Why can't Wizard cast healing spells


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
"Because that is how creation made it. Sometimes the answer to 'why?' Is 'because'.

'Because' is an acceptable answer when we have no control over our circumstances. When a war vet comes back suffering from survivor's guilt, wondering why he lived while his buddy died, 'because' is acceptable because there is no meaningful answer.

When a kid asks "Why does gravity work?", 'because' is an acceptable answer because we don't know the real one.

But when it comes to arbitrary restrictions in a game about options, 'because' is just a cop-out.

Except its the answer to half the rules in the game. It's the answer to half the rules in ANY game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
"Because that is how creation made it. Sometimes the answer to 'why?' Is 'because'.

'Because' is an acceptable answer when we have no control over our circumstances. When a war vet comes back suffering from survivor's guilt, wondering why he lived while his buddy died, 'because' is acceptable because there is no meaningful answer.

When a kid asks "Why does gravity work?", 'because' is an acceptable answer because we don't know the real one.

But when it comes to arbitrary restrictions in a game about options, 'because' is just a cop-out.

All answers are arbitrary. Make up one for your game world if you absolutely must. My answer is that the God of Magic decided it would be so, in order to ensure that Wizards would always have something that kept them humble by forcing them to rely on others for that lack. Mystra in her early incarnation, is said to have rewritten the laws of magic so that no one would be able to repeat the act of Karse who acheived godhood with a single spell. (and nearly destroyed the world in the process of doing so.)

This question can be more properly asked as "Why should he?" And "Because magic" is just as much a cop-out argument.


Because that's how it is


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Hi Captain Morgan! I've already addressed most of your concerns, so I'm just going to copy-paste my earlier posts:

Captain Morgan wrote:
Pathfinder is a game before it is a set of fluff text or lore. Wizards are already the most overpowered class in the game with the biggest toolbox of options. Why do they need more?
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

With all the things that wizards can do, you're worried that healing will cause balance problems? Really, no joke?

...I think that when it comes to the wizard (and other full casters to varying degrees), the genie is already out of the bottle. Refusing to polish away the last bit of dusty patina on the lamp won't get the genie back in -- it just makes an empty lamp uglier.

________________________________________________________

Captain Morgan wrote:
Clerics, by contrast, get a weaker spell list and a much more restrictive set of role-playing guidelines. (Seriously, alignment alone is a thing, but when you factor in specific deity worship for specific domains...)

Setting aside for a moment that factoring role playing restrictions into balance concerns is not really a thing anymore, and for good reason...I don't think that the cleric's restrictions were ever meant to counterbalance the class, even in the game's early days when people thought that that actually worked. The cleric's restrictions are pretty loose, and I've literally never seen them come up in play.

_________________________________________________________
Captain Morgan wrote:
Alternatively, you can make all the classes functionally the same, but so many people hate 4e that I don't know if that is a good idea.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If we're talking about a massive sytem overhaul, I won't argue against going the other way. 4e went that way, and it turned out great! Every class has its own flavor and niche (aka role), and there's a nice balance between the structure of a class-based game and the freedom to play the character one
...

Hello Tequila Sunrise. I guess this comes down to a fundamental difference in opinion. You seem to believe that once the game becomes unbalanced it should just embrace that and go all the way, where I believe one should try and rebalance things a bit. Some people clearly believe that the wizard should be able to heal, but it seems to me the majority of players disagrees with you, since you can't find a DM who will let you cast Arcane Cure Spells. This doesn't mean the majority is right, but to an extent table top gaming is about consensus reality... It is only as much fun as the group believes it to be.

Whether it is an appeal to balance, tradition, creator intent, or some bit of fluff, people don't seem to like wizards healing. If you want to test it out, feel free to start a game where wizards heal. I honestly can't see it making that much of a difference when a wizard can just brew heal potions, and distributing potions among party members is probably a better way to let people heal themselves when necessary.

So is wizards healing a huge deal? No. Is wizards healing going to improve the game? I really doubt it. Honestly, I don't care if the fluff says wizards can do anything, I would rather take a lower tiered class and give them a class feature that lets them heal people more on a Heal check or something.


It's far from the most spectacular or difficult thing a Wizard can do.

Plus, Wizards can already heal, via the Infernal Healing spells, or by using various methods of poaching heal spells from other lists (Samsaran, Magaambyan Arcanist, etc) or simply by summoning creatures with healing SLA's.

On the other hand, when given the ability to add some spells to their already considerable list, how many Wizards would actually choose healing spells? In-combat healing is generally considered a waste (it's not an MMO, you will not outheal incoming damage, so keep up the offense). Out of combat, save your spells for ability damage and rub yourself with the healy stick if you need HP.

I'd still withhold healing from Wizards out of principle: They do not need any more treats than they already have. Were that not the case, I'd let them have it simply because it does not make sense for them not to.

I would take it out of Conjuration, however; Conjuration is already the most powerful and versatile school. I'd give it back to Necromancy (mastery over the powers of life and death) or to Evocation (evoking Positive Energy the same way as evoking fire, force, etc).


Here is another thing I have been thinking about when it comes Arcane spells.

How come with Protection from Energy you can't do Positive and Negative? They are forms of energy and it seems like you would to have either or both (depends on if your undead or not)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fencer_guy wrote:

Here is another thing I have been thinking about when it comes Arcane spells.

How come with Protection from Energy you can't do Positive and Negative? They are forms of energy and it seems like you would to have either or both (depends on if your undead or not)

Protection from Energy is an elemental based spell. Positive and Negative aren't elements.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Hello Tequila Sunrise. I guess this comes down to a fundamental difference in opinion. You seem to believe that once the game becomes unbalanced it should just embrace that and go all the way, where I believe one should try and rebalance things a bit.

I actually do believe that some balance is better than none -- in fact I frequently call others out for expressing the "No game can be perfectly balanced, so why try?" sentiment. I just happen to think that healing adds so little to the wizard -- and other generalist caster classes -- that the gain in fun (harmony of fluff and crunch, being able to play a white mage) outweighs the utterly negligible loss of balance. After all, giving more casters the ability to heal mostly just means that there are more PCs who can use wands of cure light wounds after combat.

Now if we were talking about a system overhaul in which casters got a massive power/versatility reduction, I might consider withholding healing a worthwhile restriction. But in such a case, I'd expect to see a complete absence of generalist casters in favor of thematic specialists. (Like the summoner, the 3.5 beguiler and warmage, etc.)

Captain Morgan wrote:
Some people clearly believe that the wizard should be able to heal, but it seems to me the majority of players disagrees with you, since you can't find a DM who will let you cast Arcane Cure Spells. This doesn't mean the majority is right, but to an extent table top gaming is about consensus reality... It is only as much fun as the group believes it to be.

Oh, you're absolutely right. I don't know how many DMs actually think about why certain casters can't cast certain spells and how many just assume that there's a good reason for it, but the result is the same. All but one of the DMs I've encountered have been very resistant to toying with spell lists.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Whether it is an appeal to balance, tradition, creator intent, or some bit of fluff, people don't seem to like wizards healing. If you want to test it out, feel free to start a game where wizards heal. I honestly can't see it making that much of a difference when a wizard can just brew heal potions, and distributing potions among party members is probably a better way to let people heal themselves when necessary.

Except when they're unconscious and bleeding from a gaping chest wound, of course. ;)

And I actually am going to be running a one-shot soon -- if next month goes smoothly -- in which I'm going to encourage the players to take off-list spells. If any of the players take me up on it, I'll post our experiences.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fencer_guy wrote:
Why can't Wizard cast healing spells?

Me ask Troll tribe ancient wizard.

He say:

"Robust systems nimbly utilize new paradigms for sustainable content bucketization solutions. Transparent metamagic concepts seamlessy resonate proactive empowerment. But cross-platform multi-tasking paradigms flounder with closure going forward. Synergy holistically repurposes the net-net actualization initiative aspiring to push the double-down envelope benchmark traction quality."

Me think me INT too low for more talk here.

High INT Trolls worst.


RDM42 wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
But when it comes to arbitrary restrictions in a game about options, 'because' is just a cop-out.
Except its the answer to half the rules in the game. It's the answer to half the rules in ANY game.

Really? So if the rules of the game said that you have to hop up and down on one leg three times while gulping Mountain Dew before every d20 roll, you'd be okay with it 'just because'?

I posit that the ideal answer to every 'why?' rule question is 'Because it makes the game more fun.' No game is perfect, and mistakes are made, but that is the goal of any game rule. So when a rule is found to not be fun, 'just because' is a cop-out answer.

You're probably thinking right now "But TS, I do think that the healing restriction is fun!" And I respect that. I just don't grok how tradition (or as Atarlost pointed out, the game's faux-tradition) is a self-justifying exercise for folks like you.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


a bunch of BS about why wizards shouldn't have any boundaries

Why bother to play the game past character creation, if the Wizard character auto-wins the game as soon as he declares that he's playing a wizard?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
By the fluff text, wizards should be potentially able to learn any spell given the limit of class and spell levels.

GIVEN THE LIMIT OF CLASS

GIVEN THE LIMIT OF CLASS

GIVEN THE LIMIT OF CLASS

Hey, maybe one of the limits of the class is that they don't get to have healing spells.


LazarX wrote:


All answers are arbitrary.

Sure, if you ask enough 'why?' questions about any topic, eventually you're left with 'Because of the Big Bang.' But when the first and only answer you can jump to is 'just because,' or some after-the-fact justification...that just doesn't cut it for people like me. Especially when the question involves a game that some writer or group of writers has complete control over.

LazarX wrote:
Make up one for your game world if you absolutely must.

I'd rather house rule it, thanks.

LazarX wrote:
My answer is that the God of Magic decided it would be so, in order to ensure that Wizards would always have something that kept them humble by forcing them to rely on others for that lack. Mystra in her early incarnation, is said to have rewritten the laws of magic so that no one would be able to repeat the act of Karse who acheived godhood with a single spell. (and nearly destroyed the world in the process of doing so.)

FYI, Karsus achieved godhood despite being unable to heal -- in fact he didn't even have access to infernal healing or any of PF's loophole options.

LazarX wrote:
This question can be more properly asked as "Why should he?" And "Because magic" is just as much a cop-out argument.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
That is essentially what magic is. It's imagination made real within the game world. And according to the fluff, wizards are the masters of it, potentially able to achieve any magical effect.

The OP question is specifically about wizards, but I'd actually expand this idea to all generalist casters, FWIW.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:


Hey, maybe one of the limits of the class is that they don't get to have healing spells.

Talk about a meaningless limit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
By the fluff text, wizards should be potentially able to learn any spell given the limit of class and spell levels.

GIVEN THE LIMIT OF CLASS

GIVEN THE LIMIT OF CLASS

GIVEN THE LIMIT OF CLASS

Hey, maybe one of the limits of the class is that they don't get to have healing spells.

Here, let me add a word that I thought was pretty clearly implied...

Given the limit of class LEVEL

My bad for assuming you would get that.

Kthulhu wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


a bunch of BS about why wizards shouldn't have any boundaries
Why bother to play the game past character creation, if the Wizard character auto-wins the game as soon as he declares that he's playing a wizard?

I'm getting mighty tired of strawmen.


Aroden might still be alive if he had healing spells;)

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:


Hey, maybe one of the limits of the class is that they don't get to have healing spells.
Talk about a meaningless limit.

Well, when it becomes obvious that the developers don't really give a damn about balance, you take what you can get.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Well, when it becomes obvious that the developers don't really give a damn about balance, you take what you can get.

You've been taking it for decades then. :D


Personally I think all non-martial classes should have d8 HD and 3/4 base attack bonus. Also I think no class should have less then 4+int skill points and get ranks in one(or two) craft, profession, and/or perform skill(s) for free.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.

And a puppy!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
[The OP question is specifically about wizards, but I'd actually expand this idea to all generalist casters, FWIW.

What exactly is a generalist caster? It can't be the bard, because he does have access to healing. Not the sorcerer, because at least one bloodline, Celestial gives the sorcerer a healing option. Not the witch for the same reasons as the bard and even more so.

The only arcane caster who seems fully cut out are the magi and wizards, and an argument has not been made that these classes need a buff, especially this one.


An excellent example of a generalist caster would be the Magister.

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Fencer_guy wrote:

Here is another thing I have been thinking about when it comes Arcane spells.

How come with Protection from Energy you can't do Positive and Negative? They are forms of energy and it seems like you would to have either or both (depends on if your undead or not)

Protection from Energy is an elemental based spell. Positive and Negative aren't elements.

I would disagree with this one part. The six inner planes include both the traditional 4 elements, and the positive and negative. Obviously these forces are all related to how the world functions in game terms.

However, I am definately against having wizards cast healing spells. There is no point to different caster classes really if all classes cast all spells.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Democratus wrote:

An excellent example of a generalist caster would be the Magister.

That's not a Paizo class, and we're not in the 3rd party homebrew forum. Else we can start talking about the entire content of the 3.5 netbooks, the PathfinderDB site, etc.


phantom1592 wrote:


This is an explanation... but I would question calling it a GOOD explanation :P

Honestly, I've always liked Bards as the Jack-of-all-trades type. The idea that they've wandered around and collected a bit from everyone is pretty awesome.

However... not THAT.

I can see some of the sound spells that wizards would never really miss... because it's thematic for Bards. But the idea that they could 'learn' an arcane version of Heal... when Wizards can not seems off.
Again, its a change in Pathfinder to 'mix' the spells. I prefer when it was 'Arcane.... and Divine' none of these fancy 'Class lists' for every single class out there. Just two. Arcane... Divine... If you want Divine, you get it from a god... If you want Arcane, you study it yourself.

If they had gone with some OTHER spells... like protection from Evil, or Bless or something that you could picture the Winchesters from Supernatural 'learning' how to keep the monsters away... I would have had an easier time buying it.

But 'learning' how to do such an awesome ability as 'heal with magic'... shouldn't have been in the 'jack of all trades' catagory.

Again, I really have no problem with wizards NOT getting it... more that someone ELSE is able to learn it and they CAN'T... Seems like a fundamental breakdown in the goal to give Bards cool stuff.

Well, again, I am calling out that they are not 'good' at healing. They only get cure spells, and none of the more complicated healing spells (heal, restoration, raise dead). They just get what is essentially first aid, and upgraded versions of it (which I kind of call into question, since those mostly exist due to the bizarre nature of leveling and hp. Having 12 hp left at level 1 is fantastic...but at level 20 it is near death).

So 'learning' how to tap a bit of positive energy (Which, for the most part, is all there is to a cure spell) is hardly out of the question. Just learning a bit of that would not be too hard in their already blended style (as I said, they already juggle a lot of disciplines). And wizards can't learn how to do it comes from the intense study they need in order to master the typical arcane spells (and taking the time out of that schedule would typically consist of a 'multiclass' into a divine class).

Shadow Lodge

Lincoln Hills wrote:
And a puppy!

Especially a puppy!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Democratus wrote:

An excellent example of a generalist caster would be the Magister.

That's not a Paizo class, and we're not in the 3rd party homebrew forum. Else we can start talking about the entire content of the 3.5 netbooks, the PathfinderDB site, etc.

We're not in the Rules forum either. In answer to a direct question, I said that it was an excellent example of a generalist caster. And it is.

In fact it provides a compare/contrast to the types of caster in the published Paizo material. Thus showing what a design philosophy that allowed all kinds of spells (arcane & divine) from a caster would look like.

Not sure how playing forum police is helping the topic.

Liberty's Edge

IN CHARACTER
Arcane magic and divine magic are fundamentally different. They have different sources, they work differently and their practitioners have different goals and purposes.

OUT OF CHARACTER
It's a game. Those are the rules of the game. You might as well ask, "Why can the King move only one square?" The original AD&D books stated quite emphatically that the "rules" therein presented were meant to be guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules. If a given rule does not suit you, abolish or change it. That is how the game is intended to work.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Great, now I can't help wondering about other imponderables, such as "Why do I have to go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200?" and "Why should I have to guess where the stupid flag is? Can't I just bombard his army while they're all lined up like that?"

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why don't fighters get an ability called Kill it with Awesome (Ex) ? Where three times per day +1 per level, they can just cause one creature to keel over dead, with no save?

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

They already get that, but the material component is a weapon.


I allow it as Spell Research, using Limited Wish and Wish as a baseline comparison.

Translation: cleric spell as a wizard would be Level +2


Usual Suspect wrote:
However, I am definately against having wizards cast healing spells. There is no point to different caster classes really if all classes cast all spells.

I guess you must think that different HD, BAB, saves, skills, and class features are completely meaningless then.

LazarX wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
[The OP question is specifically about wizards, but I'd actually expand this idea to all generalist casters, FWIW.
What exactly is a generalist caster?

Any caster with a powerful spell list that can already accomplish pretty much anything; or in other words, any caster class without a single thematic focus. So pretty much any full arcane caster, and possibly the half-casters too.

Heck, for next month's one-shot I think I'll throw the doors open to any caster!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Azazyll wrote:

Because the magic system in D&D is fundamentally based on notions found in Western legend and myth, inextricably bound up with Judeo-Christian cosmological notions.

I'm sorry the technical term for that is bullocks. I've played with a Midieval European based magic system in Ars Magica, and it's NOTHING like D+D. Gygax got the bulk of his magic ideas from Jack Vance's Dying Earth, and that's nowhere near resembling midieval myth.

There's no deep dark conspiracy or complicated reason. Fact is the game started out as Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Magic-User, with heavily demarcated niches. The Magic-User got the fancy blasty and wizardry spells. The Cleric got the holy smiting and healing type spells. The Fighter did the swordy thing and the Rouge stabbed you in the back when he wasn't picking your pocket.

I know that there are people who want the Magic-User does everything form of magic, but that flies in the tradition that dates all the way back to Chainmail.

Bullocks to your bullocks. You once played another roleplaying game, so that makes you an expert? Ars Magica is absolutely no more historically accurate than D&D. It's a dash of this and a dash of that, often with little regard for historical accuracy or even chronological feasibility. Even when it is attempting to stick to a realistic portrayal of medieval attitudes, it can't possibly hold a monopoly on the truth because there was no single real world attitude towards magic. If you knew absolutely anything about the subject in an academic context, you'd know that. Clearly you do not.

You'll note I was very careful with my words in my first post (far less so in this one, because you have shown yourself to be both rude and ignorant). I didn't say Gygax took the one and only approach to magic or miracles. He took a prevalent one. There are dozens, hundreds, and they can't be synthesized because they are contradictory. Did he draw on Jack Vance? Of course he did. And what exactly was Jack Vance drawing on, the wind? The more I have delved into both D&D and academic literature on magic and miraculous, the more impressed I am by how much effort and research Gygax put into his creation. Not that he was a slave to the historical reality - that would have been counterproductive and certainly would have seemed less realistic to a modern audience more inclined to believe hogwash like the Da Vinci Code than pick up a work of serious scholarly erudition. Anyone in the RPG industry trying to sell you a "realistic portrayal of historical reality" is lying to you, or too ignorant to know they are lying to you. We don't want the historical reality, we want a fantasy world that conforms to our preconceptions, which blend over 1500 years of history and half world of geography together and then blur it through a 19th century lens.

I'm simply pointing out that there is in fact a historical basis for the magic/miracle divide on healing spells. It is not solely an arbitrary game mechanic. There are of course counter examples because, and I know this may come as a surprise to you, MAGIC ISN'T REAL and therefore people have made up a lot of stuff about it over time, much of which is contradictory. But pretending that you know everything about the wide variety of medieval attitudes towards magic over the course of more than a millennium because you've played one other roleplaying game (or any number) is laughably ridiculous.


Theconiel wrote:

IN CHARACTER

Arcane magic and divine magic are fundamentally different. They have different sources, they work differently and their practitioners have different goals and purposes.

Except in Pathfinder they are not.

Honestly, its the bards that mess things up. Nobody is really asking why a wizard can't cast a divine spell.

THey are asking why Wizards can't cast the bards 'arcane' Cure Light.

Witches... I think they may have been another animal entirely. In my mind they are divine caster. Whether they get their spells from a extraplanar god... or an extraplanar demon... its a planar something or other. Such a fine line there that they could have easily been written up as a cleric subtype...

Bards are the weird ones. If they had listed something about them casting BOTH divine and Arcane... or claimed that their songs pleased various gods who chose to answer his calls without any kind of required devotions... then sure. that's an explaination.

/Shrug

It's just one of those oddities that I've taken some getting used to in Pathfinder.

Out of curiosity... was it that way in 3.5? I never played that one, but I'm curious who I should be giving the credit/blame for that change ;)

Don't want to keep saying pathfinder if it was just a carryover from the earlier version.


phantom1592 wrote:
Out of curiosity... was it that way in 3.5? I never played that one, but I'm curious who I should be giving the credit/blame for that change ;)

Yes, if you're looking for a blame target, you can blame 3.0 and 3.5 for that one. :)

The arcane/divine line was much more distinct in 2e, when bards didn't have their own spell list or distinct method of casting. In fact, bards cast like wizards in every way -- they used Int to cast, they used the wizard spell list, and they had to memorize spells rather than casting spontaneously. And oh, no spells for the bard until 2nd level!

(Because bards learn spells along their travels, and nobody has done enough traveling to learn a random spell until 2nd level, I guess.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been kicking around an idea for my homebrew setting that gives wizards a spell that can mend flesh, but not actually restore life or anything. It would require a Heal check to mend the wounded organs, muscles, bones, and flesh correctly. It would basically be like surgery, but with magic knitting the flesh, not stitches. It could never be as good as a cleric's healing though because the wizard can't actually restore life energy, only mend the wound, and the victim must still recover from the procedure. And it would take a lot longer to knit the rent flesh layer by layer.

Mechanically, I don't know how I'd represent that though. Restoration of hit points tends to mean that some life energy was restored. You could argue that the spell stabilize already does something like this. Like I said, it's still a work-in-progress.

But, as to the OP, this is one way you could give wizards some healing without breaking the arcane-divine divide.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Democratus wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Democratus wrote:

An excellent example of a generalist caster would be the Magister.

That's not a Paizo class, and we're not in the 3rd party homebrew forum. Else we can start talking about the entire content of the 3.5 netbooks, the PathfinderDB site, etc.

We're not in the Rules forum either. In answer to a direct question, I said that it was an excellent example of a generalist caster. And it is.

In fact it provides a compare/contrast to the types of caster in the published Paizo material. Thus showing what a design philosophy that allowed all kinds of spells (arcane & divine) from a caster would look like.

Not sure how playing forum police is helping the topic.

The problem with just mentioning the Magister is that you're leaving out it's context. Magic in Unearthed Arcana is also considerably weaker overall than Pathfinder Magic. If the Pathfinder spell list was dumped in favor of Unearthed Arcana's magic than I'd be a lot more comfortable using it.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a quick clarification - LazarX means Arcana Unearthed, not 3.5's Unearthed Arcana (or AD&D's Unearthed Arcana.) Confusing, I know, but we didn't name 'em. And while I'm here I'll plug Arcana Evolved (which is what they eventually renamed Arcana Unearthed) just so those of you who know nothing about it will check it out.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Why don't fighters get an ability called Kill it with Awesome (Ex) ? Where three times per day +1 per level, they can just cause one creature to keel over dead, with no save?

You been watching Kung Fu Panda, Kthulhu?

"My eyes! He's too awesome!!!"


I'd honestly say at this point the primary reason a Wizard can't use healing spells is a mechanical conceit. Pathfinder is the continuation of the 3.5 edition of Dungeons & Dragons, and its tropes are sourced in D&D. It was decided in AD&D's design back in 1978 that arcane casters couldn't cast healing magic, which Gygax and Arneson apparently felt was the sole province of divine casters. There's no objective reason an arcane caster can't cast healing magic, but you start to really blur the lines between divine and arcane casters once you open this door.

It isn't to say that there aren't current efforts (and there have been past efforts) to do just this. Kobold Press has released the White Necromancer into the Pathfinder universe at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/kobold-press-open-design/ white-necromancer This is basically an arcane caster with some healing magic and power over undead. They're a spontaneous caster, as well. Right there you've removed the primary limitation of a Wizard (they don't have to prepare spells, and they have healing magic).

If you're going to play around with the rules, I can't see there'd be much reason to worry about something not working properly. If you want to have a flat "spellcaster" class (i.e., a given character just has a wide-open set of spells to choose from) without the divine/arcane distinctions, you could consider just using a Sorceror spell progression and let players choose spells freely from the divine or arcane spell lists; alternately, you could use a point system (I know they're out there, I haven't looked at them), and then once again just use a spontaneous casting approach. You learn a spell, you have access to it as you need, within the limits of your spellcasting resources.

In fact, you could still delineate divine types from arcane types by perhaps imposing a slight tax on using spells from alternate power sources. Clerics and their ilk keep all their class features, as do Wizards and their related classes. A Cleric using a spontaneous casting model (Oracle) could cast an arcane spell they knew using two spell slots of the appropriate level, and a Wizard would have to do the same to cast a divine spell.

You'd have to play around with things a bit, as putting everyone on a spontaneous casting model like this largely necessitates the removal of either the Wizard or Sorceror classes, as the different spell progressions and methods of using spells are the primary distinctions. The Wizard pays a cost for having access to more spells by having to prepare them ahead of time; the Sorceror pays the cost for having more freedom in their spellcasting by knowing fewer spells.

Keep things like this in mind, and have some fun!


I'd keep wizards from having healing spells because it's unbalancing. Wizards are the strongest class specifically because of their versatility so adding more versatility would only make that worse. Since Bards are the issue, I see two solutions:

1. Ban bards or just their healing spells. Seems a little unfair to a balanced class that's based on a little of this and a little that style of gameplay but it's doable.

2. Come up with your own in-universe reason as to why Bards operate so differently.

Here's mine. As I mentioned before, Witches are easy to explain because they have vague, otherworldly force granting them their power. So perhaps bards are similarly empowered by a vague force that no one understands. The fluff on the class describes them as "possess[ing] an uncanny ability to know more than they should and use what they learn to keep themselves and their allies ever one step ahead of danger." Play them up as having an almost supernatural amount of luck and ease at picking up new things. They also get spontaneous spells without significant bloodlines like the sorcerer. The other classes that gets that are the Oracle and the summoner who also gets spells from a vague supernatural forces.

Summoners seem to get their power from the same place as their eidolon. The text says: "Over time, the two become linked, eventually even sharing a shard of the same soul. But this power comes with a price: the summoner’s spells and abilities are limited due to his time spent enhancing the power and exploring the nature of his eidolon. Summoners spend much of their time exploring the arcane arts alongside their eidolons. While their power comes from within, they rely heavily on their eidolon companions in dangerous situations." The battery may be from within but the knowledge is from without in my opinion.

The interplay of all or some of these forces and who they really are could make the basis of a great campaign. The witch is trying desperately to understand her black magic while the bard is just trying to enjoy what powers he has. Along the way, he finds out that he and the witch may share a same source. The wizard is intrigued and sees this mysterious "patron" as a potential ally or source of power. The cleric counsels them to put their trust in more established powers like the gods or at least empyreal lords. Meanwhile the fighter is just trying to hold everyone together as they delve further and further into the realms of mystery and magic.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Because aside from Infernal Healing, arcane magic isn't able to replicate healing. Even magic has limits, and one of those limits happens to be arcane magic not healing. Same reason why humans in the real world don't all fly and cook hot-dogs with laser eye beams, we are unable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squeakmaan wrote:
Because aside from Infernal Healing, arcane magic isn't able to replicate healing. Even magic has limits, and one of those limits happens to be arcane magic not healing. Same reason why humans in the real world don't all fly and cook hot-dogs with laser eye beams, we are unable.

This is a simple explanation, which is often going to be sufficient. If one is trying to apply some realistic logic to things, however, there's no practical reason why arcane magic couldn't replicate healing. It's powerful enough to not only animate the dead, but at its most powerful, it can enable the caster to literally alter reality according to their stated desire. Limitations on this are a practical function of game mechanics, not inherent limitations on the power source.

Arcane magic is the ability to produce a known effect through replication of known patterns. The arcane writings of one Wizard may differ enough from another Wizard's that the one who didn't write the spell down has to expend some effort to decode it, but at the end of the day, both Wizards are putting guano and sulfur together and casting Fireball.

Clerics are channeling the power of an extradimensional entity (their god); they're nothing more than a conduit. Gods are powerful enough to alter reality according to their spoken whims, and can enable their servants to do so. But one doesn't have to worship a god to use a god's power; gods can bestow their power on whomever they wish, whether that recipient is a worshiper or not.

It just isn't outside the realm of possibility that an enterprising Wizard may have done the research on how to use arcane power to close up wounds, or even restore life (and not just bestow undeath). Chances are, they wrote it down, and if it's written down, it can be passed along. I imagine such a Wizard would guard their knowledge even more jealously (I can't imagine the divine sorts would appreciate having their territory impinged upon, and may actively try to assassinate such interlopers in extreme cases), but most Wizards get the bug up their butt to get an apprentice at some point or another. The ones who don't are either fine with their knowledge being lost, or they're planning on becoming a lich.

The TL;DR version is this: the exclusivity of healing magic to the divine casters is a mechanical conceit, not one sourced in actual limitations of the given power sources.


And infernal healing is even a spell with the (evil) descriptor.
You behave like lennard when he wants to start his 3way chess.


Usual Suspect wrote:


However, I am definately against having wizards cast healing spells. There is no point to different caster classes really if all classes cast all spells.

It's not a big deal if all classes can cast all spells.

It's a big deal if all CHARACTERS who cast spells can cast all spells.

Merge the spell lists, but make the classes require specialization, so an individual character simply does not have access to every spell in the game. Clerics *only* cast spells related to their gods domains. Wizards have to pick one narrowly themed list at 1st level, and burn feats to get access to more lists.

Along with pruning the spell lists for problem spells in general, this would take care of that issue nicely.


Squeakmaan wrote:
Because aside from Infernal Healing, arcane magic isn't able to replicate healing.

Why do I get the feeling that if the PF team were to simply continue slipping more and more wizard-accessible healing spells into the game, most fans would be 100% okay with them because "Other than X, Y, Z, etc., arcane magic can't heal"? I bet after a few years, they could literally reprint the cure line into some splatbook as universal spells, renamed archmage's miracles or something, along with suitable fluff text, and nobody would have a problem with it, because by that point everyone'd realize how insignificant healing is in the balancing theatre.

Squeakmaan wrote:
Even magic has limits, and one of those limits happens to be arcane magic not healing. Same reason why humans in the real world don't all fly and cook hot-dogs with laser eye beams, we are unable.

Yes, because imagination made real within a game world and the limitations of real life biology are exactly the same. How did nobody consider this brilliant comparison before?!

*rolls eyes*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Because aside from Infernal Healing, arcane magic isn't able to replicate healing.

Why do I get the feeling that if the PF team were to simply continue slipping more and more wizard-accessible healing spells into the game, most fans would be 100% okay with them because "Other than X, Y, Z, etc., arcane magic can't heal"? I bet after a few years, they could literally reprint the cure line into some splatbook as universal spells, renamed archmage's miracles or something, along with suitable fluff text, and nobody would have a problem with it, because by that point everyone'd realize how insignificant healing is in the balancing theatre.

Squeakmaan wrote:
Even magic has limits, and one of those limits happens to be arcane magic not healing. Same reason why humans in the real world don't all fly and cook hot-dogs with laser eye beams, we are unable.

Yes, because imagination made real within a game world and the limitations of real life biology are exactly the same. How did nobody consider this brilliant comparison before?!

*rolls eyes*

Do you want to know the real reason wizards can't cast healing spells? It's because your GM won't let them.

Look at the rule book and the first thing you'll see is a note that you can do anything you want with the rule set. That includes giving wizards heal spells. If your GM doesn't accept that, especially given the crushing weight of your argument *rolls eyes*, then you have to take it up with him/her.

Does every change to the rules that you want need to be immediately implemented by the rules publisher? Even when there are just as many people that don't agree with your interpretation? Why is it that when you come up with an idea everyone else has to be forced to abide by it? Why don't you just eliminate all of the classes as they exist and rewrite them the way you want them to be? I did, and the group I'm in has been playtesting the new rules for a couple weeks now. And the best part is, nobody from Paizo has shown up at our door telling us to immediately cease playing wrong.

Is it possible you're just looking for a cudgel to beat any GM that doesn't agree with you with?


I've seen more than once people reference Harry Potter. Are we going to use crappy childeren's books as any kind of standard for how we view fantasy? Should I start referencing goosebumps if we get into a discussion of horror and vampires?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Silentman73 wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Because aside from Infernal Healing, arcane magic isn't able to replicate healing. Even magic has limits, and one of those limits happens to be arcane magic not healing. Same reason why humans in the real world don't all fly and cook hot-dogs with laser eye beams, we are unable.

This is a simple explanation, which is often going to be sufficient. If one is trying to apply some realistic logic to things, however, there's no practical reason why arcane magic couldn't replicate healing. It's powerful enough to not only animate the dead, but at its most powerful, it can enable the caster to literally alter reality according to their stated desire. Limitations on this are a practical function of game mechanics, not inherent limitations on the power source.

Arcane magic is the ability to produce a known effect through replication of known patterns. The arcane writings of one Wizard may differ enough from another Wizard's that the one who didn't write the spell down has to expend some effort to decode it, but at the end of the day, both Wizards are putting guano and sulfur together and casting Fireball.

Clerics are channeling the power of an extradimensional entity (their god); they're nothing more than a conduit. Gods are powerful enough to alter reality according to their spoken whims, and can enable their servants to do so. But one doesn't have to worship a god to use a god's power; gods can bestow their power on whomever they wish, whether that recipient is a worshiper or not.

It just isn't outside the realm of possibility that an enterprising Wizard may have done the research on how to use arcane power to close up wounds, or even restore life (and not just bestow undeath). Chances are, they wrote it down, and if it's written down, it can be passed along. I imagine such a Wizard would guard their knowledge even more jealously (I can't imagine the divine sorts would appreciate having their territory impinged upon, and may actively try to assassinate such...

I think the practical reason, is that it simply can't. Maybe people have tried and failed, that until you reach Wish level magics it just doesn't work.

101 to 150 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why can't Wizard cast healing spells All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.