Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aimless 12-11-03, 02:42 PM	Like the title says.
Bifford 12-11-03, 02:47 PM	Nope, but bards can.
lukelightning 12-11-03, 02:48 PM	Sure she can. If she takes a level in cleric or druid. Or ranger or Paladin, for that matter.
Zherog 12-11-03, 02:56 PM	She would need numerous levels (4, to be exact) of Ranger or Paladin to "learn" cure spells.
bjorntfh 12-11-03, 03:33 PM	Reread the part on sorcs learning new spells from scrolls: - ANY arcane spell on a scroll may be learned by a sorc. - Cure light wounds is an arcane spell when cast by bards. Thus, provided you buy a scroll of cure light wound from a bard, you can learn it. This is part of what makes sorcs so useful, they can cast the arcane healing spells (albeit only from learning it from a scroll.)
Nagol 12-11-03, 03:40 PM	From 3.5 SRD (emphasis mine) At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known are fixed.) These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however. Note not all arcane spells, but rather spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list. Unusual spells in this case refers to new spells introduced into campaign play that would normally be castable by Wizards and/or Sorcerers.
Zherog 12-11-03, 03:41 PM	:nonono: From the SRD: Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below). To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a sorcerer’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the sorcerer’s Charisma modifier. Like other spellcasters, a sorcerer can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Sorcerer. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score. A sorcerer’s selection of spells is extremely limited. A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of your choice. At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known are fixed.) These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however. Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one he already knows. In effect, the sorcerer “loses” the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell’s level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged, and it must be at least two levels lower than the highest-level sorcerer spell the sorcerer can cast. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that he gains new spells known for the level. Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his spells per day for that spell level. He does not have to decide ahead of time which spells he’ll cast. Show me anywhere in that quote where it says a sorcerer can pick up any arcane spell and learn to cast it. edit: I see Nagol beat me to it... oh well.
bjorntfh 12-11-03, 03:47 PM	In 3.0 it's any arcane spell. In 3.5 it's only wizards/sorc spells. Thus it depends on which one you're using.
gpstar 12-11-03, 04:20 PM	[WizO Catoblepas: Message edited. Keep in mind that baiting is against the Code of Conduct. Thanks.]
Zherog 12-11-03, 04:26 PM	Originally posted by bjorntfh In 3.0 it's any arcane spell. In 3.5 it's only wizards/sorc spells. Thus it depends on which one you're using. You are incorrect about 3.0 as well (though I do not have a link for the SRD handy to get the quote).
bjorntfh 12-11-03, 04:31 PM	You know, I really hate this misconception. Sorcs with cure are not munchkin. It's no more overpowering than the fact that Clerics have tons of massive offensive spells (some MUCH more powerful than their arcane counterparts. Firestorm? Implosion? Destruction?) Sometime actually play in a game where sorcs can use cures. Most of the time they won't be willing to spend the spell slots to pick up cure spells (they have better things to do with their limited spells known) and if they do, they often don't use them unless they're forced. It's very rare that you'll get a sorc running them, and you can't get the broken curing spells like Heal anyway. Overall it's not unbalancing, just not "cannon thought." Just because something isn't what people always expect doesn't mean it's broken.
eudas 12-11-03, 04:34 PM	i will say, though, it's a rather clever workaround that would probably work on a MUD. :) we used to do that on MUDs, because there were some classes, such as antipaladin, that had spells that used to be in their spell list but were taken out in some point in the past... so even though the new AP's didn't get the spells when they leveled up, since it was still flagged as an AP spell, you could go study a scroll and get the spell and then practice it up... :P just minor abuses of programming oversights, really. but fun to find! :) eudas
lukelightning 12-11-03, 04:35 PM	I agree. If I had a campaign I'd allow arcane casters to get some cure spells, the same way clerics can get so many of the "trademark" wizard spells, depending on their domain. The Force domain, for example, gives magic missile! I'd make cure light wounds a third level arcane spell. That way it's up against fireball, dispel magic, and blink. Originally posted by bjorntfh You know, I really hate this misconception. Sorcs with cure are not munchkin. It's no more overpowering than the fact that Clerics have tons of massive offensive spells (some MUCH more powerful than their arcane counterparts. Firestorm? Implosion? Destruction?) Sometime actually play in a game where sorcs can use cures.
Zherog 12-11-03, 04:38 PM	Originally posted by bjorntfh You know, I really hate this misconception. Sorcs with cure are not munchkin. It's no more overpowering than the fact that Clerics have tons of massive offensive spells (some MUCH more powerful than their arcane counterparts. Firestorm? Implosion? Destruction?) Sometime actually play in a game where sorcs can use cures. Most of the time they won't be willing to spend the spell slots to pick up cure spells (they have better things to do with their limited spells known) and if they do, they often don't use them unless they're forced. It's very rare that you'll get a sorc running them, and you can't get the broken curing spells like Heal anyway. Overall it's not unbalancing, just not "cannon thought." Just because something isn't what people always expect doesn't mean it's broken. I never said it was munchkin. I simply said you were incorrect in your interpretation of the rule. ;) There is, however, a way for a sorcerer to get any cleric or druid spell added to their spell list. There is a Prestige Class that appeared in one of the Dragon Magazines called the Eldritch Master. That prestige class specifically allows you to pick spells from other classes spell lists.
Zherog 12-11-03, 04:39 PM	Originally posted by lukelightning I agree. If I had a campaign I'd allow arcane casters to get some cure spells, the same way clerics can get so many of the "trademark" wizard spells, depending on their domain. The Force domain, for example, gives magic missile! Yeah - at second level, and they can cast it at most once per day.
tarkin 12-11-03, 05:12 PM	1) It can be amunchkin to let sorcerors learn cure spells. Depends on how easy to do it it is. 2) It definitely is AGAINST the rules in both 3.0 and 3.5, though they did have to make a slight (1 line ) errata to make it illegal in 3.0 3) Even if it is not munchkin to do so, it is definitely a bad idea as it goes against the idea of healing and lessens the differentiation between classes. 4) There are lots of cure substitutes that both wizards and sorcerors can learn, making this a stupid thing to argue about. Specifically, Vampiric Touch, Healing Sting (Reverse of Vampiric Touch), Aid, False Life, Polymorph Self and similar healing, the Simbul's healing spell (Eat's other spell slots, granting +1d6 per slot level that spell eats) all are valid substitutes for Cure level Cure spells. In fact I consider False Life to be better than Cure Moderate in most situations.
Jon Hightower 12-11-03, 06:14 PM	Don't forget the Geomancer from Masters of the Wild. If you want cure spells be a cleric/Sorcerer/geomancer. As you rise in levels you can use your Sorcerer spell slots to spontaneously cast your cure spells. It has a lot of other nifty bonus abilities as well.
Jon Hightower 12-11-03, 06:30 PM	Ok I'm not one to usually rules lawer about wording and yes I think it's rather munchkin but, just to keep the dialog going, I was wondering this from the 3.5 PHB Sorcerer; Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below). To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a sorcerer’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the sorcerer’s Charisma modifier. Like other spellcasters, a sorcerer can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Sorcerer. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score. A sorcerer’s selection of spells is extremely limited. A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of your choice. At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known are fixed.) These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however. Here then is the question, If a bard cure spell is arcane, and the sorcerer has access to a bard scroll of cure-x, then could he learn this unusual spell that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study since the first part says that sorcerer spells are only primarily(and not exclusively) drawn from the Sor/Wiz spell list? It is an arcane spell after all. Happy trashing!
DrakaraGM 12-11-03, 06:47 PM	Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells. The number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by his Charisma bonus. The spells a sorcerer knows can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer and wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. That's from the 3.0 SRD -- seems to be worded a lot like the 3.5 quote, yes? And the 'unusual' spells definitely applies to new arcane spells that might become available to arcane casters during the campaign -- not to existing spells that just do not happen to be on the sorcerer/wizard list. In the DMG, somewhere in the discussion about creating spell lists for new classes and that sort of thing, in the neighborhood of the damage caps table (don't have my books handy), there is also a precaution that warns against allowing arcane casters to have healing spells. So clearly, even though they violate that themselves for Bards, they do not intend for sorcerers to be able to learn cure spells. And don't give me that "Most of the time they won't be willing to spend the spell slots to pick up cure spells (they have better things to do with their limited spells known) and if they do, they often don't use them unless they're forced." What sorcerer truly would not be willing to use a single 1st level spell known slot to learn Cure Light Wounds? Or perhaps instead use a 2nd level spell known slot to learn Cure Moderate Wounds? One of the sorcerer's complaints in many campaigns, especially those where there is a lot of outdoor action and not that many different encounters in any one given day, is that their extra spells per day are less valuable because they never use them all up anyways. A sorcerer with Cure Light Wounds can, after a battle, cure up a LOT of damage, using any of his spell slots except thsoe 0th level ones. Gee, after reaching 6th level or higher he can still 'only' do d8+5 points of healing per spell, even when using higher level castings -- UNLESS of course he also has Empower Spell feat, at which point his cures are doing ~ (4.5 + 5) + 4.75 or ~14 points each, when using a 3rd level 'leftover' spell slot or higher. Not too shabby for an arcane caster, you know... I can comment on this because I am running an O.A. game -- where the shugenja is essentially a sorcerer but with divine spells. Some of the shugenja's spells come from the arcane list, some at the same level and some at a level higher, others come from the divine list at the normal level. And many players consider Earth or Air as the 'best' elements to specialize in -- because that means they get a very small amount of access to Water spells, enough to ensure that they can take CLW as a 1st level spell and do TONS of curing with it. Water is less attractive, because you don't need that many different healing spells to be able to heal up a lot of damage just fine. And Fire, while otherwise fairly attractive as a choice of element, has a serious drawback, as it doesn't allow you to learn any Water spells, which means no healing spells -- and that alone stops many players from going that route. The Air shugenja in the party I run for has always been able to do plenty of things to help out during a battle -- she knows Haste (modified 3.0 version, cannot use the partial action to cast spells or activate items, just for a move, move-equivalent or attack action, but everyone STILL loves having it cast on them), Fly (I added that to the Air list at the same time as I nerfed 3.0 Haste), Burning Hands (5d4 isn't bad damage for a divine caster), Invisibility, and other spells useful in an encounter or as prep such as Cat's Grace, and the ONLY reason she runs out of spells is that she then converts most or all of her after-action spell slots into cures. She did eventually take Cure Serious Wounds as a 3rd level spell too, as the party's shaman is focussed more on monk levels and combat rather than healing -- but for a while she was quite content -- and quite effective -- just using that one CLW spell to do massive amounts of healnig for the party. That said, I might allow sorcerers to learn curing in a limited fashion -- say through a Prestige Class. For instance, the famous (and many consider broken!) Divine Oracle (from DotF) allows a sorcerer to add the Divination Domain spells to his normal spells known, and gives him the +2 effective caster level granted power with divination spells. There may be a similar PrC out there that would allow an arcane caster to add the Healing Domain spells to a sorcerer's spells known, in which case I could certainly see many an arcane caster diving into that... One thing which such a PrC should probably do is spread access to the domain spells out across the level progression of the PrC rather than just adding it in for just one level of the PrC. For example, at 1st level the Domain might just provide the granted power, then access to the domain spells would be gained ata rate of one per level, i.e. 1st level spell at class level 2, 2nd level spell at class level 3, and so on, provided the character can use spells of that level of course. So such a 'healer' PrC available to a sorcerer would give the sorcerer "+1 caster level to healing spells" at 1st level of the PrC but would grant access to CLW only at 2nd level of the PrC, access to CModW at 3rd level of the PrC and so on. If someone did want to allow sorcerers -- and by extension, wizards -- access to learning spells normally not on their list but on the bard's list, I would recommend at the very least increasing their effective level -- CLW as a 2nd level spell (since Bard's get it as a 1st level spell), CModW as a 3rd level spell, and so on. And you know what? Plenty of sorcerers would happily do so. But personally, I would prefer some more exotic method such as a PrC, so that some effort above and beyond simply going up a level would be required to gain that capability. Me, as a player, I wanted my Monk to have some healing ability. So I started off as a Monk/Cleric of St. Cuthbert, using the 'apprentice dual-classed character' rules from the DMG (at the DM's insistence) and then went Monk from there on. Sure, I only get a few spells per day, but they can be spontaneous cures if needed, even though they only do d8+1 of curing. I let my character always be a level behind where she could be as a monk because I wanted some divine spellcasting capability, including, if nothing else, the ability to heal herself sooner than she would have gotten it otherwise. (And the Destruction and Strrength domains, even though not THAT potent with just one level of Cleric, definitely fit the character's profile.) A sorcerer could do the same thing, by investing in a level of cleric -- at least with any amount of wisdom -- but sacrificing a level of sorcerer is painful enough. Another option would be to, despite the high cost in skill points, devote some ranks to Use Magic Device, and buy some Wands of CLW, that can get you a decent amount of healing power too, once you are good enough at UMD to actually get the wand to finction. DC 20 to convince the wand that you have the spell on your class list, and since your caster level doesn't matter for wands, that is about all you need to worry about. For a sorcerer with decent CHA, it doesn't take that many skill points (even at the cross-class rate). And the sorcerer can retry time after time, until/unless he rolls a natural 1 and fails to activate the wand, in which case he is done for the day. But hey, on the average the sorcerer will get about 10 tries or so before running into a natural 1 -- and failures don't burn up charges, so say between ranks and CHA he has a +9, that means he can get about 5 charges per day out of a wand before getting shut off. A sorcerer going the UMD route would probabkly want to use the skill for other things as well -- in which case it might actually be worth investing a feat in Skill Focus (UMD), that +3 is as good as 6 skill points, not to mention making things possible a fair bit earlier... OR, if willing to 'sacrifice' a sorcerer level to take a level in rogue, could do so and buy a lot of UMD ranks all at once -- while getting some other benefits from having that level of rogue. Yep, wands of CLW are a reasonable investment, and with UMD a CHA-based skill, it is a reasonable choice for a sorcerer, even as a cross-class skill. No need to add CLW to the sorcerer's spells known...
Jon Hightower 12-11-03, 06:55 PM	Originally posted by DrakaraGM That's from the 3.0 SRD -- seems to be worded a lot like the 3.5 quote, yes? Funny, I pulled that up from the 3.5 SRD actually. Now I'll read the rest of your post.:D
Jon Hightower 12-11-03, 07:13 PM	... not to existing spells that just do not happen to be on the sorcerer/wizard list. Can you find a ruling with that specific wording, or is that a conclusion based on "intent" of the rules. In the DMG, somewhere in the discussion about creating spell lists for new classes and that sort of thing, in the neighborhood of the damage caps table (don't have my books handy), there is also a precaution that warns against allowing arcane casters to have healing spells. So clearly, even though they violate that themselves for Bards, they do not intend for sorcerers to be able to learn cure spells. Yes I agree, that was the intent but they worded it wrong. This leaves it open to the right rules lawer. Also, a precaution is not a definite no. And don't give me that "Most of the time they won't be willing to spend the spell slots to pick up cure spells (they have better things to do with their limited spells known) and if they do, they often don't use them unless they're forced." What sorcerer truly would not be willing to use a single 1st level spell known slot to learn Cure Light Wounds? Or perhaps instead use a 2nd level spell known slot to learn Cure Moderate Wounds? I totally agree with you. I certainly would.
Schmendrick 12-11-03, 07:15 PM	The whole point behind having a sorceror spell list is that those are the spells a sorceror can have. The wizard can research new spells, so the sorceror is given the same capacity. If a spell preexistant in the game isn't on the sorc/wiz list, then a sorc/wiz can't learn it -- for the cures, we have an excellent counterpoint example in the bard, who can cast arcane cures. It is significant, then, that sorc/wiz can't. The concept of spell research is supposed to account for the ability of a DM to allow spells not included in the PHB (or other materials, if he has them). Any new spells are completely under the veto power of the DM, and the example provided in the PHB against sorc/wiz cure spells is a guideline strongly suggesting that the DM not allow it. That said, I might allow sorc/wiz to have a low level cure (probably at a higher-than-otherwise spell level slot) if the worked especially hard for it. Really hard. Probably some Knowledge(Religion) or Knowledge(Nature) in addition to some serious Spellcraft.
Mystic Lemur 12-11-03, 07:50 PM	You can read between the lines until you're crosseyed, it doesn't change that the wizards people _never_ intended for sorcs to get healing as a class spell. In the 'original' 3.0 PHB, there was the same line many have been quoting. Except (pre errata) the book said sorcs could learn spells from bards by watching and learning how they cast it, or something like that. It _specificly mentions_ bards. They errataed this as soon as it was brought to their attention, and this was over years ago. My 2cp, have a nice fight.
Sweet Steph 12-11-03, 08:03 PM	Originally posted by tarkin 3) Even if it is not munchkin to do so, it is definitely a bad idea as it goes against the idea of healing and lessens the differentiation between classes. How is arcane healing any worse than the offensive cleric spells that are just as powerful (or more so) than the arcane versions?
Castlmike 12-11-03, 08:35 PM	Yes if playing a Sorcerer Witch or Warlock using the witch spells 3.5 DMG page 175 or learning it from them or one of their arcane scrolls. Yes page 54 class features of 3.5 Player's handbook. Don't stop at the first paragraph see the top right hand column read it for yourself. These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page192), or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. ;)
RLWilde 12-11-03, 08:57 PM	If your DM lets your sorceror learn Cure spells, you can learn them. If he doesn't, you can't. By default, Cures are not on the Sorceror spell list.
Shima 12-12-03, 05:00 AM	Bard's cure is not arcane. its divine and draws from nature just like the druid. stop trying to cheat! :) Unusual spells refers to studies and researches just like the wizard. If your loop-hole would make sense, then all the wizards too could transcribe cures in there book. And evryone would cast cure in a world where clerics have no points to be.
paolung 12-12-03, 09:28 AM	i'm not sure whether or not bard cure spells are 'officially' arcane or divine, but the rules about creating spells are fairly clear that arcane spells should not be healing. one of the drawbacks of playing a sorc or wiz is that they don't have access to direct healing spells ... even the few they have that will allow some modicum of healing takes from others (vamp touch) or "fakes" healing (false life).... the Simbul created a spell that allows them to essentially translate a level of spell for 2 hp (i think that's the right number) but at any rate, the idea is that pure arcane magic should be lacking in this area. i'd say no the sorc can't learn healing spells , for this reason alone. How is arcane healing any worse than the offensive cleric spells that are just as powerful (or more so) than the arcane versions? it just goes against the intent of divine magic vs arcane magic. there are offensive cleric spells, yes, but as an overall whole they are less flashy and destructive than arcane spells (especially of the same level). there are some arcane "healing" spells, although as i stated above they aren't really direct healing in the 'divine' sense of the word. same with the cleric's offensive spells, most of them aren't a big ball of fire or a big lightning bolt shooting from your fingertips etc like the arcane caster's spells. each has their strenths and weaknesses... arcane's biggest weakness IMO is the lack of healing spells.
Castlmike 12-12-03, 12:29 PM	Arcane Cure Spells are "Unusual Arcane Spells" for a Sorcerer Now look at the Arcane Spell Casting Witch class DMG 3.5 page 175 Official Class with Arcane Cure Light and Cure Minor A Bard casts "Arcane" spells under Spells Page 28 PHB 3.5 saying they don't doesn't change that fact. Look at scrolls Arcane and Divine not by class page 238 D<G 3.5 We're only using the rules to make the best of our limited spell casting choices..... So what do you think about Charm Monster from a Bard Level 3 Scroll? Personally I think you could as a "lesser" original DC13+version to the common DC14+ 4th level
LoricDAHPaladin 12-12-03, 02:49 PM	Originally posted by Shima [bards'] cure is not arcane. [it's] divine and draws from nature just like the druid. stop trying to cheat! :) Unusual spells refers to studies and researches just like the wizard. If your [loophole] would make sense, then all the wizards too could transcribe cures in [their books]. And [everyone] would cast cure in a world where clerics have no [purpose]. Why do you think bards should get heal spells? Where does that make sense? No clerical training, no specific reverence or devotion to a divine being is clarified. We are expected to believe that clerics just sorta...pass these rituals to bards because, "hey, they're bards!"? It makes sense at all to me. I think one of the developers was a "bard whiner" and was somehow able to convince his colleagues to ignore the inconsistency of bards casting divine healing spells where clerics are prescribed rituals to evoke the same results. bards somehow ( the music thing just ain't washing with me ) get to, without preparation, cast DIVINE spells the way sorcerers cast their arcane spells...horse dung. Who gives a :censored: what he/she does in his/her game? Disagree if you wish, but calling cheat with a smiley is despicable. Stating something that challenging followed by a smiley is a passive aggressive attack. An endorsed rule by the developers does cancel the cheat I think bards have, I suppose, but that makes it no less ludicrous. The orginator of the thread is only attempting to reason past the mess that was created with the predication of unprepared arcane healing spells.
Castlmike 12-12-03, 03:24 PM	The post is can a sorceress learn cure spells? Officially Yes you don't have to like it. You don't even have to allow it in your campaign but it's there in black and white. Read the posts and read the DMG and PHB I even posted the pages for you earlier. Bards get spells from their souls..... Cure light and Cure Minor for the witch with a few more Arcane yes Arcane Bard spells open your books look it up. Sorcerer has few enough spell choices as it is doubtful he will take more than one with his limited selection. Let them help your party. Noticed No One came out and said sorcerers are not in the spell description Conjuration / Healing <Neither are Witches ;)> Just as a DM has the right to rule his campaign world is run by different rules you have the right to walk and find another campaign world. Personally I would probably find another campaign for a DM who wouldn't let me cast Cure light or Cure minor after locating an Arcane Spellcaster like a Witch or Bard since it's in the core rule books that you can.
Schmendrick 12-12-03, 03:41 PM	A sorceror can cast spells on the sorceror/wizard spell list. Every class has access to spells on his or her list, not other casters' lists. If the DM decides that other spells may be learned, they can. Otherwise, they can't. Clerics can research spells, too; did anyone forget this? By the reasoning I've seen here, any of the primary casters (plus bards) can learn any spell in the game. Interpreting the rules allowing other spells to be learned to include spells implicitly restricted is just... *sigh* Please, someone, tell me this is just a troll.
Castlmike 12-12-03, 03:44 PM	Yes, Core rules don't prohibit. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but take a few minutes and read the core rule books they suggest. There are Arcane Curing spells and a Sorceress could learn them under the right conditions set forth in the 3.5 PHB and DMG. In 4.0 make it Bardic magic and witchery or write a sentence prohibiting. I acknowledge page 35 of the DMG but there are Arcane Curing Spells in the campaign and many people like to say how different the magic of a sorcerer is than a wizard but with read magic and a Bard or Witch scroll should grant the Sorcerer making a successful spellcraft check the choice. Lots of gamers are looking for an edge for their characters but this really isn't unbalancing and could act as party healer for a change at low levels which would be nice. But appears like lots of people have a real problem with that so Compromise. Sorcerer has witnessed other arcane casters like Bards most common so knows it can be done. ( ;) Remember most don't have the scribe scroll feat;) ) Make the sorcerer work for it a little more by having to track down one of those few bards that can scribe scrolls and knows a cure spell or a multiclass Bard - Sorcerer. After successfully casting it make him research it. He knows it can be done, he's done it himself now let him figure out how to channel his power to do it successfully under researching Original Spells or have a good one make a bargain with a celestial to instruct him DMG 198 instead of just automatically for whatever reason <Arcane healing conjuration works differently than standard conjuration.....>.
Shima 12-12-03, 04:37 PM	LoricDAHPaladin, please do not project intention on me, I only meant to be freindly, and I think that is what a smiley means. I'm sorry if you found the 'cheating' offensive, but I do not any other word to describe the action of breaking the rules... --- I did read somewhere that bard's cure was like how druids cast it along with the explaination for they have those spells. I dont have my books at hand, but I'll come back and post it. As for making any rules we wish, its obvious that it is a part the game, and that the DM can allow whatever he wants. But I think that if we are discussing about the rules, we are questioning the core rules. The post subject would : I have a cool rule, sorcerers rules and not : Can a sorceress learn cure spells? A hint on why sorcerers with cure would overpowered, is simply that evry sorcerer would take it, and evry wizard too. I almost certain that the description of arcane magic says that arcane casting is not suitable for healing spells. I'll come back tonight with the quote
LoricDAHPaladin 12-12-03, 04:46 PM	Blast you, Shima, for taking the wind out of my sails! Just goes to show that without body language or inflection things can be easily miscommunicated. :angel: My feelings on the classes and other fallabilities with the rules stand as I wrote them.
zudbash 12-12-03, 05:57 PM	Castlmike wrote: The post is can a sorceress learn cure spells? Officially Yes you don't have to like it. You don't even have to allow it in your campaign but it's there in black and white. Read the posts and read the DMG and PHB I even posted the pages for you earlier. I think it is a little misleading to say you don't have to allow it in your campaign. On page 35 of the DMG, they give a strong recommendation *not* to allow it in your campaign. I would take from this that the default campaign does not allow socerers to cast cure spells. Of course, the DM can allow whatever he wants. And LoricDAHPaladin, what do you have against bards? Why are they less deserving of heal spells than clerics are?
Voran 12-12-03, 06:25 PM	If sorcerers can research (I don't know if they can, and I don't have my books in front of me) or wizards for that matter, they could come up with a heal-type spell. Some approaches: 1. You open a small conduit to the positive (energy?material?) plane. As the subject bathes in that energy, they get rejuvenated. 2. You simulate a biofeed/psionic kinda healing approach. Probably be an enchantment/charm kinda spell since you'd be convincing the target's mind into a certain rythym that allowed enhanced healing. 3. Probably the 'easiest' of the approaches so far, because it'd have some side effects, is a haste-spell type approach. You increase the metabolism/natural healing of the target. Probably have a material component of food that the target needs to eat to keep up with increased caloric demands, or something.
eudas 12-12-03, 06:47 PM	Originally posted by zudbash I think it is a little misleading to say you don't have to allow it in your campaign. On page 35 of the DMG, they give a strong recommendation *not* to allow it in your campaign. I would take from this that the default campaign does not allow socerers to cast cure spells. Of course, the DM can allow whatever he wants. And LoricDAHPaladin, what do you have against bards? Why are they less deserving of heal spells than clerics are? because bards were originally built to simulate fighter/wizard/thief, and none of those were healers? makes sense to me, anyway. let's call a spade a spade and just openly say that the reason bard has cure light is so the bard people can say "see? I'm useful!" or "I love the bard because they do a little bit of everything, even cleric stuff!". "but the fighter subclasses (ranger and paladin) get healing!" you say... yes, but 1) the bard is not based on the fighter subclasses but the fighter itself, and the fighter doesn't get any healing spells, and 2) both of the aforementioned fighter subclasses (ranger and paladin) both get their healing spells from *divine casting*, which, guess what, bards don't get. I'm not against the bard being useful, nor am i against them being versatile, but please... hrmph. it's a dirty hack that's just put in to please the bard players. as they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. arcane healing, indeed. eudas
Jon Hightower 12-12-03, 08:30 PM	Originally posted by eudas I'm not against the bard being useful, nor am i against them being versatile, but please... hrmph. it's a dirty hack that's just put in to please the bard players. as they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. So where was this guy when the sorcerer was being drawn up?:D
zudbash 12-12-03, 09:02 PM	originally posted by eudas because bards were originally built to simulate fighter/wizard/thief, and none of those were healers? Actually, bards were originally built to "simulate" a fighter/druid/thief, if you want to think of them simulating something. But I've always thought of the class as a class in its own right. I liked the bard class in 1st edition, and I like it in 3.5. I don't think bards necessarily need healing to be interesting, but I don't see anything wrong with them having healing. And why single out healing? Bards get several other spells normally associated with divine casters plus some bard-only spells. Part of what makes the class interesting is that it has its own spell list that no other class can duplicate. If I were to change anything about the sorcerer, it would be to add some sorcerer-only spells to the class's spell list to make the class more distinct from the wizard.
LoricDAHPaladin 12-12-03, 10:23 PM	Originally posted by zudbash And LoricDAHPaladin, what do you have against bards? Why are they less deserving of heal spells than clerics are? What do I have against bards?...heh, that is a post that has already been made. I think they are indescribably frilly, silly and the antithesis of everything dignified and distinguished...fops. I have a reasoned and irrational hatred of the class. I will go into detail again, gladly, if you wish. Right now, I am tired. Make no mistake, Zudbash. I do not think bards are less deserving. Superlatives are ticky. I mean to boldly state that bards do NOT deserve to cast healing spells...ever. For the reasons listed above, countless reasons I have stated in other posts, and because I just plain hate bards I feel that they are eminently UNqualified to cast healing spells. You do realize, of course, that bards get almost as much healing as clerics? How is this fair? But since clerics have been largely hailed as being overpowerd nothing is going to be addressed.
wdarkk 12-12-03, 10:39 PM	There are some Sorcerers in core with Heal: all Metallic Dragons, and the Red and Blue ones too. In any case, I'm just wondering why Clerics got Destruction, which is _much_ better than what Arcane Casters get, and why they get pretty much the only type of damage nothing can resist as well.
Schmendrick 12-13-03, 01:06 AM	FWIW, the bard's magic as a whole, being music based and all, is probably best described as "spiritual". Perhaps not tied to deity of any kind, but it's definitely spiritual. Didn't the sample "Witch" class in the DMG have an arcane cure spell? The point isn't that "arcane spells can't heal", it's that sorc/wiz can't heal.
BlaineTog 12-13-03, 01:33 AM	Why do you think bards should get heal spells? Where does that make sense? No clerical training, no specific reverence or devotion to a divine being is clarified. Music has been scientifically proven to expedite the healing process IRL. Evidence also exists to suggest that the growth of house plants is effected by the syle of music played in proximity to it. Children who have been exposed to Classical music since the womb have better math skills than children who wern't. 'Nuf said. BackOnTopic: The Sorcerer should not get healing. That doesn't make much sense. If you want to do that "open conduit from the Postive plane," remember this: 1) it would be a really high level spell, since opening portals to other planes isn't exactly a cantrip; and b) Potive Energy does not necessarly coincide with healing, depsite what you make think. From the 3.5 SRD Disrupt Undead Necromancy Level: Sor/Wiz 0 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Effect: Ray Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes You direct a ray of positive energy. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit, and if the ray hits an undead creature, it deals 1d6 points of damage to it. This spell cannot be used to heal. You can interpret it that way, but if it could, they would have said so (plus Cure Minor Wounds only cures 1 point. If this cured, then it would be attrociously unbalanced, especially since it's Ranged).
Nakou the Saiyan 12-13-03, 03:04 AM	You can interperet the rules anyway you wish as a DM, however it clearly states in black and white that Sorcerers can learn any arcane spell, assuming they have a scroll. Now dont get mad at me, I didn't write the rule.
BlaineTog 12-13-03, 03:52 AM	So I suppose Sorcerers can learn Miracle, by that definition?:rolleyes: The quote to which you are refering apparently does nothing to restrict spells known to Arcane. Not a whit, if you use your understanding. From the 3.5 SRD These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. A Sorcerer casting Miracle would be pretty unusual, eh? And all for the low low price of 3,825 gp (assuming it's not a "powerful request" miracle scroll).
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-13-03, 04:39 AM	There is no balance issue with arcanists learning cure spells. Only the stereotype of arcane blows stuff up/divine can do anything they damn well please that wizards wishes to promote.
Castlmike 12-13-03, 06:06 AM	<Miracle is a "Divine Spell" so unfortunately high level sorcerers can not learn it (supposedly those Gods are empowering it D&DG for their clergy vice mortals and EXP for Wish)> <My thoughts and comments sorry for erasing the original poster> 2) It definitely is AGAINST the rules in both 3.0 and 3.5, though they did have to make a slight (1 line ) errata to make it illegal in . <Not in 3.5 with Bards and Witches casting arcane cure spells which would make it an arcane spell to learn if desired, definitely original regarding standard Sorcerer/Wizard spell lists> 4) There are lots of cure substitutes that both wizards and sorcerors can learn, making this a stupid thing to argue about. Specifically, Vampiric Touch, Healing Sting (Reverse of Vampiric Touch), Aid, False Life, Polymorph Self and similar healing, the Simbul's healing spell (Eat's other spell slots, granting +1d6 per slot level that spell eats) all are valid substitutes for Cure level Cure spells. In fact I consider False Life to be better than Cure Moderate in most situations. [/B][/QUOTE] <Excellent point so why is it such a stretch to let the sorcerer have an arcane cure light or cure moderate spell if properly gamed on acquiring it?>
Seeker95 12-13-03, 10:17 AM	[WizO Catoblepas: Message edited. Please keep in mind that baiting is against the Code of Conduct. Thanks.]
ammoless056 12-13-03, 11:00 AM	I'm pretty sure the 3.0 FAQ clarified that sorcerers could NOT learn cure spells. The 3.5 FAQ doesn't mention anything, however. Personally, I doubt that sorcerers were intended to be able to learn cure spells. Have you seen any official adventure module or campaign in which an NPC sorcerer had cure spells? If it were legal, you can bet there'd be a ton of them who do have it. That Cure Moderate Wounds would have really shorn up the weakness of 2nd level spells (in 3.0--now there's scorching ray). Also, dragons were given the ability to cast clerical spells as arcane spells. Why? Because the designers wanted them to be able to cast healing spells, and the sorcerer casting abilities just didn't do the trick.
paolung 12-13-03, 12:06 PM	wdarkk #1. "Although dragons cast spells as sorcerers, they are not members of the sorcerer class and receive none of that class's benefits (except spellcasting)." (Draconomicon page 24) #2. You really think the Destruction domain is _much_ better than what Arcane Casters get ?!?!? how so? Vaalingrade Ashland "Wizards and sorcerers should not cast healing spells, but they should have the best offensive spells. If the spell is flashy or dramatic, it should probably be a wizard/sorcerer spell." (DMG 3.5 page 35, emphasis mine) "Bard spells include enchantments, information gathering spells, and a mixture of other kinds of spells, but do not include powerful offensive spells such as cone of cold. (same page) it's pretty much plain english for all to see that sorcerers and wizards should NOT cast healing spells... if that's not clear i don't know what is. Bards on the other hand, have their own spell list, and somewhat have their own style of magic... technically it's arcane (because it wouldn't fit with divine) but we know that bards aren't purely innate casters, and they aren't purely "learned" casters, they're somewhere in between. At any rate, Bards are clearly the exception rather than the rule for arcane magic not being strong with options that restore health or hp. Whether or not this makes sense is another argument entirely. regarding the "open a conduit to the positive energy plane", i could see that as a viable spell.. but not in the sense that some are suggesting. i could see it as gaining "fast healing" maybe (like some classes have the ability to bestow when they radiate positive energy) but not as a direct healing effect. that's pretty much reserved for divine casters as their strong point.
Schmendrick 12-13-03, 12:35 PM	There is no out-and-out restriction on a sorc/wiz learning an arcane cure spell. There is also no explicitly defined restriction on a sorc/wiz learning any divine spell. But every time it is addressed (in the SRD, anyway; my books are in the car, and it's cold outside), it is strongly implied that arcane casters cannot learn divine spells, and divine casters cannot learn arcane spells. Furthermore, the very presence of the spell list system indicates that a caster cannot learn a spell that is one another's list but not his own; its absence is conspicuous and does much to indicate that the spell is forbidden. There's a reason there are different spell lists; it's because different casters cast spells in different ways, drawing on different sources of magical power. Those sources may be similar (deity vs. nature "divine" magic, or sorc vs. bard spells), but they are different. So, yes, following the letter of the law while mailing its spirit to Abu Dhabi, sorcerors can cast cure spells. And a bard can cast chain lightning or even raise dead. A cleric can cast wish. My question: what's the DM smoking?
WizO_Catoblepas 12-13-03, 01:32 PM	To me, the rules clearly state that a sorcerer can not cast cure spells and that it was meant as a delineation of the arcane casting classes from the divine casting classes. Now with that said, I'll also say it wouldn't be so bad to house rule that sorcerers can cast cure spells (up to Cure Serious Wounds). The reason why I say this is that my experience is that the last class that anyone in my group wants to play is a cleric or a sorcerer. I little flexibility given to the sorcerer wouldn't kill the cleric class (they still have turning undead and heavy armor proficiency). And really I think that it is a limitation for the sorcerer to some degree. After all, they'll just end up giving up their cool arcane spells for cure spells. So if a sorcerer really wants to do this, my opinion is "Knock yourself out ." However, your mileage may vary ...
xxyl 12-13-03, 06:14 PM	As someone who enjoys playing bards, and is now playing a sorceror, I couldn't pass this one up. CastlMike, in trying to prove his point, has in fact proven himself wrong. "...Read the posts and read the DMG and PHB I even posted the pages for you earlier." I have read them, and they don't 'officially' condone or even allow what's being discussed, unless you purposely misread them. From the srd, as quoted by the above: These new spells can be *common* spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be *unusual spells* that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. In another post: Sorcerer has witnessed other arcane casters like Bards most common so knows it can be done. There you have it, in black-and-white. Healing spells, even arcane ones, are *common* spells. That is, anyone and everyone of at least one class (in this case bard) can learn them. Thus, they are outside the scope of the above SRD rule. There's nothing at all unusual about arcane healing spells, they're actually quite common. In the above context, 'common' means anything on one of the class spell lists, giving it any other meaning makes it totally subjective. By that kind of logic, arcane 'miracle' or arcane 'true res' is REALLY uncommon, since it doesn't exist, and therefore is fair play for sorcerors. 'Personally I would probably find another campaign for a DM who wouldn't let me cast Cure light or Cure minor after locating an Arcane Spellcaster like a Witch or Bard since it's in the core rule books that you can.' Just like the DM always has their perogitives, this is yours as well. But you're really going to leave any group where the DM doesn't follow your (at best, unclear) view of a rule? Hum. Of course, if you want to argue it, I'd allow it...except for the fact that asking a bard or witch to give up an exclusive class ability just 'cuz you asked nicely would be like nicely asking the lady wearing antlers to learn that crazy alphabet of hers. Good luck. Yes, sorcerors are really limited, as I'm learning now. But that doesn't mean they get arcane healing any more than they get 'bardic music' because they'd like to have it, too. As always, it's up to the DM. But it's against the spirit, and the letter of the rules. Instead of thinking of Bards as a 'combo' class, try thinking them of an *actual* class, with an actual concept behind them: They use music together with magic, and thus get different abilities than other casters. They also suffer; no bard spell can EVER be made silent. By the logic here, all the bard has to do is get their Sorc friend to trade them some scrolls of the sorceror versions of any spells they want to use with the silent spell feat for some scrolls of bard healing spells, and presto, they're good. Please. You can misread the SRD/DMG/PH all you want in this case, but all that you're doing is misreading it. Otherwise, why have class spell lists? Are all bard spells 'unusual' just because you think bards are 'wierd'? I can understand someone wanting to give their Sorc more choices, but this just ain't the way to do it. There are plenty of spells that are different level for Bards and Sorc/Wiz. Break Enchantment is a Lvl4 Bard, Lvl 5 Sorc/Wiz. Is anyone going to argue that a Sorc can learn the spell one level early by having a Bard scribe a scroll? If so, all Bards are gonna take scribe scroll and make killings selling Scrolls of their 'unusual' spells to other classes. Is this a good idea? Someone else stated: 'You can interperet the rules anyway you wish as a DM, however it clearly states in black and white that Sorcerers can learn any arcane spell, assuming they have a scroll.' Again, this is one reading...but check again the wording... they can learn any COMMON spell on their SPELL LIST, or UNUSUAL SPELLS they have researched. Now, if there's no difference between "common" and "unusual" spells, then why have that distinction in the book? Yes, if you take out those words or ignore them, then you get it to say what you want. But those words are there for a reason. As the saying goes, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. It would be very hard to convince me that any spell on one of the core rules classes spell list is an 'unusual' spell, considering the fact that it's on a spell list is what classifies them as being 'common' and not 'unusual' per the line above. Note also that the above line from the SRD doesn't say anything about arcane or divine spells. If you want to take the 'black and white' of that paragraph without context, then all spells of any kind are up for grabs! (Yes, it says elsewhere that they're arcane spells. But it also says elsewhere 'A sorcerer’s selection of spells is extremely limited', and if you don't like one, why bother with the other?) So in the end, the bard is different than the Sorc/Wiz. How, exactly, (irrational bard-haters aside) is this a bad thing?
BlaineTog 12-13-03, 07:19 PM	Yeah. Excellent point. How exactly do Cure Spells qualify as "unusual"? "I'm a sorcerer with a d4 hit die and I'm dying. *bard cures him* Whoa! I've NEVER seen/ heard of THAT before!!!" I don't think it's a major balance issue, but it's agasint the intent of the classes. If anyone can learn anyone else's spells, then what is the point of different lists? You might as well do away with them. Why can't Bards cast Fireball? Or Meteor Storm (as a 6th level Bard spell)? Or Power Word Kill? Or Magic Missle? Or Raise Dead? Or Reincarnate? Or <inser mage here>'s Disjunction? Why can't Sorcerers learn Modify Memory? Or, as I said before: Why can't everyone learn Miracle? All you have to do is ask for a favor from the Powers of Magic/ The Weave (for you FR people)/ etc.[/sarcasm]
WizO_Catoblepas 12-13-03, 08:13 PM	I agree that the current rules don't allow sorcerers to take cure spells. However, I don't see it as overpowering as a house rule if the sorcerer had access to four spells (CMW/CLW/CMW/CSW) and it isn't going to drive the divine classes to being "just like the sorcerer". It is not like what is being proposed is having the sorcerer having access to all divine spells. There's a difference in casting spells like Fireball (people like doing damage to creatures) and casting cure spells. When was the last time you heard someone get on the board and say "Man it was awesome - I was able to cast Cure Light Wounds and get the fighter back 8 hp points." People don't like being the walking band-aid. That is the reason why in my group even with the turning ability, being able to spontaneously change spells to cure spells, being able to cast divine spells with no penalty while wearing armor, and having hit die of 8, some of my players still don't like playing the cleric. Personally, I think if the cure spells were offered to the sorcerer, one wouldn't see an overwhelming use of it by sorcerers. Not many sorcerer players are going to want to burn their arcane spell slots for cure spells. And it would make some sense that a person with "mystical" powers would be able to cure a person. Like I said in the previous post, you mileage may vary ...
BlaineTog 12-13-03, 08:31 PM	There's a difference in casting spells like Fireball (people like doing damage to creatures) and casting cure spells. When was the last time you heard someone get on the board and say "Man it was awesome - I was able to cast Cure Light Wounds and get the fighter back 8 hp points." People don't like being the walking band-aid. That is the reason why in my group even with the turning ability, being able to spontaneously change spells to cure spells, being able to cast divine spells with no penalty while wearing armor, and having hit die of 8, some of my players still don't like playing the cleric. While I agree that giving a few minor Cure spells isn't gonna overpower anyone, I don't like what it hints at. Clerical Fireballs arn't really all that different from Sorcerer Cures. Closer to the point, Bardic Delayed Blast Fireballs are even less dialowable if Sorcerers can Cure. Few Sorcerers would waste a Spell Known on a Cure spell, escpecially with the cheapness of a Wand of CLW, but it sets a dangerous precedent that can easily be used to argue the case for Meteor Storm of Clerics/ Miracles for Wizards/ etc.
WizO_Catoblepas 12-13-03, 08:39 PM	If it helps any, there really isn't any attempt to hint that there should be "clerical fireballs" or "arcane resurrections". To me, that is way over the line. After all, a mystics healing powers are only so much, and I would think so for the sorcerer. And for the record, I'm really not big on clerical domain spells as well.
LoricDAHPaladin 12-13-03, 08:57 PM	Catoblepas, can you explain the bard use of anything greater than cure light wounds? I am mildly interested in your take on this.
Dunelord 12-13-03, 10:03 PM	Phb page 54 "...a sorcerer with a scroll or a spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not detailed in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided it is of the right level." I don't see how this or anything else in the 3.5 PhB coud imply you could get a Bard spell.
WizO_Catoblepas 12-13-03, 10:33 PM	Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin Catoblepas, can you explain the bard use of anything greater than cure light wounds? I am mildly interested in your take on this. Note: Everything that I'm saying is just my opinion and has no bearng on how WotC feels. I think most people understand that, but I just want to make sure this fact is clear. Personally, I really don't understand why the bard would get cure spells while a sorcerer doesn't. I know the rules say they do, but to me it makes little sense. However I know a lot of it has to do with the class's prior history, and the bard has always meant to be a part arcane/part divine caster. However, outside D&D, I've seen more examples of a sorcerer being a healer (the movie "Conan the Destroyer" comes to mind - not a great movie but still is an example) than a bard being a healer. However, I also understand balancing a class. It isn't like the bard is overpowered, so taking away cure spells from the bard isn't going to help class balance. If anything, allowing the sorcerer access to the cure spells isn't really going to change the balance of the sorcerer class. The bard has a pretty crummy spell selection, while the sorcerer has an excellent spell selection. Hence the bard is most likely going to select a cure spell than a sorcerer. In fact, I would be surprised if the majority of sorcerers took cure spells if offered to them. I'd really think twice about selecting a cure serious wounds spell over a fireball spell. But the fact that bard is (a) a charisma based spell caster and (b) has access to cure spells strengthens the fact that it isn't ridiculous to house rule the sorcerer access to cure spells.
xxyl 12-14-03, 12:16 AM	Yes, I agree that there's really no problem with houseruling healing for other arcane casters, but do think it would be that; a house rule. I do have a problem with those who think that the rules say that it's ok, obviously, no question; and to think otherwise is just a DM being mean. This particular question was mentioned in the FAQ for 3.0 PH (which I believe simply mentioned arcane scrolls, the new wording 'unusual spell' is in the SRD) on page 32. This is also mentioned in the 3.0 errata 'clarifications' section, where the sentence in question changes to read "For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the wizard/sorcerer spell list in this book) could select that spell." By adding the fact that it still must be a sorc/wiz spell, they make it much more clear what was trying to be accomplished. Of course, you don't have to use any errata in your game, and if you want to make a house rule, that's always an option. Still, the fact that you can't activate a scroll without having it on your class list means that at the very least, even if you allow sorcerors to learn the spell from a bard or other class, I think it should take much more than a simple scroll. But of course, that's just my opinion. And of course, with 3.5's lack of exclusive skills, using a wand of cure (whatever) is an option with any character; granted, maybe not the best one, but at least it is an option now. Use Magic Device is now there for everyone (and what else is a Sorceror going to spend skill points on? No, seriously, I'd like to know; they got nothing.)
Sweet Steph 12-14-03, 02:56 AM	Originally posted by paolung "Wizards and sorcerers should not cast healing spells, but they should have the best offensive spells. If the spell is flashy or dramatic, it should probably be a wizard/sorcerer spell." (emphasis mine) So...why can't wizards and sorcerers cast these spells when clerics can? Animate Objects Blade Barrier Destruction Earthquake Fire Storm Flame Strike Implosion Insect Plague Storm of Vengeance Every one of these spells could be described as flashy or dramatic. Several of them are considerably more powerful than their closest arcane equivalents, and there is nothing to compare the others to. The "arcane = flashy offensive spells, divine = healing spells" threshold has already been breached. How is it such a travesty, then, to let sorcerers and wizards cast curative spells?
Castlmike 12-14-03, 09:28 AM	Originally posted by ammoless056 I'm pretty sure the 3.0 FAQ clarified that sorcerers could NOT learn cure spells. The 3.5 FAQ doesn't mention anything, however. Personally, I doubt that sorcerers were intended to be able to learn cure spells. Have you seen any official adventure module or campaign in which an NPC sorcerer had cure spells? If it were legal, you can bet there'd be a ton of them who do have it. That Cure Moderate Wounds would have really shorn up the weakness of 2nd level spells (in 3.0--now there's scorching ray). Yes it does, posted several times already check out the 3.0 or 3.5 DMG and the Witch NPC class just look it up under W in the back.
Castlmike 12-14-03, 10:34 AM	< My Comments> Originally posted by xxyl As someone who enjoys playing bards, and is now playing a sorceror, I couldn't pass this one up. CastlMike, in trying to prove his point, has in fact proven himself wrong. "...Read the posts and read the DMG and PHB I even posted the pages for you earlier." I have read them, and they don't 'officially' condone or even allow what's being discussed, unless you purposely misread them. <Page 35 suggests doesn't forbid 3.5 DMG> From the srd, as quoted by the above: These new spells can be *common* spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be *unusual spells* that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. In another post: Sorcerer has witnessed other arcane casters like Bards most common so knows it can be done. <Typo was supposed to say commonly> There you have it, in black-and-white. Healing spells, even arcane ones, are *common* spells. That is, anyone and everyone of at least one class (in this case bard) can learn them. Thus, they are outside the scope of the above SRD rule. There's nothing at all unusual about arcane healing spells, they're actually quite common. In the above context, 'common' means anything on one of the class spell lists, giving it any other meaning makes it totally subjective. By that kind of logic, arcane 'miracle' or arcane 'true res' is REALLY uncommon, since it doesn't exist, and therefore is fair play for sorcerors. <I've posted on this several times on this topic you must have missed the WITCH Arcane Caster NPC in the 3.5 DMG and another post not making it a gimme> 'Personally I would probably find another campaign for a DM who wouldn't let me cast Cure light or Cure minor after locating an Arcane Spellcaster like a Witch or Bard since it's in the core rule books that you can.' Just like the DM always has their perogitives, this is yours as well. But you're really going to leave any group where the DM doesn't follow your (at best, unclear) view of a rule? Hum. Of course, if you want to argue it, I'd allow it...except for the fact that asking a bard or witch to give up an exclusive class ability just 'cuz you asked nicely would be like nicely asking the lady wearing antlers to learn that crazy alphabet of hers. Good luck. <No page 35 just doesn't recommend it, but the other pages says it can be done. I wasn't asking for a gimme and also posted that> Yes, sorcerors are really limited, as I'm learning now. But that doesn't mean they get arcane healing any more than they get 'bardic music' because they'd like to have it, too. As always, it's up to the DM. But it's against the spirit, and the letter of the rules. Instead of thinking of Bards as a 'combo' class, try thinking them of an *actual* class, with an actual concept behind them: They use music together with magic, and thus get different abilities than other casters. They also suffer; no bard spell can EVER be made silent. <I like to think Bards cast cure spells now because they used to have druid spell casting back in 1E, the game changes and evolves over the years but there are a lot of the game rules that are still up to interpretation with conflicting rules. My first post was yes if you play a Witch DMG who are arcane casters. Another poster found the rules that it wasn't illegal and you just had to review several pages in the PHB and DMG and I changed my position> By the logic here, all the bard has to do is get their Sorc friend to trade them some scrolls of the sorceror versions of any spells they want to use with the silent spell feat for some scrolls of bard healing spells, and presto, they're good. Please. You can misread the SRD/DMG/PH all you want in this case, but all that you're doing is misreading it. Otherwise, why have class spell lists? Are all bard spells 'unusual' just because you think bards are 'wierd'? I can understand someone wanting to give their Sorc more choices, but this just ain't the way to do it. <NPC Arcane Caster Witch> There are plenty of spells that are different level for Bards and Sorc/Wiz. Break Enchantment is a Lvl4 Bard, Lvl 5 Sorc/Wiz. Is anyone going to argue that a Sorc can learn the spell one level early by having a Bard scribe a scroll? If so, all Bards are gonna take scribe scroll and make killings selling Scrolls of their 'unusual' spells to other classes. Is this a good idea? <Actually I do believe the anwer is yes, what are those casters doing differently to get the same effects? Which is why I mentioned it. I'm thinking of Magic as Energy and Efficiencies.> Someone else stated: 'You can interperet the rules anyway you wish as a DM, however it clearly states in black and white that Sorcerers can learn any arcane spell, assuming they have a scroll.' Again, this is one reading...but check again the wording... they can learn any COMMON spell on their SPELL LIST, or UNUSUAL SPELLS they have researched. <That's one of the points I made earlier an Arcane Cure Light or Minor would be Unusual it certainly has people up in arms>. Now, if there's no difference between "common" and "unusual" spells, then why have that distinction in the book? Yes, if you take out those words or ignore them, then you get it to say what you want. But those words are there for a reason. As the saying goes, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. It would be very hard to convince me that any spell on one of the core rules classes spell list is an 'unusual' spell, considering the fact that it's on a spell list is what classifies them as being 'common' and not 'unusual' per the line above. Note also that the above line from the SRD doesn't say anything about arcane or divine spells. <But the core class description says Sorcerers cast arcane spells and it says the same for Bards> If you want to take the 'black and white' of that paragraph without context, then all spells of any kind are up for grabs! (Yes, it says elsewhere that they're arcane spells. But it also says elsewhere 'A sorcerer’s selection of spells is extremely limited', <which means to most people spells known in comparison to a wizard and his spell choices> and if you don't like one, why bother with the other?) <Because an Arcane Cure is an "Original" spell when you look at the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Another good example would have been Tenser's Floating Disc when he shared it with other spell casters> So in the end, the bard is different than the Sorc/Wiz. How, exactly, (irrational bard-haters aside) is this a bad thing? <It's not, I'm not a Bard Hater and No> [COLOR=red] I have a lot of trouble with I could cast Cure Light if I took a level in Witch or 2 levels in Bard now as an arcane spell caster but not as a sorcerer now because I really read the rules regarding spell research and to me anything not on the standard spell lists would be "Original". As I posted earlier don't mean you could learn a divine spell like Miracle instead of Wish just "Original" to your class spells. Divine for Clerics and Druids Arcane for Bards, Sorcerers and Wizards. Before this thread I used to agree with you. My original post was yes if you play a Witch. Don't have a spell caster that can cast it. We're up to 3.5 now. Takes a single sentence to say NO or prohibit. WOTC takes the time to prohibit enough other things in this case they just don't recommend. So why does anyone have a problem if the poster casts it in his campaign. You said you play bards why would a bard be worried about a sorcerer that could cast a cure light. I'm just the opposite I like that party healing. Somebody find that in the PHB or DMG 3.5 and I'm cool with it. Doesn't say that. Such a little things with so many of the posts I read on these boards. If they rewrite the rules for 4.0 I'll have no problem with it. Personally think a lot of the game is up to interpretation. The witch is an NPC Arcane Spell Caster and the Bard is an arcane caster. As I posted earlier what would it hurt if a sorcerer chose to learn a cure light or cure moderate from a Witch NPC which leaves it entirely in the DMs hands on what is involved since Witches are NPCs. I don't think it's unbalancing for most campaigns particularly with a lot of the house rules and comments I find posted that we just ignore that rule in our campaign because we think it's a stupid rule. For many Sorcerers are still coming into their own and trying to differentiate themselves from wizards. Doubtful most would take more than one choice of the spell.
Castlmike 12-14-03, 11:17 AM	Originally posted by zudbash I think it is a little misleading to say you don't have to allow it in your campaign. On page 35 of the DMG, they give a strong recommendation *not* to allow it in your campaign. I would take from this that the default campaign does not allow socerers to cast cure spells. Of course, the DM can allow whatever he wants. And LoricDAHPaladin, what do you have against bards? Why are they less deserving of heal spells than clerics are? [COLOR=red] According to the 3.5 PHB & DMG Bards, Sorcerers, Witches and Wizards cast arcane spells. Bards and Witches cast arcane spells. This is my premise 3.5 DMG page 35 only had to say No under creating new spells. First Arcane Cure light isn't a new spell. I don't know why people can't comprehend this distinction. It already exists as an arcane spell in the 3.5 campaign. "See Bards PHB and Witches DMG" but it's an "Original" Arcane Spell to a Sorcerer" because it's not on his common spell selection list. Maybe I missed in the rules but there are Arcane and Divine Spells table 7-20 page 238 3.5 DMG Not Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard Scrolls. Spell casters must use the appropiate type of spell scroll Arcane or Divine. If I find an Arcane cure light or cure moderate spell scroll and make a successful spellcraft check to "understand" it as a sorcerer I should be able to take it as one of my spell choices as a new spell under learning new spells. As I mentioned earlier as a sorcerer I feel at the minimum I should be able to research it and receive it after success research since I know it is possible and understood how the magic works. To me the biggie is I know it can be done which should make it an "Original Spell" for research at the minimum. Put it this way for everyone I take one level in witch or two levels in Bard. I know cure light now. I should be able to take cure light as one of my sorcerer spell selections. It's an arcane spell I already know how to cast. I should be able to teach it to other sorcerers or write arcane cure light scrolls if I have the scribe scroll feat. It doesn't unbalance the game and I didn't bring it into the game. Personally I'm always glad when another guy can do some healing.
Schmendrick 12-14-03, 11:53 AM	Originally posted by Castlmike First Arcane Cure light isn't a new spell. I don't know why people can't comprehend this distinction. That's correct, arcane Cures aren't new. That's exactly the point. The ability to learn new spells is included so that spells not present in the PHB ("original") can be added to someone's spell list. Nearly every caster can "research new spells". But if any caster can effectively learn any spell (remember though, the DM has ultimate control -- without invoking Rule 0 -- over whether a spell may be researched) then there isn't much point to having spell lists, is there? Originally posted by Castlmike Maybe I missed in the rules but there are Arcane and Divine Spells table 7-20 page 238 3.5 DMG Not Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard Scrolls. Spell casters must use the appropiate type of spell scroll Arcane or Divine. Maybe you missed part of them. There is no restriction stated under learning spells, but there is a specific restriction about casting spells from scrolls. The spell must be on your spell list. To me, this indicates that you can't learn it. I remember this [3.0] rule well, being particularly disappointed when I noticed that a loophole my newbie self had intended to use wasn't there; my bard was going to scribe cure scrolls for the arcanes to carry around in case of emergency. Originally posted by Castlmike If I find an Arcane cure light or cure moderate spell scroll and make a successful spellcraft check to "understand" it as a sorcerer I should be able to take it as one of my spell choices as a new spell under learning new spells. If you could "understand it as a sorceror" then you would be able to cast it as one. It's not on your spell list; you can't cast it as a sorceror. You can UMD to cast it as a bard or witch, but you can't cast it as a sorceror. So you shouldn't be able to learn it as a sorceror. Originally posted by Castlmike Put it this way for everyone I take one level in witch or two levels in Bard. I know cure light now. I should be able to take cure light as one of my sorcerer spell selections. It's an arcane spell I already know how to cast. Spell lists and spell progressions are separate. This is clear to me. Blurring the line of where one casting multiclass's spells begin and another's begin is dangerous, because down that road lies much abuse potential. Can a cleric/druid spontaneously swap out a druid spell for a cure? A cleric for a summon? Does a bard / necromancer get to prepare extra bardic necromancy spells? Can he cast them spontaneously? Do their spellcasting levels stack to determine the caster level of a spell? Can he add his CHA modifier to a wiz spell or his INT to a bardic one? Can he add BOTH? Spellcasting classes have separate and distinct progressions. Originally posted by Schmendrick That said, I might allow sorc/wiz to have a low level cure (probably at a higher-than-otherwise spell level slot) if the worked especially hard for it. Really hard. Probably some Knowledge(Religion) or Knowledge(Nature) in addition to some serious Spellcraft. I'll very rarely straight out attack a house rule (don't think I have so far, but I've not been on these boards very long). I'm not going to step on any DM's toes; I assume that every DM has a handle on their own campaign(s). It's their world, it's their rule, I'm not touching it! But if you're going to argue here in a blanket fashion, some sort of universal application is implied. And that's what I have a problem with; that's what I'm arguing.
BlaineTog 12-14-03, 01:03 PM	According to the 3.5 PHB & DMG Bards, Sorcerers, Witches and Wizards cast arcane spells. Bards and Witches cast arcane spells. ...and that doesn't matter at all. If all arcane spells are the exact same thing, them why can't a Bard learn Fireball? Why are their Spell Lists at all? And why do yuo assume that Arcane == arr"arcane" casters? Let me put it another way. Clerics get their power from their god(/lessness). Druid also cast divine magic. But where does THEIR power come from? Nature. So... they get their magic from different sources and for diffreent purposes and they cast different spells, but it's the exact same thing... huh... Bards are not sorcerers, and the reverse is true. Their magic comes from different sources and they learn different spells. The Spell lists are there for a reason: If a Sorcerer can learn Cures, then why can (s)he learn Miracles? The rule you came up with didn't expressely prohibit it, and if a Sorcerer was to cast a Miracle, then it would be an Arcane Miracle. All they needs is a scroll... Where does Sorcerer magic come from? Why, themselves of course! It comes from inside! Bard's magic comes from their music, which is signified by the fact theat the can't Silence any of their spells. In a Silence Spell, they can't cast their spells. Why is that, I wonder? So Internal Magic granted by an unspecified ancestor is exactly the same thing as Magic drawn from the power of Music. Imagine That. If I find an Arcane cure light or cure moderate spell scroll and make a successful spellcraft check to "understand" it as a sorcerer I should be able to take it as one of my spell choices as a new spell under learning new spells. :nonono: This isn't correct for Sorcerers. Wizards might be able to learn spells off scrolls, but sorcerers never do. They only gain spells when they Level Up, and they haven't the foggiest idea where they got it from. That's correct, arcane Cures aren't new. That's exactly the point. The ability to learn new spells is included so that spells not present in the PHB ("original") can be added to someone's spell list. Nearly every caster can "research new spells". But if any caster can effectively learn any spell (remember though, the DM has ultimate control -- without invoking Rule 0 -- over whether a spell may be researched) then there isn't much point to having spell lists, is there? Exactly! This is the whole argument in a nutshell.
xxyl 12-14-03, 02:40 PM	I've posted before that this is all handily answered in the various FAQs and Errata, PHB Errata Clarifications 3.0 Ch3, etc... But I'll try to respond to some specific arguments: "The 3.5 DMG overrules the 3.0 Errata." The 3.0 Errata brought in the 'unusual' wording that's still in place in 3.5. It wasn't re-errata'd because they thought it was now clear. Obviously they were wrong. But if they made a point that sorc/wiz's could only learn sorc/wiz spells in 3.0, and then changed it for 3.5, might not they have, I don't know, said as much? The Witch class is kept being brought up, again, and again, and I'm not sure why. Just because a certain class can cast a certain spell as arcane/divine doesn't mean that ALL classes can do the same. You want to talk DMG NPC classes, let's talk adept. They cast "ghost sound" as a divine caster. Okay! Now that's a cleric spell. Polymorph? There you go, divine spell casters! You can say "Witches can cast the spell, but their class list isn't listed in the big PHB list of classes on the spell discriptions, so there you go." But I say...so? It's not a PHB class. It has its own spell list, but it's treated seperately. That doesn't mean that spell lists no longer matter. There's something special about being in a particular class. Otherwise, why have classes? But of course, this argument isn't going to do any good, since some people want to see, in the rules, that this is the case, black and white. The real confusion here is in the use of the word 'unusual'. And 'original.' Castlmike seems to think that since a spell is on another list other than the sorc/wiz (say, the WITCH) that makes it 'Original' for sorc/wizes. I (and many others) say the opposite. Tenser's floating disk was brought up, and is a great example: Tenser came up with the floating disk. It was original and unusual. He was a wizard. Thus, it is an original, unusual wizard spell, and can be shared. Arcane cure light is neither original, unusual, nor a wiz/sorc spell. If a rock singer copies a country song and sings it, does that make it an 'original' song? Hardly! <Put it this way for everyone I take one level in witch or two levels in Bard. I know cure light now. I should be able to take cure light as one of my sorcerer spell selections. It's an arcane spell I already know how to cast. > This isn't true at all. Here's some black and white rules. First, see the main D&D FAQ, page 11. Q:A sorcerer can have only so many spells. What if the sorcerer is also a wizard? Can she use the spells from her spellbook as sorcerer spells? Or can she use only her sorcerer spell slots to cast spells she knows as a sorcerer? Can she transcribe spells she knows as a sorcerer into her wizard spellbook? A: You keep a separate list of spells for each class. A sorcerer/wizard could not use a spell from her wizard spell book in a sorcerer spell slot unless she also had the spell in question as part of her sorcerer repertoire. The same holds true for any other multiclass spellcaster. Likewise, the character must use spells from her spellbook to fill her wizard spell slots and she cannot use a spell she knows as a sorcerer as a wizard spell unless that spell is also recorded in her spellbook. A wizard/sorcerer cannot simply transcribe spells from her sorcerer repertoire into her spellbook. The character must find the spell on a scroll or in another spellbook, pick it up when she gains a new level, or research the spell from scratch. Ah, you say, but you can just scribe it on a scroll, and then learn it from that same scroll. Nice idea, but see the SRD under "Scrolls" in "Magic Items IV" (or the corresponding page in the DMG) Activation: To activate a scroll, a spellcaster must read the spell written on it. Doing so involves several steps and conditions. Decipher the Writing: The writing on a scroll must be deciphered before a character can use it or know exactly what spell it contains. This requires a read magic spell or a successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). Deciphering a scroll to determine its contents does not activate its magic unless it is a specially prepared cursed scroll. A character can decipher the writing on a scroll in advance so that he or she can proceed directly to the next step when the time comes to use the scroll. Activate the Spell: Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll... To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements. • The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class.) • The user must have the spell on his or her class list. • The user must have the requisite ability score. If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell’s caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. See that second one. It must be on the class list. If not, no scroll activation. No learning of the spell. Why? See the first part of that section: Activating the spell is part of reading it. If you can't activate the spell, you can't read the scroll. You can decipher the writing, but that's just a single part of the equation...That puts us in the shady area of 'research from scratch'. And I know I differ from some on here, but if you're just copying a spell another class knows, then you're not 'researching from scratch.' Which of course takes us to the finale, page 32 of the D&D main FAQ. Is it possible for wizards to cast curative spells such as cure moderate wounds or cure light wounds? It seems that they can under the right circumstances. Suppose Willie, a halfling bard in my party, has the Scribe Scroll feat. The Player’s Handbook says wizards, sorcerers, and bards all cast arcane magic. That means the cure spells a bard casts are arcane and not divine regardless of what the spell is, right? That also means that if Willie scribes a scroll with cure light wounds on it, the scroll will still be an arcane scroll. If that’s correct, it means that if my wizard gets the cure light wounds scroll from Willie, he can scribe it into his spellbook and then prepare it as an arcane spell that he can use time and time again, right? A: You can’t read a spell off a scroll unless the spell is on your class list (see page 203 in the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide). You also cannot scribe a spell into your book unless it’s on your class list. Only another bard can use Willie’s cure light wounds scrolls (because bards are the only arcane casters who have cure spells on their class lists). Remember that spell trigger items, such as wands, do not come in arcane or divine versions. If a bard makes a wand of cure light wounds, any character who has cure light wounds on his spell list can use the wand. Here's a similiar question, here's the answer. You can say that it's a "3.0 FAQ" and not the "3.5 FAQ" but I really don't expect them to repeat every question from one to the other. And since the 3.5 wording is the same as the 3.0 Errata'd wording, I think it's case closed. Read the rules how you like, but I think it's clear what the rules are meant to say. Pay particular attention to: Only another bard can use Willie’s cure light wounds scrolls (because bards are the only arcane casters who have cure spells on their class lists). It doesn't say "or a sorcerer who has learned cure light by researching an unusual spell." It says *only bards*. And yes, it doesn't say "or witches" but again, this was a FAQ for Players, and witch is an NPC class. The important thing is the mention of class lists. The fact that spell trigger items don't even bother with arcane or divine distinctions I think shows that arcane/divine isn't the only thing to worry about when deciding who can cast what, and in some cases is in fact less important than spell lists. If a Sorc can't even cast the spell from a wand, how are they going to learn it? Arcane/Divine is an additional constraint on spellcasting to class lists, not an over-riding one. I think this is the other idea of disagreement: In D&D, a spell is a spell is a spell. A spellcraft check can't tell you if it's a wizard or a sorcerer casting fireball at you. A cleric and a druid and a bard can use the same wand of cure light wounds. There's no such thing as a spell called 'arcane cure light wounds.' There's a spell, cure light wounds, that can be cast by (some) arcane casters and (most) divine casters. Thus, the argument, in my view, isn't 'is arcane cure light wounds' an unusual spell (which can be debated) but 'is cure light wounds' an usual spell. (I say not hardly) Also see the first Question in the Defenders of the Faith FAQ: Q: When an arcane spellcaster gets access to the spells from one of the prestige domains from Defenders of the Faith, do those spells become arcane spells? If so, doesn't that mean that any arcane caster can learn them? A: An arcane caster who gains access to the spells in a prestige domain can cast those spells as arcane spells, but they're still divine spells as far as the rest of the multiverse is concerned. An arcane caster with access to a prestige domain could use spell trigger items that use spells on the prestige domain list, but could not read divine scrolls with those spells on them. If an arcane caster put a prestige domain spell on a scroll, it would be an arcane scroll, and only another arcane caster with access to that domain (or a character with the Use Magic Device skill) could use the scroll. Sorcerers or bards who get access to a prestige domain add the domain's spells to the lists of spells they know, and wizards who get access to a prestige domain add the domain's spells to their spellbooks. These spells do not get added to the bard or sorcerer/wizard class list, and other bards, sorcerers, or wizards cannot learn them. So, it was never meant to say that sorcerers can learn any arcane spell. Indeed, the word 'any' isn't even in the text in question (see below). In fact, I argue that no 'spell' is ever an arcane or divine spell; it's the act of casting it that makes it so. When you say that you're casting 'cure light' as an arcane spell, it's the casting of the spell that is arcane, not the spell itself. Which is why the spell descriptions in the PH don't even list arcane or divine at all, just spell lists. Yes, none of the things I've quoted are directly lifted from the 3.5PH or DMG, so they might not be good enough for some. But what they are doing is trying to explain the text of those books, so I think that they're valid here. The ability to learn unusual spells is a great boon for sorcerors, but let's not make it out to be more than it is. The real sentence in question here is the following: "These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study." Now, some are arguing that there should be a sentence below that saying "This does not mean a sorceror can learn common spells from other classes' spell lists." I'm sure that would help some people. But you start doing this for every rule in the book that can be misread, you're up to 600 page volumes. In the end, it's up to the DM what constitutes 'unusual'. I find it hard to think of "cure light wounds" as an unusual spell. If your DM disagrees, then more power to you.
paolung 12-14-03, 06:14 PM	you said, "So...why can't wizards and sorcerers cast these spells when clerics can? Animate Objects Blade Barrier Destruction Earthquake Fire Storm Flame Strike Implosion Insect Plague Storm of Vengeance Every one of these spells could be described as flashy or dramatic. Several of them are considerably more powerful than their closest arcane equivalents, and there is nothing to compare the others to." what I originally stated was "Wizards and sorcerers should not cast healing spells, but they should have the best offensive spells. If the spell is flashy or dramatic, it should probably be a wizard/sorcerer spell." which, by the way is a direct quote from the DMG... now, to answer your querry, those spells listed are indeed flashy and dramatic... you won't get any argument from me there! on the other hand, I'm going to have to categorically disagree with you regarding "several of them are considerably more powerful than their closest arcane equivalents".... find me a typical level 15 cleric who can outdamage a typical level 15 wizard, or better yet (since we're on the topic) sorcerer (with a brain please, a 15th level diviner with no damage spells doesn't count). i think you'd have a hard time. so yeah, the cleric is gonna get some destructive spells... what's the big deal? it's not a pacifist class with no damage dealing capability. that's like saying "oh a paladin is divine magic-based, he gets his supernatural abilities through divine powers, so he should be smelling roses and petting bunny rabbits all day!" :rolleyes: it doesn't make sense. arcane magic is more molded to the will of the caster, and this includes sorcerers. sorcerers aren't shaping some "innate power" they have any more than a cleric is blasting undead when he turns them with his own holy power or a druid is causing a wall of thorns to sprout up! they are only playing with what's already there... and while a divine caster is limited by alignment (because his or her diety doesn't tend to shape magic tainted with the opposing alignments) a sorcerer is bending magic forces to his or her will and that will alone, hence no alignment restrictions on spells. you also stated "The "arcane = flashy offensive spells, divine = healing spells" threshold has already been breached. How is it such a travesty, then, to let sorcerers and wizards cast curative spells?" how has it been breached? it's not like it's an untrue stereotype... arcane DOES equal flashy offensive spells , just like divine = healing spells (read the DMG quote again if you don't believe me) are there exceptions to the rule? sure. divine spells can hurt. arcane spells can heal (vampiric touch, a couple others) but it's not the intent. you want to cast cure, be a cleric or druid or ranger or paladin.
Castlmike 12-14-03, 06:44 PM	Several very impressive and lengthy posts quoting me earlier correctly citing the rules and refuting my position except for the witch class since you could play an expert npc if you wished. I don't think the 3.5 rules in this instance make much sense. With a single modification to one sentence under spell scrolls: There are Arcane, Bardic, Clerical and Druidical Scrolls (Basically 4 magical scripts) this thread wouldn't be an issue. 300+ pages in both PHB and DMG guides. Under existing rules there are Arcane and Divine Spell Scrolls now. Basically I infer this to mean two separate magical languages or script. If I'm mistaken about this and and there is just one magical script. I think it will make matters worse. People wanting Miracle for Wish and other spells etc.............. Since there are only Arcane and Divine Spell Scrolls not class scrolls according to the DMG. My sorcerer finds an "arcane" cure light scroll spell. Under existing rules there is nothing that tells him who or what class wrote the spell just that he recognizes it as an arcane scroll and that it is not on his common spell list. Under existing rules it looks like he has to give it to the wizard and say hey what does this scroll do wizard? Reviewing the spell craft skill some will say there is no possibility of a sorcerer making a successful spellcraft check reading the text and I'd have to agree with that. However he knows it's a possibility when the wizard say hey it's an arcane cure light spell didn't know there was such a thing. The sorcerer should be able to research it if intrigued by the possiblity and the wizard if he makes his two spell craft checks. That is fine but the rule cuts two ways. New and original spells are constantly introduced into the campaign. Under the 3.5 DMG Scroll activation rules the user must have the spell on his or her class list so Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers and Sorcerers can not cast new or original spells or learn them when introduced into the campaign unless they research them themselves because they are not on their class list. <Only wizards are exempt from this with a successful spellcraft check on arcane spells.> Reading the spell craft skill check looks like the skill was primarily written for wizards as other casters can't use it to learn new spells from scrolls or magic books while wizards can. While arcane cure light spell scroll is a common spell to a Bard or Witch this is a uncommon thus New or Original Spell to a Sorcerer or Wizard. This post made me really look at some of the rules particulary the spell craft skill check 3.5 PHB and researching original spells 3.5 DMG page 198 There are so more spells in the world than the paltry few written in the PHB I counted 39 in the 3.5 handbook. Basically under existing rules the only spells a sorcerer can learn are spells a sorcerer doesn't already know that are on the common sorcerer/wizard page or if he researches an original spell. Sorc level 2 advancing to Sorc level 3 knows 2 spells of the 39 PHB First level spells. Doesn't know 37 common arcane spells PHB Seen an arcane cure light spell so knows it's possible. Sorcerer also casts magically differently than a wizard and similarly many ways to a Bard from his soul. Just doesn't make sense that a sorcerer can't research an arcane spell he knows exists and works as a quote spell uncommon to his spell list as an original spell. In this case an arcane cure light when all classes can research new or original spells to their commonly known spell lists. I don't quite understand the logic behind that. **************************************** * Take for example a sorcerer finds an arcane scroll with a New Original Spell on it like Tenser's Eye of The Eagle (Actual Greyhawk Campaign Spell) a sorcerer can't learn it as a sorcerer spell because they are not a wizard to use spell craft properly and they can't cast it for the same reason. A wizard could learn the Tenser's Eye of The Eagle spell on a successful spell check and cast it but not an arcane cure light because he just Can't. I don't quite understand the logic behind that. *********************** By existing rules a wizard or sorcerer who researches a new "Original" spell can't teach it to another sorcerer even though the sorcerers have the same class because it's not on the common sorcerer/wizard spell lists. That makes no sense to me. ********************* I used to wonder why there were so many posts with sorcerers lowballing the spellcraft proficiency. Under existing rules Spellcraft proficiency is primarily a wizard proficiency. Certainly doesn't work the same for other classes discovering new spell scrolls or spells. Basically don't need more than a point or two unless playing a Prestige Class or an Epic Character for class and feat requirments *********************. Yes under existing rules if specializing as a Witch 3.5 DMG 175 and I'll qualify it with subject to DM approval since it's made both 3.0 and 3.5 DMGs kind of like playing an expert. ********************** Yes under a House Rule for those people playing campaigns that it just doesn't make sense under the existing rules. ********************** With a house rule there are four basic magical scripts this topic would be moot (other than the witch who is controlled by the DM so should never be an issue in his campaign).
LoricDAHPaladin 12-14-03, 08:08 PM	Thank you, Catoblepas. I am not attempting to twist your writing into support for my argument, but I found it satisfying that you also felt that there was an incongruence about the rules that disallow healing to the sorcerer while permitting it for bards. However, I disagree with your take on the healing power of bards, and I feel they are overpowered as a result of it. I had not known that bards were always intended to be healers, and that presents an interesting angle in this whole debate. I just wonder what took the developers so long to implement these rules. I understand that music probably does aid in the recovery of the infirm, but I would attribute that to the power of the mind and of music's ability to elevate the spirits of those who are sick. Still, legends are observed. I just wonder at the awesome power that bards are given in terms of healing. I would support the claim that sorcerers should somehow be allowed the ability to cast healing should they choose. Certainly, there should be a plausible explanation for this. Hopefully someone will explain how this was accomplished in his/her campaign.
BlaineTog 12-14-03, 08:12 PM	There are Arcane and Divine Spells not class spells. There are more spells in the world than the paltry few written in the PHB. Then why do they bother writting up Class Lists at all? Why do all spells, under level, not simply have a number (thye have sumthing like: Brd 2, Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 2, etc)? All Arcane Spells are not exactly the same thing. The only ones I can learn are spells I don't already know that are on the common sorcerer/wizard page and I can't research an arcane spell I know exists and works as an original spell when all classes can research new or original spells. I don't quite understand the logic behind that. Cleric or Druid finds a spell scroll in an adventure from a new source book nope you can't learn it or cast it because it's not in the PHB core spell list. I don't quite understand the logic behind that either. Did you even read his post? Where did he even insinuate that the only spells are in the PHB? Look, New Spells always list who can learn then and at what spell level. Those numbers are there for a reason. A Cleric or Druid who finds a scroll can learn it if it's on their spell list (ie under "Level:" it has their name and the level of spell). The clause in the DMG that you are twisting is in there for the explicit reason that you are talking about here. You want to learn "Reverse Arrows" From Magic of Faerun? This quote says you can! Just find a scroll of it... What you are saying is if I find one say an arcane scroll with a New Original Spell on it like Tenser's Eye of The Eagle (Actual Greyhawk Campaign Spell) I can't learn it as a sorcerer because I'm not a wizard and I can't cast it for the same reason. A wizard could learn the Tenser's Eye of The Eagle spell on a successful spell check and cast it but not an arcane cure light because he just Can't. I don't quite understand the logic behind that. If it's a Sorcerer Spell (look at the "Level" line and take a look), then you can. The Cure spells are not Sor/Wiz spells. Period. It's possible that you are misunderstanding the logic because you are talking about a figment statement that (guess what?) noone here has put forth. However, I disagree with your take on the healing power of bards, and I feel they are overpowered as a result of it. Bards? Overpowered? :rofl: I've never heard THAT before! Bards can heal, but it's not the most obvious route. My current bard is 12th level and only knows Cure Light Wounds for emergencies (ie someone goes unconsious). You can always find a plausible reason for anything, at least in a fantasy world. And while I agree that it wouldn't really put that much power in the hands of Sor/Wiz, it is not Core at this time.
xxyl 12-14-03, 08:36 PM	Well, looks like in this lively debate others have posted in the interim, but I'll add my thoughts. Originally posted by Castlmike Impressive post but that doesn't make much sense. How so? I think it's the only way that the system can make sense and still be workable. There are Arcane and Divine Spells not class spells. In the end, there are just spells. If your answer is the case, why aren't spells listed as arcane or divine in the main spell descriptions in the players handbook? Why ARE the classes that have them on their lists there instead? You cast something as an arcane or divine spell, but the spell itself is just a spell. I think of it as AC vs. DC power. You can have a AC power toaster or a DC power toaster, they're both just toasters. But say that most electric pianos are AC. You only have DC power...but you find a DC powered piano. Great! You plug it in...and then realize...I don't know how to play the piano. You need both the right power and the knowledge to how to use it. Sorc's and Wizards don't have the ability to cure light for that reason. And there ARE class spells. Thus, the fact that 'Bard Spells cannot be made silent' in the feat descriptor. If it's not talking about class spells, what is it talking about? If spells (that is, say the 'spell' cure light) were arcane or divine, then a Bard and a Cleric would have to use different wands of cure light. Instead, when you cast a spell, it becomes arcane or divine. Once the spell is in a scroll, that scroll itself is an arcane or divine scroll. Part of the issue is that's there really two meanings of 'spell.' From the SRD: A spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). In this case, 'spell' refers to effect itself. When you cast 'fireball' and a fireball erupts, that's the spell. However, "cure light wounds" is also a 'spell'. That is, it's an effect that you can learn, it's a block of text in the book with a descriptor. However, cure light wounds is the same spell if it be cast as arcane or divine. Otherwise, counterspelling wouldn't work across that division (and it does). There are more spells in the world than the paltry few written in the PHB. Yes, here we agree, but what that actually means is where we disagree. See below. The only ones I can learn are spells I don't already know that are on the common sorcerer/wizard page and I can't research an arcane spell I know exists and works as an original spell when all classes can research new or original spells. I don't quite understand the logic behind that. This is, in fact, the very opposite of what I said. I said that according to the SRD, and I quote, These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. What this means, to me, is that common spells from another classes' spell list are off limits. UNUSUAL spells (from any source) that fit with your class list (DM or source's decision) are not. This is how I read it, is it unclear? If a spell exists and works, but just not for members of your class, then how is it a new and original spell? A spell is the same spell be it cast by a bard, a wizard, a cleric, a druid, a dragon or an anthorpomorphic chicken. Cleric or Druid finds a spell scroll in an adventure from a new source book nope you can't learn it or cast it because it's not in the PHB core spell list. I don't quite understand the logic behind that either. You're missing my point. If it's in a new source book, is it in the core rules as a common spell for another class? Of course not. So it's fine (if it's a Sorc/Wiz spell) because it counts as an UNUSUAL spell, that's the whole point of that part of the sorcerer description. (Again, if the DM says you can use that source.) You CAN learn spells not in the PHB. Your actual argument is that you can therefore learn spells that ARE in the players handbook for another class. If a Cleric finds a bard spell from some other source book, then no, they can't learn it. What you are saying is if I find one say an arcane scroll with a New Original Spell on it like Tenser's Eye of The Eagle (Actual Greyhawk Campaign Spell) I can't learn it as a sorcerer because I'm not a wizard and I can't cast it for the same reason. A wizard could learn the Tenser's Eye of The Eagle spell on a successful spell check and cast it but not an arcane cure light because he just Can't. I don't quite understand the logic behind that. No, again, wizards and sorcerers share the same spell list, for the most part. That's why such spells are listed as Sor/Wiz. Now, if it was a spell that isn't useful to Sorcs, like Mnemonic Enhancer, then it's just a Wiz spell, and you can't learn it. The spell list is important because it is a list of the spells that a character of a class can cast. Thus, spell list. If you create a spell or get one from a sourcebook, then you decide what spell lists it is added to. The "spell list" isn't just the list of spells in the PHB for each class, it's the list of all the spells in the multiverse that your class has access to. What else is on it other than the PHB is up to the DM. See the answer from Defenders of the Faith; you learn an unusual spell (by joining the prestige class) but it is not added to the class spell lists, so others cannot learn it. Now, spells from other sources do get added to the class spell lists, that's why new spells in the sourcebooks have classes listed with them instead of "arcane/divine". If that is truly the case I'll retake my original post position. Yes if specializing as a Witch 3. 5 DMG 175 and I'll qualify it with subject to DM approval since it's made both 3.0 and 3.5 DMGs [/B] Of course, anything is subject to DM approval, that's Rule 0. But I don't think it was ever the intention to allow characters to learn spells on other spell lists. It just doesn't make sense. If you want to write the sorcerer as a 'do all' caster that can cast spells from any arcane spell list so long as they research it, then that's your option. But I think the sorc is okay (if a bit dull) the way it's written. As for someone else saying bards being overpowered...that's the first I've heard that one. I usually hear them being bashed for being 'jack of all trades master of none'. And healing spells fit into that. You're not as good at healing as a cleric, but you can do it in a pinch. If you'd like to have that same ability as a Sorc and have a good reason, then sure, figure out a way to do it. Arcane Healer could make a cool prestige class.
LoricDAHPaladin 12-14-03, 10:41 PM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Bards? Overpowered? Yep.
BlaineTog 12-14-03, 11:17 PM	Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin Yep. Not that it needed quoting... but whatever. That's possibley the funnniest thing I've ever heard.* *My sig is funnier:D.
LoricDAHPaladin 12-15-03, 06:57 PM	Your amusement and incredulity does not make it any less true.
Castlmike 12-16-03, 07:10 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog It's possible that you are misunderstanding the logic because you are talking about a figment statement that (guess what?) noone here has put forth. Bards? Overpowered? :rofl: I've never heard THAT before! Bards can heal, but it's not the most obvious route. My current bard is 12th level and only knows Cure Light Wounds for emergencies (ie someone goes unconsious). You can always find a plausible reason for anything, at least in a fantasy world. And while I agree that it wouldn't really put that much power in the hands of Sor/Wiz, it is not Core at this time. Excellent posts by you and xxyl. Before this thread this wasn't an issue to me. Revised my last post to help clarify my post thoughts. Sorry Not my quote regarding bards
Castlmike 12-16-03, 07:51 AM	<My comments> Originally posted by BlaineTog Then why do they bother writting up Class Lists at all? Why do all spells, under level, not simply have a number (thye have sumthing like: Brd 2, Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 2, etc)? All Arcane Spells are not exactly the same thing. <Concur Arcane and Divine spells are different. Don't concur that arcane spells are different. If WOTC wants them different just give them 4 different magic scripts and it's a moot point.> <If it's just an arcane variant don't see why couldn't be learned as an "Original Spell" think of it as specializing in an uncommon spell to see what others are doing better or more efficiently> " . Did you even read his post? Where did he even insinuate that the only spells are in the PHB? <Yes it was an excellent post reclarified my acknowledgement of that and my post thoughts. Iwas citing the spell list requirement from Spell Scroll Activation in the DMG> Look, New Spells always list who can learn then and at what spell level. Those numbers are there for a reason. A Cleric or Druid who finds a scroll can learn it if it's on their spell list (ie under "Level:" it has their name and the level of spell). <Maybe it's a quibble but the rules for triggering a scroll cites character spell lists, those are new spells in many cases since they are not on the core spell lists. I think you could take either position for campaign supplements.> <Reverse Arrows would be a "new" spell for anyone just using the core rulebooksplaying a campaign adventure where they might run accross it, not on their spell lists, only the wizard could learn it or cast it not a sorcerer using core rules as written> <After reviewing the spellcraft skill closely. The wizard class and only the wizard class can learn new spells from scrolls or cast them under spell craft skill check citing the class spell list>. The clause in the DMG that you are twisting is in there for the explicit reason that you are talking about here. You want to learn "Reverse Arrows" From Magic of Faerun? This quote says you can! Just find a scroll of it... <I don't think you can any more after reading scroll activation but that is my point exactly finding a reverse arrows you say I can learn it but finding an arcane cure light I can't> If it's a Sorcerer Spell (look at the "Level" line and take a look), then you can. The Cure spells are not Sor/Wiz spells. Period. <Make 4 magical class scripts under spell scrolls and I'm cool with that> <Leaving the option to research uncommon to your class arcane original spells while they exist in the campaign world and saying you can't research them just because you can't make no sense.> <All I am saying is a sorcerer casts arcane spells. A sorcerer just found an arcane spell not on his spell list. Maybe I'm playing an adventure using a campaign accessory spell. What I am saying is it isn't on my common spell list and I should be able to research it as an arcane spell.> It's possible that you are misunderstanding the logic because you are talking about a figment statement that (guess what?) noone here has put forth. <I know which is why I brought it up look at the spell scroll activation requirement in the 3.5 DMG> Bards? Overpowered? :rofl: I've never heard THAT before! Bards can heal, but it's not the most obvious route. My current bard is 12th level and only knows Cure Light Wounds for emergencies (ie someone goes unconsious). <Wasn't my quote about the bards being overpowered> You can always find a plausible reason for anything, at least in a fantasy world. And while I agree that it wouldn't really put that much power in the hands of Sor/Wiz, it is not Core at this time. Lastly I agree not core with the exception of playing a Sorcerer Witch if your DM allows since it made 3.0 and 3.5.
Lethilon-Mervel 12-16-03, 09:53 AM	Acording to my DM who is a AAAARGH WOGFNFJDFD!!! OMG!!!!! a wizard can have an 8-th level spell able to cure : 2*a prepeared spell sacrefised level*int mod. meaning about 2*9*10-11 = 180-198. AAAAA i will kil him!!!! isnt this way to unbalanced????? ofcourse a wizard or sorcerer cant hav a cure spell.
Lethilon-Mervel 12-16-03, 09:53 AM	OOOPS! double post.
LoricDAHPaladin 12-16-03, 11:39 AM	bards somehow get to cast up to cure mass serious I think...how is this not overpowered? The Heal spell has even been nerfed. bards get way to much without explanation. Player explanation does not wash, only endorsed explanation would, and then I doubt I would agree with it. bards get way way way too much and I doubt seriously anyone can dissuade me from holding to that opinion. If ever I would think that bards should heal, they should do so through music, and then only at perhaps at bard 1/2levels HPs healed an hour of performing...and no more. If that playing is interrupted at minute 0:59:59, then nothing is accomplished. Skill checks would be made once every ten minutes, and a failure means no effect; start over. Area of effect should be listening. Level minimum should be 10. Done.
Schmendrick 12-16-03, 12:17 PM	Originally posted by someone who is apparently too lazy to copy/paste [quote] tags Look, New Spells always list who can learn then and at what spell level. Those numbers are there for a reason. A Cleric or Druid who finds a scroll can learn it if it's on their spell list (ie under "Level:" it has their name and the level of spell). <Maybe it's a quibble but the rules for triggering a scroll cites character spell lists, those are new spells in many cases since they are not on the core spell lists. I think you could take either position for campaign supplements.> No, new spells aren't on the "core" spell lists. The rules for triggering don't say "core" spell list. When you add an accessory, you are adding on to the core rules by adding classes, prestige classes, spells, abilities, monsters; a whole slew of stuff. Part of this is extending the spell lists of various casters. Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin bards ... Player explanation does not wash, only endorsed explanation would, and then I doubt I would agree with it. bards get way way way too much and I doubt seriously anyone can dissuade me from holding to that opinion. Translation: "Nothing you can say matters to me, and little anyone else might say does, either. I hate bards and will not change my mind." If you're this adamant in the face of that much [more or less] rational opposition, then it's time to do the "agree to disagree" bit and stop talking about it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-16-03, 05:52 PM	Originally posted by paolung Vaalingrade Ashland "Wizards and sorcerers should not cast healing spells, but they should have the best offensive spells. If the spell is flashy or dramatic, it should probably be a wizard/sorcerer spell." (DMG 3.5 page 35, emphasis mine) "Bard spells include enchantments, information gathering spells, and a mixture of other kinds of spells, but do not include powerful offensive spells such as cone of cold. (same page) it's pretty much plain english for all to see that sorcerers and wizards should NOT cast healing spells... if that's not clear i don't know what is. That doesn't say its a balance issue. That says its a flavor issue. Which is what I said. Its force fed flavor that people take as gosepel. There's no problem with them casting it -- in fact, the witch they made in the DMG gets it and she's arcane too. Basically, what wizards want is this: straight arcanists: blow stuff up dabblers: be useful to the group except in combat. divinists: do whatever the Inferno they please with proper application of domains. Thats what they want, not what I want. I say if you're running around as a scion of sorcery, you should be afle to staunch a few wounds without much of a problem.
RLWilde 12-16-03, 09:17 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Thats what they want, not what I want. I say if you're running around as a scion of sorcery, you should be afle to staunch a few wounds without much of a problem. So we're back to... if your DM lets you, you can. Right?
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-16-03, 09:33 PM	We would be, but someone implied I'm stupid for doing so. So I guess not :rolleyes: . To hear some people talk, the only flavor is vanilla. Let me posit this gem: Who would let a Sorcerer cast inflict spells? They are very dandy damage spells. Then, what if I made the Mystic Scion core class. It has SPD and spontanoious casting like a sorcerer, i describe the magic as arcane, and he gets a familiar -- and the cure line is on his spell list? Or, how about, I describe the magic as divine?
LoricDAHPaladin 12-16-03, 10:18 PM	Originally posted by Schmendrick Translation: "Nothing you can say matters to me, and little anyone else might say does, either. I hate bards and will not change my mind." If you're this adamant in the face of that much [more or less] rational opposition, then it's time to do the "agree to disagree" bit and stop talking about it. I do not post to displease bard lovers. The displeasure and grief I cause bard lovers is a by-product of my bile, and it does not bother me. I would not totally blame you if you laid that charge at my door. It simply galls me that bards have so much healing when they do not even pray for it. I think then that they either should eliminate it, or require healing and other divine spells to require preparation and reverence to divinity. I would agree with you that I should stop posting except for one small point: I do not think I am looking the face of rational opposition... Originally posted by xxyl I usually hear them being bashed for being 'jack of all trades master of none'. And healing spells fit into that. You're not as good at healing as a cleric, but you can do it in a pinch. if it clearly states that having the ability to cast 6th level clerical healing spells does in a pinch. Precisely what kind of healing do you people think that clerics have? How much better healing does a cleric get than Heal? NOTHING! Get it? bards get nearly every bit of healing that clerics get. There is simply something inherently and wholly skewed about the system that allows a generalist to cast that much healing without praying or preparing for it. BUNK!
BlaineTog 12-16-03, 11:56 PM	bards get nearly every bit of healing that clerics get. There is simply something inherently and wholly skewed about the system that allows a generalist to cast that much healing without praying or preparing for it. BUNK! Well, bards have very limited known spells, and Healing ones just arn;t useful, especially if you already have a cleric in the party. My current bard has only Cure Light Wounds, and thats just to bring unconsious allies back so they can get oiut of there and get healed by the real healer. Not to mention the really low number of spells / day. See, if the Bard takes "Heal," that menas (s)he only has 2 other 6th level spells known. That's a sizeable chunk. The smart thing to so would be to buy a cleric onna stick (wand of CLW). Cheap, use to use, and did I mention cheap? You say that bardlovers are irrational and have no logical backing? How about you? Why shouldn't bard be able to heal? Why MUST it come from prayer and preperation? Consider the Paladin: Lay on Hands is not only a free class ability that can cure a predictable amount of HP/day, but a) it doesn't have to be prepared, and b) the Paladin does not have to "pray" to get it. Music has power, and regardless of your bile and anger, that statement is nevertheless true. Bardic Music is an exxageration of music on Earth, and any Bardic Music that healed would be a slightly nerfed "Heal" spell. Bardic Magic is really just an extention of thier music, as is evident by the oblicatory Verbal component. That magic is just an exageration of an exageration. Quote me the line in any of the cure spells that states that "Cure" spells only flow from a god.
Abnon 12-17-03, 01:06 AM	Once again we go through this.... Guys, think of it like this: Bards cast an entire new realm of spells (as they probably were designed) which allows them some spells similar to both arcane and divine spells. Spell names were kept the same only for ease and so to not "reinvent the wheel." And again rather than complicating things by officially making another magic realm, they just simplified by saying they cast arcane.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-17-03, 02:08 AM	If that were true, it would be bardic magic and still make no sense that someone who can mold flesh into new forms can't staunch wounds.
Jon Hightower 12-17-03, 03:21 AM	Heck! Any wizard can cast healing spells! It's called wish or limited wish!:D
LoricDAHPaladin 12-17-03, 09:50 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Quote me the line in any of the cure spells that states that "Cure" spells only flow from a god. Sadly I cannot quote you anything in any of the cure spells that indicates that the spells flow only from the god. However, I can quote you something from page 30 of the 3.5 PHB ( and 29 of the 3.0 PHB ) that goes: Clerics are masters of divine magic, which is especially good at healing. Divine in this case means: Having the nature of or being a deity. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity I do not subscribe to godless clerics...especially by the descriptor in the characteristics portion of classes. bards are supposed to cast from their souls. Uh hun...so which is it: bards are chosen by the music in their souls, or that individuals choose to learn how to express themselves and can simply will certain effects into being? That still does not explain the power and ability to cast that powerful healing. Sorcerers are innately powerful ( read: cast from souls? ) and so the limitation of not casting healing as per the bard precedent should not be. However, if you suggest that sorcerers should not get healing, it is my contention that neither should bards, and certainly not to the extent that they get it.
LoricDAHPaladin 12-17-03, 09:50 AM	Interesting attempt at levity, Joh Hightower. I applaud you. :)
Schmendrick 12-17-03, 12:31 PM	Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin I do not subscribe to godless clerics...especially by the descriptor in the characteristics portion of classes. I'm with you there. The pantheon (either core or customized) restricts domain selection (read: potential abuse) by limiting certain combinations, and through roleplay in deity worship. Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin bards are supposed to cast from their souls. Uh hun...so which is it: bards are chosen by the music in their souls, or that individuals choose to learn how to express themselves and can simply will certain effects into being? Well, first of all, that question is completely flavor, kind of like "does my character have to have dragon blood to take a level of sorceror"? IMC the player can just decide that; it's fine. Under "dragon blood" interpretation, this is functionally equivalent to revisionist history if the player had not originally drawn up his character with sorcery (dragon blood or whatever) in mind. Under my personal interpretation, sorcs and bards both learn to tap into their own inner magic potential -- everyone (with an above average CHA) has it, but not everyone develops it. I don't see what the problem is with "soul magic" healing. Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin That still does not explain the power and ability to cast that powerful healing. Sorcerers are innately powerful ( read: cast from souls? ) and so the limitation of not casting healing as per the bard precedent should not be. However, if you suggest that sorcerers should not get healing, it is my contention that neither should bards, and certainly not to the extent that they get it. Again, the line between bard and sorceror is being intentionally blurred here. Just because the two both cast arcane spells, and they both cast spontaneously, doesn't mean the two are the same kind of casters. Comparing them is like the proverbial apples and oranges. They both grow on trees, and they're both fruit, but they're completely different kinds of fruit. (I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm afraid I'll regret it if I didn't. No "fruity bard" comments, please.) The sorceror and bard may both cast from an internal (arcane) ego-based (CHA) power, but they're casting entirely different spells. Divine spells are based on an external power, which is why they are WIS-based. Arcanes are from internal power, either by sheer force of will (CHA) or careful study (INT). Is the arcane+CHA what's making you feel the two are somehow identical? Would you feel better if someone made a light arcane-INT core class? Just because right now the sorc and bard are the only two arcane CHA core classes doesn't mean that the bard is just a light sorceror with some cool special abilities and some combat prowess. Mechanically, yes, bard and sorceror magic are very similar. But the whole point of having spell lists (or, heck, even classes themselves!) is for flavor. If you don't think it makes sense for bards to use their subtle, human-themed magic to heal, then that's fine; cut their lists in your campaign. Ultimately, it's flavor much more than it is balance (A bard is only the best healer if A) there is no cleric and B) he is fairly devoted to it. A) just makes sense, as the bard is a support role and, of the classes in the DMG, is the best thematic replacement "healer" IMO; B) goes without saying), and a lot of people have differing opinions on that, but the official mechanic-supported stance is that bards can cast cures, and that sorcerors can't.
LoricDAHPaladin 12-17-03, 11:56 PM	To continue, it seems to me that if bards cast by force of will, then anyone should be able to cast by force of will, but they cannot. I argue this only because anyone can play an instrument, but that does not make that person a bard. My position is that sorcerers are born ( much like Paladins ) and not "made" like wizards. bards I have always considered to be "made", and not born. If you can follow, you will understand my reasoning. Should you not follow, I will make it more clear, but at another time. I do not expect you to really want to know what I am attempting to communicate, but if you wish, I will detail that idea further. What is it about bards that makes them able to cast divine spells? Well, you laid it out yourself, and I am not trying to use your words against you...it is just that someone wanted to add spice to the feel of bards ( that and legends, though I wonder at how much healing legends allowed bards to perform ). I claw and tangle with it because I disagree with it ( of course ) and because I just wonder if anyone else accepts, or at least understands my position on this ( based on the rules, not legends, that are laid out in the PHB ). I have always felt that bard healing was a long stretch. Ultimately, it's flavor much more than it is balance It never seemed to fit, and I do not mean to Lord your words over you, but that is kinda what I was reasoning. For whatever reason...it just is /sigh...bleh. As an aside, I wish Paladins did not get spells or a few of their powers either. I cast spells very rarely, but I do because I am not going to allow him to die just because I am a stubborn moron about some rules I do not like. I am principled, but not so much I am going to allow it to ruin my fun. Well, good day to you.
LoricDAHPaladin 12-17-03, 11:59 PM	"does my character have to have dragon blood to take a level of sorceror"? I kinda feel that sorcerers should have some reason for having the innate power. Dragon blood, or the blood of elves perhaps? Celestial or even Tiefling blood? I dunno, but I like that, and will suggest it to my DM for future sorcerers...haha, fat chance...not enough players that create new chars anymore. But still, it is a fantastic idea.
BlaineTog 12-18-03, 12:17 AM	What is it about bards that makes them able to cast divine spells? I thought we had passed this already. Spells are not "divine" or "arcane" until they are cast by a divine/arcane spellcaster. Well, you laid it out yourself, and I am not trying to use your words against you...it is just that someone wanted to add spice to the feel of bards ( that and legends, though I wonder at how much healing legends allowed bards to perform ). :confused: Since when does Bardic magic come from legends? I have always felt that bard healing was a long stretch. Good for you. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I argue this only because anyone can play an instrument, but that does not make that person a bard. While there is nothing stopping any character from playing a instrument, Bardic Music is completly seperate from mundane music. Bards have focused on their music and thus can exagerate it's effects. "Song of Freedom," for example. I very seriously doubt that any mundane music could transform a petrified PC back into flesh or purge lycanthropy from your system. My position is that sorcerers are born ( much like Paladins ) and not "made" like wizards. bards I have always considered to be "made", and not born. Waaaaa? Sorcerers ARE born, but since when are Paladins? Anyone Good enough who has the resolve can become a Paladin. Bards are "made," but not in the same way as wizards. Wizards gain their power by careful study and many calculations. Bards gain theirs sort of as a side effect of their music. The power was always there, it just takes special training to learn how to tap into it (as apposed to just making a pretty song).
Schmendrick 12-18-03, 11:48 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Good for you. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Now, now, BlaineTog; play nicely. No need to be terse. Whether the theme of bards healing "fits" or not is really a matter of what someone's image of bards is. If someone's image doesn't mesh with the "official" image, then they're free to change it. The same is true of all classes; if you think a paladin should turn with equivalent cleric level instead of a lower one, or that rogues shouldn't be able to disable magical traps without some extra training, then you're perfectly free to do so. My interpretation of bardic magic is that it is spiritual, and that is why it is full of enchantments and illusions and buffs, and why it is allowed to heal. If anything doesn't "fit" my basic image of what makes a bard, it's stuff like Grease. (Which is a little hypocritical, I suppose, because all my bards have liked that spell so very very much.) And such spells do make more sense when you consider that the bard has access to magical abilities, and his classic catch phrase is "jack of all trades, master of none"; it's only logical that someone with access to power would find ways to use it in a light, interesting, useful ways. On further thought, bardic magic does feel a lot more like divine magic (in its relative subtlety) than arcane, but what makes it arcane is the fact that it comes from a personal source (If I declared it divine, I would use one of the loopy "non-deific divine" sources, like druidic "nature" magic. Societal "collective soul" magic? Or some such nonsense.). Well, that and ASF. It severely violates the archetype to have a bard marching into battle with full plate mail on. (Though, I suppose, if he went to all the trouble to burn the feats...) I've always interpreted bardic magic as "spiritual." Originally posted by BlaineTog While there is nothing stopping any character from playing a instrument, Bardic Music is completly seperate from mundane music. Bards have focused on their music and thus can exagerate it's effects. "Song of Freedom," for example. I very seriously doubt that any mundane music could transform a petrified PC back into flesh or purge lycanthropy from your system. I've always interpreted bardic magic as "spiritual." The spell list makes sense under that view, which is a good hint that it's what the designers were thinking. Originally posted by BlaineTog Waaaaa? Sorcerers ARE born, but since when are Paladins? Anyone Good enough who has the resolve can become a Paladin. Per the PHB flavor text, paladins are "chosen", not self-made. But, again, it's all flavor. Originally posted by BlaineTog Bards are "made," but not in the same way as wizards. Wizards gain their power by careful study and many calculations. Bards gain theirs sort of as a side effect of their music. The power was always there, it just takes special training to learn how to tap into it (as apposed to just making a pretty song). Personally the way I've handled spontaneous casters is that, simply based on their force of will (high CHA), they can cast. That's really about it. I don't care if you have dragon blood or whatever, in my interpretation the only connection is that dragon blood is likely to lead to a high CHA. Edit: posted prematurely; finished up.
LoricDAHPaladin 12-18-03, 12:57 PM	To be fair, I do not always play nice either. I am usually a jerk about stuff. My opinions are strong, I state them unapologetically and I do not mind beating dead draft animals. Blaine, the point about spells being divine or arcane only by the method in which they are cast, or by whom they are cast just ain't working for me. You proceed from the position that I subscribe to that theory. I do not. If spells are only arcane or divine as cast through the channeler ( agent ) then I must submit to you that, really, any spell can be cast by any caster. As for bards specifically, they learn how to tap into a power that was already there? Who teaches them, or is it an heuristic developement? If heuristic, then it follows that anyone should be able to teach himself...you know...anything, given time. Most initial discoveries are accidental, and that fosters an investigative interest and opens new avenues of thinking. Id est, if one does not know enough to ask the question, how is one going to find the answer unless he happens upon it? Then he learns to ask the question that he never knew about. This in turn leads to more questions now that the new field has been opened. Exemple Gratia: If fire were never made known, how would anyone think to start one? If no one showed a bard he could heal with his will, how did he learn to cast the spell? How did he know he could cast the spell? Who showed the original bard? Priests pray for their spells, wizards research them, but bards do neither. I just cannot believe that casting spells for bards ( or sorcerers for that matter ) is an intuitive thing...especially since bards are made, and not born with power like sorcerers.
Schmendrick 12-18-03, 01:45 PM	Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin the point about spells being divine or arcane only by the method in which they are cast, or by whom they are cast just ain't working for me. This is a good question; as I posted earlier about the potential for bardic spells to be interpreted as divine, what makes a spell arcane or divine? The "location" of the power source, or its nature? If it's an internal vs. external question, bardic spells are arcane. If it's "spiritual vs. artificial", then bardic spells are a lot better described as divine. Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin You proceed from the position that I subscribe to that theory. I do not. Then we should be either arguing the base theory or dropping the argument; there's no sense fighting over whether the phonemes composing "yellow" refer to a color or ice if the arguments hinge on whether English or Spanish are the "right" language. Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin If spells are only arcane or divine as cast through the channeler ( agent ) then I must submit to you that, really, any spell can be cast by any caster. The question is, what is the nature of one's talent? Even if all spells are "source neutral", the existing system suggests very strongly that the kind of ability it takes to be a sorceror has a "blind spot" of sorts when it comes to cures and inflicts, and that bards have a similar ineptitude when it comes to the uber-evocations. Clerics, on the other hand, have a knack for [either] cures [or inflicts]. Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin As for bards specifically, they learn how to tap into a power that was already there? Who teaches them, or is it an heuristic developement? If heuristic, then it follows that anyone should be able to teach himself...you know...anything, given time. Yeah. By taking levels in the class possessing those abilities... That's what a class represents: training/learning in some specific area. The different kinds of spellcasting (read: spell lists) are different for a reason; it ultimately goes back to the same reason we have classes to begin with, instead of just a classless point-buy-for-everything system. A prestige class letting arcanes cast arcane cures might not be a bad idea. Hm. Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin Most initial discoveries are accidental, and that fosters an investigative interest and opens new avenues of thinking. ... Priests pray for their spells, wizards research them, but bards do neither. I just cannot believe that casting spells for bards ( or sorcerers for that matter ) is an intuitive thing...especially since bards are made, and not born with power like sorcerers. The made vs. born is pure flavor, and as such mechanical implementation is the ultimate in Rule 0. I'm not arguing that one.