants to shift my alignment towards neutral? Well I can cast protection from evil enough times and go back to good.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.
No, it is EXACTLY because of how he behaves, in this case choosing to do an aligned act.

What I mean is that it puts alignment firmly in the hands of the players based on hard rules instead of a vague sense of how the GM feels the character has behaved.

GM wants to shift my alignment towards neutral? Well I can cast protection from evil enough times and go back to good.

And when your GM shifts your Alignment to CN for being a smartass? :3

In that example it would be you the player exerting influence to change your character's alignment, rather than your character choosing to change their alignment.


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.
No, it is EXACTLY because of how he behaves, in this case choosing to do an aligned act.

What I mean is that it puts alignment firmly in the hands of the players based on hard rules instead of a vague sense of how the GM feels the character has behaved.

GM wants to shift my alignment towards neutral? Well I can cast protection from evil enough times and go back to good.

And when your GM shifts your Alignment to CN for being a smartass? :3

In that example it would be you the player exerting influence to change your character's alignment, rather than your character choosing to change their alignment.

If the GM wants to houserule like that its fine, but RAW the player can always cast protection from chaos and protection from evil enough times to go back to being Lawful Good.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.
No, it is EXACTLY because of how he behaves, in this case choosing to do an aligned act.

What I mean is that it puts alignment firmly in the hands of the players based on hard rules instead of a vague sense of how the GM feels the character has behaved.

GM wants to shift my alignment towards neutral? Well I can cast protection from evil enough times and go back to good.

And when your GM shifts your Alignment to CN for being a smartass? :3

In that example it would be you the player exerting influence to change your character's alignment, rather than your character choosing to change their alignment.

If the GM wants to houserule like that its fine, but RAW the player can always cast protection from chaos and protection from evil enough times to go back to being Lawful Good.

Not if his other actions outweigh that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mishima wrote:

There is also now celestial healing which is similar except duration and has holy water as an optional component (rather than the blood of a good outsider).

Celestial Healing

If I remember correctly, you pretty much have to be 20th level to be as effective with this spell as a first level caster using Infernal Healing.


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.
No, it is EXACTLY because of how he behaves, in this case choosing to do an aligned act.

What I mean is that it puts alignment firmly in the hands of the players based on hard rules instead of a vague sense of how the GM feels the character has behaved.

GM wants to shift my alignment towards neutral? Well I can cast protection from evil enough times and go back to good.

And when your GM shifts your Alignment to CN for being a smartass? :3

In that example it would be you the player exerting influence to change your character's alignment, rather than your character choosing to change their alignment.

If the GM wants to houserule like that its fine, but RAW the player can always cast protection from chaos and protection from evil enough times to go back to being Lawful Good.
Not if his other actions outweigh that.

The player can always cast more Protection from Evil. Its a level 1 spell, take a week off between adventures and cast a few dozen of them.

The sidebar was very clear repeated castings do cause an alignment shift, even if your actions outweigh casting an aligned spell occasionally.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.
No, it is EXACTLY because of how he behaves, in this case choosing to do an aligned act.

What I mean is that it puts alignment firmly in the hands of the players based on hard rules instead of a vague sense of how the GM feels the character has behaved.

GM wants to shift my alignment towards neutral? Well I can cast protection from evil enough times and go back to good.

And when your GM shifts your Alignment to CN for being a smartass? :3

In that example it would be you the player exerting influence to change your character's alignment, rather than your character choosing to change their alignment.

If the GM wants to houserule like that its fine, but RAW the player can always cast protection from chaos and protection from evil enough times to go back to being Lawful Good.
Not if his other actions outweigh that.

The player can always cast more Protection from Evil. Its a level 1 spell, take a week off between adventures and cast a few dozen of them.

The sidebar was very clear repeated castings do cause an alignment shift, even if your actions outweigh casting an aligned spell occasionally.

Repeated in a row, yes. But that's where the "Typically" comes in to play.

Why is your Nuetral aligned character wanting to change alignment?

Why is your Evil aligned character wanting to change alignment?


Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Daw wrote:

Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.

Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
The alignment descriptor rules are a huge victory for rules over fluff. Now a wizard can be any alignment he wants by casting the right protection spell regardless of how he behaves.
No, it is EXACTLY because of how he behaves, in this case choosing to do an aligned act.

What I mean is that it puts alignment firmly in the hands of the players based on hard rules instead of a vague sense of how the GM feels the character has behaved.

GM wants to shift my alignment towards neutral? Well I can cast protection from evil enough times and go back to good.

And when your GM shifts your Alignment to CN for being a smartass? :3

In that example it would be you the player exerting influence to change your character's alignment, rather than your character choosing to change their alignment.

If the GM wants to houserule like that its fine, but RAW the player can always cast protection from chaos and protection from evil enough times to go back to being Lawful Good.
Not if his other actions outweigh that.

The player can always cast more Protection from Evil. Its a level 1 spell, take a week off between adventures and cast a few dozen of them.

The sidebar was very clear repeated castings do cause an alignment shift, even if your actions outweigh casting an aligned spell occasionally.

Repeated in a row, yes. But that's where the "Typically" comes in to play.

Why is your Nuetral aligned character wanting to change alignment?

Why is your Evil aligned character wanting to change alignment?

Plenty of reasons. Everyone wants a shortcut into Heaven. Plenty of evil people aren't devil worshippers and don't want to go to hell. Or maybe he just wants to avoid getting detected/smited by Paladins.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Plenty of reasons. Everyone wants a shortcut into Heaven. Or maybe he wants to avoid getting detected/smited by Paladins. Or maybe he got some sweet magical gear that only works if he is good.

And here is where the crux of the issue concerning alignment is, to a lot of people there's this complete dissociation between alignment and behavior and actions and effects that change it.

You decide you want to get into Heaven for whatever reason and didn't think you would before?

*spam good aligned spells*

You are now Good. You are also horrified at how you were when you were evil and now set out to do Good, thus trying to earn your way into Heaven.

Don't won't to get smiled?

*spam good aligned spells*

Oh wow, you were a horrible person, maybe you deserve to be smited? No, wait, you'll turn yourself in to the Paladin in an attempt to make up for everything you had done.

You want to use a good aligned item? Why does the item require you to be good aligned?

*spam good aligned spells*

Oh wow, being good feels good, I'll think I'll do my best to stay this way.


Actions beget alignment, your alignment doesn't control your actions or your thoughts.
Changing alignment magically doesn't automatically change your personality.
Changing alignment because of your actions is one thing, changing alignment because you are channelling magical energy is whole 'nother kettle of fish.

I want the characters behaviour to define their alignment, not just what happens if they cast a spell - I want the use that that spell is used for to matter, not just the act of casting it.

And if I know that channelling magical energy affects how I see the world, but I know I can balance that out, I will still take the expedient route if casting infernal healing is the only way I know of to heal I will cast that if I need to, then I will balance that out with counter energy. expedient =/= evil. pragmatic =/= evil.

If I start consuming souls, or sacrifice the living to power spells then my actions determine my alignment - it really does not matter if the spell is [evil] or not at that point, I'm evil and no amount of spamming prot from evil should change that.

251 to 300 of 540 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / [FAQ REQUEST] Infernal Healing Pricing All Messageboards