Wizards learning Cure Light Wounds? See Logic, help me disprove this


Advice

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

LazarX wrote:
Shisumo wrote:

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?

The whole idea is that there is more than just one boundary in magic that between the arcane and the divine.

Witches and Bards also cast spells that neigher cleric nor wizard can master, because they also draw from different aspects of magic that neither of the other two can access.

I don't see that you have to come up with a "logical" or "scientific" reason to explain magical boundaries... "They just are" is a perfect answer for a pre-scientific or a-scientific culture.

It's your world and your game aesthetics. I tend to feel that separate class lists are a major part that defines the different character of the classes. If you want to abolish all distinctions and simply put all spells in one big pot, that's your choice as a DM. But that's a very wide ranging choice with a lot of impact that needs to be addressed.

Both very good points :) I think the distinction between Cleric and Wizard is quite clear in the PRD. However, Paizo tossed out the baby with the bathwater once they released the APG. Game wise, Paizo has gone with the "Sure thing!" approach to Class concepts, where the new Base Classes are hybrids of the Core classes, totally blurring the lines. Within their game system, they have recognized that a good number of players LOVE finding ways to bend or break conventions. Paizo knows that these players enjoy that sort of optimization and have gone out of their way to provide the means. This includes Spell Lists as well.

A Wizard can Learn or Research any Arcane spell. A Witch knows Arcane versions of healing and other spells which are traditionally "Divine." Witch and Bard only spells are still Arcane spells which can be transcribed onto a scroll and then learned by other Arcane casters.

I wouldn't deny my players these options by Fiat. However, I would play on the fact that this appears to be an exception to the norm, make a big deal out of it, and challenging them in such a way that they feel like they're clever and getting away with something. I would facilitate their sense of being special, thus enhancing their game experience.

I think an interesting discussion would be on how the Arcane/Divine distinctions came to be. The man who inspired all of this was Tolkien, not Gygax. Tolkienien magic held no such distinction, so why is that divide so sacred?

Also, healers are absolutely unnecessary, their specific contributions being replaced by potions or wands (probably better to have all characters heal themselves when needed rather than have one guy running around healing only 1 person per round). In the end, if a player feels that his character is Unique, he will probably be very fond of that character, and so I am of the mind to say yes.

TLDR: What's more important, enforcing convention, or helping your players have a great time?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paulcynic wrote:

Both very good points :) I think the distinction between Cleric and Wizard is quite clear in the PRD. However, Paizo tossed out the baby with the bathwater once they released the APG. Game wise, Paizo has gone with the "Sure thing!" approach to Class concepts, where the new Base Classes are hybrids of the Core classes, totally blurring the lines. Within their game system, they have recognized that a good number of players LOVE finding ways to bend or break conventions. Paizo knows that these players enjoy that sort of optimization and have gone out of their way to provide the means. This includes Spell Lists as well.

A Wizard can Learn or Research any Arcane spell. A Witch knows Arcane versions of healing and other spells which are traditionally "Divine." Witch and Bard only spells are still Arcane spells which can be transcribed onto a scroll and then learned by other Arcane casters.

I wouldn't deny my players these options by Fiat. However, I would play on the fact that this appears to be an exception to the norm, make a big deal out of it, and challenging them in such a way that they feel like they're clever and getting away with something. I would facilitate their sense of being special, thus enhancing their game experience.

I think an interesting discussion would be on how the Arcane/Divine distinctions came to be. The man who inspired all of this was Tolkien, not Gygax. Tolkienien magic held no such distinction, so why is that divide so sacred?

Also, healers are absolutely unnecessary, their specific contributions being replaced by potions or wands (probably better to have all characters heal themselves when needed rather than have one guy running around healing only 1 person per round). In the end, if a player feels that his character is Unique, he will probably be very fond of that character, and so I am of the mind to say yes.

TLDR: What's more important, enforcing convention, or helping your players have a great time?

Along with all of that though, Paizo has also sought to re-empower GM's giving them appropriate guidelines and points to consider.

And again you're seriously wrong about Tolkien being the inspiration for this game. While Gygax lifted things from Tolkien, his inspiration and came from wargaming and other more grittier works such as Jack Vance's Dying Earth (where most of the magic mechanics comes from), Fritz Leiber's The Grey Mouser series, and other action oriented novels. (Get ahold of a AD+D players book and read the bibliography some time. Tolkien is just one entry of a very long list)

It's a common mistake to make, many people go look at ooh, there's Rangers and Hobbits, so this must be a Tolkien game. They're missing the forest for some particular trees when they do that though.

The point after all this.. IT'S STILL YOUR CALL. You don't need message board validation of any GM call you make. It's Your Game, Your Campaign, Your Rules. And if you and your players are happy, it'd be far from me to gainsay any call you make.

But read that bibliography and some of the books on that list. You'll find it instructive, and your horizons broadened.

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
And again you're seriously wrong about Tolkien being the inspiration for this game. While Gygax lifted things from Tolkien, his inspiration and came from wargaming and other more grittier works such as Jack Vance's Dying Earth (where most of the magic mechanics comes from), Fritz Leiber's The Grey Mouser series, and other action oriented novels. (Get ahold of a AD+D players book and read the bibliography some time. Tolkien is just one entry of a very long list)

And many of those other list entries were written BEFORE Tolkien's works, I might add. It seems to be common to attribute the existence of the fantasy genre as a whole to Tolkien for some reason, and that couldn't be more wrong.


LazarX wrote:

I'm not talking about a GM railroading his players through a module or a storyline. I'm talking about "old school gaming" where the DM's role as arbitrator was an accepted given instead something that seems to now be translated as "player's servant". I don't see a problem with a GM declaring "my table, my campaign, my rules." That WAS the accepted standard back then, and I think it's the proper way this game should be played. The problem is that Wizards stopped writing books for GM's and started the Book a Month club for players, showering them with a constant stream of new toys rushed out to market with relatively little regard for game aesthetics or balance.

It's led to this sense that GM's should allow wizard players to set themselves up as money and wish granting vending machines. With no consequence at all. It cheapens the rules, waters down the settings, makes hash of classic monsters and pretty much makes rubbish of the entire game.

Wouldn't you agree that Gaming is what we make of it? That gaming tastes and expectations have shifted with culture, and what was fun 33 years ago is not in sync with the inherited knowledge and technology of today? Haven't we learned how to do it better? Is the GM a "Benevolent Dictator," or is he a friend at the table engaging in mutual fun and satisfaction? And when has being told "You fail, or you can't Because I said so" in a game ever been a pleasant experience?

About 3 years ago, I visited a table in which the GM held your philosophy. He was quite abusive; for example, he felt that Sneak Attack was way too powerful, and so decided that a rogue could only sneak attack once per combat. He said that logically once all of the critters on the battlefield had seen my tactic, there was no way they'd fall for it hence. That, and it did "too much damage." I did the DPR calculations for all of the characters in the party, and showed that the Rogue using normal SA rules still does less damage than all of the other martial classes. He said something to the effect of "my table, my campaign, my rules." I think I managed 3 sessions before walking away, saddened.

I GM more than I play, and so I am not railing against anyone's authority. I'm saying that the assumption of authority is staggeringly immature. Gygax felt that the GM was there to defeat the players. Nobody liked that system and his company went bankrupt. Wizards understood that players were an important part of the market, and so reshaped their game theory to ensure that everyone enjoys their product, hence the modern rpg Game Theory.

LasarX, do you really feel put off by a more cooperative game?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paulcynic wrote:

Wouldn't you agree that Gaming is what we make of it? That gaming tastes and expectations have shifted with culture, and what was fun 33 years ago is not in sync with the inherited knowledge and technology of today? Haven't we learned how to do it better? Is the GM a "Benevolent Dictator," or is he a friend at the table engaging in mutual fun and satisfaction? And when has being told "You fail, or you can't Because I said so" in a game ever been a pleasant experience?

About 3 years ago, I visited a table in which the GM held your philosophy. He was quite abusive; for example, he felt that Sneak Attack was way too powerful, and so decided that a rogue could only sneak attack once per combat. He said that logically once all of the critters on the battlefield had seen my tactic, there was no way they'd fall for it hence. That, and it did "too much damage." I did the DPR calculations for all of the characters in the party, and showed that the Rogue using normal SA rules still does less damage than all of the other martial classes. He said something to the effect of "my table, my campaign, my rules." I think I managed 3 sessions before walking away, saddened.

I GM more than I play, and so I am not railing against anyone's authority. I'm saying that the assumption of authority is staggeringly immature. Gygax felt that the GM was there to defeat the players. Nobody liked that system and his company went bankrupt. Wizards understood that players were an important part of the market, and so reshaped their game theory to ensure that everyone enjoys their product, hence the modern rpg Game Theory.

LasarX, do you really feel put off by a more cooperative game?

1. Gygax felt that DM's should challenge their players and make them work and sweat blood for their victories. However he never suggested that DM's should see themselves as Player Adversaries, just that DM's should play their monsters and NPC's with appropriate intelligence (or lack of it) Yes his NPC's even allies would be very adversarial, but that was part of the challenge.

2. You don't have much of a clue of my philosophy. I am not a Killer GM, if I'm strict on anything, it's on magic. Which means that non-casters aren't put on a bus by casters in my games, nothing more nor less. It means that all characters are important, and that cooperative gameplay, not munchkin corner interpretations of game tactics are the route to success.

3. I do believe in "My Campaign My Table, My Rules". I don't presume that the way I make soup makes it palatable for all. TSR did not go bankrupt because of Gygax. It went under because of rubbish decisions made by a someone who took over the company who had absolutely no prior gaming background and forced him out. Wizards reshaped their philosophy to sell tons and tons of books, nothing more than that. They trashed the RPGA and much of their good will and gaming culture, which is why much of it is HERE instead of there. I don't however presume to be as good a game designer as the folks who make these things so my adjustments are more of a light touch than anything else. (if you want to see a taste of my thought. I do have a publish credit for GURPS IST that you can check out)

4. Not all things "newer" are automatically better. That said I have nothing against cooperative gameplay, I think with the right group it can add immensely to a game world. Gone too far though it becomes Design By Committee, and one only needs to contrast any truly decent SF show vs post Roddenberry Star Trek to see the difference.


LazarX wrote:

And again you're seriously wrong about Tolkien being the inspiration for this game. While Gygax lifted things from Tolkien, his inspiration and came from wargaming and other more grittier works such as Jack Vance's Dying Earth (where most of the magic mechanics comes from), Fritz Leiber's The Grey Mouser series, and other action oriented novels. (Get ahold of a AD+D players book and read the bibliography some time. Tolkien is just one entry of a very long list)

It's a common mistake to make, many people go look at ooh, there's Rangers and Hobbits, so this must be a Tolkien game. They're missing the forest for some particular trees when they do that though.

The point after all this.. IT'S STILL YOUR CALL. You don't need message board validation of any GM call you make. It's Your Game, Your Campaign, Your Rules. And if you and your players are happy, it'd be far from me to gainsay any call you make.

But read that bibliography and some of the books on that list. You'll find it instructive, and your horizons broadened.

My apologies, I'll concede the point that Tolkien is not the father of modern fantasy, but he is certainly a major influence and helped to make it popular. I'm sure Vance is amazing, but sadly I have not read his work. As for Tolkien's influence on OD&D, I think you'll agree that its more than passing. But even so, Gygax's original system is not the be all, end all of magic. His distinctions aren't interesting enough to cling to, and gaming as a whole has moved as far from the archetypes that he created as possible. And once 3.0 was released, Clerics and Wizards had strongly homogenized spell lists, with only a couple of distinctions: Clerics healed, Wizards blasted. And what should be noted, is that neither of those spell distinctions fall among the best, or most optimal spells to memorize. If they wanted to make clear distinctions, it would have been more divisive to give Summoning, Enchanting, and Transmutation solely to Wizards. Or something along these lines. As is now, suboptimal healing or blasting is too thin a veil to worry over.

I did think this was a good discussion, but sadly you have descended into condescension. Am I misunderstanding your tone? I do appreciate you having this discussion, we shouldn't have to be so aggressive in how we disagree :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think it's condescension when I say it's your Call. I think it's the number one thing that GM's of this generation need to remember. Your one obligation to your players is to give them a game that they AND YOU enjoy. (contrary to some opinions it is important that the GM enjoy GMing.) How you acheive that goal is up to you. No matter what freedoms you give the players, you'll be the one they blame or praise for your game.

By your own admission, you're probably not as widely read as you could be. But I would strongly suggest that bibliography if you are looking for a handle on the roots of this game. And when you weigh up all of the influences that went it to it. you'd have to come with the realization that Tolkien is really just a passing influence in this game. There's clearly material lifted from Tolkien, but inn fact it would be my contention, that we'd have D+D more or less unchanged save that the Ranger might have a different class name, and we wouldn't have been saddled with kender.

Final Word... if you want to put everything into a unified spell list, I would strongly recommend a look at Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved and see how he balanced that change. Fair warning though, it was not a trivial piece of work to do so. Arcana Evolved does have guidelines for using the material in a D+D 3.5 game. that should be easy enough to bridge to Pathfinder.


LazarX wrote:
By your own admission, you're probably not as widely read as you could be.

lul, you couldn't resist :P *That* is what I'm referring to. I have read hundreds of books in the last decade. Vance just didn't cross my path. I'm also a lab tech with a BA in molecular biology, currently working my way into a PhD program. I'm hardly as you've described. And I think those little snipes you've added in each of your posts are probably a bit over the line. They speak more of the author's insecurity than they communicate a friendly suggestion.

Not that I was stalking, but I wanted to be sure that I didn't set you off by my stance or comments, and I have found in several of your posts that you demean those you disagree with reflexively. I do not know you, I only know what you've written, and I assume that you mean what you say. And so I assume that you mean to be condescending. I can take that in stride if you can't help yourself, but I'd appreciate a more level dialogue if you can.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
And when you weigh up all of the influences that went it to it. you'd have to come with the realization that Tolkien is really just a passing influence in this game. There's clearly material lifted from Tolkien, but inn fact it would be my contention, that we'd have D+D more or less unchanged save that the Ranger might have a different class name, and we wouldn't have been saddled with kender.

This is getting crazy off-topic, but you can't possibly be serious here, LazarX. I have read a significant portion of the bibliography, and while I'm much more a Leiber fan myself, you and I both know that Tolkien's influence on this game is anything but "passing," and his contributions far greater than contributing "ranger" as a class name and a few other tidbits. I would never discount the contributions of other writers to the genre and their influences on Gygax's original works, but c'mon, man.


Brandon Hodge wrote:
LazarX wrote:
And when you weigh up all of the influences that went it to it. you'd have to come with the realization that Tolkien is really just a passing influence in this game. There's clearly material lifted from Tolkien, but inn fact it would be my contention, that we'd have D+D more or less unchanged save that the Ranger might have a different class name, and we wouldn't have been saddled with kender.
This is getting crazy off-topic, but you can't possibly be serious here, LazarX. I have read a significant portion of the bibliography, and while I'm much more a Leiber fan myself, you and I both know that Tolkien's influence on this game is anything but "passing," and his contributions far greater than contributing "ranger" as a class name and a few other tidbits. I would never discount the contributions of other writers to the genre and their influences on Gygax's original works, but c'mon, man.

;) Thank you for that.

This thread wrapped up about halfway down page 1 :P Aside from some strongly worded "Shoulds" and "Aughts" I think consensus is that the rules support the Title. Between Witches and Bards, other Arcane casters can learn existing healing and other traditionally divine-only spells from them.

But I agree with everyone who said to be cautious, I wouldn't make it an open and easy market to access. Its more fun to set the players up for the interesting challenge of acquiring them.

Thank you everyone who shared their thoughts :)


My question would be, why bother having any class or level distinctions then? Let everyone do what they want, whenever they want, however they want.


Whenever I DM, I allow wizards and sorcerers to research any spell that shows up on the Bard, Summoner, or Witch list with the only rule being that they cannot learn early access spells like a second level Haste. 1,000 gp per level of the spell, 1 week of research per level (8 hr days so they pretty much aren't adventuring at that time), at the end of each week the wizard must succeed on a Knowledge (Aracana) and Spellcraft check each with a DC of 15 + 2x(Spell level). If they fail on a check then they make no progress that week but still loose the 1,000 gp.


ciretose wrote:
another_mage wrote:

Although it isn't directly applicable, there is an interesting paragraph in the AD&D 2nd Edition DMG that addresses cross-class spell research:

Dungeon Master's Guide, p.43 wrote:

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?

Once upon a time, there was a thread about cross-class spell research.

It didn't have a post containing an interesting quote about the topic of cross-class spell research from an AD&D 2nd Edition book.

Somebody added a post that quoted the book, for the benefit of those interested.

The End.

Wasn't that a happy story? :-)


The problem I have with allowing this is you are making it a benefit to not have a spell on your list. A bard has the spell snapdragon fireworks on his list as a level 2 spell. It is a level 1 spell for wizards. It would be better for the bard to not have the spell on his list as it is preventing him from researching it and getting it at first level.

Dark Archive

Wizards can cast healing spells, these are called Limited Wish, and Wish.
Or Planar bindings to bring in things that can heal. Otherwise no.


Has anyone mentioned Infernal Healing yet?


Cleanthes wrote:
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.

Having a Divine Caster use arcane spell failure for casting a researched Spell is not the way to go... the DM is the final say if the spell is allowed... plus it does not make sense.. since Divine Casters can already cast Fireball (sometimes)

I play a Druid with the Fire Domain.. and I regularly cast Fireball all the time.. in armor... also other Clerics that have the Fire Domain can easily cast Fireball.

Also Flame Strike is a 4th level Druid Spell but a 5th level Cleric Spell. While half the damage is holy and other is Fire... in all other respects its VERY similar to Fireball...

I do agree that Cure Light Wounds should be a 2nd level arcane spell (unless you are a bard of course!)...

Class and Spell list balance is pretty decent in Pathfinder by having some classes receive spells earlier or later than other classes.


Arcane Casters already have 2 Healing Spells you just need allow the source or at least the individual spells.

Liberty's Edge

I fail to see how a wizard gaining every spell off of every spell list (adjusting those from 4 and 6-level lists up levels as appropriate) would break the game in any way. In fact, I was in a campaign once where the DM used a custom rule-set I had designed that merged all the spell lists into one and made all casting be the same (similar to how BAB stacks). Nothing much bad happened, though a couple interesting characters were made. We had an illusionist witch, a healer/necro wizard and a sorc/monk/dragon-disciple that used product flame in conjunction with their unarmed attacks. None of these were broken, and yet none were allowed by the normal rules.

I mean, what's the worst the wizard could do? Cast Shapechange then use Divine Power when the fighting started? Big whoop. A cleric with the animal domain can do that too, and with better BAB, better fort saves, better HP, better armor and an animal companion as backup, upon whom they can also cast said spells. Oh, and they wouldn't have to research the spell first, they just get to say "Yeah, I have that" and be done with it.

(If you allow it, however, you must allow it both directions. In other words, if you let the wizard research Cure/Heal/etc, you must let the cleric research Haste/Disintegrate/etc.)


I don't get it, what's wrong with wizards being able to do literally everything instead of just pretty much everything? Thematically wizards should be able to do everything because they are wizards. If you disagree you are an evil killer GM.


Mechanically, there's not a reason to disallow it. Bump the level by one (i.e . CLW is 2nd level for wizards) mainly to prevent messing with potion and scroll costs. Allowing it could open up some interesting narrative points (why it hasn't happened before, etc).

Liberty's Edge

Roberta Yang wrote:
I don't get it, what's wrong with wizards being able to do literally everything instead of just pretty much everything? Thematically wizards should be able to do everything because they are wizards. If you disagree you are an evil killer GM.

Personally, I'd rather see all casters essentially act as spontaneous except with the new spell levels still at level 3/5/etc. It's not unreasonable to assume that even a studied caster would have trouble keeping more than a certain number of spells in a practiced-enough state to cast them without risk of failure.

With that in place, who cares if everyone could pick from every list. They'd still have limited spells known and thus have to think very carefully about which spells they picked.

Also, I REALLY wish that martial characters got to have more fun. A sorcerer can spend a feat to get a new spell known, but a fighter generally only gets a +1 or 2 to something he could already do, which isn't a particularly long list. Oh, and the caster can do those things too (though they'll need to buff first). When you can make a caster that can use a small list of long-duration spells that does just at well at combat as a martial class, but still has other spells too, something is wrong with martial characters.

Where's the feat that lets me shatter walls with a single strike, or the feat that let's me jump off of thin air or the feat that allows me to grab onto a large opponent in such a way as to climb them without actually grappling. Why is it that the new caster thing is something like "Now you can disintegrate walls", but the new martial thing is "now you can break objects slightly better, sort-of".

(DISCLAIMER: The rant in the above two paragraphs really only applies at mid-to-high levels. At low levels the disparity leans the other way, with casters being stuck at only a couple of useful spells per day while melee can deal good damage all night.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do think cure spells, per se and as-is, have a divine component. Even the witch version (witches get their spells from a higher power, too), and the bard (music and art can be considered spiritual pursuits) can be considered to be riding the edge of divinity, at least, as they come from the same sorts of dedication and belief as would the spells of a godless cleric.

That doesn't mean a wizard cannot come up with some means of duplicating the effects via the very definition of an existing school of magic. For instance, cure spells already have a reverse in cause spells. Some study in Necromancy by a curious wizard should be able to reverse and tweak a necromantic effect into a cure spell, just as one example.

I would have no problem allowing a wizard in my game to "create" a cure spell, as it's common, low-level, hardly game-breaking, and useful all at once.


If anyone should be able to learn spells outside their list, its a Wizard. A wizard approaches magic as a sets of different energies to be shaped by his will. With time and research, he should be able to figure out how to manipulate positive and negative energy.

If a player wants to spend time and gold learning to do something outside their class, whether it's a new spells or new weapon proficiency, why stop it? It doesn't unbalance the game, it makes logical sense that they should be able to do it.

Preventing the player from doing that is preventing them from doing it for the sake of maintaining boundaries between classes for the sake of doing it alone.


The bard's Cure X Wounds id a vestige from AD&D when they were an offshoot of Druid, which is true to RL lore. In druidic circles, the bards are the lorekeepers.


Quote:
and if it's so good that it's obviously the best spell choice, it's probably overpowered. Understanding the entire system of rules can help you avoid mistakes like this.

So did paizo follow their own advice when they made the wizard spell list or what


As previously pointed out, in the older editions of the game, wizards and clerics could research spells they didn't have, just as they can in Pathfinder. So that's nothing new.

However, if a wizard wants a spell that is not on his spell list but is on the list of another class, as far as I'm concerned it's a gimme that the researched version will be higher level. Otherwise it would be on the wizard list.

Regardless, there is absolutely no gamebreaking advantage to a wizard being able to cast Cure Wounds spells at a higher spell slot than a cleric casting the same spells, and with less flexibility. It is self-gimping, in fact, as the wizard would almost certainly be more effective preparing some of the spells off the wizard/sorcerer list instead. But if it matches the character concept, why not? Not everyone has to play an optimized character.


Bards weren't just part of Druidic Circles. They served as Chronicles for a lot of circles.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can see both sides of this argument. I, for one, love the concept of White Wizards and am also somewhat baffled that a wizard can't conjure positive energy when they can literally conjure anything else a cleric can. On the other hand, healing magic is one of the few things that clerics can do that wizards cannot do; being able to cast in armor and automatically knowing every spell on their spell list without having to pay gold are other such things.

If we look at wish as an example for such crossings, the simple formula seems to be that to make a spell travel cross-class, you increase its level by one. For example, if a cleric manages to pray for a special version of wish, then it is a 4th level spell (highest level +1). If a wizard wants cure light wounds, 2nd level. This could help to explain why wizards tend not to bother with healing, as its not very efficient for them to do so. However, wizards who concern themselves heavily with the positive energy plane would probably be the closest thing to white wizards that *could* exist in the game.

Now, if we want to be philosophical, why can clerics even summon positive energy at all? If I recall correctly, aren't the gods barred from manipulating the positive energy plane according to the Great Beyond campaign setting book? So why can they give their servants the power to summon flashes of divine energy? Would be a very interesting read in a future product, I'm sure!

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Wizards learning Cure Light Wounds? See Logic, help me disprove this All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.