Well, on topic, but off the most recent topics...
Not exactly PF, but somewhat compatible, in the more recent versions of Castles and Crusades they made it so that there was an arcane caster that distinctly had the ability to heal.
The illusionist can cast healing illusions...and if you believe it...it's real!!!
Of course, if you don't believe it....
It probably wouldn't be that much of a stretch to somewhat adapt that class to PF.
i really want to see arcane spell failure dropped for arcane casters, because divine casters just don't care, and arcane casters that do wear armor, tend to have class features that enable them to outright ignore it for the armors they are intended to be wearing. but yeah, i don't like wizards that can't heal or remove conditions, both of which could be interesting additions to make necromancy a less frequently opposed school.
Well, on topic, but off the most recent topics...
Not exactly PF, but somewhat compatible, in the more recent versions of Castles and Crusades they made it so that there was an arcane caster that distinctly had the ability to heal.
The illusionist can cast healing illusions...and if you believe it...it's real!!!
Of course, if you don't believe it....
It probably wouldn't be that much of a stretch to somewhat adapt that class to PF.
LOL!!!
I could see that. Cast an illusion of a full Trauma unit with medics swarming the wounded like flies.... If you fail your save... why wouldn't it work :P
One of our sorcerers does a shadow magic spell that illusions... but 20% real if you believe it... Sounds very similar :)
As another example, in Eberron didn't Wiz/Sorc get those cure spells for constructs that would work at 50% efficacy on the living?
If I remember correctly, they didn't work on the living at all.
i really want to see arcane spell failure dropped for arcane casters, because divine casters just don't care, and arcane casters that do wear armor, tend to have class features that enable them to outright ignore it for the armors they are intended to be wearing. but yeah, i don't like wizards that can't heal or remove conditions, both of which could be interesting additions to make necromancy a less frequently opposed school.
Yeah, healing being in conjuration is one of those things that makes me roll my eyes every time I think about it. I still have no idea why 3.0 took it out of necromancy to begin with...maybe the 3e team thought that necromancy would be too good! :P
Well, on topic, but off the most recent topics...
Not exactly PF, but somewhat compatible, in the more recent versions of Castles and Crusades they made it so that there was an arcane caster that distinctly had the ability to heal.
The illusionist can cast healing illusions...and if you believe it...it's real!!!
Of course, if you don't believe it....
It probably wouldn't be that much of a stretch to somewhat adapt that class to PF.
That's downright hilarious.
"I've known Bob the illusionist long enough to know that I'm probably still bleeding from a gaping chest wound...but damn, it really looks like I'm healed!"
|
Well, on topic, but off the most recent topics...
Not exactly PF, but somewhat compatible, in the more recent versions of Castles and Crusades they made it so that there was an arcane caster that distinctly had the ability to heal.
The illusionist can cast healing illusions...and if you believe it...it's real!!!
Of course, if you don't believe it....
It probably wouldn't be that much of a stretch to somewhat adapt that class to PF.
That is awesome, I had to double check shadow conjuration to make sure we couldn't do that now. If only it had not said wiz/sorc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It baffles me how people turn such a blind eye to wizards/sorcerers. All these barbarians are OP type threads and when there's a discussion about the classes that already step on the toes of so many classes we want them to step on more toes and get healing bc it "makes sense"? And allow them full armor??
When people want to boost wizards its some logical conclusion to in-world continuity and people don't seem to bat an eye. If you suggest reeling them in some drama princess screams "I. Guess we can't have nice things!"
If anything I say bring back casting time and a different xp track for wizards. Casting time makes a dms job slightly harder but changes how wizards have to play. The xp track would advance quickly then slow waay down
We have casting times: immediate, swift, standard, full round, special. Most spells are standard action to cast. This is simple and easy to play. That is important because PF, in common with every one of its ancestral predecessors, is not realistic and makes no serious attempt at realism. What you suggest would not only slow down the game. It wouldn't add the realism you desire.
More to the point, adding new and tempting but suboptimal options to an already powerful class isn't strengthening that class. It is a disguised debuff for those that make use of those options. Which is fine. Wizards and sorcerers can stand plenty of voluntary debuffing before they become useless or no fun to play.
Even if wizards were given healing spells at levels exactly on par with clerics (and I wouldn't go that far myself), it would still be suboptimal for them to spend time healing, as clerics would still be better in the role (channels and much better ability to enter the dangerous environment of frontline melee to heal frontline fighters). Would some players do it anyway? Sure, because they liked the concept of playing a healing wizard. But in doing so they would be self-gimping their characters, because they'd be playing a role they are ill-suited for that other classes do far better when they could instead be doing what no other classes do as well. And that's if wizards were just as good as clerics at casting healing spells. If they were somewhat or considerably worse than clerics at casting these spells, guys like Treantmonk would laugh to scorn the idea that wizards should even bother. This would be especially true if those spells were in a school like Necromancy a lot of PC wizards specialists use as one of their opposition schools.
No, the one real alteration to balance wouldn't be from wizards casting these spells from memory. It would be from their ability to use wands and scrolls of low level cure spells. At higher levels, they'd still be essentially restricted to those low level expedients. And there are already (so I understand from reading the forums) plenty of parties that heal via item now. What would it matter in such a party if it were the sorcerer doing the healing? Oh, wait, it already often IS, via UMD. So even this isn't a big deal.
Bottom line, if a GM hates the idea because it doesn't match tradition, then it's not right for that GM's game. But if traditions never changed or evolved, we obviously wouldn't be playing Pathfinder or even 3.5 Ed. We'd still be playing OD&D (just plain D&D at the time) before there were most of the conventions we now take for granted.
It baffles me how people turn such a blind eye to wizards/sorcerers. All these barbarians are OP type threads and when there's a discussion about the classes that already step on the toes of so many classes we want them to step on more toes and get healing bc it "makes sense"? And allow them full armor??
Aside from Rin's opinion on removing ASF, I think when it comes to casters -- wizards in particular -- most people either 1) take in-game measures to arguably counterbalance caster power, 2) use house rules to arguably keep casters in check, 3) use gentlemen's agreements to keep the peace, 4) still don't think that casters are OP, or 5) have simply accepted that PF is massively imbalanced (and possibly don't care that it is).
As for toe-stepping, I've already commented on the balance implications of healing wizards. (I.e., the lack of implications thereof.) So I'll just add this: Are there any toes that the wizard doesn't already step on? He's already stepping on the cleric's toenail with things like infernal healing, and I'm having a hard time thinking of anything else that he's nearly as restricted in.
So while you say "Keep the genie in the lamp!", I'm saying "He's already out; let's polish the last bit of patina off that lamp so we at least have something nice to look at!"
If anything I say bring back casting time and a different xp track for wizards. Casting time makes a dms job slightly harder but changes how wizards have to play. The xp track would advance quickly then slow waay down
I'm of the opinion that the best way to fix casters is to fix the spells themselves. PF has already toned down some of the worst of them, but I think what's really needed is a solid set of guidelines for what a single spell can accomplish, and a straight-up rewrite of the spell chapter. I also don't think that wizards need class features or bonus feats in addition to their spells. They get access to a new spell level every other level and two new spells per level, so it's not like they'd suffer from dead-level syndrome.
But PF had to be 'backward compatible,' so here we are.
Going back to casting times and different xp tracks might arguably create more balance, but I think that leaving these kind of kludges behind was one of 3.0's great steps forward. Unifying xp into one track in particular allowed for what I'd point to as 3.x's greatest innovation -- a la carte multiclassing.
(I'm going to disagree with your assertion that 3.0 simply renamed the horribly restrictive 2e dual-classing rules, or the weird race-specific multiclass rules.)
Although the a la carte MC rules we ended up with are somewhat marred by legacy quirks (favored classes, class-specific restrictions) and design glitches (front-loaded martial classes), I'd never want to go back to anything like 2e. And I'm having a hard time imagining how a la carte MCing -- one of the things that really does make 3.x distinct and unusual in the realm of D&D and D&D-like games, and one of its most interesting concepts -- could coexist with separate xp tracks.
We have casting times: immediate, swift, standard, full round, special. Most spells are standard action to cast. This is simple and easy to play. That is important because PF, in common with every one of its ancestral predecessors, is not realistic and makes no serious attempt at realism. What you suggest would not only slow down the game. It wouldn't add the realism you desire.
I think that MattR is going for balance rather than realism with the casting time thing.
But you make great points otherwise!
the only class features a prepared full caster requires in addition to spells, is a low level spell equivalent they can use as an at will supernatural ability such as a scaling magic missile equivalent for evokers or a scaling low level healing effect for necromancers as examples. the only reason i suggest removing ASF is the equally powerful divine casters don't even have to worry about it, and it would remove the need for a niche action wasting feat for eldritch knights and arcane tricksters to gain the ability to wear armor.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*** but yeah, i don't like wizards that can't heal or remove conditions, both of which could be interesting additions to make necromancy a less frequently opposed school.
I do think it would be cool to have some Necromancy options for inverting negative energy spells into positive energy for healing and status removal. Kind of a call out to the original Dragonlance series where Raistlin inverts a powerful necromantic spell to have a healing effect.
Ya, I was referring to how there used to be casting times like it was the same # as the level of the spell. Thus If you were at initiative 5 (I think it went to 10) and then cast a 9th level spell, your spell would go off on initiative of 4 the next round. Low initiative I believe was good so this way worked fine, you just had to track initiative.
I kind of liked different XP tracks (yes it made it a little bit more confusing) but it recognized different classes were stronger than others instead of trying to balance them all the way 3.x did and 4e did. Wizards went from d4 to d6, went on the same xp track and largely kept spells at the same level. Fighters stayed at d10. The fact that everything went to point buy went to the Wizards favor also. He just needs to drop his points in Intelligence and voila. Before you would hope for an 18 but often ended up with a 15 or 16. And IIRC you couldn't even have an infinite number of spells unless you had a 19.
I also agree that not taking a good look at spells and just dumping the same spell lists over was a mistake.
Honestly, the streamlined Initative was one of my favorite things that changed when we moved from 2E to pathfinder. I never had much issue with the casting times, but I hated weapon speeds with a passion.
This 'roll' one time and just keep that order REALLY sped up combat and made the battles more enjoyable.
I'm pretty sure weapon speeds were just an option from the Combat Players Option book (or whatever it was called). They weren't mandatory from what I remember.
Nope
They were right there in the Players Handbook.
Though, honestly, The players handbook had a LOT of things in there that were considered 'optional'. Technically RAW you were dead at Zero. The hovering at death's door to -10 was an 'optional' rule... I just never knew anyone who didn't use it.
Look, I get the fact that full casters are very powerful. That whole Tier 1 thing wasn't made up out of whole cloth. There's a lot to it. However, in my experience they are often given extra power above and beyond what the rules make possible by GM's who don't want to seem as if they are too tough on PC casters and by many players who refuse to do what the rules encourage them to do vs enemy casters because it isn't as exciting for them to play on the weaknesses of others compared to playing to their own strengths.
Yes, wizards have d6/lvl hit points now, as opposed to d4s. And so what? The average opponent at mid to high level does a lot more damage/round than in the early editions of the game. But wizards are still boned if they are grappled or take significant damage while casting. In fact, Pathfinder significantly increased the Concentration DCs from what they were in 3.5 Ed. There are a few feats a wizard can take that will help, a bit: Combat Casting, Defensive Combat Maneuvers, Improved Initiative, etc. Unless said wizard has rocksolid confidence in the ability of his or her spells or minions or party members to keep enemies away, those are feats that had better be taken, too. That's a heavy feat tax just to make it so squishy casters are squishy, not fragile sugar icing that shatters at a touch. Except that, in too many games I have been in or run, players facing casters are more interested in showing off what they can do than in readying attacks to disrupt casting or making grapple checks. Then too, I can't remember ever SEEING a rogue stealing spell components--I've just read about it as something that can be done. And far, far too many GMs refuse to have their villains use Silence spells as the weapon they are because (I strongly suspect) they don't want the PCs using Silence tactics against their spell casting villains.
But none of this is relevant to the fact that it doesn't strengthen an already strong class to give it weak powers that can only be used at the expense of stronger powers. They might in some cases make the class more fun for some players who are willing to make that sacrifice. But displeasing those players is clearly no reason not to allow it.
What would be an excellent reason to disallow healing wizards would be having an explicit in-game reason why they can't in a given campaign. This reason should ideally accommodate the healing ability of witches and bards (assuming they even exist and CAN heal in said campaign). Something like "Healing magic is of the spirit, it cannot be understood by wizards or inherited as a birthright by sorcerers." This idea, or something very much like it, is adhered to by most of those who oppose the idea of a healing wizard. And that's fine, for their games. But it is not, as yet anyway, part of the official rule set.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
Thanks for bringing up the white necromancer class (which you can find in the New Paths Compendium).
I completely understand the desire to keep healing within the realm of the divine, and I'm fine with that for the most part.
However, since true necromancy involves tapping the powers of life as well as death, it really made perfect sense to give healing powers to the class, even though the white necromancer is an arcane class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't all clerics cast everything from the wizard spell list? Are we saying that it is beyond the power of the gods to let them cast Sleep, Mirror Image, Haste and Fireball?
Why can't all clerics cast everything from the wizard spell list? Are we saying that it is beyond the power of the gods to let them cast Sleep, Mirror Image, Haste and Fireball?
Personally, I'd love to see a variety of deity spell lists, rather than one cleric spell list that everything from 'CG wandering priest of thiefly deity' to 'LE cultist of secretive deity of world domination' gets kludged into. Like domain spell lists, but more. And yeah, deity spell lists would include wizard spells when appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing preventing a wizard from casting Cure * Wounds is original spell research.
(That, and hidebound GM prejudice with no basis of actual mechanics.)
It's always been the case-- all a wizard (or even a cleric, or any caster, really) has to do is design the spell and research it, as per the core rules on page 219:
A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.
But there are no specific mechanics, it's left to the GM's discretion, and so most GMs just say "wizards can't heal, because I said so." Cure * Wounds is already playtested, and its level is determined, you just have to overcome the prejudice of "that's the way it's always been" and then invest the resources to make it happen.
Personally, that's often a deciding question for me when I am picking a character for a new game. If my character can't perform original research, then I'll either find a different character or a different game. (Although I need to go read up on it to make sure, but I may just start playing theurges from the New Paths Compendium, and skip the whole question of what spells are off-list.)
-Ben.
The only thing preventing a wizard from casting Cure * Wounds is original spell research.
Sadly, few DMs seem to see it this way -- and with reason.
After all, if healing were simply a matter of spell research for wizards, surely some wizard at some point would have done the research already, thereby putting the cure spells on the wizard list, right?
The logical conclusion that DMs are naturally led to is "There must be a good reason that no wizard has ever added healing to the wizard spell list, so I shouldn't allow PC wizards to [successfully] research healing spells either."
Why can't all clerics cast everything from the wizard spell list? Are we saying that it is beyond the power of the gods to let them cast Sleep, Mirror Image, Haste and Fireball?
Well, clerics differ from wizards in having better hit dice, the ability to wear and cast in armor, better weapons, better saves, better BAB, usually more powerful granted powers, and a much wider spell selection. If they could cast the very best spells wizards have at the same level as a wizard, why play a wizard at all?
Contrariwise, more than counterbalancing the disadvantages wizards have is their decided edge in offensive (in every sense of the word) magics. People who enjoy direct damage or crowd control gravitate to playing wizards. Allowing wizards to have the strongest spells of any other class would absolutely make them more unbalanced than they already are. However, allowing them the same or worse ability to cast Cure spells as a bard would hardly strengthen the class, aside from those played by the small minority of players who are in games containing only one or two PCs, who can probably use the help. A wizard giving up the option to cast Fireball or Fear to cast Cure Moderate Wounds on his turn is a weaker member of a normal sized party (albeit by choice). Having an ability inferior to existing classes to cast support spells they cannot currently cast wouldn't strengthen wizards nearly as much as the power they will gain from whatever more "traditional" wizard spells they'll gain access to in the next book from Paizo (whatever it is).
|
I do allow PC research as a rule, but that does not mean that there aren't any limits as to what arcane magic can do, and that there are not set boundaries which wizards will never breach no matter how much time or blood they throw at the problem.The only thing preventing a wizard from casting Cure * Wounds is original spell research.Sadly, few DMs seem to see it this way -- and with reason.
After all, if healing were simply a matter of spell research for wizards, surely some wizard at some point would have done the research already, thereby putting the cure spells on the wizard list, right?
The logical conclusion that DMs are naturally led to is "There must be a good reason that no wizard has ever added healing to the wizard spell list, so I shouldn't allow PC wizards to [successfully] research healing spells either."
Which only reinforces his point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After all, if healing were simply a matter of spell research for wizards, surely some wizard at some point would have done the research already, thereby putting the cure spells on the wizard list, right?
Why should the rest of the wizarding world benefit from my wizard's hard earned coin and research efforts? It's not like all wizards have some hivemind of spells.
All it means is that the spell isn't commonly known and dispersed amongst the wizarding population.
-Ben.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't all clerics cast everything from the wizard spell list? Are we saying that it is beyond the power of the gods to let them cast Sleep, Mirror Image, Haste and Fireball?Personally, I'd love to see a variety of deity spell lists, rather than one cleric spell list that everything from 'CG wandering priest of thiefly deity' to 'LE cultist of secretive deity of world domination' gets kludged into. Like domain spell lists, but more. And yeah, deity spell lists would include wizard spells when appropriate.
This is basically my ideal spellcaster balance solution, applied to all the full casters. Sorcerer/Wizard should really be about 6 different classes with more narrowly defined spell lists and more diverse class features. Clerics of different deities should be as different as the current cleric is to the druid.
After all, if healing were simply a matter of spell research for wizards, surely some wizard at some point would have done the research already, thereby putting the cure spells on the wizard list, right?Why should the rest of the wizarding world benefit from my wizard's hard earned coin and research efforts? It's not like all wizards have some hivemind of spells.
All it means is that the spell isn't commonly known and dispersed amongst the wizarding population.
-Ben.
If Golarion (or any of D&D's default settings) existed in a very early era of wizardry, this might be a convincing explanation. But every default setting -- and indeed, every setting that I can think of -- is far from young. Wizards have been researching and trading/stealing spells for a long long time; so again, the natural conclusion is "There must be a good reason that healing spells don't appear on the wizard list -- they just can't do it."
Don't get me wrong; I'd love to have a convincing explanation that supports healing via spell research. I just don't see one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Healing is not and will never be a balance issue, this is solely about niche protection. A wizard who spends time learning healing spells is very obviously less powerful than one who focuses upon learning wizard spells.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Golarion (or any of D&D's default settings) existed in a very early era of wizardry, this might be a convincing explanation. But every default setting -- and indeed, every setting that I can think of -- is far from young. Wizards have been researching and trading/stealing spells for a long long time; so again, the natural conclusion is "There must be a good reason that healing spells don't appear on the wizard list -- they just can't do it."
Don't get me wrong; I'd love to have a convincing explanation that supports healing via spell research. I just don't see one.
Horseapples. It's so easy to snuff out information, especially specialized information like spellcasting, it's not even funny.
I'll give you three examples out of our own history.
1. The destruction of the Library of Alexandria. (dates vary)
2. The destruction of the libraries of Constantinople in 1204.
3. The destruction of the libraries of Baghdad in 1258.
In each instance, manuscripts and texts of rare knowledge were completely and utterly eliminated from the world. We don't have a full collection of the works of Archimedes (or many other famous authors from Antiquity) specifically because of how easy it was to destroy knowledge until the invention of the printing press. The number of books from before Gutenberg is surprisingly small. One of these books, the Archimedes Palimpest, was actually scraped clean and reused for an illuminated religious text before modern science discovered the lost classic beneath the newer work.
But heck, I'll give you an historical event in Golarion which could have easily resulted in the massive loss of accumulated knowledge:
Earthfall.
Spells of original research require instruction from master to apprentice (Pop quiz: Who was your last wizard character's master? Nine out of ten players I've ever asked at conventions or home games don't even consider this.) and that requires a sustained, extensive transmission through the ages to disperse the information enough to make it a commonly known spell. The amount of deaths in the wake of Earthfall had to be staggering. Given that priests were around before Earthfall, healing had to be available, and so it makes sense that cure * wounds was probably an uncommon arcane spell. How many wizards didn't survive the first generation after Earthfall? What spells would have been most useful for those wizards? Heavy combat focused spells for fending off bands of looters. Why not healing? Healing was easily provided by priests without research, and the commonly developed magics would have been those most useful for survival in the destruction and chaos following Earthfall--spells the priests were not so good at providing. The combat-heavy emphasis of arcane spells makes even more sense when viewed through the aftermath of Earthfall.
How many wizards die early through adventuring, banditry, or some other conflict? All it takes is one terrible accident for a spell acquired by original research to be lost into the ashes on the wind once more. What kind of accident? Why it could be:
* wizard dies before an apprentice is trained
* wizard killed by a rival trying to steal a spellbook
* a spellbook stolen or destroyed in an accidental fire
* a spell unable to be comprehended from a stolen spellbook
The spells commonly available are the spells which are easier for wizards, which are not generally available to divine casters, because you don't spend precious resources on spell research for spells the local priest can provide when you're living through the Time of Darkness. As the generations tick by, wizards become accustomed to not knowing cure * wounds, to thinking it's priests' work, so no one researches it because priests handle it, and it simply becomes tradition that wizards do not heal...and tradition is never difficult to overcome.
So yeah, there are plenty of good reasons why wizards might not commonly know cure * wounds in a world after a massive planetary impact and a terrible dark age, but not one of them is "because it's just not possible."
-Ben.
i really don't think the concept of Arcane Spell Failure in Armor should exist, because a lot of the arcane classes with like 3 Exceptions, can cast in armor without worrying by ignoring the drawback via class features, and really, the Armor Bonuses for a Wizard Casting in Plate Already have limitations in the Form of movement speed penalties and armor check penalties, which would hinder their ability to fly and alone, balance out the bonuses of armor, plus the Dexterity limitations balance out the extra armor bonuses.
in fact, giving wizards the ability to cast in armor without the risk of arcane spell failure won't do much, it will merely lower the need for dexterity, which will in turn, nerf their initiative and reflex saves, and at the same time, the idea of a wizard in Plate would have a reduced fly speed and a penalty on fly checks which would be an additional disincentive to wear armor, but at least we can have plate wearing Transmuters modeled after Alphonse Elric
in fact, we should break up the Wizard, sorcerer and Arcanist into like 6 Spontaneous Classes with Very Different lists and very different class features. all with a few at will abilities and some per encounter abilities
the Elemental Gallade, essentially a class similar in concept to the magus, but more versatile in weapon options with the inclusion of bows and 2handed weapons, and would replace the magus, uses Evocations, as well as Abjurations and Transmutations that allow one to buff themselfs, essentially a Strength Based Muscle Mage whom hits hard and fights like more of a warrior than a caster. uses the elements to make himself stronger in combat via a technique called Elemental Gestalt
the Arcane Puppeteer, essentially a Roguish class that uses illusions, enchantments and divinations, with a light bit of transmutation, focuses on pulling emotional strings and has some combat ability in the form of precision damage and 3/4 BAB D8 HD like the WarMagus. gets a handful of puppets and primarily focused on intellect and charisma and applying the two in combat, both by the sherlock holmes calculative method, and by use of marionettes
the Blood Necromancer; a class focused on Necromancy and Divination, D8 HD and 3/4 BAB, has healing ability, power over the undead, the ability to preserve one's self into a doll-like pseudolich and the ability to command their undead minions from the front lines by fighting alongside them, more Lich King and less frail sickly old man. healing spells are moved to necromancy. about as good at combat as an Expert or Bard, but has lots of scaling undead minions that while as fragile as lower leveled level appropriate NPCs, can damage the enemy viably. dependant on constitution and charisma
the Pact Binder; essentially a conjurer sans healing with the addition of planar themed divinations and abjurations, while low on direct buffs, this guy gets a planar cohort and is dependant on Wisdom and Charisma. can fight alongside their summons, and can bleed like a stigmata to make his summons stronger. has a pseudo cleric option, can dominate his summons and depends on both constitution and charisma
all these guys have limited spell lists, and would replace the Cleric, Witch, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer and Arcanist, Having a 1d8 HD, 3/4 BAB and armored casting, and 9th level spells. the magus, bard and summoner would need to be replaced as well though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Limited Wish?
limited wish and wish, as well as miracle and anyspell, are all spells that i would remove in the rebalancing of the new spellcasting classes i would propose but need help with.
I like the idea of just eliminating the Arcane/Divine spells division altogether.
Limit the classes in some other form. (Like say bumping the level of C*W spells by +2 for arcane casters).
Cure * Wounds is already playtested, and its level is determined
Really? What level is Cure Moderate Wounds? It's level 2 for a cleric, level 3 for a druid, ranger or paladin. Should a wizard be a better or worse healer than a druid?
Really? What level is Cure Moderate Wounds? It's level 2 for a cleric, level 3 for a druid, ranger or paladin. Should a wizard be a better or worse healer than a druid?Cure * Wounds is already playtested, and its level is determined
You left out alchemists, bards, inquisitors, and witches, all of whom get it as a 2nd level spell.
However, you are perfectly correct in your larger point that the "correct" level of a spell for members of a class that does not currently have access to said spell is, at best, indeterminate.
After all, if healing were simply a matter of spell research for wizards, surely some wizard at some point would have done the research already, thereby putting the cure spells on the wizard list, right?Why should the rest of the wizarding world benefit from my wizard's hard earned coin and research efforts? It's not like all wizards have some hivemind of spells.
All it means is that the spell isn't commonly known and dispersed amongst the wizarding population.
-Ben.
If Golarion (or any of D&D's default settings) existed in a very early era of wizardry, this might be a convincing explanation. But every default setting -- and indeed, every setting that I can think of -- is far from young. Wizards have been researching and trading/stealing spells for a long long time; so again, the natural conclusion is "There must be a good reason that healing spells don't appear on the wizard list -- they just can't do it."
Don't get me wrong; I'd love to have a convincing explanation that supports healing via spell research. I just don't see one.
That kind of attitude could be applied to ALLLLLL Spell research though. If XXXXX was possible... then all the OTHER wizards would have already done it!
Just because an NPC hasn't done it, or it's not in the Core CERTAINLY shouldn't dictate that it can't be done....
Well, consider this point: would anybody have bothered to invent infernal healing if they weren't utterly convinced that they were never going to figure out the formula for cure moderate wounds?
Yes.... Most people claim its better.....