Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ye' Cind 07-04-07, 04:06 PM	Hi folks!! It's been a while since I last posted.. Anyway, after searching through tons of threads which debate negative/positive energy and their relations to alignment, I have an issue that has been bothering me for some time. I have decided to develop a new campain WITHOUT clerics. It's basically a cosmology that completely ignores the presence of Gods. Now the thing is, since wizards can specialize in tapping into the negative energy plane, and become necromancers, why can't they tap into the positive energy plane and become healers as well?? (biomancers, anyone ? :-) Your feedback is welcome..
Adrez Nesnsid 07-04-07, 04:19 PM	I think that a large part of it is tradition. That's the way that the game has always worked, even (especially) in previous editions. Also, If wizards had healing spells there would be less reason to take the cleric class; If you're not using the cleric class in your campaign, however, than that consideration goes right out the window. Another thing is a flavor consideration; touching someone and saying a few words and having them suddenly be healed is an image traditionally associated with faith healers. However, there's lots of other ways that you could have healing spells work; they don't necessarily even need to use positive energy (which always seemed a bit tacked on to me anyway), it could be some kind of telekinetic microsurgery or whatever.
DarkCaller 07-04-07, 04:19 PM	Yes, while wizards can use negative energy, it is very restrictive. In game technical terms, they probably reserved healing abilities to the druid and cleric as to keep the wizard and sorcerer from being too overbearing. If a wizard could utilize both necromantic energies AND heal, he would be a walking machine of invulnerability (although he has no Strength to speak of), or close to it. As D&D is a TEAM game, you have to take all the aspects that need to be used to win and split them up in an even manner. Thus, a need for both a cleric for healing and a wizard for "other" spells. In the game, why wizards can't heal is up to the DM. They have to make up their own rules as to why magic works in that manner. Probably b/c divine energy (healing) comes from the gods, and wizards dont normally worship gods. But in Complete Champion there are notes on how to have a divine wizard. The possibilty is there, it is just up to the DM in the end. I dont think there are set-in-stone rules.
TheDarkLord 07-04-07, 04:46 PM	Also, If wizards had healing spells there would be less reason to take the cleric class; If you're not using the cleric class in your campaign, however, than that consideration goes right out the window. Wha??? No reason to be a cleric? Clerics can blast, cast SoD spells, harm, And heal. They can also enter melee, have D8 HD, TWO good saves, awesome domain abilities, wear heavy armor and have Decent BAB. Really what reason is there to be a wizard when you have a Cleric??? As to the OP, there is no reason for wizards not to be able to heal, as intelligent as they are supposed to be, you would figure one of them would find out how to tap into the positive energy plain and deliver some kind of healing, even if it's a limited duration fast healing type of approach.
zzo38 07-04-07, 09:16 PM	Wha??? No reason to be a cleric? Clerics can blast, cast SoD spells, harm, And heal. They can also enter melee, have D8 HD, TWO good saves, awesome domain abilities, wear heavy armor and have Decent BAB. Really what reason is there to be a wizard when you have a Cleric??? As to the OP, there is no reason for wizards not to be able to heal, as intelligent as they are supposed to be, you would figure one of them would find out how to tap into the positive energy plain and deliver some kind of healing, even if it's a limited duration fast healing type of approach. You are right, that is why I invented the Sage Wizard (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=854237), you should consider looking at it if you want wizards to heal.
TheDarkLord 07-04-07, 09:22 PM	Heh, I just let them research it, or use the feat Extra Spell to pick up any kind of healing spells.
Rerecros 07-04-07, 09:30 PM	There are generic classes in unearthed arcana, the generic spellcaster can draw spells from any list and use any mental stat.
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-05-07, 10:36 AM	Wha??? No reason to be a cleric? Clerics can blast, cast SoD spells, harm, And heal. They can also enter melee, have D8 HD, TWO good saves, awesome domain abilities, wear heavy armor and have Decent BAB. Really what reason is there to be a wizard when you have a Cleric??? They can. But why do most people play a cleric? Honestly, it's just to patch up the party. Wizards still reign supreme in utility spells, damage dealers, save-or-be screwed spells, battlefield control, and stuff like that. Clerics for the most part have healing spells, combat enhancers, and a few damage-dealers. Their best or most versatile spells come from their domains.
420 07-05-07, 04:38 PM	I have decided to develop a new campain WITHOUT clerics. It's basically a cosmology that completely ignores the presence of Gods. This really isn't a good reason for the cleric class to not exist. According to the rules clerics don't need a deity to gain spells if they choose to revere a universal ideal or concept. However, I see no reason why wizards wouldn't be able to learn how to manipulate positive energy in the same way they can with negative energy. However, consider that even the most accomplished necromancer isn't able to cast Inflict spells. That involves "channeling" negative energy through the caster and target as opposed to manipulating negative energy with an arcane ritual. Even if you decided to ignore that game mechanic the main difference between that type of arcane caster and a cleric would still be that a good/evil wizard still wouldn't be able to channel positive/negative energy to spontaneously cast cure/inflict spells or to turn/rebuke undead. -420
RealSorceror 07-06-07, 10:36 AM	I expect healing spells would probably be Transmutation or Abjuration school.
Zousha_Omenohu 07-06-07, 11:10 AM	Also, there's the Arcane Disciple feat in Complete Divine. If you gain the Healing Domain with it, then it's perfectly acceptable for wizards to be healers.
Kelwyn 07-06-07, 11:13 AM	Well, maybe you could use something like the Archivist from Heroes of Horror, which is basically a wizard casting divine spells plus some other goodies. Arcane Disciple is also an option if you go want to go completly without divine spells. (What about druids in this campaign?)
caeruleus 07-06-07, 11:49 AM	I expect healing spells would probably be Transmutation or Abjuration school. They're Conjuration spells.
Elana 07-06-07, 12:27 PM	And since Bards use arcane spells, we have at least an arcane version of the cure spells. And of course the sorcerer loophole A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. and a bit later 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 So a sorcerer could indeed learn cure spells if you have a nice DM
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-06-07, 01:11 PM	They're Conjuration spells. But why? It's just totally ridiculous; they manipulate life, they ought to be Necromancy. But of course, if it's necromantic, it's gotta be 'teh Evil!' acording to Wizards, so out goes the Cure spells.
caeruleus 07-06-07, 01:28 PM	But why? It's just totally ridiculous; they manipulate life, they ought to be Necromancy. But of course, if it's necromantic, it's gotta be 'teh Evil!' acording to Wizards, so out goes the Cure spells. I'd say that it's because they conjure positive energy rather than directly do anything to the individual. Perhaps raising the dead involves conjuring their souls. Necromancy only manipulates what's already there. I agree that healing would make sense as Necromancy spells, as I also don't think Necromancy implies evil. But I wouldn't say that healing as Conjuration is ridiculous, you can still make sense out of it. EDIT: Except that inflict spells are in the Necromancy schools... okay, that is a bit of an inconsistency, I grant you that. :)
Adrez Nesnsid 07-06-07, 06:18 PM	I'd say that [b]it's because they conjure positive energy[b] rather than directly do anything to the individual ... Necromancy only manipulates what's already there. Its positive ENERGY, so if its not necromancy, than if anything it should be evocation!!
Adrez Nesnsid 07-06-07, 06:24 PM	I expect healing spells would probably be Transmutation or Abjuration school.They're Conjuration spells. HOWEVER, transmutation spells of the Polymorph subschool can restore lost hitpoints. Furthermore, if you're going to go with the angle that wizards can't cast healing spells for the in game reason that they can't conjure/channel positive energy, it would make sense for them to devolop Transmutation or Necromancy based healing spells instead. Its more direct anyway; Why screw around with mystic energy when you can just transform an injured organ into a normal organ??
Bacon and Eggs 07-06-07, 06:27 PM	My money is on the Sacred Cow...
JulesCARV 07-06-07, 06:51 PM	It seems a bit odd that we're framing this question as "why can't wizards be healers," rather than "why should they be?" After all, of the 11 PHB classes, most lack the ability to heal: barbarians, fighters, monks, rogues, sorcerers, and wizards all lack the ability to heal. (well, monks have wholeness of body, but I'd hardly count that as being a "healer") True, bards, clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers have some healing ability, albeit in an often limited way, but I don't see any reason why I should look at those five classes, notice that they have some healing ability, and then go on to conclude that the other six should.
Fellhound 07-06-07, 06:52 PM	Wizards can be healers; all you have to do is copy an arcane scroll of [U]cure “____” wounds[U]. And they become a second rate healer.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-06-07, 06:58 PM	Can they learn arcane spells that aren't on the Sorceror/Wizard list?? (Cure x Wounds is only on the bard spell list as an arcane spell)
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-06-07, 07:17 PM	It's debatable.
HellflameArcanite 07-06-07, 11:59 PM	It's a good point. After all, if wizards can wield negative energy, it makes sense for them to be able to wield positive energy as well. As I write this reply, I see no way to properly tell you why the current way is what it is, except this: Wizards are not the type that heals others, they are the type that make large, impressive effects, instead of healing after a battle. That's all. However, if you've twisted the campaign to the point where there are no clerics, you can put healing spells on sor/wiz spell lists. However, if you are going to give other classes greater access to healing spells, I suggest the druid, who already casts divine spells. However, wizards don't inflict light wounds with negative energy, so there isn't as much reason for them to be able to cure them. I support Adrez's first post, except for the part about telekinetic microsurgery.
caeruleus 07-07-07, 01:29 AM	Its positive ENERGY, so if its not necromancy, than if anything it should be evocation!! HOWEVER, transmutation spells of the Polymorph subschool can restore lost hitpoints. Fair enough. I was only offerring a potential way to explain why things are as they are, and I had already granted problems with it. Of course, the school that healing spells belong to is a different issue than whether wizards should be able to heal.
Ye' Cind 07-07-07, 09:14 AM	I thank you all for your replies. I am thinking of making up a new school of wizardry called "biomancy" (opposite of necromancy). I was thinking of simply creating the opposite/ reverse of the necromancy spells. For example: Level one (necromancy): -Cause Fear -Chill Touch -Ray of Enfeeblement Level one (biomancy) -Remove Fear -Warm Touch -Ray of Enpowering I think this would be one possible solution...However, I noticed that some spells of the necromancy school are actually detrimental (harmful) to undead; while others present a problem because it's not always possible to have a true opposite to them.
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-07-07, 11:04 AM	I'd recommend against it. This is my opinion, but it sounds like you're leaving Necromancy with all the traditional evil necromantic spells. Necromancy is, at its core, the manipulation of life and life energy, and all of those spells do that. Necromancy is supposed to be a school that can heal as well as kill, and banish negative energy as well as create it.
caeruleus 07-07-07, 01:20 PM	However, I noticed that some spells of the necromancy school are actually detrimental (harmful) to undead; while others present a problem because it's not always possible to have a true opposite to them. I don't think you'd need opposites of all the spells if you're planning on adding a few healing spells. I'd recommend against it. This is my opinion, but it sounds like you're leaving Necromancy with all the traditional evil necromantic spells. Necromancy is, at its core, the manipulation of life and life energy, and all of those spells do that. Necromancy is supposed to be a school that can heal as well as kill, and banish negative energy as well as create it. Except that "necro-" means "death". While I don't think Necromancy must be evil, it's perfectly acceptable as a premise for a particular campaign, if the DM wishes it.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-07-07, 01:57 PM	Except that "necro-" means "death". While I don't think Necromancy must be evil, it's perfectly acceptable as a premise for a particular campaign, if the DM wishes it. The fact that the prefix "necro-" means "dead" is a very good point; It is also, I might add, a point that contributes to the case that Necromancy SHOULD contain those spells which deal with the Resurrection-of-the-DEAD.
JulesCARV 07-07-07, 02:00 PM	Personally, my current rationale for the idea of conjuration (healing) is that the most common reason why hit point loss kills characters in D&D in terms of "real world" reasoning is blood loss/shock, and Cure Serious Wounds, in addition to sealing wounds, creates a bunch of blood in the target's depleted circulatory system. Of course, that doesn't really explain how, say, remove disease is conjuration, but what the heck.
caeruleus 07-07-07, 03:22 PM	The fact that the prefix "necro-" means "dead" is a very good point; It is also, I might add, a point that contributes to the case that Necromancy SHOULD contain those spells which deal with the Resurrection-of-the-DEAD. Restoring life is not dealing with death. That's like saying protection from evil should have the evil descriptor because it works on evil creatures.
caeruleus 07-07-07, 03:24 PM	Personally, my current rationale for the idea of conjuration (healing) is that the most common reason why hit point loss kills characters in D&D in terms of "real world" reasoning is blood loss/shock, and Cure Serious Wounds, in addition to sealing wounds, creates a bunch of blood in the target's depleted circulatory system. Of course, that doesn't really explain how, say, remove disease is conjuration, but what the heck. Maybe it conjures extra white bloodcells or antibiotics. ;)
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-07-07, 05:43 PM	Look at this way: Necromancy, or 'death magic', has spells that can create death, prevent death, and alter death. Just because it has the word death doesn't always mean it's about the dead. It applies to the other side of the fence as well.
caeruleus 07-07-07, 06:38 PM	Look at this way: Necromancy, or 'death magic', has spells that can create death, prevent death, and alter death. Just because it has the word death doesn't always mean it's about the dead. It applies to the other side of the fence as well. Yes, I've already said that this makes enough sense. But it's possible to make some sense out of it without healing spells.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-07-07, 06:55 PM	Personally, my current rationale for the idea of conjuration (healing) is that the most common reason why hit point loss kills characters in D&D in terms of "real world" reasoning is blood loss/shock, and Cure Serious Wounds, in addition to sealing wounds, creates a bunch of blood in the target's depleted circulatory system. Of course, that doesn't really explain how, say, remove disease is conjuration, but what the heck. This is particularly odd because theoretically Remove Disease should be a Death effect in the case of diseases that really are diseases (and are not, for example, caused by a magical effect instead)
Adrez Nesnsid 07-07-07, 07:08 PM	Look at this way: Necromancy, or 'death magic', has spells that can create death, prevent death, and alter death. Just because it has the word death doesn't always mean it's about the dead. It applies to the other side of the fence as well. Uh, sorry to nitpick, but there are two subtle errors in your definition of "necromancy". In game, "Death Magic" is an entirely independent descriptor from the Necromancy school of spells. Additionally, in the actual, original derivation of the word "Necromancy", the term refers specifically to the equivalent of either a Speak With Dead spell, AND/OR contacting the dead, AND/OR a practice which basically amounts to using information from autopsies for the purposes of divination of the future.
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-07-07, 08:43 PM	Uh, sorry to nitpick, but there are two subtle errors in your definition of "necromancy". In game, "Death Magic" is an entirely independent descriptor from the Necromancy school of spells. Additionally, in the actual, original derivation of the word "Necromancy", the term refers specifically to the equivalent of either a Speak With Dead spell, AND/OR contacting the dead, AND/OR a practice which basically amounts to using information from autopsies for the purposes of divination of the future. I know what it means, and the phrase is not the end-all definition. But this is D&D, how often has it stuck with the historical context? As far as Remove Disease goes, I'd vouch for Transmutation or Necromancy. Since disease is defined as a disorder in a living being's function or structure, correcting it would seem to involve a lot of physical change. As it affects a creature's health, Necromancy could also be pointed at.
Tarotlynx 07-08-07, 03:09 AM	Actually, when I've played a sorceress, a healing necromancer of Wei Jas was my favorite. As a lawful neutral, I could heal those whose time had not yet come, and slay those whose time had come. I simply took arcane disciple: Healing, (the dm allowed the addition to her domains) and went on my merry way. It was fun. Necromancy, as I have come to understand it, is about life force. It is evil to manipulate life force which brings harm . . . but there is also the power of good necromancy, using life force to regenerate and heal. Curing magic is part of that counter-tradition. There is no need to create opposite spell types. Necromancy is like magic itself. Neither black nor white in itself, but all in how you use it.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-08-07, 07:26 AM	I have decided to develop a new campain WITHOUT clerics. It's basically a cosmology that completely ignores the presence of Gods. A note regarding this which I just realized; The second edition campaign setting Dark Sun didn't have any clerics either, and, I believe, mainly relied on psionic healing, (and also a bit of druidic healing, but that was a distant second).
Adrez Nesnsid 07-08-07, 07:33 AM	Necromancy, as I have come to understand it, is about life force. It is evil to manipulate life force which brings harm . . . but there is also the power of good necromancy, using life force to regenerate and heal. Curing magic is part of that counter-tradition... That's a good point. And it brings me around to an important fact for this debate that I noticed yesterday; Specifically, yesterday I was flipping through my copy of Book of Exalted Deeds, and, while I was looking through the spells section, came across an arcane (Sor/Wiz) Necromancy Spell called Healing Touch (or something like that), which had the "[Good]" descriptor, and which cured damage. Additionally, there was another necromancy spell in there which also had the good descriptor, as well as, technically, the power to resurrect dead spellcasters (namely Pheonix Fire which resurrected the caster, as part of the casting process involves death...)
Count Arioch the 28th 07-08-07, 08:20 AM	For decades, healing magic and ressurection spells were in fact necromancy spells. I don't know why they changed it for 3E. Necromancy makes sense. If you insist on not making the spells necromancy for some reason, Evocation makes sense (on account that you are manipulating positive energy, energy manipulation is evocation's schtick.) There is no reason to put healing in Conjuration except for the fact that WotC favors it. (See the orb spells. They're energy spells, yet they aren't in evocation for some reason.) Edit: For the record, I think that since the chassis (bab, hit dice, saves, et cetera) for wizards are so terrible, it is not unbalancing for the wizard to be able to cast any spell that a cleric does. A cleric can wear armor, has decent hp and BaB, and has better saves. As far as spellcasting goes, balance dictates that the cleric should be inferior to a wizard as a spellcaster. A wizard healing is not a balance issue. At all.
EvilIdiot 07-08-07, 10:46 AM	Hmm...I think they moved healing in conjuration for this reason: look at nerull, he's the archetype of the evil necromancer, he's got spell focus(necro) and similar feats; having healing in necromancy would enhance his healing abilities as well, as any other evil-divine-necromancer... on the topic:we can say wizards can heal,problems with this choice ,IMO,would be: -balance: do we really think having self-healing wizards isn't broken?clerics are thought as supporters -fluff: divine magic and casters are the ones who heal, have special power over death because they derive their magical abilities from something beyond mortals, i.e. gods. Now a wizard can do the same , just because he spent his time on books. -fluff II: what would be the difference between divine and arcane magic? -fluff III: evil clerics can't spontaneously cast cures 'cos they pray the forces of destruction and pain, what about an evil healing wizard?has he got any restriction on his ability? a healing wizard can use his healing abilities just for himself, without paying attention to deities,morality and their community,divine casters can't .
InsanePsychoRabbit 07-08-07, 11:32 AM	Why can't wizards be healers? It's one of D&D's sacred cows; I assume it goes back to its roots (I've never seen Gandalf heal anybody). Personally, I think Cure and Inflict spells should be Transmutation spells, because you're either putting flesh back together or taking it apart. (at least that's my FMA-based rationalization) Resurrect and such work as Conjuration spells because you have to call the soul back.
caeruleus 07-08-07, 12:48 PM	A note regarding this which I just realized; The second edition campaign setting Dark Sun didn't have any clerics either, and, I believe, mainly relied on psionic healing, (and also a bit of druidic healing, but that was a distant second). Dark Sun had clerics, it just didn't have deities. The clerics were devoted to the elements.
Calestin Kethal 07-08-07, 02:46 PM	This is one of the reasons I think D&D needs a core option (rather than something tucked away in Unearthed Arcana) that better represents fantasy and storybook magic. I also don't see why a primary casters (Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids, and the like) don't have a magical spell or ability that if functionally equivilent to a weapon being swung every round. Like say Arcane Bolt/Divine Smite, SU, close range, ranged touch attack for 1d6 damage. Can be used at your iterative attacks, does bludgeoning, slashing, piercing damage chosen before the attack. Then slowly work up the scale for higher level spells. Then all caster classes use the same spell list, limited by level progression or what have you. The major difference between them would be source of power. Arcane spell failure would either go away or apply to all casters. They'd have the access to simple weapons, light armor. Then class features would futher define them. IE: Wizards would gain magically oriented abilites, Druids get nature oriented abilities, priests would gain the ability to turn undead/have domain spells, and sorcerers would have a bloodline ability. End result, if you scaled it right, all the casters would be pruned back a bit in power and hopefully scale better, flavor and theme would be preserved, and while casters would be potent, they wouldn't be insanely overpowered as they progressed and insanly weak at lower levels. Of course, if you're going to do all that work, it might as well be another gaming system or a new edition. :P And it assumes you want balance brought to the casting vs non casting equation. Mostly it just makes more sense to me to have the casters identical spell wise, with the difference being how it's done. Then a player can pick a theme and run with it, without being hampered by, "This would be a kickass spells for my weather mage, but I have to be a druid to cast it." Sorry, that wandered off topic a bit, but it might give you ideas. -Calestin Kethal PS: Yes, I've been reading other game systems lately that balance magic/nonmagic better and there is no functional difference between caster types. It all comes down to flavor. PPS: But sacred cows being what they are, and D&D wouldn't be D&D really, now would it? :P
Adrez Nesnsid 07-08-07, 08:49 PM	This is one of the reasons I think D&D needs a core option (rather than something tucked away in Unearthed Arcana) that better represents fantasy and storybook magic. I also don't see why a primary casters (Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids, and the like) don't have a magical spell or ability that if functionally equivilent to a weapon being swung every round. Like say Arcane Bolt/Divine Smite, SU, close range, ranged touch attack for 1d6 damage. Can be used at your iterative attacks, does bludgeoning, slashing, piercing damage chosen before the attack. Then slowly work up the scale for higher level spells. There is the warlock from Complete Arcane; they have an attack like that that's usable an unlimited number of times per day.
Calestin Kethal 07-09-07, 01:53 AM	There is the warlock from Complete Arcane; they have an attack like that that's usable an unlimited number of times per day. Yes, but it's not exactly a melee swing. Starts out decent, but it caps at what? 9d6? Kinda screws with the idea I had in mind. It scales to the glass cannon concept. IE: I start out weak and puny, but when I grow up I'm going to kick your ass.. :p
TheAnthroDM 07-09-07, 02:44 AM	*tries the Jedi mind trick*You want an Archivist, instead of opening this can of worms, you want an Archivist. See this thread for more talk about Arcane Healing (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=13005640#post13005640)
TheAnthroDM 07-09-07, 02:46 AM	Why can't wizards be healers? It's one of D&D's sacred cows; I assume it goes back to its roots (I've never seen Gandalf heal anybody). Personally, I think Cure and Inflict spells should be Transmutation spells, because you're either putting flesh back together or taking it apart. (at least that's my FMA-based rationalization) Resurrect and such work as Conjuration spells because you have to call the soul back. It sounds like you just want to completely ignore what the school of necromancy is about. (Cure spells should be Necromancy spells, don't believe it? Read the description of the Necromancy school in the PHB) See this thread for more talk about Arcane Healing (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=13005640#post13005640)
TheAnthroDM 07-09-07, 02:50 AM	Maybe it conjures extra white bloodcells or antibiotics. ;) Science and Magic. The two shall never meet. Restoring life is not dealing with death. O.o You're kidding right? See this thread for more talk about Arcane Healing (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=13005640#post13005640)
caeruleus 07-09-07, 03:56 AM	O.o You're kidding right? Nope. With Pelor and Nerull as opposing deities, for example, life and death as opposite forces (rather than aspects of the same phenomena) makes perfect sense within the context of a campaign. As you said: Science and Magic. The two shall never meet. Since necromancy isn't real, there's no sense in insisting that it must be understood in a certain way. If you want healing spells in the school of Necromancy, that works fine. If you want to keep life and death as separate, that's fine too. Everyone should stop trying to argue that it has to be one way or the other.
TheAnthroDM 07-09-07, 04:18 AM	Nope. With Pelor and Nerull as opposing deities, for example, life and death as opposite forces (rather than aspects of the same phenomena) makes perfect sense within the context of a campaign. As you said:Paladin of Wee Jas, your theory fails. Since necromancy isn't real, there's no sense in insisting that it must be understood in a certain way. If you want healing spells in the school of Necromancy, that works fine. If you want to keep life and death as separate, that's fine too. Everyone should stop trying to argue that it has to be one way or the other. When Necrology is a science, you will have a point.
ArcTan 07-09-07, 04:30 AM	I know what it means, and the phrase is not the end-all definition. But this is D&D, how often has it stuck with the historical context? There's historical context and there's present-day context. Unless you played D&D 3.0, no *modern* fantasy fan thinks of "necromancy" when they think of healing. Necromancy, in modern fantasy terminology, means animating undead and drinking the blood of the innocent and generally being an unpleasant person.
ArcTan 07-09-07, 04:32 AM	Paladin of Wee Jas, your theory fails. It's not a "theory", it's a possible idea for a campaign. I hate that people keep on trying to get at the "real truth" about necromancy based on D&D rules when it's all arbitrary and anyone can do as they like. It just makes me more and more determined to run a campaign where all magic of any kind is inherently Evil (in the grand style of Call of Cthulhu). A campaign of which James Dobson and Jack Chick would approve -- and which would be a lot of fun, in my mind, restoring some of the frisson of "forbidden knowledge" to magic.
caeruleus 07-09-07, 12:43 PM	It's not a "theory", it's a possible idea for a campaign. Glad someone understands this. I wonder how many more times I'll be needing to say in this thread that I'm not arguing that it should be one way, but that it could be either way.
Kursk 07-09-07, 08:27 PM	Why Cant Wizards be Healers?? Why can't fighters cast wizard spells?
Count Arioch the 28th 07-09-07, 08:33 PM	-balance: do we really think having self-healing wizards isn't broken?clerics are thought as supporters Anyone who is experienced in game design knows that a wizard healing is not broken. The fact that there's some form of magic that a cleric can do that a wizard can't despite the fact that clerics are a superior class in general means that clerics ARE broken. Fact of the matter is, the fact that clerics have healing and better buff spells makes them overpowered compared to wizards. And clerics aren't thought of a supportes. Clerics are warriors, plain and simple. They CAN support other party members, but they're the superior melee combat class, and are even decent archers.
TheDarkLord 07-09-07, 08:40 PM	Anyone who is experienced in game design knows that a wizard healing is not broken. The fact that there's some form of magic that a cleric can do that a wizard can't despite the fact that clerics are a superior class in general means that clerics ARE broken. Fact of the matter is, the fact that clerics have healing and better buff spells makes them overpowered compared to wizards. Anmd cleric saren't thought of a supportes. Clerics are warriors, plain and simple. They CAN support other party members, but they're the superior melee combat class, and are even decent archers. Eh, clerics are superior up until about 17th level using core only. But after 17th level, melee doesn't matter. Splatbooks go along way in making the Cleric The most powerful class though.
EvilIdiot 07-10-07, 07:38 AM	Anyone who is experienced in game design knows that a wizard healing is not broken. broken compared to an optimized cleric? nothing is broken compared to that. The fact that there's some form of magic that a cleric can do that a wizard can't despite the fact that clerics are a superior class in general means that clerics ARE broken. so you can break the game with a cleric just because a wizard can't cast some of his spells? I believe you can break the game with a cleric because he's a cleric. Outside specific domains,splatbooks and combos, wizards have lots of spells clerics can't cast. Fact of the matter is, the fact that clerics have healing and better buff spells makes them overpowered compared to wizards. Divine magic is (in d&d at least) meant for healing, among other things And clerics aren't thought of a supportes. Clerics are warriors, plain and simple. They CAN support other party members, but they're the superior melee combat class, and are even decent archers. If they want to optimize themselves and use the same trick over and over but, you know, a class has also a description in PHB: clerics are primary healer and defensive specialists; they can hold their own in fights but that's not their primary role. If you're in a world where clerics don't exist, wizards could heal, but their flavour should be changed a bit IMO; magic user who can heal have ,necessarily, communities and places to protect, their powers are given for that purpose, other ones do not IIRC.
hazhar 07-10-07, 09:28 AM	The OP, is right, it makes absolutely no sense from an in universe cosmology/metaphysics point of view. Wizards can cast negative energy spells, they should be allowed to cast positive energy ones.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-10-07, 09:52 AM	Divine magic is (in d&d at least) meant for healing, among other things Noy in a campaign with no clericas its not...
elondir 07-10-07, 09:59 AM	Echoing the arcane disciple feat comment, there is a Restoration domain in the Dragonlance Campaign Setting that covers spells like raise dead and resurrection. Unfortunately, there is no deity that has both the Restoration and Healing domain. However, if you created one that had both, you'd be in business, taking the feat twice for both domains. Really, though, if you go without clerics, why not just roll all the spells in the game into one huge spell list, and only have one type of magic? All classes would share the same spell list, just have varying rates of advancement in spellcasting abilities. It's the way almost all non-D&D RPGs do it.
JulesCARV 07-10-07, 10:13 AM	It's notable that the negative energy spells on the wizard/sorcerer list don't include anything like "inflict moderate wounds" or anything of the sort that functions as a mirror image to conjuration (healing) effects. For all we know, the wizard/sorcerer list already includes positive energy spells -- such as Disrupt Undead or Undeath to Death. Using positive energy, however, is neither necessary nor sufficient for healing.
EvilIdiot 07-10-07, 11:53 AM	Noy in a campaign with no clericas its not... Sure, last two sentences of my previous post addressed that;I'd say we all should specify whether we're talking in general D&D terms or just considering your campaign (title doesn't help that much though) :tiphat:
Adrez Nesnsid 07-10-07, 02:55 PM	Sure, last two sentences of my previous post addressed that; Well I Know that, and YOU, know that, but other people in this thread might've missed it. I wouldn't put it past them...
EvilIdiot 07-10-07, 03:59 PM	<deleted>
Wyvern76 07-11-07, 11:48 AM	Mostly it just makes more sense to me to have the casters identical spell wise, with the difference being how it's done. Then a player can pick a theme and run with it, without being hampered by, "This would be a kickass spells for my weather mage, but I have to be a druid to cast it."Unless you want a setting where there's only one type of spellcaster, this strikes me as a bad idea -- not for balance reasons, but for flavor reasons. I always thought it was lame that mages and shamans in Shadowrun had exactly the same spell list despite being supposedly completely different in the way they used magic. If you want your wizard to cast a particular spell that's not on his list, that's grounds for a house rule, not completely eliminating spell lists. Really, though, if you go without clerics, why not just roll all the spells in the game into one huge spell list, and only have one type of magic? All classes would share the same spell list, just have varying rates of advancement in spellcasting abilities. It's the way almost all non-D&D RPGs do it.Really? WFRP doesn't, nor does Witchcraft, nor Earthdawn, nor Alternity, nor Ironclaw. Mage does, sort of, but the point of Mage is that anyone can do anything with magic if they believe they can. Outside of Shadowrun, can you name any non-generic game with *different* types of spellcasters that share the same list? And clerics aren't thought of a supportes. Clerics are warriors, plain and simple. They CAN support other party members, but they're the superior melee combat class, and are even decent archers.Only if they're not busy healing. In my current game I'm playing a druid, but if there's no cleric present I hardly ever get to do any actual fighting because I'm too busy healing the rest of the party (with a borrowed wand). In any case, the pertinent question is whether allowing wizards to heal makes them overpowered, not whether it makes clerics underpowered. Maybe the answer is no, but that doesn't mean the question's not worth asking. I think the real reason why wizards don't cast healing spells, though, is niche protection. Wyvern
Ront Iron-Roar 07-12-07, 04:28 AM	Because King Boranel said they couldn't...
Gemstone 07-13-07, 07:28 AM	Personally, my current rationale for the idea of conjuration (healing) is that the most common reason why hit point loss kills characters in D&D in terms of "real world" reasoning is blood loss/shock, and Cure Serious Wounds, in addition to sealing wounds, creates a bunch of blood in the target's depleted circulatory system. Of course, that doesn't really explain how, say, remove disease is conjuration, but what the heck. It creates anti-bodies that manages the infection?
Johnny_Angel 07-14-07, 08:13 AM	I'm not sure what other books you have available to you, but -if you want a rules supported way to do- there are a few ways to do it. feats: I think Arcane Disciple from Complete Divine allows you to pick a domain that you can cast spells from; just pick the healing domain. In game terms you could say it was a wiz/sorc who learned to use the healing school of spells. classes: While it's not exactly a wizard, the archivist is very similar and casts divine spells instead of arcane spells. They cast their spells out of a prayer book or religious text (reflavored spell book.) Replace the cleric with the archivist.
Ouranos Harpy 07-14-07, 09:28 AM	Light of Venya from Manual of the Planes is an arcane spell that lets you heal. I apologize if someone has already mentioned it.
420 07-14-07, 03:18 PM	Light of Venya from Manual of the Planes is an arcane spell that lets you heal. It's in Planar Handbook not MotP. And it seems to be both an arcane and divine spell as it can be cast by clerics, wizards and sorcerers. -420
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-14-07, 05:18 PM	Light of Venya from Manual of the Planes is an arcane spell that lets you heal. I apologize if someone has already mentioned it. It's there; it's not all that great compared to, say, the Cure spell for its level, in fact, it's mainly supposed to harm.
lord_xarallon 07-14-07, 08:29 PM	Wizards can be healers. Even without changing anything. Take a look at this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12510675&postcount=24) I made.