Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheEvilBob 03-01-05, 02:06 AM	2.0 Clerics healed and wizards blasted 3.0 - 3.5 Clerics heal and blast, wizards just blast...(gross understatement but follow the logic) I was entertaining the idea of allowing our wizard access to healing magic, based out of the transmutation school for the cures, and was wondering if anyone else has tried this? I'm expecting a minor shift in the overall mechanics between the Wizard and the Cleric, but ultimatly I don't think that its going ot be all that significant, after all the wizard can't convert spells into healing spells so he will have to lower his number of offensive spells. TheEvilBob
Salla 03-01-05, 02:17 AM	I, personally, don't mind Arcane Healing. If you can boost their physical attributes, why can't you heal them as well? It's just another transmutation. If magic can do 'anything', why can't it do that? And it obviously isn't because 'the gods say so', because Bards are arcane casters and they get Cure Spells. Of course, I also once ran a game with no divine magic, so I kinda HAD to give healing to the Wizards, but that's neither here nor there. That said, it probably shouldn't be quite as robust as a Cleric's healing; perhaps using a lower scale, like Cure Light Wounds: d6+(1/2 Caster Level, Max 3pts) CMW: 2d6+(1/2 Caster Level, Max 5) CSW: 3d6+(1/2 Caster level, Max 8) CCW: 4d6+(1/2 Caster Level, Max 10) I'd leave Raise/Resurrection/True Res on the Cleric Only list, though I might port over the Mass Cures. Another option might be a feat like ... Domain Access (General) Prerequisites: Arcane Caster 1st, KN: Arcana 4 ranks, Spellcraft 4 ranks Benefit: Choose a clerical domain. The spells on that domain list are added to your spell list. You do not gain the associated Domain power. You prepare and cast these spells as normal for your class; they must be scribed into a wizard's spellbook, or selected as a spell known for a sorcerer. Special: You may choose this feat more than once; each time you do, select a different domain. A wizard may select Domain Access as one of his bonus feats at 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th level.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-01-05, 02:21 AM	There is not balance argument against arcane healing. The problem comes with the archaic flavor text supposedly placed on the arcane/divine dichotomy that is immediatly tossed out the window as the designed heaped generous dollips of power onto the cleric. The remainer of this thread will consist of putting you on the cross for daring to mention arcane healing. Personally, I suggest not looking at it ever again. As to possible implementations: - Straight: Just put the spells on the list. - Staggered: Put the on the list at +1 level - Altered/Weakened spell: Spells only convert damage to subdual damage - Sacrificial: Caster takes damage (real or subdual) to heal. Several spells that fit the later two can be found at: http://www.worldofere.com/magic.htm Rejuventate line, and Olveckia Raide are arcane heals.
Madmartigan 03-01-05, 02:22 AM	I like the idea of making the arcane caster weaker at healing spells (if you must give them healing capabilites beyond regeneration ;)). Perhaps, you can follow the guidelines for making new spells, where Cleric and Druidic spells that cause damage are less effective than an Arcane spell caster's damage dealing spells (sorry, I can't remember the page number off the top of my head).
Tenier 03-01-05, 03:53 AM	The feat Arcane Disciple from Complete Divine allows Wizards to chose a Domain just like the Cleric does. A Wizard that chooses the healing-domain has access to healing-spells, and with Spontantaneous Healer he can swap spells for cure-spells on his list. (Though Arcane Disciple requires the mage to worship a god with the healing domain, and have 10 + level of healing spell in Wisdom to be able to cast it.)
smrtgmp 03-01-05, 04:08 AM	There is nothing unbalancing about giving wizards and sorcerers healing. Since they recieve nothing but spells as class abilities, one could conclude that their spell list must be more powerful than those of the druid or cleric (who get more HP, better saves, better BAB, and class abilities in addition to their spells). Therefore, a wizard or sorcerer casting a healing spell is making himself less powerful in the process. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason to deny healing magic to arcane casters is tradition. Depending on your point of view, thats either the only reason you need or no reason at all. It should be noted that I don't think the sorcerer/wizard spell list is signifigantly more powerful than that of a cleric/druid (especially when you throw in domains and splatbooks). I merely said that for the sake of argument.
VolkorTheRed 03-01-05, 04:57 AM	Its purely tradition that makes the wizards not be able to cast healing magic. As i'm a very traditional guy, i'm wouldn't allow healing magic for my wizard players (except things like Simbul's Synostedweomer) , but there are many arguments why you could allow it. Basicly the only thing that wizards have an advantage in over clerics is the fact that they have some bonus metamagic feats and better blast spells, while the cleric has better HD, saves, BAB, some nifty blast spells too and can cast from armor. Seems a bit unbalanced on the first look. Its depends on the kind of game you play in, i think...
Heron_Marked_Blade 03-01-05, 01:40 PM	I probably wouldn't do it simply because the Wizard doesn't need any beefing up. Honestly, if you give Wizards access to healing, there will be no reason to ever play a Cleric. At all. Anyway, as soon as he hits 13th-level, a Wizard gains access to "arcane" healing. It's called Limited Wish. A Wizard with Limited Wish can drop Heals on party members (Heal being a 5th-level Adept spell). Lesser healing can be accomplished beginning at 1st-level through cure X wounds potions.
Nephlite 03-01-05, 01:59 PM	2.0 Clerics healed and wizards blasted 3.0 - 3.5 Clerics heal and blast, wizards just blast...(gross understatement but follow the logic) I was entertaining the idea of allowing our wizard access to healing magic, based out of the transmutation school for the cures, and was wondering if anyone else has tried this? I'm expecting a minor shift in the overall mechanics between the Wizard and the Cleric, but ultimatly I don't think that its going ot be all that significant, after all the wizard can't convert spells into healing spells so he will have to lower his number of offensive spells. TheEvilBob Book of Exalted Deeds has Prepared spells Wizards can learn that heal, but there is a drawback. Necromancy: Level 3 Healing Touch: take up to 1d6 damage/2 levels, heal target that much.(you decide how many die before you roll) Can be better thab Cleric healing, but you can hurt yourself alot.
tarkin 03-01-05, 02:01 PM	1) It is unbalancing to give wizards and sorcerors healing. Diversity is POWER, people. Sorc/Wizards have limits, and in exchange for getting more of the good attack spells, they have a limited selection of healing spells (False Life, Vampiric Touch, Polymorph, Limited Wish, etc.) In real life for example, consider a Cop, a Prosecutor, and a judge. They all have legal powers, arguably none is greater than the other, but mixing those powers creates a whole that is greater than the sum of it's parts. A combination cop/prosecutor/judge would NOT be someone you want to get into an arguement about say, is it legal to have a garage sale. 2) Giving it a PRESTIGE class is fine. It is not the same as giving it to Wizards/Sorceors. Prestige Classes are an order of power above a feat or even a regular class, and as such, can grant the abilities of a regular class. Obviously the regular class Cleric grants access to healing spells, so it is fine to make a PRESTIGE class that grants healing spells to wizards. 3) A mere feat should not do it, prestige class powers are greater than a mere feat.
VolkorTheRed 03-01-05, 02:03 PM	I probably wouldn't do it simply because the Wizard doesn't need any beefing up. Honestly, if you give Wizards access to healing, there will be no reason to ever play a Cleric. At all. One of the reasons i wouldn't allow healing to wizards too... :D Anyway, as soon as he hits 13th-level, a Wizard gains access to "arcane" healing. It's called Limited Wish. A Wizard with Limited Wish can drop Heals on party members (Heal being a 5th-level Adept spell). Good call, a person is never too old to learn :) But it costs XP though, which is always hard on a character... Then again, it beats the cost of a raise dead, i guess :D Lesser healing can be accomplished beginning at 1st-level through cure X wounds potions Thats true, but nothing beats the healing battery of a nice cleric, ofcourse :tiphat:
LukiLoki 03-01-05, 02:13 PM	Summon a Lantern Archon. That's your arcane healing right there.
VolkorTheRed 03-01-05, 02:22 PM	Summon a Lantern Archon. That's your arcane healing right there. :w00t:
eRaz0r 03-01-05, 02:32 PM	1) It is unbalancing to give wizards and sorcerors healing. Diversity is POWER, people. Sorc/Wizards have limits, and in exchange for getting more of the good attack spells, they have a limited selection of healing spells (False Life, Vampiric Touch, Polymorph, Limited Wish, etc.) In real life for example, consider a Cop, a Prosecutor, and a judge. They all have legal powers, arguably none is greater than the other, but mixing those powers creates a whole that is greater than the sum of it's parts. A combination cop/prosecutor/judge would NOT be someone you want to get into an arguement about say, is it legal to have a garage sale. Bah. I disagree. Vehemently. Is the Cleric overpowered ? They get spontaneous healing, decent blasting, a higher BAB and better armor (that they can cast in), and more spells per day and full access to their entire spell list at will without needing to buy their spells and pay to scribe them into a spellbook. Now you can either say Clerics are overpowered because they get all that, and therefore giving healing to some other classes can bring them all up a little closer... OR you can argue that the Cleric is perfectly balanced with the Wizard because the wizard has access to a much better spell list (even if he doesn't get access to all of it at will). For this to be true, every single one of the Wizard spells have to be better than any combination of Cleric spells, because to be balanced with them the Cleric gets all his goodies. If that's the case, then logically, giving the Wizard the ability to take one of these lesser (divine) spells, he will be sacrificing some of his power. So it will be a sub-optimal choice for the Wizard to memorize a crappy cleric spell instead of one of his own uber-spells. Now one can argue that the flexibility to learn healing spells is worth more than anything. However, one has to realize that the Wizard has far fewer spells per day than the Cleric does. So he gains very little. Without Spontaneous Healing (which would have to come from another feat - a very precious commodity), the Wizard has to sacrifice some of his powerful spells to memorize some 'emergency' healing spells. He just doesn't have the spell slots per day to waste on such things. Face it - giving Healing to the Wizard is not going to change anything but the traditions of the game, because the wizard just doesn't have the spell slots to devote to it. Even Spontaneous healing as a class skill wouldn't be that helpful because the wizard still has to buy his spells. It's a modest increase in flexibility that really wouldn't do more than free up the Cleric for even more powerful cheese :)
Heron_Marked_Blade 03-01-05, 02:53 PM	Bah. I disagree. Vehemently. Is the Cleric overpowered ? They get spontaneous healing, decent blasting, a higher BAB and better armor (that they can cast in), and more spells per day and full access to their entire spell list at will without needing to buy their spells and pay to scribe them into a spellbook. The problem here is that even with all that, very few people actually play a cleric. The only reason for anyone to play a cleric is for the buff spells and/or the healing spells. Take the healing spells away, and there's no reason to play one. The problem is that, no matter how many abilities the Cleric has, you can only take a limited number of actions in a round. And in most combat situations, that means the Cleric is healing each round. Besides which, the Cleric is clearly at a loss when it comes to cool spells that don't involve healing. A PC Cleric can either A) spend some rounds buffing and then wade into melee (meanwhile the other PCs have no HP back-up), or B) spend each round getting ready to heal a compatriot and move to where healing will be needed next. I am, of course, not covering every possible niche a cleric can fill in a party. But from what I've seen and read on the boards, these are the two prevalent Cleric roles. The Wizard is in no need of strengthening (diversity IS power, period). The Cleric is in no need of weakening. Let them be.
smrtgmp 03-01-05, 04:24 PM	Honestly, if you give Wizards access to healing, there will be no reason to ever play a Cleric. At all.You really think that? I actually think it would have the opposite effect. If the party wizard could heal people when the going gets rough, it would free the cleric from the responsibility, allowing him to focus on buffs and demolishing the enemy. Also, wizards would make terrible healers. Generally speaking, you need to stay close to the action if you are going to keep the fighters on their feet. Thats the last place a wizard wants to be. The problem here is that even with all that, very few people actually play a cleric. The only reason for anyone to play a cleric is for the buff spells and/or the healing spells. Take the healing spells away, and there's no reason to play one. I think the prevelence of clerics depends on the group you play in. Also, its been my experience that the reason a lot of people dont want to be the cleric is that they dont want to be the party healer. Spreading around healing magic alleviates much of this responsibility. I think giving wizards healing magic would actually make the cleric a more attractive class.
Aricandor 03-01-05, 04:27 PM	Ah, but doesn't the cleric already have great versatility, hm? And I disagree, the cleric IS in need of some weakening (as is the wizard however, but that's something for another thread). Now, I have given access to arcane healing, non-staggered, albeit for a prestige class (a mage of sorts, specialized in fighting undead), and he doesn't have access to Heal or Mass Heal. I also don't think it would be unbalanced to let wizards research healing spells (they also have a limited number of actions per round you know :)).
Heron_Marked_Blade 03-01-05, 05:54 PM	You really think that? I actually think it would have the opposite effect. If the party wizard could heal people when the going gets rough, it would free the cleric from the responsibility, allowing him to focus on buffs and demolishing the enemy.I can only see this happening if the Wizard happens to be out of offensive and/or combat-utility spells. A Wizard's time is best spent dealing large amounts of damage to large numbers of opponents. I can't see a Wizard preparing a Cure Serious Wounds in place of a Fireball, personally. Particularly since.... Also, wizards would make terrible healers. Generally speaking, you need to stay close to the action if you are going to keep the fighters on their feet. Thats the last place a wizard wants to be. I agree with this. However, there are ways around it once the Wizard gains the ability to cast healing spells. Consider what the ramifications might be when the Wizard crafts a Staff of Distant Cure, which contains 50 charges of Heal modified with Reach Spell. The Wizard can now blast away with all his offensive spells, then become just as effective a healer as the Cleric (more, since he doesn't have to get close to combat), who is now free to turn himself into a Juggernaut of Death.... I'm not suggesting that no DM should ever allow this to happen. However, I see no current need for it. I don't think the Wizard needs the added flexibility, personally, and if your intent is to alleviate the pressure on the Cleric to be a walking bandaid, we might as well give Fighters the Lay on Hands ability, or Body Adjustment x/day. That would also free up the Cleric to engage in melee. I think the prevelence of clerics depends on the group you play in. Also, its been my experience that the reason a lot of people dont want to be the cleric is that they dont want to be the party healer. Spreading around healing magic alleviates much of this responsibility. I think giving wizards healing magic would actually make the cleric a more attractive class. I can see this logic, and I do agree with you. So who comes out of this receiving the shaft (yet again)? The Fighter. We've just freed up the Cleric to be a better Fighter than the Fighter without worrying that the group will suffer for it. ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-01-05, 06:51 PM	Honestly, if you give Wizards access to healing, there will be no reason to ever play a Cleric. At all. Spontaniuous healing. A wizard with cure on his spell list still can't hold a candle to spont healing. Nor can a sorcerer because of his gimper progression.
TheEvilBob 03-01-05, 07:52 PM	Wow, I was really expecting to be crucified on this one and instead there is a rational discussion. Totally unexpectd for my posts... My groups always have clerics and occasionally have wizards. I generally get a warrior who wants to cast healing magic but doesn't want to be a paladin and they instead become a cleric. Overall my personal opinion is that a cleric is more versitile than a wizard and in my games this translates to more screen time so I tend to see more clerics. I tend to play somewhat vicious so it takes an experienced wizard to play in one of my campaigns and typically those players pick rogues or bards because of my playstyle. Typically by 10th level I'll have a rogue in my party with a wand of healing and a +19 total modifier in that ability. In skill checks (If I'm reading them properly) a 1 is just a 1 so he cannot fail without me assigning an additional penalty. With the right gear anyone can have a patented stick of healing at a reasonably low level, by 4th or so they have a very solid chance of success and by 10th its a given. I think that the lack of spontaneous casting is going to be the cincher on this one. The main advantage of clerics is the abilty to have their cake and eat it to. They can memorize all of their utility and combat spells and then convert the other spells over as necessary. That's a crushing advantage. I can see a wizard memorizing a big healer or two, but certainly not devoting significant resources to it. The Evil Bob
Heron_Marked_Blade 03-01-05, 08:05 PM	Incidentally, there are instances of arcane spellcasters being able to develop healing spells. The best example is probably Simbul's Synostodweomer, which allows the sacrifice of a spell cast the next round into 1d6/spell level of healing. The spell has been around for ages, most recently updated to 3.5 in the Player's Guide to Faerun. That spell is, of course, not Core. But it's not unfathomable to consider that some Wizards (masters of Anatomy and Biology) would have researched a spell that directs arcane energy into healing.
kliate 03-01-05, 08:32 PM	Polymorph. It's not much, but it does heal 1 hp/hit die (as per 1 night's rest).
TheEvilBob 03-02-05, 11:40 PM	Lesser Polymorphic Healing, a 2nd level spell Enter fluf text Causes a character to heal one hit point per hit dice. The increased versions of the spell would restore a few x the charcter's level in hit points. At first cure light wounds would be better, but as levels progressed this effect would eventually be superior... basically its a polymorph just to get the healing. The Evil Bob
smrtgmp 03-03-05, 12:15 AM	I can see this logic, and I do agree with you. So who comes out of this receiving the shaft (yet again)? The Fighter. We've just freed up the Cleric to be a better Fighter than the Fighter without worrying that the group will suffer for it. ;)The poor, poor fighter. Its a shame what happened to them. :nonono: Remember when they used to kick ass? Ahh, the good old days.
VolkorTheRed 03-03-05, 07:55 AM	The poor, poor fighter. Its a shame what happened to them. :nonono: Remember when they used to kick ass? Ahh, the good old days. yeah, that 3.5 power attack feat really sucks :D
Judging Eagle 03-03-05, 08:44 AM	yeah, that 3.5 power attack feat really sucks :D Don't you mean improved trip and improved grapple? >:3... Then again you don't really need improved grapple or even improved trip; just be a LOT bigger than your target. My LG wizard has grappled an enemy sorcerer's raven familiar, while the rest of the party was too scared and kept trying kill it. being 2 times larger than the bird made the GM really cringe when we rolled opposed grapple checks (+8 to my roll, -2 from str though). My LG fighter trips almost anything thanks to enlarge person. :dancin:
The_Ditto 03-03-05, 10:14 AM	The real shtick of the cleric is twofold: - spontaneous helaing and - combat healing .. that is, fast, effective, lots of hp healing in the midst of combat ... so he gets smacked on occassion? no big deal . he's got the HD and the AC to take it .. If you wanted to give Wizards access to healing .. I don't see a problem .. as long as you don't take these 2 points from the cleric .. Therefore, a spell along this lines .. might work .. (I emphasis .. might) ======================= Imbue Lifeforce, Light Necromancy Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 minute Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Fort half (harmless); see text Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless); see text When laying your hand upon a living creature, you reinforce that creature's life energy by infusing them with positive energy, effectively curing 1d6 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Fort save to take half damage. ========================= very similar .. but: - 1 min. casting time means this is not going to happen in combat anytime soon .. but it can still help take some "post-combat healing" stress from the cleric ... - Necromantic and Fort save give it a slightly different flavour than clerical healing. (I didn't think Transmutation needed any more spells ... ) - and slightly reduced effect - d6 instead of d8 ... the level bump isn't bad ... it helps it be useful. Not sure about others, but you leave it at just this one ... sure, wizards can heal .. but they don't have the full "flavour" or range of spells the clerics do .. That's an option as well .. :tiphat: oh yeah, and the material component .. make it something not too expensive, but a bit .. like 10 gp onyx or opal or something ... something a bit more than eschew materials can handle, so as again to prevent wizards from taking over clerics in healing ...
BigAlzBub 03-03-05, 11:34 AM	I wouldn't recommend just giving wizards access to healing spells, no real reason, I'm just one of those old school fuddy duddies that like wizards the way they are, having said that its fun to have players try and bend the rules of magic, such as bringing energy from the positive material plane, of course the patient would need a sucessful heal check first (or else twisted bones, ouch!), and might need to make a fortitude save afterwards to see if the energy has beefed up some normally "harmless" disease, but hey every new spell has a few bugs which need to be worked out. :D
Salla 03-03-05, 02:58 PM	I don't think that giving the Arcanists healing would make Clerics undesirable. Clerics get more HP. Clerics get Armor Proficiencies and don't suffer Arcane Spell Failure. Clerics get a better BAB. Clerics get better saves. Clerics get Domain Powers. The Clerical spell list is as good as, if not better than, the Arcane list even disregarding the presence of healing and Domain-Access-Only spells. Clerics get Turn Undead. Clerics get Spontaneous Healing, so they need never prepare a Healing spell. Heck, you could probably take healing AWAY from the Cleric and make it the sole property of the Arcanists and the clerics would still be more than playable. As has been stated before, the sole reason that there's no arcane healing (beyond the Bard) is tradition. And since I'm a very non-traditional kinda guy, I have no problem with Arcane Healing. People who think that a cleric is nothing more than a walking band-aid dispenser are delusional. :)
carnivore 03-03-05, 04:06 PM	Arcane Healing already exists......for bards at least. the spell "Light of Venya"(BoED) is a ranged spell that can cure 3d6 HP ,IIRC, and is a Sor/Wiz spell as well. Arcane casters can already get access to healing(thru domains, summoning creatures that can cast them) also they can use Wands of Cure xxx spells with UMD. :D
tiercel 03-03-05, 09:08 PM	One of my first thoughts upon reading this topic, one already echoed here but perhaps worth stating again, is that introducing/widening arcane healing will only make clerics stronger, not weaker. Many people feel that clerics are overpowered, and the only thing reining that in is the fact that they have to blow a significant amount of their spells (and, perhaps more to the point, their in-combat actions) healing. Free clerics of this constraint and suddenly they are free to use their moderate BAB, armor proficiencies, infinite free spell list, divine attack spells, self-boosting spells, Divine feats, and whatever to go a-smiting instead of being stuck every other round casting mass cure X wounds. Fighters are already an endangered species at the higher levels. Be wary of making clerics any better.
Salla 03-03-05, 10:35 PM	[QUOTE=tiercel] whatever to go a-smiting instead of being stuck every other round casting mass cure X wounds. [QUOTE] You know, I have *never* seen a Cleric do this? We always save the healing for after the battle (unless someone goes down), and discourage broadcasting one's remaining hit points (since they're an abstract concept anyway).
IceFractal 03-03-05, 10:49 PM	Indeed. Keep in mind that in battle, time is money. HP is not money, or at least not as much money as time is. Bad metaphores aside, in most circumstances its better (as in, faster victory, less damage taken, less risk of death) for the Cleric to buff up and go kick some ass. Healing can be done a lot more effectively outside of battle. Saying the Cleric needs to be more powerful because he "has" to spend his time healing is a falacy. Any party member, except possibly the CE ones, has to spend time helping the group. If we're going to boost the Cleric, maybe we should give the Fighter a 1d20 HD, because he "has" to protect the less combat-effective party members, like the Wizard. And maybe the Wizard should have double the normal spells/day because he "has" to use magic to help the party get past barriers and stuff. The solution to "nobody wants to play the healer" is not to make the healer uber-powerful, its to get rid of the healer entirely. If most classes have some healing ability and potions are cheap, no-one has to spend their time healing everybody. Put healing on the Sor/Wiz list, make potions cheaper, and distribute healing to the masses. Furthermore, the Cleric and Druid should really be toned down; removing Natural Spell and lowering either the Cleric's combat ability or their spellcasting ability would be a step in the right direction. And ditch divine metamagic, it's just wrong.
Salla 03-04-05, 12:12 AM	Indeed. Keep in mind that in battle, time is money. HP is not money, or at least not as much money as time is. Bad metaphores aside, in most circumstances its better (as in, faster victory, less damage taken, less risk of death) for the Cleric to buff up and go kick some ass. Healing can be done a lot more effectively outside of battle. Saying the Cleric needs to be more powerful because he "has" to spend his time healing is a falacy. Any party member, except possibly the CE ones, has to spend time helping the group. If we're going to boost the Cleric, maybe we should give the Fighter a 1d20 HD, because he "has" to protect the less combat-effective party members, like the Wizard. And maybe the Wizard should have double the normal spells/day because he "has" to use magic to help the party get past barriers and stuff. The solution to "nobody wants to play the healer" is not to make the healer uber-powerful, its to get rid of the healer entirely. If most classes have some healing ability and potions are cheap, no-one has to spend their time healing everybody. Put healing on the Sor/Wiz list, make potions cheaper, and distribute healing to the masses. Furthermore, the Cleric and Druid should really be toned down; removing Natural Spell and lowering either the Cleric's combat ability or their spellcasting ability would be a step in the right direction. And ditch divine metamagic, it's just wrong. Good points all. I've been in lots of groups where the person who chooses their class last gets 'stuck' with the cleric. Nobody wants to be the cleric because they're still stuck in the 'band-aid factory' mold ... though I'm hoping my last two are convincing them otherwise. ;) It bears noting that Natural Spell isn't quite so bad, as you can't use material or focus components when shifted, and Divine Magic got nerfed in errata, but I agree it's a little over the top.
Talchar 03-04-05, 02:16 AM	With respect to clerical power, I think 2nd edition had the right idea and with a few modifiications it would fit in perfectly in 3.5. When they had, was each deity had a portfolio of powers (called spheres, greater and lesser). Clerics of a deity would gain access to spells based on the deity's portfolio. Greater spheres=unlimited access Lesser spheres= access restricted to levels 0 to 3rd. One advantage to this concept relates to the Spell Focus feat. For clerics the spell focus feat does not really make sense, but a sphere focus feat would fit in well. More over, that would open up a new class of Metamagics that relate to a particular sphere. By limiting clerical access, this would cut down on a cleric being all powerfull in terms of having access to a huge range of spells and effects while not being constrained by armor. As for Wizards with healing, I would go along with a Prestige Class, with limited healing. I could see a subschool of Necromancy having some healing effects. Personally, I vew the vigor spells as a potencial target for arcane healing, maybe add a fatigue component to the character recieving the benefit.
HomebrewedMonster 03-04-05, 03:16 AM	A wizard can cast healing spells if he has: -Knowledge (religion) 4 ranks, Spellcraft 4 ranks, alignment matches your deity's alignment. Then you take Arcane Disciple (found in complete divine, pg. 79). You choose a domain and add those spells to your class list. Poof, you can learn, cast, and use magic items of the healing domain.
smrtgmp 03-04-05, 03:20 AM	With respect to clerical power, I think 2nd edition had the right idea and with a few modifiications it would fit in perfectly in 3.5. When they had, was each deity had a portfolio of powers (called spheres, greater and lesser). Clerics of a deity would gain access to spells based on the deity's portfolio. Greater spheres=unlimited access Lesser spheres= access restricted to levels 0 to 3rd. I think this is a good idea. Its one of many things I miss about 2nd edition (It should be noted that there are also several things I do not miss).
Oberoni 03-05-05, 03:12 AM	A bit off topic, but considering what this thread is about, the fact that this thread has remained pretty civil almost--not quite, but almost--gives me hope for world peace. Even posters who are against arcane healing, such as VolkorTheRed, are being really polite and reasonable. It's like I've stumbled across a message board in Bizarro World.
ManTimeForgot 03-05-05, 05:48 AM	Tarkin would be right.... If spellcasting classes were like fighters in that they could use their special abilities in an unlimited or nearly unlimited fashion. Cops, Judges, and Juries have effectively unlimited use of what powers they possess when they choose to exercise their power. However, wizards do not have unlimited use of their abilities. A wizard who prepares a healing spell is less able to function in the role of a wizard. Each healing spell the wizard prepares that is one less wizard-only spell that the wizard can cast. Now despite my assertions that the cleric is overpowered, never once will I say that the wizard is anywhere near useless in comparison. The party that lacks a wizard (or sorceror who choses mostly utility spells at higher levels) is greatly diminished in their high level survivability. Now in order to be useful to a high level party the wizard must be using his high level spells to help the party. If said wizard is using sub-par healing magicks instead of actual wizard spells, then either said wizard's player is a sadist who likes seeing the party spill more blood than it should or the character is poorly thought out in construction. Either way giving wizards sub-par healing spells cannot be thought of as a boon in any way shape or form. Which leads me to wonder why wizard players actually want said spells to exist in the first place? But to each their own. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
wonderland666 03-05-05, 05:53 AM	You can have a limited potential of healing as a wizards with you feats: Arcane Deciple (chosing Healing domain) MAgic of the Land (needs knowlegde Nature 5 ranks) --> make a Knowledge Ntrue vs 15+ Spelllevel, if you do, a spell you cast heals 2 Damage per Spelllevel in addition to it's other effects to the target, if you fail, the spell doesn't work. You can use that only in natural environment. (from races of the wild)
Elf-Killer 03-09-05, 07:44 PM	I'm a bit confused here... sorry if I missed something, but I'm looking at my MM and I can't see why would a wizards summon a lantern archon for healing... :confused:
Wizard 03-09-05, 10:35 PM	I love playing wizards(duh), and I really wouldn't be happy to see them get easy access to healing spells. I think a lot of overpowered-cleric problems could be solved by taking all domain spells off his normal class list---excepting the healing, of course. :)
DarknessEternal 03-09-05, 10:48 PM	Thy will be done...8 months ago. Planar Handbook Light of Venya - Sorc/Wiz 3 6d6 worth of healing.
Scarlet Knight 03-09-05, 11:20 PM	I'm a bit confused here... sorry if I missed something, but I'm looking at my MM and I can't see why would a wizards summon a lantern archon for healing... :confused:I'm confused too. Lantern archons can cast Aid, but that's definitely not as good as real healing.
Talchar 03-10-05, 02:43 AM	Under 3.0, you would never want to have a wizard gain the healing ability. If they did, you would never need any other character class. I had a high level wizard, that could in most conditions, out whatever, any other party member. In 3.5, that ability has be been lessened to large degree. Polymorph into a fire gaint, then cast maximized tensers transformation. With a contingent dispel magic in the event that you go below half hp to cancel the transformation.
Psychoray 03-10-05, 07:27 AM	Are there any other summons (summon monster spells only) that DO have cure light wounds or something better? (PHB/DMG only)
wonderland666 03-10-05, 09:00 AM	nop, they took Monsters with healing spells from the Sorcererlist in 3.5 (now the unicorn is only for Druids)