One thing that's always bothered me is that the mirror imaged spells of Cure and Inflict are in difference schools. It mostly seemed an effort to make Necromancy and Evil inseparable.
Cure would be made necromancy for the same reason as Inflict and False Life: It's meddling with life force.
Inflict could also be made Conjuration for the same reason Cure is now: it's more about planar contact with one of the Energy planes.
Personally, I'd like to see them both made 'Necromancy (Healing)' spells. Comments?
|
Personally, I'd like to see them both made 'Necromancy (Healing)' spells. Comments?
And the circle is now complete! Back before 3rd edition, they were both Necromancy spells. 3rd edition in particular made a special effort to make Necromancy magic entirely neutral or evil in focus. I mean, for Pete's sake, freaking deathwatch is an Evil-descriptor spell. All it lets you do is look at people's hit points! Honestly, I'd like to see a move back toward "Necromancy is just another kind of magic" instead of "NECRO BAD!" but I don't know if Pathfinder could do that and still remain as backwards compatible as the company wants it to be.
Personally, I despise the invention of the Conjuration (healing) subschool. In my homebrew worlds, healing magic is still Necromancy.
Jeremy Puckett
I agree, anything that manipulates life like this should be necromancy... whether good (life) or evil (unlife).
I agree. This change always boggled my mind as to why they did it. It also amazed me at to why the inflict spells allowed a saving throw in previous editions they did not. I could understand if the inflict spells did more damage but the amount of damage they do for the spell level just really doesnt need a save to be balanced. They are signifigantly under powered with the allowance of a saving throw. But to the issue at hand. Please change them back to Necromancy (Healing) it just makes so much more sense.
Hey, now that you mention it: Wouldn't hurt to eliminate the save for cure/inflict spells. They're not that powerful, and there's already a touch attack required (look at things like scorching ray)
I agree. This change always boggled my mind as to why they did it. It also amazed me at to why the inflict spells allowed a saving throw in previous editions they did not. I could understand if the inflict spells did more damage but the amount of damage they do for the spell level just really doesnt need a save to be balanced. They are signifigantly under powered with the allowance of a saving throw. But to the issue at hand. Please change them back to Necromancy (Healing) it just makes so much more sense.Hey, now that you mention it: Wouldn't hurt to eliminate the save for cure/inflict spells. They're not that powerful, and there's already a touch attack required (look at things like scorching ray)
What about the Mass cure/inflicts though?
Pathfinder please re-work schools.
Start with solid definitions, and filter them from there. Use subschools to group special case rules that come up again and again. The SRD's school descriptions are weak
Would it be so bad for a spell to have multiple schools? There are many for which that would make sense.
Oh, and that's a "heck-yes" for resurrecting Necromancy (Healing).
Hey, now that you mention it: Wouldn't hurt to eliminate the save for cure/inflict spells. They're not that powerful, and there's already a touch attack required (look at things like scorching ray)
Clerics don't need to be as murder-oriented as Wizards, and Spontaneous casting boosts the utility of cure/inflict. I'm fine with their current power level, as far as that goes.
The Inflict spells to me seem very underpowered when compared to even other cleric spells. Take Inflict Serious Wounds for example, we will assume a 15th level caster. It does 3d8+1 per level (max +15). Searing Light does 1d8 per two levels (max 5d8). ISW would have a range of 18-39 points of damage while Searing light would range 5-40 damage base (more againts undead). Both are level 3 and both require touch attacks but Searing light is ranged where as Inflict Serious is touch. Searing light also allows no saving throw. Inflict grants a saving throw for half damage. Most spell that require touch attack either melee or range do not allow saving throws against there base damage. The target may recieve a saving throw to reduce secondary effects but as a general rule it seems if you have to roll to hit the target doesn't get a save.
In most cases the cleric in question could simply use an equivalent level spell to buff his own melee attack and inflict similar and in some cases greater damage than by using an Inflict spell.
The difference is that the (evil) cleric can cast Inflict whenever he wants, since he can cast spontaneously. He still has to prepare the Searing Light, which means giving up some other spell.
If spontaneous cure/inflict goes away (perhaps replaced by spontaneous domain spells, as I have suggested in another thread), then cure and inflict should lose the saving throw.
So what is the benefit of Inflict spells for good or neutral clerics? They would always be better off preparing Searing Light (or other spells) instead. I find this to be a serious design flaw with the power level of the Inflict spells. If there would never be any reason for a Good/neutral cleric to use them then I see that as a good indicator that they need some help. If there sole use and purpose is for evil clerics to spontaneously cast them why are they even listed as spells. Why not just make them class abilities of evil clerics? "Evil clerics can sacrifice prepared spells to inflict damage....." No need to have them be spells if no one is ever going to prepare them and their only use is to evil clerics that have already exhausted there superior prepared offensive spells.
It has always been a classic power of the cleric, even back in 1st edition, to smite their foes with the power of their god. This was the role of the reverse of the cure wounds spells, cause wounds now called Inflict. They are more than balanced by being touch attacks and their damage level when compared to similar level wizard spells. The saving throw leaves them under performing.
Honestly, Clerics are currently the most powerful class in the game. I haven't playtested PFRPG enough to know if that's still true, but I'd think carefully before giving them too many new toys.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've never been a big fan of putting cure spells in necromancy. That's how it was in 2e and it leads to some weird stuff. Typically, necomancy is evil. Yeah, I know the lawful good necromancer is the latest cliche rebel character (just like a good drow), but for the most part, necromancy is associated with undead and evil.
Suppose you put cure spells into necromancy. I want to make a cleric focused on healing and/or fighting undead. This character is meant to be a great healer, and absolutely abhors undead, he would never ever raise one and would not use magic to drain anyone's life force.
Coincidentally, these are the very spells he is the best at casting because they are also necromancy spells. That just seems weird.
It's important to have the option to be a good healer without being strapped to the evil side of necromancy and vice versa. The real problem is that necromancy is a shitty school that is poorly defined and healing is shoehorned into conjuration when it's really its own beast. Re-shoehorning healing into necromancy doesn't do either type of magic any favors, it just results in a muddled mess that points to two opposing alignments at the same time.
I've never been a big fan of putting cure spells in necromancy. That's how it was in 2e and it leads to some weird stuff. Typically, necomancy is evil.
Well, no. That's the point. Necromancy shouldn't be inherently evil and more than any other school of magic. Lots of undead-hosing or undead-destroying spells are necromancy too. Along with some general purpose buffs like False Life.
Animating Undead is Evil, but that shouldn't reflect on the whole school any more than summoning devils reflects on Conjuration.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well, no. That's the point. Necromancy shouldn't be inherently evil and more than any other school of magic. Lots of undead-hosing or undead-destroying spells are necromancy too. Along with some general purpose buffs like False Life.
Then it shouldn't be a school of magic. If conjuration were called "demonology", that would be comparable. Necromancy is strongly associated with evil. It's like saying facism isn't evil because you could theoretically have a benign facist state. Necromancers and undead are portrayed in nearly every depicition as evil, you're swimming against the current trying to assert that it should be a neutral concept. If there needs to be a school of magic associated with the manipulation of life force, it should be renamed and called something neutral. If there is a school called necromancy, it should be associated with the common understanding of that term, which is evil, undeath, etc.
Stapling on non-evil bits to necromancy doesn't make it neutral, it just further muddles the expectations of gamers. Necromancy is generally considered evil, and with good reason given that most necromatic locations/persons/items/etc. in the game are or are associated with evil. Shoehorning healing into the same category just doesn't make sense given that legacy.
Then it shouldn't be a school of magic. If conjuration were called "demonology", that would be comparable. Necromancy is strongly associated with evil. It's like saying facism isn't evil because you could theoretically have a benign facist state. Necromancers and undead are portrayed in nearly every depicition as evil, you're swimming against the current trying to assert that it should be a neutral concept. If there needs to be a school of magic associated with the manipulation of life force, it should be renamed and called something neutral. If there is a school called necromancy, it should be associated with the common understanding of that term, which is evil, undeath, etc.
Stapling on non-evil bits to necromancy doesn't make it neutral, it just further muddles the expectations of gamers. Necromancy is generally considered evil, and with good reason given that most necromatic locations/persons/items/etc. in the game are or are associated with evil. Shoehorning healing into the same category just doesn't make sense given that legacy.
Then make them both Conjuration. It's just mind boggling that Cure and Inflict are in different schools. Different Sub-schools, maybe.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Then make them both Conjuration. It's just mind boggling that Cure and Inflict are in different schools. Different Sub-schools, maybe.
I like that much better, but I also don't have a problem with them being in different schools.
I just don't like healing in my necromancy. I remember in 2e, I'd see players building characters with the Tome of Magic spheres, and they would inevitably not pick necromancy thinking "I'm good, I don't want to create undead", entirely missing the fact that the healing spells were there too. It's just so counter-intuitive.
I like that much better, but I also don't have a problem with them being in different schools.
If I'm a Cleric who took Spell Focus(Conjuration) to make sure my cures and Heals stick when I cast them into undead, it'd be nice if it still worked when I stuck a Harm into a living enemy, and vice versa.
The spells have too much in common for them to be separated by such a vital mechanic as School.
I add my vote to moving the Creation (Healing) spells to Necormancy. One thing that may influence the move is Pharasma Goddess of fate, death, prophecy, birth. She grants her clerics access to both the Death and Healing domains. If such a diety exists in a gaming world it is difficult to hold to the notion Necormancy is always evil.
Doug
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I like that much better, but I also don't have a problem with them being in different schools.If I'm a Cleric who took Spell Focus(Conjuration) to make sure my cures and Heals stick when I cast them into undead, it'd be nice if it still worked when I stuck a Harm into a living enemy, and vice versa.
The spells have too much in common for them to be separated by such a vital mechanic as School.
Don't elemental spells already have that problem? So, if I want to be a fire mage, why is it that I need to take Spell Focus (Evocation) for my scorching ray and Spell Focus (Conjuration) for my orb of fire?
(Does Spell Focus (Conjuration) even do anything for orb of fire?)
At the end of the day, my feeling is that the schools of magic are absolute pieces of garbage that continue to exist only because of their legacy value and not because they actually divide the spells into meaningful categories. If I had my druthers, I'd probably put them both in evocation, but I'm so indifferent to most spell schools it's hard to rouse up strong emotions.*
*Except for cure spells in necromancy, which always bugs me.
Don't elemental spells already have that problem? So, if I want to be a fire mage, why is it that I need to take Spell Focus (Evocation) for my scorching ray and Spell Focus (Conjuration) for my orb of fire?
(Does Spell Focus (Conjuration) even do anything for orb of fire?)
The Orb spells are already stupid, since they're nearly pure power creep. And Wizards started muddying the waters about schools so that Conjurers could still blow stuff up almost as well even with prohibited school Evocation. (Heck, Acid Splash continues to bother me, but I understand it's mechanical role in allowing something for Pro. school evocation mages to do at low level).
But Orb of Fire and Scorching ray aren't mirror images of the same spell. Inflict and Cure are basically the same spell. It's as if Hold Person and Hold Monster were in different schools.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
But Orb of Fire and Scorching ray aren't mirror images of the same spell. Inflict and Cure are basically the same spell. It's as if Hold Person and Hold Monster were in different schools.
Yeah, but the case is even stronger for those spells - they both deal with the same exact thing, fire. Why are they separated out by schools?
Sorry Ross, I'm just not feeling the pain of having them divided into different schools. I don't see a strong logical need to say that having a lot of skill in channeling negative energy implies an equal amount of skill to channel positive energy. I'm much more sympathetic to the argument that having a lot of skill at 'evoking' fire (whatever the hell that means) implies an equal amount of skill in 'conjuring' fire, but even then, I'm not all that excited.
Yeah, but the case is even stronger for those spells - they both deal with the same exact thing, fire. Why are they separated out by schools?
I believe the idea is that the fire is being obtained in different ways. It's just that the crunch works out the same.
Sorry Ross, I'm just not feeling the pain of having them divided into different schools.
Fair enough. I just prefer symmetry.
I don't see a strong logical need to say that having a lot of skill in channeling negative energy implies an equal amount of skill to channel positive energy. I'm much more sympathetic to the argument that having a lot of skill at 'evoking' fire (whatever the hell that means) implies an equal amount of skill in 'conjuring' fire, but even then, I'm not all that excited.
I'd be happy to allow Spell Focus(Fire), myself, which could apply to all spells with the Fire descriptor. (Actually, I should go suggest that...) But consider that Spell Focus(Conjuration) makes you better at both Cloudkill and Plane Shift (applied offensively). Cure and inflict are a lot closer together than those two spells.
Yeah, I know the lawful good necromancer is the latest cliche rebel character (just like a good drow), but for the most part, necromancy is associated with undead and evil.
Is lawful good necromancer the new ninja?
Then it shouldn't be a school of magic. If conjuration were called "demonology", that would be comparable. Necromancy is strongly associated with evil. It's like saying facism isn't evil because you could theoretically have a benign facist state.
Well, no. That's the point. Necromancy shouldn't be inherently evil and more than any other school of magic. Lots of undead-hosing or undead-destroying spells are necromancy too. Along with some general purpose buffs like False Life.
That's hogwash.
We don't have to give in to stupid stereotypes.
In the truest sense of the word, necromancy is a form of divination involving spirits of the dead. Only since the renaissance has the meaning been changed to that of general black arts and demonology.
So if we're going to be pedantic about it, we could either say that the summoning of demons should fall under it, or that only speaking with the dead is in.
I say let's use the SRD definition instead: "Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force"
That means:
That way, we don't have to put an alignment restriction to one of the 8 specialist types or focus one school too narrowly.
Necromancers might still get a bad reputation, but so do conjurers ("that's those devil-summoners, or they conjure up those female demons to have some unearthly delights) or arcane spellcasters in general, at least in many cases.
The difference is that the (evil) cleric can cast Inflict whenever he wants, since he can cast spontaneously. He still has to prepare the Searing Light, which means giving up some other spell.
He still has to give up that other spell when he does cast Inflict spells.
Plus, good clerics get to cast cure spells spontaneously, which I'd say is a lot more useful - since he doesn't have to fill all his slots with healing magic
If spontaneous cure/inflict goes away (perhaps replaced by spontaneous domain spells, as I have suggested in another thread), then cure and inflict should lose the saving throw.
That would not only take away something they had in 3.5 (really bad for backwards compatibility), it would also hurt the class a lot.
I so wish they would go back to a spheres break down for divine magic. Schools work for arcane magic (for the most part). But spheres like they had in 2E make so much more since for divine magic. Divine magic should be broken down by philosophy and ideology. I think everyone would aggree with putting Inflict and Cure spells into classification of Life Magic.
Not any more than they would agree that both belong to Necromancy. After all, inflict spells are spells of death.
And the spheres would be a big hunk of work, and again, hurt backwards compatibility (in fact, a spheres cleric would not be backwards compatible at all).
He still has to give up that other spell when he does cast Inflict spells.
I'm just saying it's fine if Inflict is not quite as powerful as a spell that the cleric might actually have to prepare, since it is in fact a more flexible option.
That would not only take away something they had in 3.5 (really bad for backwards compatibility), it would also hurt the class a lot.
It would not exactly be optimal for backward compatibility, I'll give you that. However, the ability to channel energy directly at least takes up a good deal of the role of spontaneous cure/inflict for both good and evil clerics. It's generally bad game design to model something twice. I recommended replacing it with the old domain lists, so that the class retains much of the utility and power. Fire clerics with spontaneous burning hands, Healing clerics with more positive energy than you can shake a stick at, etc.
That could work. Except that they'd have to throw away the new domains. I do rather like them.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That's hogwash.
Who pissed in your cheerios?
In any event, it's true. Necromancy is strongly associated with evil by most people and in D&D as shown by the sheer volume of evil necromancy related stuff.
We don't have to give in to stupid stereotypes.
I guess we could also have gunslingers and lots of ninjas to avoid other stereotypes too.
Except those aren't genre conventions.
Just like good necrmancers aren't genre conventions. Evil necromancers are.
So if we're going to be pedantic about it, we could either say that the summoning of demons should fall under it, or that only speaking with the dead is in.
Except that doesn't comport with anyone's expectations of necromancy. There's a reason necromancers and undead are frequently portrayed as evil, it's not just some bizzare coincidence. I agree that none of the 8 schools should have an ingrained alignment, but unfortunately, necromacy does have such connotations. Similarly, healing is not inherently good, but it has strong good connotations. Sure, you can ignore tose connotations, but that doesn't mean you should.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yeah, I know the lawful good necromancer is the latest cliche rebel character (just like a good drow), but for the most part, necromancy is associated with undead and evil.Is lawful good necromancer the new ninja?
No, because ninjas are inherently cool. The lawful good necromancer is the new good drow - people think it's a brand new rebel archtype when it's actually a tired cliche.
But, I guess on the bright side for those that want more recognition for good necromancers, it'll eventually become such a staple that, like the drow, you'll be able to find it fully supported as a PC choice and then it'll lose its cool.
After that, I predict an influx of beardless dwarven sorcerers and beefy halfling barbarians.
That could work. Except that they'd have to throw away the new domains. I do rather like them.
Why get rid of them? Some of them might need touching up, like the Good domain power of Holy Word 1/day is less impressive when you can cast it several times a day, and Magic Stone and the acid dart from the Earth domain fight for meaning at first level. But there's no reason that the new domains can't replace the old domain 'granted power'.
Except that doesn't comport with anyone's expectations of necromancy. There's a reason necromancers and undead are frequently portrayed as evil, it's not just some bizzare coincidence. I agree that none of the 8 schools should have an ingrained alignment, but unfortunately, necromacy does have such connotations. Similarly, healing is not inherently good, but it has strong good connotations. Sure, you can ignore tose connotations, but that doesn't mean you should.
Necromancy is allowed all the connotations it wants. But, according to the description in the SRD, what it denotes is something different. It's not like Good clerics never ever cast Bestow Curse. Lots of Necromancy spells have the Evil descriptor. That's fine. Very few are going to have the Good descriptor, ever. But that doesn't mean that healing can't count. If we're that worried about separating the 'good' spells from other necromancy, we can use the Healing subschool for that.
For that matter, Raise Dead should certainly be a necromancy spell.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Necromancy is allowed all the connotations it wants. But, according to the description in the SRD, what it denotes is something different. It's not like Good clerics never ever cast Bestow Curse. Lots of Necromancy spells have the Evil descriptor. That's fine. Very few are going to have the Good descriptor, ever. But that doesn't mean that healing can't count. If we're that worried about separating the 'good' spells from other necromancy, we can use the Healing subschool for that.For that matter, Raise Dead should certainly be a necromancy spell.
Necromancy is bigger than the SRD. Modules portray necromancy as evil. The phb portrays necromancy as evil by the sheer volume of [evil] descriptor spells that school receives (particularly vis a vis other schools). Can necromancy not be evil? Sure, why not. But that's not its common role. Is it interesting to step outside that role once in a while? Oh yeah, that's fun. Do most people expect healing to be in necromancy? Only if they are spell school purists. That's what we're talking about; a change that only makes sense to the tiny segment of the audience that (a) cares about the spell schools and (b) really wants them to make sense.
Everyone else expects necromancy to be that evil school associated with undead and other nastiness. They don't expect that if they choose some mechanic that blocks them off from evil necromancy, they will also lose healing.
Those are the expectations. These discussions of "what is the true theoretical meaning of necromancy" are besides the point. The true meaning of Christmas may well be to increase the U.S. GDP, but if you ask a random person on the street, that's not the answer you're going to get. And if you try selling Christmas cards that brag about how you're stimulating the economy, you're going to be finding yourself pitching to a niche market.
Just to be clear, I don't have any good argument that healing does not fit within the SRD definition of necromancy. But I don't think it belongs there any more than the orb spells belong in conjuration because they technically meet the requirements of that school. The expectation is that necromancy deals with the undead and has a lot of evil spells. Putting healing there goes against that expectation, and doesn't really accomplish all that much except satisfy a very deep desire for perfect symmetry. That's a lot of change and a high cost to most people's expectations for a marginal benefit to a small segment of the audience.
In any event, it's true. Necromancy is strongly associated with evil by most people and in D&D as shown by the sheer volume of evil necromancy related stuff.
D&D itself is associated with evil and devil worship by a decent number of people (my mother included). Mistaken impressions are mistaken.
Who pissed in your cheerios?
That's hogwash.
You did. I went and had them do a DNA check on it. Busted!
In any event, it's true. Necromancy is strongly associated with evil by most people and in D&D as shown by the sheer volume of evil necromancy related stuff.
There's also a sheer volume of evil conjuration stuff (all the spells that can summon evil critters are [Evil] when they do so). I honestly remember very few stories outside of D&D (and, come to think of it, inside as well) where conjurers summon up angels and other nice critters to have a pleasant chat. Most of the time, it's demon-this, devil-that, the more evil the better. All that's evil.
Just like good necrmancers aren't genre conventions. Evil necromancers are.
Yes, they are. In fact, evil arcanists as a whole (not just Necromancers, but pretty much all of them) are a genre convention as well. There's literally tons of books out there that portray pretty much all wizards, warlocks, enchanters, conjurers and sorcerers as evil guys. They traffick with evil powers all the time, sacrificing orphanages to dark powers in exchange for power and information (which is power, too), or just to make a point.
But we don't say that they should all be evil, either.
Plus, while there might be a lot of [Evil] necromancy spells (and, I have to point out, probably as much if not more [Evil] conjuration spells, or at least conjuration spells that have the very real possibility of getting that descriptor), the class itself doesn't have an alignment restriction.
I say since we're talking about D&D/Pathfinder especially, and since Necromancers aren't restricted in their alignment there, and since the SRD description of necromancy doesn't limit itself to strictly evil things, it can't hurt to make the school and its spells reflect all that properly, in D&D and for D&D
Except that doesn't comport with anyone's expectations of necromancy. There's a reason necromancers and undead are frequently portrayed as evil, it's not just some bizzare coincidence.
As I said, a lot of other things are frequently expected to be evil. Doesn't mean that D&D/Pathfinder has to limit itself to those stereotypes.
Remember: Just because good necromancers aren't forbidden, they're not enforced, either. Creating undead is still evil, so those necromancers who do that are still evil. But necromancy isn't all about raising skeletons and zombies - in fact, the classical definition doesn't include it at all (because it was a form of divination, and you can't get any information form zombies and skeletons - sorry, Aber, but it's strue)
Similarly, healing is not inherently good, but it has strong good connotations. Sure, you can ignore tose connotations, but that doesn't mean you should.
Note that they ARE largely ignored in D&D. Cure spells don't have the [Good] descriptor. While good clerics are more adept at casting them, evil ones can still cast them as well. If the strong connotations aren't to be ignored, that will have to change.
As some other posters have pointed out, Cure used to be Neceomancy. The reason necromancy is overwhelmingly 'evil' now is they were taken away. Let Necromancy have them back. It still won't let Necromancers be any more good than they are now, because the affected spells are all cleric spells.
