• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

A Wizard that Heals?

Salad Shooter

First Post
I was thinking...why can't wizards heal? I mean, they can kill people and do magnificant things, why not heal? So...here's what I was thinking...why can't a Conjurer take Cure spells (cure spells are conjuration, for some odd reason)? Granted, cure spells are not on a wizards spell list, but I can't think of any reason they shouldn't be. What are your thoughts on it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Salad Shooter said:
I was thinking...why can't wizards heal? ... but I can't think of any reason they shouldn't be. What are your thoughts on it?
1. Sacred Cow. Wizards can't heal because they've never been able to. Healing and protection and dealing with entities is the main duty of the cleric class. Blowing stuff up is the main duty of the wizard class.

2. There is a traditional anathema between clerical and wizardly magic. Wizards in fantasy and folklore are very seldom seen healing people. Usually priests or wise women do that.

3. If wizards could do that, why can't they do any other clerical spell? Or why can't clerics Blow Stuff Up Real Good? It promotes a definition and seperation between the major spellcasting classes.

4. Look at Arcana Unearthed. There, magisters can heal just as well as greenbonds as far as most actual spells are concerned (greenbonds, the best healers in the game, get some Extra Stuff that helps them heal better than the magister class). AU uses one spell table for everyone. Check it out.
 

WayneLigon said:
3. If wizards could do that, why can't they do any other clerical spell? Or why can't clerics Blow Stuff Up Real Good? It promotes a definition and seperation between the major spellcasting classes.

Yes...though if the wizard took healing spells, they'd lose out on the blow stuff up spells, so he'd basically be an arcane cleric...hmm..
 

(cure spells are conjuration, for some odd reason)?
Indeed - you'd think that transmutation/alteration would be a better candidate (think the polymorph spells and the way they add and change flesh)...although it's already the largest school, so they might have been looking for something else to pack into conjuration just to make it more even.
 

There are wizards in novels who can heal. As I recall, both Goblin and One Eye in the Black Company novels had some minor healing abilities.

In my former campaign, there was a prestige class which gave a wizard some access to healing magic. (The PrC was tied to worship of a group of gods of magic and knowledge.Compared with many of the PrCs out there, I do not believe having some access to healing magic was too unreasonable.) While I do not have Arcana Unearthed or Unearthed Arcana yet, it seems that both blur some of the lines between arcane and divine magic. I do not see this as too powerful of a sacred cow, as there are already enough fantasy conventions to challenge it.

Perhaps if one allows arcane casters to have some access to healing, it might be wise to ensure that divine casters are still better at healing. So, a wizard with access to healing magic might only do the base healing amount (1d8 for a cure spell) and cannot swap out spells for a cure spell. Also, if you go the Prestige Class route, something is usually lost for something gained. (For example, in many prestige classes for arcane spell casters, feat progression or familiar improvement often suffers. I would perhaps have preferred making familiars a possible choice for sorcerors and wizards as they do not always fit the style of some characters.)
 

In some ways I'm kind of glad wizards can't heal (though the fact they can't doesn't always make alot of sense) because if they could it would be expected of them, which means less spells for the fun flashy stuff.
 

Basically, it's a "sacred" province of the cleric traditionally since Original D&D (1974). As long as clerics can take fireballs, magic missiles, and cones of cold with no chance of spell failure, I see no problem with letting wizards cast cure spells. :)
 

I have been wondering how it would effect the game if they all had the same spell list and just got the way they cast spells differently. is it a flavor thing?

We had a little debate like this in my group the Kalamar players book has a spell that allows mages to have spell resistance the DM had a few problems with it one of them being that clerics spells are more protective and arcane more offensive. I was like wait it would make sense that mages who deal with magic and spells would develop something to protect them from other casters after they have mage armor and such.

Part of it to was that it was a lower level spell than the cleric version.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top