The following is more of a mental exercise than an attempt to challenge convention. I appreciate those who feel that this *shouldn't* be allowed, and that is valid considering the T1 status of the Wizard. However, that is not what this thread is about, its about the Rules as Written. All input welcome just the same :)
It is interesting to note that the Bard can cast the Cure X Wounds spells, and is the only Arcane caster who can do so by Spell List (bard 1, cleric 1, druid 1, paladin 1, ranger 2). Although we assume that these spells are Divine, there's nothing that I have found (so far) which says that healing-type spells are Divine-only. The Bard being an Arcane Caster proves that arcane caster's can perform this sort of healing magic.
I know this idea runs against Canon :P but please read the following:
Independent Research: A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.
I am not suggesting that the Wizard learn this spell off of a scroll as was tackled by this thread.
Which leaves the possibility open to GM tolerance. It seems that Technically speaking, spells are Divine or Arcane solely based on who is casting them. There aren't any spells inherently one or the other. Someone pointed out that a Cleric casting Dispel Magic would make that casting a Divine Spell. While a Wizard doing the same would make it Arcane.
So, is there anything in the rules stopping a Wizard from independently researching Cure X Wounds, or any spell found solely within Divine Caster lists?
If your gm allows it, of course. Same with any other allowance your gm makes.
I've spent the requisite gold and done it with my GM's approval citing the Independent Research rule. Pretty easy sell, and it didn't disrupt or unbalance anything.
Well, yeah. Seems like it would even fall under the "Duplicating an existing spell" clause, since when I think "new spell" I think it has an effect another spell doesn't, be it as simple as an Acid Ball that works like Fireball.
Exactly. It was a bit of a no-brainer for approval. It isn't like we were venturing into unknown spell-effect territory.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM, I'd happily let my Wizard players learn and prepare numerous Cure X spells per day. The more cures they're sitting on, the less they're actually being a wizard and making a joke out of most encounters.
|
Witches are arcane casters who can also cast cure light wounds.
On the other hand, I very, very rarely let casters go outside their spell lists, simply because a) it weakens the flavor of the different classes, rendering them too generic, and b) it raises the issue of why the spell isn't on their list in the first place. Healing is a really nice thing to be able to do for one's self - why doesn't every wizard research a cure spell then? Why haven't enough done so that the spell would already be on their list?
Well by that logic, why CAN'T they get the spell?
I once argued the sorcerer should be able to to choose cure light wounds off the bards list, based on the wording in sorcerer on how they can attain new spells. No one agreed.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I would probably allow it - in ways that would make it a nonoptimal choice. Like, cure light is a 2nd level spell when researched by a wizard, cure moderate is 3rd, cure serious is 5th and cure critical is 6th. So, yeah, you can get it if you want to... but you now understand why no one ever bothers.
The only rule that can stop the wizard doing this is the bit that says "GM's discretion". So a better way to put it is that there is a rule that may stop the wizard.
I'd perhaps discuss/negotiate increasing the price of the research with a player that wanted to, but I'd not outright disallow it.
Cure Light Wounds is just the test, which should set a precedent for researching new spells in general.
This opens up the entire library of spells not normally associated with a particular class. So think of a Wizard with Heal, or Restoration, or Shield of Faith. Like you said, nothing game breaking, but definitely makes the distinction between casting classes mechanically less relevant. That is unless their class-specific abilities (Smite, Channel Energy, etc) are too appealing to pass up.
But also, in this regard, why bother playing a Wizard when one can choose to be a Cleric who researches those game breaking Arcane spells? You get a better BaB, Medium Armor Proficiency and Shields, Martial Weapon Proficiency, 2 Good saves, Channel Energy, Spontaneous Conversion, and you know all spells of each level without having to spend any time or money, except for those Independently Researched ;) Doesn't this make the Cleric a leg above the Wizard in terms of raw power and effectiveness?
Either way, its interesting to think of how this might be abused. And thank you all for the thoughts and input so far :)
clerics dont research spells though
clerics dont research spells though
I came across this idea from another thread, and had to look it up to be sure. Here's the entire passage on the matter:
New Divine Spells
Divine spellcasters gain new spells as follows.
Spells Gained at a New Level: Characters who can cast divine spells undertake a certain amount of study between adventures. Each time such a character receives a new level of divine spells, she learns all of the spells from that level automatically.
Independent Research: A divine spellcaster can also research a spell independently, much as an arcane spellcaster can. Only the creator of such a spell can prepare and cast it, unless she decides to share it with others.
weird is that new? like only in PF?
weird is that new? like only in PF?
Not sure :) But here is the Link.
If I were DM'ing this issue, and a cleric wanted to learn high-damage spells like Fireball, I'd probably insist that the same issues that affect arcane casters casting in armor would affect divine casters of these type spells too. So maybe a cleric could research them, but they'd have to give up armor or risk miscasts too. Or, as the earlier poster suggested, make them cast it as a higher level spell, so it no longer becomes a no-brainer. Or make the research itself prohibitively difficult or expensive. There are already paths open in the game for getting characters who can cast from both lists (Use Magic Device, anyone?), and I'd like to see those get used first.
I seem to remember that in 3rd and 2nd edition as well (clerics researching spells).
If I were DM'ing this issue, and a cleric wanted to learn high-damage spells like Fireball, I'd probably insist that the same issues that affect arcane casters casting in armor would affect divine casters of these type spells too. So maybe a cleric could research them, but they'd have to give up armor or risk miscasts too. Or, as the earlier poster suggested, make them cast it as a higher level spell, so it no longer becomes a no-brainer. Or make the research itself prohibitively difficult or expensive. There are already paths open in the game for getting characters who can cast from both lists (Use Magic Device, anyone?), and I'd like to see those get used first.
This.
But then what's the draw back of an arcane casting divine.... there has to/should be one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were DM'ing this issue, and a cleric wanted to learn high-damage spells like Fireball, I'd probably insist that the same issues that affect arcane casters casting in armor would affect divine casters of these type spells too. So maybe a cleric could research them, but they'd have to give up armor or risk miscasts too. Or, as the earlier poster suggested, make them cast it as a higher level spell, so it no longer becomes a no-brainer. Or make the research itself prohibitively difficult or expensive. There are already paths open in the game for getting characters who can cast from both lists (Use Magic Device, anyone?), and I'd like to see those get used first.This.
But then what's the draw back of an arcane casting divine.... there has to/should be one.
I really think each spell would be judged on a case-by-case basis. GM's discretion and all that. Eg, for the wizard researching a pre-existing, iconic divine spell, I might make them memorise it as a spell from one of their opposing schools. If the player really hated that, I'd suggest they come up with an idea themselves.
I would certainly deal with each situation as it arose, and discuss/negotiate with the player before they committed to the research.
From a simulationist point of view, if it's this easy, why isn't there already a wizard who did this and taught it to his apprentices? This argument suggests that every spell should be on the wizard's spell list.
So there's a good reason why a GM might decide that wizards simply don't do healing. At least not without resorting to serious and noticeable evil, like Infernal Healing, and even that spell is not core, so easily banned.
If you want to allow it but not make it too easy, a nice rule of thumb could be that any spell copied from a different spell list becomes one or two levels higher on your spell list.
From a simulationist point of view, if it's this easy, why isn't there already a wizard who did this and taught it to his apprentices? This argument suggests that every spell should be on the wizard's spell list.
So there's a good reason why a GM might decide that wizards simply don't do healing. At least not without resorting to serious and noticeable evil, like Infernal Healing, and even that spell is not core, so easily banned.
If you want to allow it but not make it too easy, a nice rule of thumb could be that any spell copied from a different spell list becomes one or two levels higher on your spell list.
Yeah, this is a very good reason why a GM may not allow it. Having said that, I would. I'm quite happy to let my players do things the rest of the world doesn't do, simulationism be damned :) (is that a word?). And as I said, I'd negotiate a downside, or price, with the player - it wouldn't be an optimal choice, and it wouldn't break the game.
I guess the flavour reasons are pretty valid too, if you want to keep classes very distinct. Again, doesn't bother me personally, but it's worthy of thought.
But then what's the draw back of an arcane casting divine.... there has to/should be one.
You could add the requirement of worshipping a deity, perhaps symbolized by taking a religion trait (which can only be done if you worship the deity named in the trait)and require a corresponding divine focus to cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Samsaren Wizards can learn it via Mystic Past Life via the Bard List. Makes sense they could learn the spell.
A player whose caster is researching new spells should really take a look at this.
A player whose caster is researching new spells should really take a look at this
Good link, thank you :)
What level spell would Cure Light Wounds be for a Wizard? I'm assuming first, since its not a new spell. However, its clear from the link that your Cleric isn't going to be an effective blaster. But even so, the most abusive, game breaking Arcane spells aren't Evocation :P So the Cleric > Wizard debate is still on.
I'd place them one level higher than they appear on the cleric spell list, personally. Thus, cure light wounds would become a 2nd-level wizard spell.
I don't think I'd allow wizards to cast heal, raise dead, resurrection, or true resurrection at any level. Everything else is fair game, though.
There is no in-game reason why a sorcerer or wizard should be unable to learn healing spells. There are plenty of reasons outside of the game, mostly concerning class roles, identity, and balance. If you grant sorcerers and wizards healing magic, what's left for the cleric? It's a valid argument.
As an alternative to healing spells, you could allow sorcerers and wizards to select a feat like "Arcane Blast" which allows them to convert spell energy into healing. I think this would address the lack of arcane healing, whilst not stepping on the cleric's toes. Something like this:
Arcane Healing
You can convert any spell into healing.
Prerequisites: Arcane spellcaster, caster level 10th.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can sacrifice a prepared spell or unused spell slot of 1st level or higher and transform it into healing energy, affecting yourself or an ally within 30 feet. This ability heals 2d6 points of damage plus an additional 1d6 points of damage for every level of the spell or spell slot you sacrificed. 0-level spells may not be sacrificed in this manner.
I'd place them one level higher than they appear on the cleric spell list, personally. Thus, cure light wounds would become a 2nd-level wizard spell.
I don't think I'd allow wizards to cast heal, raise dead, resurrection, or true resurrection at any level. Everything else is fair game, though.
I tend to see Planar Binding as the "I have access to any spell" spell. All that he need call is an Efreeti. See this robust thread on how to successfully abuse his three wishes. So basically, a Wizard can already cast any spell in the game, including Heal, Raise Dead, and Resurrection.
I think the more interesting conundrum is how abusive can a Cleric get with Arcane spells?
Minimum of 3d6 healed for a 1st-level spell? (2d6+1d6 for 1st-level spell) Think that needs to be toned down, if you're not wanting to "step on the cleric's toes", as that blows CLW out of the water.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
As a GM, I'd have to think very carefully before allowing this. Besides blurring the line between caster types, there are other potential issues.
Is it okay for a wizard to be able to use a wand of CLW without a UMD check?
Is it okay for the wizard to be able to make scrolls of CLW for less cost than a charge from a wand?
Is it ok for the wizard to have easy access to ranged healing via a familiar's Deliver Touch Spells ability? (note: witches can already do this)
Are you prepared for the player using this as a precedent for adding any spell to any spell list for a trivial cost?
Minimum of 3d6 healed for a 1st-level spell? (2d6+1d6 for 1st-level spell) Think that needs to be toned down, if you're not wanting to "step on the cleric's toes", as that blows CLW out of the water.
Perhaps it ought to be toned down (I made it up on the spot; no playtesting), but I'm not convinced. Seems comparable to me, especially when you consider that most clerics concerned with healing are going to have the "Healer's Blessing" domain power (represented in brackets, below). Using your example, we have:
3d6 = 3-18 = 9 average vs. 1d8+5 = 6[9]-13[19] = 9[14] average.
I tend to see Planar Binding as the "I have access to any spell" spell. All that he need call is an Efreeti. See this robust thread on how to successfully abuse his three wishes. So basically, a Wizard can already cast any spell in the game, including Heal, Raise Dead, and Resurrection.
I think this only proves that conjuration is over-powered. That said, conjuration spells are heavily ingrained within the game (something I'd reconsider were I designing another edition of Pathfinder/D&D; I'd rather have stronger spells all around than be forced into using conjuration spells, for no other reason than that they are best).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although it isn't directly applicable, there is an interesting paragraph in the AD&D 2nd Edition DMG that addresses cross-class spell research:
Is the player trying to gain a special advantage over the normal rules?
Sometimes players propose new spells with the unspoken purpose of "breaking the system," and, while spell research does let a player character get an edge, it is not a way to cheat. New spells should fall within the realm and style of existing spells. Clerics casting fireballs or mages healing injured characters is contrary to the styles of the two classes.
Obviously something from four editions ago isn't canon law on the matter.
I do think it is interesting to see what the old designers thought, and how that influences and contributes to the current evolution of the rules.
Minimum of 3d6 healed for a 1st-level spell? (2d6+1d6 for 1st-level spell) Think that needs to be toned down, if you're not wanting to "step on the cleric's toes", as that blows CLW out of the water.Perhaps it ought to be toned down (I made it up on the spot; no playtesting), but I'm not convinced. Seems comparable to me, especially when you consider that most clerics concerned with healing are going to have the "Healer's Blessing" domain power (represented in brackets, below). Using your example, we have:
3d6 = 3-18 = 9 average vs. 1d8+5 = 6[9]-13[19] = 9[14] average.
I wasn't even aware of the existence of that ability >_> I don't play many clerics. I like spont-casting too much.
In that case, there's the oracle of life's "Enhanced Cures" revelation which lifts the cap on the bonus healing (so, in the case of a 10th level oracle, cure light wounds would heal 1d8+10; clearly superior to 3d6).
If I were DM'ing this issue, and a cleric wanted to learn high-damage spells like Fireball, I'd probably insist that the same issues that affect arcane casters casting in armor would affect divine casters of these type spells too. So maybe a cleric could research them, but they'd have to give up armor or risk miscasts too. Or, as the earlier poster suggested, make them cast it as a higher level spell, so it no longer becomes a no-brainer. Or make the research itself prohibitively difficult or expensive. There are already paths open in the game for getting characters who can cast from both lists (Use Magic Device, anyone?), and I'd like to see those get used first.This.
But then what's the draw back of an arcane casting divine.... there has to/should be one.
The Cleric isn't casting an arcane version of Fireball but a Divine version. Or Lead Blades...or a Paladin researching a Divine version.
Duplication of specific class spells is ripe for abuse.
EDIT: The issue is that if you open the door for wizards to cast an arcane version of the Cure spells then it is only fair/makes no sense not to allow the Divine casters to do the same with all those Arcane spells...that is what will be the imbalance. Paladin with Divine versions of Shield, Lead Blades...That will hurt.
|
|
Although it isn't directly applicable, there is an interesting paragraph in the AD&D 2nd Edition DMG that addresses cross-class spell research:
Is the player trying to gain a special advantage over the normal rules?
Sometimes players propose new spells with the unspoken purpose of "breaking the system," and, while spell research does let a player character get an edge, it is not a way to cheat. New spells should fall within the realm and style of existing spells. Clerics casting fireballs or mages healing injured characters is contrary to the styles of the two classes.Obviously something from four editions ago isn't canon law on the matter.
I do think it is interesting to see what the old designers thought, and how that influences and contributes to the current evolution of the rules.
Are you seriously arguing against it being a good idea to not let a player gain special advantage over normal rules and "break" the system?
Are you really trying to defend that position?
@ Detect Magic: Actually the average of 3d6 is 10.5, and your CLW example gives an average of 9.5[14.25]. Without healer's blessing the 6th level cleric is at a disadvantage to a 1st level wizard (who is sacrificing one of his top level spells, I'll grant you).
Ah, thanks. Math has never been my forté, haha (even lowly averages, low and behold)!
Please note that like "Arcane Blast," the feat I suggested requires the character to be at least 10th level. Thus, a 1st level wizard would never have the option of converting a spell slot into healing.
That said, it does seem the cleric is at a slight disadvantage without "Healer's Blessing." Still, it would seem to me that the wizard might roll low on the dice. The cleric isn't hurt as badly for rolling low, since he receives a bonus based upon his level.
What it proves is that at least some GM's are too easy with Planar Binding and forget the golden three words. "Actions Have Consequences."
They forget things like the basic fact that Efreeti aren't just wish granting machines, they're prideful vengeful powerful beings, and they have a society. Which means tons of ways that careless and arrogant magic wielders can get themselves in a whole tub of hot water.
And again that's at high levels of the game and mostly in theorycraft instead of actual play.
A GM who willfully undermines his players, is probably too interested outcomes. Is this a game of GM versus Player, or is the GM a facilitator of fun and good times? Really, if the goal is to beat down the players at every turn, putting them in their place, discouraging them from taking risks, then as GM you win. You have Fiat, they don't.
Most wishes are not a big deal to the Efreeti, and in my experience most players offer an exchange which will satisfy their potential cash cow. There is no reason that a LE being can't find his relationship with your particular players amenable and lucrative.
I'm not disagreeing with you though that a good GM will challenge his players in this regard, but not go so far as to outright railroad them.
Not an issue of if you can, yes you totally can its an issue of why would you? A wizards job is to control the battlefield and make his/her party win the combat. If you are short a healer the wizard can get much more out of say adept channel and the heal skill rather than cure light wounds (and spending precious spell slots.) Want more healing and have a decent cha? Eldritch HEritage feat gives you yet more healing options.
Ah, thanks. Math has never been my forté, haha (even lowly averages, low and behold)!
Please note that like "Arcane Blast," the feat I suggested requires the character to be at least 10th level. Thus, a 1st level wizard would never have the option of converting a spell slot into healing.
That said, it does seem the cleric is at a slight disadvantage without "Healer's Blessing." Still, it would seem to me that the wizard might roll low on the dice. The cleric isn't hurt as badly for rolling low, since he receives a bonus based upon his level.
Oops I totally missed the level 10 requirement. Paying close attention to details is obviously not my forté :)
You're right though, the cleric's roll has a more consistent set of outcomes with a higher minimum, while the wizard's is swingier with a lower minimum.
Yeah, that level 10 prereq is a game-changer :)