Why can't Wizard cast healing spells


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

I've often thought about this. I understand from a mechanical game that you have to balance all the classes.

However, it running through my mind. In a world were there are wizard that can create spells and explore magic why are there no spells for healing. (in general, the other classes spell lists)

To me if I was a wizard I would so spend the time to create arcane version of cleric and druid spells. Just to see their faces when you heal yourself or the cleric after he/she has been KO'ed.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Because that's how the developers want magic to work.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So the point of this thread is... since you've answered yourself already????


It's purely a relic of D&D's past. Just restrictive tradition.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Ancient divine pact between the gods.
2. Vast worldwide conspiracy (wizards do reproduce clerical healing but are quietly assassinated by different divine orders).
3. Rabbits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They can. Infernal Healing

BOOM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
revaar wrote:

They can. Infernal Healing

BOOM.

Bards

*sweet guitar riff for which I lack the musical knowledge to make into onomatopoeia*

...ah, my point? Well, with the existence of infernal healing for emergencies (it takes most people from dying to right as rain in a minute) as well as the VERY extensive networks of clerics and other holy sorts running about, most wizards find that there is little reason to develop such techniques. So many better things to do with their time than to reinvent the wheel when there is a wheel factory right next door. Bards are willing to do it though, since they are jacks-of-all-trades that like to have a bit of everything to be self-sufficient.

It also might, in part, be a cross guilds issue (not wanting to step on the holymen's toes), it might be because necromancy, which would be the appropriate school for such magic, has such a poor reputation (and the only existing full arcane class with cure spells are witches...and we know their reputation). It might be that positive engergy needs a devotion to some outside power (a god, a 'patron', nature, some cause,....music) in order to work effectively. There are plenty of likely explanations, and if you are that interested, why not explore them in a bit of world building in your own games?


Why can't a fighter smite evil?

You have no trouble positing the existence of arcane magic, but you have trouble positing that you can't cast healing spells with it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because they have better things to do?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
It's purely a relic of D&D's past. Just restrictive tradition.

This is the most accurate answer to this question one can give.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Because they have better things to do?

Bah, there are plenty of spells on the wizard list that fall under the category of "I have better things to do." And really, can you think of anything better to do after a hard-won battle than healing the downed party cleric?

RDM42 wrote:

Why can't a fighter smite evil?

You have no trouble positing the existence of arcane magic, but you have trouble positing that you can't cast healing spells with it?

A better analogy would be "Why can't a fighter sing?"

Beyond the veil of the mundane hide the secrets of absolute power. The works of beings beyond mortals, the legends of realms where gods and spirits tread, the lore of creations both wondrous and terrible—such mysteries call to those with the ambition and the intellect to rise above the common folk to grasp true might. Such is the path of the wizard. These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge, drawing on cultic arts to work wonders beyond the abilities of mere mortals. While some might choose a particular field of magical study and become masters of such powers, others embrace versatility, reveling in the unbounded wonders of all magic. In either case, wizards prove a cunning and potent lot, capable of smiting their foes, empowering their allies, and shaping the world to their every desire.

Wizards are literally billed as the masters of magic, able to accomplish any feat of wonder short of godhood. (And maybe even that!) You can handwave it all you want, or think up quirky setting explanations, but all of that is just after-the-fact rationalization to explain a horribly gamist and outdated restriction.


Short Answer
Class Balance

Long Answer
Wizards leave it to the priests, if you want a healing spell ask to research it like any other custom spell (one of my personal favorites is hygiene for a quick and easy way to get clean). It'll cost you time and resources learning arcane way's to do the same thing any priest can do spontaneously but there's no line in the sand saying no (unless your GM puts on there). In fact Baba Yaga Queen of the witch's is stated as having researched arcane versions of EVERY divine spell in existence (or at least the core books). I've had a couple of wizards myself research various healing spells in games where no one wanted to play a priest.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Maybe the arcane versions of cure spells are all one level higher than the clerical version, and wizards, being natural powergamers, have excluded them from their professional repertoire.

Or maybe they can. It won't break anything, but you'll have to rework how wizards and clerics work in your campaign, as with any other tweak.


I like the comparisons to the color codes of Black Magic, White Magic, Red Magic and Green Magic.

You'll find that every casting class can pretty much fit into one of these categories.

There are probably more, but it is a lot easier to describe the type of casting and strategy a class is designed (at least it's easier for me) using this system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
It's purely a relic of D&D's past. Just restrictive tradition.

This is the most accurate answer to this question one can give.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Because they have better things to do?

Bah, there are plenty of spells on the wizard list that fall under the category of "I have better things to do." And really, can you think of anything better to do after a hard-won battle than healing the downed party cleric?

RDM42 wrote:

Why can't a fighter smite evil?

You have no trouble positing the existence of arcane magic, but you have trouble positing that you can't cast healing spells with it?

A better analogy would be "Why can't a fighter sing?"

Beyond the veil of the mundane hide the secrets of absolute power. The works of beings beyond mortals, the legends of realms where gods and spirits tread, the lore of creations both wondrous and terrible—such mysteries call to those with the ambition and the intellect to rise above the common folk to grasp true might. Such is the path of the wizard. These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge, drawing on cultic arts to work wonders beyond the abilities of mere mortals. While some might choose a particular field of magical study and become masters of such powers, others embrace versatility, reveling in the unbounded wonders of all magic. In either case, wizards prove a cunning and potent lot, capable of smiting their foes, empowering their allies, and shaping the world to their every desire.

Wizards are literally billed as the masters of magic, able to accomplish any feat of wonder short of godhood. (And maybe even that!) You can handwave it all you want, or think up quirky setting explanations, but all of that is just after-the-fact rationalization to explain a horribly gamist and outdated restriction.

So, using your text, every wizard should have automatic "I win" button. It does say "absolute power". Therefore, by becoming a wizard you immediately become a deity and win the game.

Of you could take that fluff there as what it is and not try to use it that way.


Liam Warner wrote:
Wizards leave it to the priests, if you want a healing spell ask to research it like any other custom spell (one of my personal favorites is hygiene for a quick and easy way to get clean). It'll cost you time and resources learning arcane way's to do the same thing any priest can do spontaneously but there's no line in the sand saying no (unless your GM puts on there). In fact Baba Yaga Queen of the witch's is stated as having researched arcane versions of EVERY divine spell in existence (or at least the core books). I've had a couple of wizards myself research various healing spells in games where no one wanted to play a priest.

This is a more or less reasonable solution. But it begs the question: "If my wizard can research healing spells, why haven't all the wizards who came before added it to my spell list to begin with?" Surely more than a few bygone wizards would have found it worthwhile to be able to heal, if for nothing more than convenience and comfort.

Sadly, I've never met the DM who would allow what you suggest, due to this very question.


Because arcane magic is for blasting!!!!

Or because if every class could do everything there would actually only be one class and that would not be D&D/Pathfinder or

because a class that does everything would do nothing well and no one likes to play the group of mediocres that are out to sort of maybe stop the evil forces about to conquer the world!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another explanation could be that there are very big differences to how a wizard and cleric approach their work.

The way I see it is thus: one is a medical professional, the other is a mechanical engineer. Both have to deal with the processes and intricacies of their charges, dealing with pumps and pressure, leverage and joints. Having knowledge of the other profession might even help their technical understanding.

But in the end, the mechanical engineer's approach of 'taking it apart and seeing how it ticks before putting it back together again' might not be practical during a medical operation due to how these things are not made to ever 'turn off' and having a patient's insides exposed to the air for too long causes their condition to decline rapidly (I do not know the medical terms of course...I mostly just watch House).

And maybe that is why wizards can handle undead so much better? Because it involves people that have been turned purely into mechanical systems.


I think it's because Wizards spend all their time in dark rooms (ala harry potter) studying to learn spells, while a cleric just has to ask his god for what ever spell he needs. Arcane casters have books to write in, Divine casters don't.


RDM42 wrote:

So, using your text, every wizard should have automatic "I win" button. It does say "absolute power". Therefore, by becoming a wizard you immediately become a deity and win the game.

Of you could take that fluff there as what it is and not try to use it that way.

Not my text -- I took it straight from the srd.

And that's a cute red herring argument, but the limits of character level is implicit in the text and in this discussion. Just like when the srd says that fighters are "Lords of the battlefield...shape themselves into living weapons...capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies." It's implied that you don't get +20 BAB, eleven feats, and a kingdom to rule at first level.

By the fluff text, wizards should be potentially able to learn any spell given the limit of class and spell levels. Not be arbitrarily restricted from using the fairly humble healing spells.


But I am also going to fall back on the idea that infernal healing (which might not seem like much...but that is the diminishing return of life saving spells due to the weirdness of the hp system) combined with easy access to wands and scrolls as well as the trained professionals called clerics makes it seem like too much trouble for most to bother with.

Or maybe their attempts at learning such magic basically translate to 'multiclassing' within the system. That would then lead to becoming a mystic theurge when one truly tries to blend the arts together.... Yeah 'mystic theurge are what they become when they try' seems like a perfectly fine answer for why they don't get cure spells on their own list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First of all, there are wizard spells that can heal. Infernal healing being the first, but it is an evil spell, so a goodly wizard using it would have to reconcile it with his alignment. there are a couple of good ones from 3.5 that are useful. Light of Mercuria,(or is it Venya? Lunia? One of those), the planar spell from 3.5 Spell Compendium, can be used to heal as well as deal a good bit of damage to undead and evil outsiders. Finally, the Wyrm Wizard PrC from the 3.5 Dragon Magic book allows wizards to scribe spells from other class's spell lists in his spellbook to prepare and cast. If your wizard isn't interested in these options, have him take a couple levels of cleric worshipping one of the gods of magic. Loki is quite popular in my group.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because medicine doesn't work like it does in real life and healing someone requires repair of the bonds tying the soul to the body. You can let these bonds naturally heal, or get a god to let you into the fast lane.

Just one possible justification.


There really isn't any justification for it, at all, other than some bizarre nostalgic tradition-suck that mandates keeping clerics in the game.


Zhayne wrote:
There really isn't any justification for it, at all, other than some bizarre nostalgic tradition-suck that mandates keeping clerics in the game.

What would the game look like if there were no armored divine casters, and all spellcasters were squishy and there was only one spell list?

Liberty's Edge

Zhayne wrote:
There really isn't any justification for it, at all, other than some bizarre nostalgic tradition-suck that mandates keeping clerics in the game.

And game balance.

Also, in fantasy fiction, it's very rare that one spell caster can do everything. All have different and often very limited specialties, it being broken down into Divine and Arcane is mostly specific to D&D/Pathfinder, but the basic idea of a spellcaster who is unable to heal, or unable to throw fire, or unable to do any other particular type of magic, is a longstanding one. Indeed, Wizards and Clerics both are probably too broad in what they can do to accurately reflect most fictional magic.


ngc7293 wrote:
I think it's because Wizards spend all their time in dark rooms (ala harry potter) studying to learn spells, while a cleric just has to ask his god for what ever spell he needs. Arcane casters have books to write in, Divine casters don't.

...I haz so very much confused. What do spellbooks have to do with the topic?

And fyi: Harry Potter wizards can very much heal.

Mike Franke wrote:

Because arcane magic is for blasting!!!!

Or because if every class could do everything there would actually only be one class and that would not be D&D/Pathfinder or

because a class that does everything would do nothing well and no one likes to play the group of mediocres that are out to sort of maybe stop the evil forces about to conquer the world!

When it comes to full casters, the niches are about as clear as mud to begin with. With these classes, "Can't do it" comes up rarely; usually it's "I can do this one spell level later than another full caster can." Which makes this healing hang-up so baffling.


To me it makes sense. Divine magic is different than arcane magic. To heal and create life is a sacred power even beyond the mightiest wizards.

The fact Bards have it kind of cheapens it a little, but depending on what historical version of the Bard you use, it still kind of works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
There really isn't any justification for it, at all, other than some bizarre nostalgic tradition-suck that mandates keeping clerics in the game.
What would the game look like if there were no armored divine casters, and all spellcasters were squishy and there was only one spell list?

1) Boring, or

2) Like a different game.

So who cares if the separation of healing magic from wizards is a tradition? It's D&D/Pathfinder's tradition. And that's good enough.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
There really isn't any justification for it, at all, other than some bizarre nostalgic tradition-suck that mandates keeping clerics in the game.
What would the game look like if there were no armored divine casters, and all spellcasters were squishy and there was only one spell list?

Who said anything about no tough casters? There's plenty of space for fighty casters.

And to answer your question, "Much more fun."

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
There really isn't any justification for it, at all, other than some bizarre nostalgic tradition-suck that mandates keeping clerics in the game.

And game balance.

Also, in fantasy fiction, it's very rare that one spell caster can do everything. All have different and often very limited specialties, it being broken down into Divine and Arcane is mostly specific to D&D/Pathfinder, but the basic idea of a spellcaster who is unable to heal, or unable to throw fire, or unable to do any other particular type of magic, is a longstanding one. Indeed, Wizards and Clerics both are probably too broad in what they can do to accurately reflect most fictional magic.

With all the things that wizards can do, you're worried that healing will cause balance problems? Really, no joke? Wizards already can do almost anything, because D&D/PF is not in fact fantasy fiction, however much it may draw upon fiction for inspiration.


Wish and limited wish used to be able to do it. Not sure if they still can directly but you could always wish for a potion.


Bill Dunn wrote:
So who cares if the separation of healing magic from wizards is a tradition? It's D&D/Pathfinder's tradition. And that's good enough.

Truly, you Lawful types are a different species. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
So who cares if the separation of healing magic from wizards is a tradition? It's D&D/Pathfinder's tradition. And that's good enough.
Truly, you Lawful types are a different species. ;)

There's no point shilly shallying around the issue. The game has sacred cows. They are part of what gives the game its distinct identity. What's the point in killing them? If you don't like them, play something else. If you must change them, change them at your own table. Why gripe to the rest of the fan-base?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
With all the things that wizards can do, you're worried that healing will cause balance problems? Really, no joke?

Oh, Wizards are already the most powerful class in the game, no doubt. Which makes me less inclined to give them even more goodies, not more.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Wizards already can do almost anything, because D&D/PF is not in fact fantasy fiction, however much it may draw upon fiction for inspiration.

This is true to some degree. Again, I feel no need to make it more true. If anything, I'd go the other way.


Fencer_guy wrote:

I've often thought about this. I understand from a mechanical game that you have to balance all the classes.

However, it running through my mind. In a world were there are wizard that can create spells and explore magic why are there no spells for healing. (in general, the other classes spell lists)

To me if I was a wizard I would so spend the time to create arcane version of cleric and druid spells. Just to see their faces when you heal yourself or the cleric after he/she has been KO'ed.

Well, PERSONALLY.. I agree completely. I miss the divine/Arcane split in 2E. Wizards don't get healing, because healing came from the gods. It was something that they couldn't master.

Now... They have bards that cast Arcanely... but get healing spells and it throws that whole idea out the window. I've never been a fan of that. If there is an arcane way to cast a spell.... wizards should be able to do it. It's what they DO...

AND techniquely they can. As you say, the Core Rulebook has a whole section on creating your own spells. Feel free to create one that does the same thing as the cleric spells... just have to pay and research for it.

I had an Elven Necromancer in 2E who intended to that exact thing. In all the novels and such Elves always had an affinity for nature/healing magic... and my concept was that in game terms that had been lost. He went the 'dark' road of necromancy to try to recover the secrets of life magic... And to possibly talk with trees again.

They were high goals and he died by level 3.... so it never went anywhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is flavor. The original authors of the game pegged healing and it's like powers of restoration of life to be from divine sources only.

While 'mortal' based wizardry/arcane magic could also create great power, it was mostly (not solely) to alter or destroy things, not permanently create or restore actual life (as opposed to undeath which it was just fine with, a mockery of 'actual' life if you will).

It was a flavor decision that was made when the original game was written and has stayed with it since then.

After all if wizards could do everything, everyone would be one and there would be no point of other classes to some people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Partly I suppose it's to preserve the party dynamic, to ensure a single caster cannot do everything at maximum efficiency. While you can to an extent do "everything" including healing with a Witch or Oracle with the right patron or mystery, the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list is still arguably better.

Full progression casters like Wizards are already so far ahead of lower progression casters and mundanes it's untrue. Giving them even more power and flexibility would be a little frustrating to dedicated Monk or Rogue players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Just like when the srd says that fighters are "Lords of the battlefield...shape themselves into living weapons...capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies." It's implied that you don't get +20 BAB, eleven feats, and a kingdom to rule at first level.

Yea, because that might actually make them worth playing!

*insert rimshot*

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal!


Mike Franke wrote:
Wish and limited wish used to be able to do it. Not sure if they still can directly but you could always wish for a potion.

Or you could just summon a monster who can cast healing spells or SLA. Much cheaper than a wish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pre AD&D, Heal was a 9th level Magic User spell. So it was on a wizard's radar, just hard to master without divine provenance. Reincarnate was in there too.

On the flip side, Clerics could cast Wizardry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
So who cares if the separation of healing magic from wizards is a tradition? It's D&D/Pathfinder's tradition. And that's good enough.
Truly, you Lawful types are a different species. ;)
There's no point shilly shallying around the issue. The game has sacred cows. They are part of what gives the game its distinct identity. What's the point in killing them? If you don't like them, play something else. If you must change them, change them at your own table. Why gripe to the rest of the fan-base?

Griping? If I'm griping, then you're griping about my griping, and why would you do that? You big whiner!

More seriously, why talk about the game's sacred cows? Because many of us don't play PF because of them; our fun doesn't depend on a specific set of odd legacy quirks. In fact, we often end up enjoying PF despite those sacred cows. This is certainly true of me on those rare occasions when I play PF.

So it shouldn't be a big mystery why a portion of PF fanbase want to see some of those sacred cows gone -- because from our PoV, it makes PF a more fun game. And games do change. And what was once 'part of what gives the game its distinct identity' becomes game history trivia as the game's identity evolves. D&D's past is littered with things like racial level caps, varying XP tables, race-as-class, to-hit charts, thac0, and weird ability score charts that gamers at one point called 'part of the game's distinct identity.' And some of them still do! And yet here you are, happily enjoying a descendent of those games, despite the lack of what the those grognards would call 'distinct identity.'

It really is a quirk of human psychology. Lawful/chaotic jokes aside, some of us just don't get the same comfort and warmth from 'the way things are.' I myself still find it impossible to grok the feelings that give tradition such a strong pull on some people. I literally can't imagine how tradition can outweigh positive change in the mind of a traditionalist.

But I imagine that you have a similar blind spot when it comes to my mindset, so all we can do is accept that others are different.

PS: 'If you don't like it, play something else' is a cop-out argument; some PFers have a choice between PF or nothing, while other fans mostly like the game except for a few quirks. The sentiment is the debate equivalent of "Get offa my lawn!" And as for house rules, most DMs stick pretty close to the RAW, so many of us never get to enjoy good house rules as players. For example I've never had a DM who was willing to let wizards/sorcerers heal, because they assumed "If it's in the rules, there must be a good reason for it."


gardengoth wrote:
On the flip side, Clerics could cast Wizardry.

Never heard of that one; what's it do?

Scarab Sages

I, for one, wouldn't mind allowing wizards to cast healing spells if it were a rare event. "You want to prepare Cure Light Wounds instead of Color Spray? Be my guest..."

I'd make them transmutation spells, and remove the positive energy descriptor from them.


Dhampir Wizards everywhere would love that. Makes sense to keep them at the same level then too, since without the positive energy descriptor they can't hurt undead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I literally can't imagine how tradition can outweigh positive change in the mind of a traditionalist.

You might consider the idea that "positive" change in a game's system is a subjective judgment. From your point of view, a particular change like wizards casting healing spells may be a positive change. But for others, it's a negative change because it dilutes one of the factors that makes Pathfinder different from other games that don't put as much emphasis on a character's class. And that's without even getting into the issue of putting yet more magical tools in an over-broad wizard's toolkit (something that's already an issue in the game rules).


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

Oh, Wizards are already the most powerful class in the game, no doubt. Which makes me less inclined to give them even more goodies, not more.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Wizards already can do almost anything, because D&D/PF is not in fact fantasy fiction, however much it may draw upon fiction for inspiration.
This is true to some degree. Again, I feel no need to make it more true. If anything, I'd go the other way.

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 wants.

But if we're talking about incremental changes to PF, 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.

At the very least, getting the genie back in the bottle requires an overhaul of the problematic spells themselves. 'Cause restricting access to the humble healing spells isn't keeping the wizard in check -- it just means that the party wizard can't whip out a wand of cure light wounds after a hard-won battle to resuscitate the KOed cleric.


phantom1592 wrote:


Well, PERSONALLY.. I agree completely. I miss the divine/Arcane split in 2E. Wizards don't get healing, because healing came from the gods. It was something that they couldn't master.

Now... They have bards that cast Arcanely... but get healing spells and it throws that whole idea out the window. I've never been a fan of that. If there is an arcane way to cast a spell.... wizards should be able to do it. It's what they DO...

I don't think it's necessarily bad to have a spell list that mixes divine and arcane styles of spells. The bard's list has a nice eclecticism to it that, I think, works well for a support-oriented class.

I'd consider it a problematic philosophy to say that wizards should have access to every arcane-style magic out there in the game. Aside from giving the wizards even more flexibility (when they don't need it), I think it undermines the possibility of having an arcane class with a really distinct spell list - which would be unfortunate. I think arcane classes should be distinct not just because things not on their spell lists but also because of their spell lists. That's another method of bringing flavor. And if the wizard can imitate that flavor, then we're diluting part of the distinctiveness of classes.


I could see sorcerers getting cure light or moderate wounds if it fits there bloodline like celestial. But as for wizards I am fine with that though I still think they should get a version of raise dead in the school of necromancy, we really need some positive energy/good aligned spells in that school.

Scarab Sages

Wizards not being able to cast Bard spells isn't really that big of a deal. Bards spells are arcane, but they are more about pure art than a standard spell, so it makes sense that it can't be learned.

What does make a point for wizards not being able to learn healing spells is the Witch. The witch id a full arcane class that has healing spells on it's list.

Granted they are taught those spells by a patron, but they are fully arcane.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
So who cares if the separation of healing magic from wizards is a tradition? It's D&D/Pathfinder's tradition. And that's good enough.
Truly, you Lawful types are a different species. ;)
There's no point shilly shallying around the issue. The game has sacred cows. They are part of what gives the game its distinct identity. What's the point in killing them? If you don't like them, play something else. If you must change them, change them at your own table. Why gripe to the rest of the fan-base?

Griping? If I'm griping, then you're griping about my griping, and why would you do that? You big whiner!

More seriously, why talk about the game's sacred cows? Because many of us don't play PF because of them; our fun doesn't depend on a specific set of odd legacy quirks. In fact, we often end up enjoying PF despite those sacred cows. This is certainly true of me on those rare occasions when I play PF.

So it shouldn't be a big mystery why a portion of PF fanbase want to see some of those sacred cows gone -- because from our PoV, it makes PF a more fun game. And games do change. And what was once 'part of what gives the game its distinct identity' becomes game history trivia as the game's identity evolves. D&D's past is littered with things like racial level caps, varying XP tables, race-as-class, to-hit charts, thac0, and weird ability score charts that gamers at one point called 'part of the game's distinct identity.' And some of them still do! And yet here you are, happily enjoying a descendent of those games, despite the lack of what the those grognards would call 'distinct identity.'

It really is a quirk of human psychology. Lawful/chaotic jokes aside, some of us just don't get the same comfort and warmth from 'the way things are.' I myself still find it impossible to grok the feelings that give tradition such a strong pull on some people. I literally can't imagine how tradition can outweigh...

You can't? Why is Pathfinder the big game it is now, to the point of displacing Wizards as top dog? Could it be having to do with a whole core of customers that refused to transition from 3.5 to an Edition which shall not be named in this thread? No matter how many posts that come up with the suggestion, those sacred cows aren't going away because that's a core part of Pathfinder's appeal.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MattR1986 wrote:

To me it makes sense. Divine magic is different than arcane magic. To heal and create life is a sacred power even beyond the mightiest wizards.

The fact Bards have it kind of cheapens it a little, but depending on what historical version of the Bard you use, it still kind of works.

This is a rare trope outside of D&D. Setting aside whether a hard arcane/divine split is common (it's not!), many fictional wizards can cast healing spells. Like, in Harry Potter, for instance.

1 to 50 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.