*Gasp* An Arcane Healer?!


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Kolokotroni wrote:
A wizard who was level or int drained is in fact more powerful in the next encounter if he casts restoration then black tentacles between encounters.

At level 7 and 8, maybe. Not at level 9 or more, since the wizard can teleport to the nearest temple.

Quote:
No but the person able to remove negative conditions (paralysis, ability damage, negative levels, etc) is in fact a role as much as controller or blaster is. It doesnt have to be and shouldnt be ALL the character does, but it is part of it.

Oh.

I though we were talking about cure and restoration.

Liberty's Edge

GeneticDrift wrote:

Bards use arcane spells to heal. Wizards should be able to learn any arcane spell. The witch has a healing hex, which is ok. But having an actual arcane spell for it too is just as wrong as the bard having it.

More people with heals makes it a better game. Since arcane healing is around I wish they could include the wizard even if it is only for a generalist Mage and one specialization.

On the other hand, false life is a great spell.

and

Blue Star wrote:
Bards cast arcane spells and cast CLW through Mass-CMW. They don't use smaller dice or any of that nonsense, they just throw arcane cure spells, like gold dragons.

are the only two people in this thread, besides me, to realize that "arcane healing" has been in the game for at least 11 years now. Bards and Gold Dragons, among others.

Now, there's a difference between having arcane spellcasters able to heal, and having healing spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list, and maybe that's what's actually trying to be discussed here. But if that's the case, the apparent topic is misleading, because there are arcane healers, right in the core book, going back all the way to 3.0 PHB.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GâtFromKI wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
A wizard who was level or int drained is in fact more powerful in the next encounter if he casts restoration then black tentacles between encounters.

At level 7 and 8, maybe. Not at level 9 or more, since the wizard can teleport to the nearest temple.

Which is no where near as effective as being able to do it there, by himself on the spot.

Quote:

Quote:
No but the person able to remove negative conditions (paralysis, ability damage, negative levels, etc) is in fact a role as much as controller or blaster is. It doesnt have to be and shouldnt be ALL the character does, but it is part of it.

Oh.

I though we were talking about cure and restoration.

And I am talking about sets of spells, I consider cure, heal, restoration, remove disease, remove paralysis, and neutralize poison all part of the same set, healing and condition removal. If you give one you should be prepared to give all, and you should account for that.


Of course Mages already have access to cure spells with Wish and Limited Wish anyway.


Kolokotroni wrote:
And I am talking about sets of spells, I consider cure, heal, restoration, remove disease, remove paralysis, and neutralize poison all part of the same set, healing and condition removal. If you give one you should be prepared to give all, and you should account for that.

Why?

Why giving two weak-but-indispensable cleric spells to the wizard must be followed by giving the whole cleric list? What is the reasoning behind "if you give MCCW, then you must give heal and true rez also"?

In the rulebook I use, bards have MCMW and not heal, though heal is also a level 6 cleric spell. Is there an errata somewhere granting heal to the bard?


GâtFromKI wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
And I am talking about sets of spells, I consider cure, heal, restoration, remove disease, remove paralysis, and neutralize poison all part of the same set, healing and condition removal. If you give one you should be prepared to give all, and you should account for that.

Why?

Why giving two weak-but-indispensable cleric spells to the wizard must be followed by giving the whole cleric list? What is the reasoning behind "if you give MCCW, then you must give heal and true rez also"?

In the rulebook I use, bards have MCMW and not heal, though heal is also a level 6 cleric spell. Is there an errata somewhere granting heal to the bard?

Wizards already have Heal in Wish.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GâtFromKI wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
And I am talking about sets of spells, I consider cure, heal, restoration, remove disease, remove paralysis, and neutralize poison all part of the same set, healing and condition removal. If you give one you should be prepared to give all, and you should account for that.

Why?

Why giving two weak-but-indispensable cleric spells to the wizard must be followed by giving the whole cleric list? What is the reasoning behind "if you give MCCW, then you must give heal and true rez also"?

I dont have said reasoning. What I am saying is the wizard can already do a crazy amount of things. For him to gain new things he ought to be required to trade out other things. That is why many classes have specific spell lists. Cure and restoration are not weak spells. As you say they are indispensable. They are very important. The wizard already does many important things, adding to that without a redesign is going to upset what little balance there is to begin with.

Liberty's Edge

i have not had any issues with granting healing spells to the sorcerer/wizard list. although, many of my playes would rather switch to a board game night than play a divine caster. if you want a compromise, i once had a transmutation and necromancy spell that converted recently dead corpses to healing in second edition. x amount of body mass or hit dice per die of healing.


Marc Radle wrote:
Shiney wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:

Have you checked out the latest issue of Kobold Quarterly?

There is a new Pathfinder arcane base class, the White Necromancer, that has a number of healing abilities, including the ability to cast cure spells

Check out Althaghast, an NPC example of a white necromancer ---> HERE:)

Hadn't yet, doing so right now, actually.

Sounds good - hope you like what you see! I play tested the class for a number of weeks in a party with no cleric or other dedicated healer and things worked out great :)

I've looked through it, and I have to admit, I like the tradeoff. the minmaxer in me of course doesn't like the loss of my traditional wizardly virtues, but I have to say, for keeping the balance, that white necromancer is a balanced way of doing it. (Though my character would never let himself be called a 'white necromancer' gotta have some sort of better title than that.)


Kolokotroni wrote:
Cure and restoration are not weak spells. As you say they are indispensable. They are very important.

Indispensable =/= powerful. That's why they are different words to begin with.

3.5 Identification is indispensable, but far from powerful. If the party can't do the scenario at all without some spell, the spell is indispensable, it isn't powerful; for example, breath water is indispensable in a subaquatic scenario, but it isn't powerful.

And restraining an indispensable game element to certain classes is retarded game design. "Somebody want to play the cleric? No? OK, we can't play Pathfinder, let's play Super Smash Bros instead".

Good game design = each class, while not indispensable, add something to the party.
Retarded game design = someone has to play class X, or nobody can play the game.
Balance isn't "AHA, you can't do the adventure without my spells, AHA, I'm indispensable - OK, shut up already and cast restoration so we can resume play, you healbot".

Heal isn't an indispensable spell, because everything it does can be done using a combination of other spells. Heal is powerful because it does all those effect at the same time, and heal a very large amounth of HP. The same can be said for remove disease (the vast majority of disease can be handled with restoration; remove disease is only more efficient) and many other cleric spells.

Giving cure and restoration to anyone doesn't change game balance, since those spells use the slots of some more powerful spells. And also, it's still far less powerful than a diviner who can end any fight before it begins (who is balanced). Giving cure and restoration to anyone doesn't imply to give heal to anyone, you're just making a strawman. Giving cure and restoration to anyone just allow everyone to play the character he wants instead of the character the party needs, I can't see the problem with that. you can give trade-off for the sake of giving trade-off, but it's counter-productive: "you have restoration, but with this trade-off. - I won't cast this spell. - OK, we can't play Pathfinder, let's play Super Smash Bros instead."


GâtFromKI wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Cure and restoration are not weak spells. As you say they are indispensable. They are very important.

Indispensable =/= powerful. That's why they are different words to begin with.

3.5 Identification is indispensable, but far from powerful. If the party can't do the scenario at all without some spell, the spell is indispensable, it isn't powerful; for example, breath water is indispensable in a subaquatic scenario, but it isn't powerful.

And restraining an indispensable game element to certain classes is retarded game design. "Somebody want to play the cleric? No? OK, we can't play Pathfinder, let's play Super Smash Bros instead".

Good game design = each class, while not indispensable, add something to the party.
Retarded game design = someone has to play class X, or nobody can play the game.
Balance isn't "AHA, you can't do the adventure without my spells, AHA, I'm indispensable - OK, shut up already and cast restoration so we can resume play, you healbot".

Heal isn't an indispensable spell, because everything it does can be done using a combination of other spells. Heal is powerful because it does all those effect at the same time, and heal a very large amounth of HP. The same can be said for remove disease (the vast majority of disease can be handled with restoration; remove disease is only more efficient) and many other cleric spells.

Giving cure and restoration to anyone doesn't change game balance, since those spells use the slots of some more powerful spells. And also, it's still far less powerful than a diviner who can end any fight before it begins (who is balanced). Giving cure and restoration to anyone doesn't imply to give heal to anyone, you're just making a strawman. Giving cure and restoration to anyone just allow everyone to play the character he wants instead of the character the party needs, I can't see the problem with that. you can give trade-off for the sake of giving trade-off, but it's counter-productive: "you have restoration, but with this...

It is not impossible to play without a cleric, you can get the necesary magic by hiring npcs or using resources for (charged) items, having the option to trade in spell slots will make the character more powerful, the party can still use resources to heal/restore characters OR save money by doing it with a prepared spell.

Either way there is nothing to prevent individual groups to do the things as they want and it will hardly be an unbalancing issue if you allow it. Personally I am no fan of a class that can use all kinds of magic and would sooner axe the wizard than allowing it to cast even more spells.

That said I am considering an alternate system for wizards, instead of using two slots to cast spells of opposition schools they learn and cast such spells as 1 level higher, extrapolating on that you could use spells from other arcane caster classes as 1 level higher as well and divine spells as 2 levels higher, the latter two stacking with the additional level for an opposition school.

- This guideline gets a bit wonky with partial casters ofcourse so I would keep them out off it, allowing only full casters to 'steal' spells from other classes.

- I always give heighten spell as a bonus feat to keep things fair, however slight a power boost, getting a spell later should not make the spell more powerful by default

- I'd change the cure spells to necromancy, conjuration is too far fetched and surely it is powerful enough already.

- I perosnally like restricting magic from other lists for universalists and specialists of that spells school, or applying another +1 level otherwise in addition to the existing +1 modifier for opposition school
example :

- cure light wounds is a 1st level witch spell, so a wizard/necromancer could learn it as a 2nd level spell or an enchanter with necromancy as opposition school can learn to cast it as a 3rd level spell.

- raise dead is a 5th level cleric spell(or 6th level witch) a wizard/necromancer could learn to cast it as a 7th level spell, it could be done with limited wish though a bit more expensive. A wizard that is not a universalist but not a necromancer either can cast it as an 8th level spell, an enchanter could cast it only using a 9th level slot.

Basically such spells should be researched and it might seem complicated, but once you set a level for a spell it is easy enough to use without slowing gameplay down a bit.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No wizard should cast arcane spells worse than a bard. They are amateurs. Healing is not good as is, don't make it worse. Remove it from the bard in exchange for a Chanel energy like bard song.

Wizards won't take the cure spells, doing do actually makes them worse. Having the option would be nice. But if the bard didn't have it there would be no problem.

The witch is given power like a cleric so I can live with it.

The restoration and disease/curse spell lines can be fixed through new summons (leaches and other nasty parasites) or through conjuration to make healing drinks requiring components from the slain monster.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GâtFromKI wrote:
Indispensable =/= powerful. That's why they are different words to begin with.

You and I have very different definitions of power in pathfinder. My definition is anything that With x the character(s) have a much easier time succeeding then without x. I guess your definition for power is only things that kill monsters?

Quote:

3.5 Identification is indispensable, but far from powerful. If the party can't do the scenario at all without some spell, the spell is indispensable, it isn't powerful; for example, breath water is indispensable in a subaquatic scenario, but it isn't powerful.

Actually it wasnt, there was a magic item that let anyone with detect magic and spellcraft identify magic items. And Breath water is circumstantially useful (thus not particurly powerful) heal spells are always useful (thus powerful)

Quote:


And restraining an indispensable game element to certain classes is retarded game design. "Somebody want to play the cleric? No? OK, we can't play Pathfinder, let's play Super Smash Bros instead".

So we are at blatent falshoods then? Because the above is simply not true. Druid, Witch, Inquisitor, Paladin, Oracle all have access to this same game element. Several 3rd party classes also have access to it (Super Genius Mosaic Mage, Magus, and the Kobold Quarterly White necromancer). Denying an additional ability to one of the most powerful and versatile classes in the game, is not the same as saying said ability should ONLY be present within one class. I dont believe that, nor have I had that position at any point in this thread.

Quote:

Good game design = each class, while not indispensable, add something to the party.
Retarded game design = someone has to play class X, or nobody can play the game.

Again, completely untrue. Play a witch, play an inquisitor, a bard with a good umb and access to wands and scrolls for non cure spells, play a druid, an inquisitor, or a paladin with the proper mercies. There is at this point in the game exactly ZERO single classes which are indispensible to any game role. So your example of bad game design is not present in the existing pathfinder rules.

Quote:


Balance isn't "AHA, you can't do the adventure without my spells, AHA, I'm indispensable - OK, shut up already and cast restoration so we can resume play, you healbot".

Yea...how is 'the wizard shouldnt gain additional abilities without giving something up' the same as 'someone must play the healbot'? How does giving the wizard these spells change the mentality at all besides making the wizard the new heal b+!!+? Every class that currently has the ability to heal or remove conditions can do other things beside be heal b!%@&. If the party requires said player to be a heal b!$%$ they will do the same thing to the wizard if he could cast the spells. And the wizard doesnt have secondary built in abilities to reduce the load (channeling/spontaneous casting/lay on hands/healing hexes/ability to turn heal spells into useful spell via summon natures ally) SO if the wizard had to prepare all the cures/restores, he is MORE likely to be the heal b~+&* then a cleric, wizard, druid, witch, or paladin.

Quote:

Heal isn't an indispensable spell, because everything it does can be done using a combination of other spells. Heal is powerful because it does all those effect at the same time, and heal a very large amounth of HP. The same can be said for remove disease (the vast majority of disease can be handled with restoration; remove disease is only more efficient) and many other cleric spells.

Giving cure and restoration to anyone doesn't change game balance, since those spells use the slots of some more powerful spells. And also, it's still far less powerful than a diviner who can end any fight before it begins (who is balanced). Giving cure and restoration to anyone doesn't imply to give heal to anyone, you're just making a strawman. Giving cure and restoration to anyone just allow everyone to play the character he wants instead of the character the party needs, I can't see the problem with that. you can give trade-off for the sake of giving trade-off, but it's counter-productive: "you have restoration, but with this trade-off. - I won't cast this spell. - OK, we can't play Pathfinder, let's play Super Smash Bros instead."

Ok, one thing I should make clear, and I guess i was a little vague here, I didnt mean HEAL the spell i mean Healing spells (hit point recovery and condition removal).

Again you are the one with the straw man because just because the WIZARD cant cast the cure spell doesnt mean ONLY A CLERIC can. There are literally a dozen other ways you can gain access to those spells as a party, someone just has to do one of them.

And if all of those other routes leads to a character that is unfairly forced into spending all or most of their resources on something they dont want to do, then having the wizard be able to do it wont solve the problem, it just shifts the problem to the wizard.


long ago in a land called AD&D (1st edition) there was a supplement for Dragonlance Adventures. Within that rulebook was an arcane heal spell called Time Heal.

Basically the wizard turned back time on the targets body making them as healthy as they were several rounds before.


Kolokotroni wrote:
I guess your definition for power is only things that kill monsters?

No.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

More people who can cast restoration only helps. It doesn't make it the wizards burden, it's not like you cast it in the middle of the battle.

You need high caster levels for the remove x line anyway. So scrolls and wands are not as useful requiring the right class in the party.

Cure spells are not important, it's restoration and removing effects after a fight. There are tons of heals in player classes for that sudden don't die spot healing that's needed occasionally.

Shadow Lodge

Arcane healing already exists. See the bard and the witch.

Question: Why does the wizard/sorcerer have a need for healing magic? A large number of classes alreay have access to healing magic. Why does the wizard/sorcerer spell list have to be a superset of the spells and abilities of every other class in the game?


Kthulhu wrote:

Arcane healing already exists. See the bard and the witch.

Question: Why does the wizard/sorcerer have a need for healing magic? A large number of classes alreay have access to healing magic. Why does the wizard/sorcerer spell list have to be a superset of the spells and abilities of every other class in the game?

WISH AND LIMITED WISH!

They already have these things!


Kthulhu wrote:
Question: Why does the wizard/sorcerer have a need for healing magic? A large number of classes alreay have access to healing magic. Why does the wizard/sorcerer spell list have to be a superset of the spells and abilities of every other class in the game?

Actually, the wizard don't need cure/restoration. His party need it.

"I'll play a wizard.
- We really need someone with restoration.
- I guess so. But it won't be in my spell list, since I'll play a wizard. If I have issue with damages or condition, I'll teleport in the nearest temple.
- Huh, OK. I guess I won't play my ninja, but some random healer instead. Or Super Smash Bros."

Shadow Lodge

nathan blackmer wrote:

WISH AND LIMITED WISH!

They already have these things!

So we agree. There's no need to give them the spells seperately. If a wizard is desperate to cast cure light wounds, he can use wish or limited wich to cast it. I think that's fair.

By the way, the list of classes that have some degree of healing magic includes: alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, inquisitor, oracle, paladin, ranger, and witch. So it's not like the ability is under-represented in the game. If nobody wants to play a cleric, and your group is unwilling to play without a healer of some type, that still leaves eight class choises.


GâtFromKI wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Question: Why does the wizard/sorcerer have a need for healing magic? A large number of classes alreay have access to healing magic. Why does the wizard/sorcerer spell list have to be a superset of the spells and abilities of every other class in the game?

Actually, the wizard don't need cure/restoration. His party need it.

"I'll play a wizard.
- We really need someone with restoration.
- I guess so. But it won't be in my spell list, since I'll play a wizard. If I have issue with damages or condition, I'll teleport in the nearest temple.
- Huh, OK. I guess I won't play my ninja, but some random healer instead. Or Super Smash Bros."

No, the party needs a DM with the Supernatural Spell-Like Ability: Dungeon Master.

Dunger Master - All powerful being responsible for making the game run well and be fun.

If your DM has their head in the game you can do an entire campaign wihtout healing. He just has to... do his job.

Besides, Super Smash Bros.? What is this, 1999 again? We can stop playing and totally get an hour of Goldeneye in.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pathfinder exists at levels characters don't have teleport, wish, limited wish, and SM VII.
Ability damage, negative levels, curses, diseases exist before you get to those levels. And npc clerics probably are not very high level so good luck removing anything.

Edit: being a drain on the temple's resources will be a problem. Sorry we can't cure your mother Timmy, these idiots wanted to loot swamp castle and were here first. Also waiting 24 hours sucks, and a reasonable chance of finding a caster is not a guarantee, he will not be able to heal the whole party. And the caster might not be a cleric of s god you like, and may charge more to heal the annoying distractions.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GâtFromKI wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Question: Why does the wizard/sorcerer have a need for healing magic? A large number of classes alreay have access to healing magic. Why does the wizard/sorcerer spell list have to be a superset of the spells and abilities of every other class in the game?

Actually, the wizard don't need cure/restoration. His party need it.

"I'll play a wizard.
- We really need someone with restoration.
- I guess so. But it won't be in my spell list, since I'll play a wizard. If I have issue with damages or condition, I'll teleport in the nearest temple.
- Huh, OK. I guess I won't play my ninja, but some random healer instead. Or Super Smash Bros."

So essentially only one person in the group wants to play a character that casts spells, and that character must be a wizard, and no one else in the group has any interest in any of the multitude of ways the group can get access to the restoration spells? And if that doesnt happen then the only other option is the play super smash brothers?

For example, said ninja can play an inquisitor, be sneaky, mystical and stabby, and still give the party access to restoration.

Or the ninja can simply take skill focus UMD and get a UMD boosting magic item. Heck the wizard can MAKE him the umd boosting item, and then you can use scrolls of restoration.

The wizard can play a witch, keeping much of the same spell list as the wizard plus cool hexes and getting access to said spells.

Some could play an oracle, or a paladin and give the party access.

Or someone could play one of the 3 mentioned 3rd party classes who can also provide restoration.

The options are not:
1 give the wizard restoration
2 someone has to play a cleric
3 dont play pathfinder


nathan blackmer wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Question: Why does the wizard/sorcerer have a need for healing magic? A large number of classes alreay have access to healing magic. Why does the wizard/sorcerer spell list have to be a superset of the spells and abilities of every other class in the game?

Actually, the wizard don't need cure/restoration. His party need it.

"I'll play a wizard.
- We really need someone with restoration.
- I guess so. But it won't be in my spell list, since I'll play a wizard. If I have issue with damages or condition, I'll teleport in the nearest temple.
- Huh, OK. I guess I won't play my ninja, but some random healer instead. Or Super Smash Bros."

No, the party needs a DM with the Supernatural Spell-Like Ability: Dungeon Master.

Dunger Master - All powerful being responsible for making the game run well and be fun.

If your DM has their head in the game you can do an entire campaign wihtout healing. He just has to... do his job.

Besides, Super Smash Bros.? What is this, 1999 again? We can stop playing and totally get an hour of Goldeneye in.

It's the players jobs to be prepared. The GM already has her plate full with engaging storylines, interesting NPCs, fun and exciting locations, she shouldn't have to worry about picking up the slack for the PCs to.

Liberty's Edge

Shiney wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
Shiney wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:

Have you checked out the latest issue of Kobold Quarterly?

There is a new Pathfinder arcane base class, the White Necromancer, that has a number of healing abilities, including the ability to cast cure spells

Check out Althaghast, an NPC example of a white necromancer ---> HERE:)

Hadn't yet, doing so right now, actually.
I've looked through it, and I have to admit, I like the tradeoff. the minmaxer in me of course doesn't like the loss of my traditional wizardly virtues, but I have to say, for keeping the balance, that white necromancer is a balanced way of doing it. (Though my character would never let himself be called a 'white necromancer' gotta have some sort of better title than that.)

Cool - glad you like the class. For those looking for an arcane healer, I think this has a lot to offer.

As for calling your character a white necromancer, I actually really like the name plus it has a lot of history to it. You can certainly call your character something different of course!

I recomend 'Stanley' ... :)

Scarab Sages

@Marc Radle: I picked up a copy of KQ #19 partially because of the White Necromancer. Read it and colour me impressed!

I think the WN is an excellent option for a party without a cleric, and indeed, a larger party with just 1 cleric would benefit with a White Necromancer tagging along. Alternatively the WN could be a neat cohort for a Paladin... the options are endless when one thinks about it!

Aside from using the WN above, I think arcane is viable if, and only if, it doesn't usurp the cleric's abilities as primary healer. And that is very much a matter of degree. I like the idea of either weaker healing, or later healing. Using the necromancy school and some sort of "price" on the caster could be very flavourful!

YMMV


GeneticDrift wrote:

Pathfinder exists at levels characters don't have teleport, wish, limited wish, and SM VII.

Ability damage, negative levels, curses, diseases exist before you get to those levels. And npc clerics probably are not very high level so good luck removing anything.

+1 this. Why are people throwing out Wish and Lesser Wish as solutions, when I've never in my life played a game that got up to levels high enough that we got 7th-level spells?

It's not unreasonable or remotely unlikely to have a group of players that don't want to include a healing class for whatever reason, be it a small group or just a bunch of folks who like smashing down doors or whatever. If that's their playstyle, why not cater to it? It's not like we're re-writing Pathfinder here, forcing everybody to abide by these rules. If nobody in your personal game wants to play a healing class and you're opposed to the (IMO) meta-gamey use of CLW wands, I don't see how it would be overpowered for a wizard or sorcerer to add the cure spells to their list.

Now, if your party includes a healer class in addition to a wizard/sorcerer, I would recommend against doing this, so as not to step on anybody's toes. But if you're playing without one, it probably won't hurt. My biggest concern would be making sure that you and the wizard's player make sure not to let his character overshadow the rest of the characters--wizards are already pretty potent, as pretty much everybody knows, and you don't want the rest of the party standing around feeling like the wizard's sidekicks.

There are other ideas for getting around the healing issue, however, aside from giving wizards cure spells. You could use the reserve point rules variant from Unearthed Arcana, or you could use Trailblazer's 10-minute rest idea, wherein you rest for 10 minutes after a combat and are healed of some amount of damage--I think as though you rested for a day? Possibly full hp? I can't remember exactly, but it's something you could try out. These options won't help with in-combat emergencies or various conditions, but they can definitely help get your characters back on their feet without a healbot. Maybe give the Heal skill a boost and let it heal damage as per CLW--even the fighters could use it, then. Whoa, overpowered! If you're familiar with the d20 Star Wars system, have the Heal skill function as the Heal Another force skill, see how that works.


nathan blackmer wrote:


No, the party needs a DM with the Supernatural Spell-Like Ability: Dungeon Master.

Dunger Master - All powerful being responsible for making the game run well and be fun.

If your DM has their head in the game you can do an entire campaign wihtout healing. He just has to... do his job.

Oh, and +1 this, too. My DM laughs because my cleric/druid/ranger party goes through cure spells like tic-tacs, whereas his previous group apparently lacked any healers and rarely suffered damage. A lot of things depend on play style and the DM's willingness to work with the party instead of forcing the party to work around him.

Edit: Which actually contributes little to the topic at hand, I guess, but it amused me nonetheless.


nathan blackmer wrote:

No, the party needs a DM with the Supernatural Spell-Like Ability: Dungeon Master.

Dunger Master - All powerful being responsible for making the game run well and be fun.

If your DM has their head in the game you can do an entire campaign wihtout healing. He just has to... do his job.

Besides, Super Smash Bros.? What is this, 1999 again? We can stop playing and totally get an hour of Goldeneye in.

OK, with a good DM, the party won't need any healing during the whole campaign, while with an awful DM, the wizard will be able to cast cure. It makes sense.

Anyway, since cure and restoration will be useless in the campaign, why adding those useless spell in the wizard's list is unbalanced?

Kolokotroni wrote:
So essentially only one person in the group wants to play a character that casts spells, and that character must be a wizard, and no one else in the group has any interest in any of the multitude of ways the group can get access to the restoration spells?

That's actually the reason of this topic.

Shiney wrote:
All the other (Helpful!) Info in your post aside, yes. For the sake of brevity, let's jsut assume that I'm trying to give a cleric-free party a way for their wizard to heal.
Quote:
The wizard can play a witch, keeping much of the same spell list as the wizard plus cool hexes and getting access to said spells.

Whitchs don't have restoration. I don't know why.

Quote:

For example, said ninja can play an inquisitor, be sneaky, mystical and stabby, and still give the party access to restoration.

Some could play an oracle, or a paladin and give the party access.

Or someone could play one of the 3 mentioned 3rd party classes who can also provide restoration.

The options are not:
1 give the wizard restoration
2 someone has to play a cleric
3 dont play pathfinder

Is it me or 80% of the "options" you provide are "they could play an other character instead of the one they want"?


A wizard school that allows you to learn druidic magic, thus some limited heal spells and the like as two levels higher for PP.
(Inner Sea Magic)

Magaambya

Founded by legendary wizard
Old-Mage Jatembe, this is
the oldest surviving and still
operating academy in the Inner
Sea region.
Location Nantambu
(Mwangi Expanse)
REQUIREMENTS
Entrance Fee 50 gp
Entrance Exam DC 14
Knowledge (arcana) check
Tuition 20 gp/semester
EDUCATION
Education Check Knowledge
(arcana), Knowledge (history),
Knowledge (nature), Spellcraft
Semester 4 months
Flunk 6 consecutive failed
Education checks
EXTRACURRICULAR TASKS
Oral Tradition (+1 Fame) Once per
year, you can spend a month teaching
and reciting the school’s history
and discoveries to keep important
and relevant information in the
memories of its current students.
AWARDS
Ancient Mwangi Magic (4 PP) You
gain access to an arcane version of a
druid spell. This spell is two levels
higher than its druid version. You
must be able to cast spells of that
level in order to learn the spell.
If you prepare arcane spells,
this new spell is recorded
in your spellbook or
learned by your familiar as
is appropriate. If you cast
arcane spells spontaneously,
this new spell replaces a
spell you already know of
the appropriate spell slot.
Diplomatic Student (1 PP)
Your skills are part of the
reason why the city of
Nantambu has remained
safe, even in the violent shadow
of the Gorilla King. You become
specialized in Diplomacy.

Other option is to have summons do the healing.

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / *Gasp* An Arcane Healer?! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.