Bards and their wacky arcane cure spells.

[S'mon]

Since a Cure spell isn't on a wizard's spell-list, they can't learn it. And just because bard's get it doesn't matter, a wizard could or could not research the spell (up to your DM) regardless of what a bard can do.

That's the standard rule. Note that there are other variant Arcane casters like the Witch class who do get healing magic. It's up to the DM whether they let Wizards or Sorcerers cast cure spells - I see no reason why not, personally. Wizards are far weaker than Clerics in most respects, it's hardly game-breaking in 3e. In 1e-2e the no-curing rule helped limit Wizards who were otherwise all-powerful at higher levels, but that's no longer the case.

 

[Tessarael]

I did an Arcana Unearthed mini-campaign. The party was lacking a Greenbond (the healer type). An NPC did help out in that regard early on. It seemed to go okay. I think the main thing you really really need is a feat that allows spontaneous casting of healing spells - you don't want to tie the spellcaster down with needing to memorize lots of healing spells.

The other thing I hate is how difference divine/arcane/psionic/nonspellcaster classes stack: they don't. The end result is that it is somewhat broken, and you need stuff like Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight to fix it. I'd like to see this fixed with the base classes ... perhaps the only way to do that is give everyone some basic spell progression. And specialized spell lists for Assassin, Paladin, Ranger, etc... are even more irritating when you look at stacking levels (Unearthed Arcana has a great variant that fixes this - they get divine spellcaster levels basically).

...

I think the other thing you need to do is essentially specify a variety of spell lists. If you pick Cleric, you get access to x lists and spellcasting progression. If you pick Wizard, you get access to y lists and spellcasting progression. If you pick Fighter, you may get access to no lists, but you still get some spellcasting progression so that when you multi-class your spellcasting isn't completely neutered (and avoiding the need for a special Eldritch Knight class).

A multi-classed Cleric/Wizard would get access to more spell lists, and just continue advancing in spell progression. There does need to be some penalty on this though - you don't want someone getting access to double the number of spells by taking 1 level in Cleric and 1 level in Wizard. The solution may be to make one core spellcaster class. Maybe you could get access to more spell lists by paying a feat or by a class feature when you progressed in level. Then everyone may start out with the same number of spell lists - just the spellcaster class gets faster spellcasting progression and faster access to more lists.

Needless to say, this meandering is very house rulesish, and bears little resemblance to D&D.

 

[Gez]

The other thing I hate is how difference divine/arcane/psionic/nonspellcaster classes stack: they don't.

That's the other part of my magic house-rule: the spell-per-day table don't depends on your level, but on a BAB-like magic rating. Full, 2/3, or 1/2.

The only thing that depends on class levels is access to spells (and for some, bonus spell slots).

 

[ARandomGod]

Since a Cure spell isn't on a wizard's spell-list, they can't learn it. And just because bard's get it doesn't matter, a wizard could or could not research the spell (up to your DM) regardless of what a bard can do.

I see... So, what you are saying, is that since researched spells aren't on a wizard's spell list, they can't learn them. Kinda makes it pointless to research spells then, doesn't it?

 

[ARandomGod]

Sorry, but that doesn't sound 'in character' thinking...that seems more power hungry type thinking.

But do people in the campaign world KNOW that Bards cast the same type of spells as Wizards and Sorcerers? Perhaps people would simply assume they cure with the help of a God.

Of course it's possible to research a spell like that. Using that logic, Wizards should just go and research Flame Strike or other very useful Divine spells. Sure, Bard's cast Arcane, but its still a completely different spell list from Wizards and Sorcerers.

I dunno, that sounds VERY in character thinking. Power hungry? Maybe if they were looking to duplicate power. This is perhaps defense hungry... or not even defense, but life hungry, or death fearing.

"Man, I sure wish I could heal myself, out here along, the cursed cleric was the first to go... I could cast all the spells in my book, and I'm still gonna die on this battlefield." (zero hit points, all companions dead, alone waiting for an orc to notice he's still breathing)

Then a bard comes along, and ARCANE heals him! (Amased inspiration) If only I could do that. But that looked like an arcane spell to me (roll spellcraft, it was), hrmm, I wonder if I *could* duplicate it. All of the spell journals I've read say it can't be done, but they don't say why, I've never heard meantion of anyone trying. You know, at the very least I should be able to summon some celestial healing creature from the lower levels. Like a minor demon but reversed... yes, I don't see why I couldn't arcanely channel SOME sort of power to prevent something like that from ever happening...

(Mumbles to self, goes to spell laboratory.... )

 

[Voadam]

I dunno, that sounds VERY in character thinking. Power hungry? Maybe if they were looking to duplicate power. This is perhaps defense hungry... or not even defense, but life hungry, or death fearing.

"Man, I sure wish I could heal myself, out here along, the cursed cleric was the first to go... I could cast all the spells in my book, and I'm still gonna die on this battlefield." (zero hit points, all companions dead, alone waiting for an orc to notice he's still breathing)

Then a bard comes along, and ARCANE heals him! (Amased inspiration) If only I could do that. But that looked like an arcane spell to me (roll spellcraft, it was), hrmm, I wonder if I *could* duplicate it. All of the spell journals I've read say it can't be done, but they don't say why, I've never heard meantion of anyone trying. You know, at the very least I should be able to summon some celestial healing creature from the lower levels. Like a minor demon but reversed... yes, I don't see why I couldn't arcanely channel SOME sort of power to prevent something like that from ever happening...

(Mumbles to self, goes to spell laboratory.... )

We've done this in games. Before 3e I was playing a merchant prince mage who sponsored magical research in healing at his city's college of magic. He donated research notes from a heal spell and goodberry spell in his book of infinite spells, he directed some reserach to investigate the healing from polymorph spells, summoning good exraplanar creatures that could heal, etc. One of the archmage PCs eventually came up with a 1st level spell that required an expensive focus and could cure 1 hit point flat out.

In 3e there are plenty of arcane wizard healings, polymorph, summoning celestials who heal, and some 3rd party ones such as the Hollowfaust necromancer spell that converts prepared spells to healing magic.

 

[physics_ninja]

As someone who (usually) plays a cleric I would love to see the sorcerer or wizard do the some of the healing. Personally, I think that if you did put the various cure wounds spells on the arcane list you would still get sorcerers with fireball, fly, and stinking cloud.

Go ahead, try it. No wizard is going to give up fireball, so that the fighter's player can *order* him to come over for healing. Now, I make my own decision to come over or not, but I get really tired of being told to.

As for the division between arcane and divine spells, it's really not that big of a deal. Any player that can choose freely from both the cleric and wizard lists will choose one of the few uber-clerics spells (like divine power) and bulk up on magic missile, mage armor, and invisiblility.

 

[Umbran]

The fact is, most people don't tweak the magic-using classes.

I think you'll find the real fact is that most people sit and watch TV, and don't even play RPGs...

All sillyness aside, do you have market research to back that up, or is it just a suspicion? Because as I understand it, D&D has always been a game rife with House Rules. 3e, 3.5e, and the new Unearthed Arcana are in large part products built out of house rules. Even if the majority plays the game straight out of the book, the minority that doesn't is sizeable, and not to be dismissed.

Plus, the majority playing it straight also stands as an argument against you. If it isn't so bad that people are changing it on their own, why change it in the core book? If you could actually tell me that it was annoying enough for most folks to change it on their own, I could see some validity in your position. But if the majority like it well enough as-is, who are we to change it on them? Why kill the sacred cow if it isn't standing in the way, or is at least easy to shove aside?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's bad the way it is. I just believe it would be better--across the board, for purposes of flavor and imagination both--if they went one way or the other. That, IMO, would actually provide more flexibility than we have now, not less. Fuzzy definitions aren't the same things as options.

Fuzzy definitions are not options, true. But they are sources of inspiration.

The more distinct, flavorful and unique you make a game element or mechanic, the less likely people are to muck with it, and the more difficult the task to rewrite the thing becomes. Integral and strongly unique systems are apt to either inspire devotion, or make you put the game aside completely.

Elements that work well enough, but aren't exactly gripping either instead tend to invite you to change, tweak, and play with them. Leaving some of the core rules a little bland is good for the game - it drives the d20 and OGL market, and leaves room for books like Unearthed Arcana. If you really want options, you don't more strongly define the core, you publish optional supplements.

So, stop thinkking like it's the TSR days, or like you're a White Wolf player Leave the core vanilla (and leave it with it's sale-generating, product identifying comfortable sacred cows), and allow the third party publishers to play with more specific stuff. That's what the d20 license and OGL are for, darn it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Plus, the majority playing it straight also stands as an argument against you. If it isn't so bad that people are changing it on their own, why change it in the core book?

Ah, but see, that's a non-argument. Why? Because I didn't say "Everyone believes it should be done this way." I said I'd prefer it if it was done that way.

I'd prefer lots of things that I don't expect to happen and that not everyone else would like. I do truly believe that the game would be slightly better if divine magic was more distinct from arcane magic. Then again, I personally want them very distinct, so that wizards have trouble dispelling clerical spells, and vice-versa.

The fact that I want it that way doesn't mean everyone--or even anyone--has to agree with me.

 

[kamosa]

As someone who (usually) plays a cleric I would love to see the sorcerer or wizard do the some of the healing. Personally, I think that if you did put the various cure wounds spells on the arcane list you would still get sorcerers with fireball, fly, and stinking cloud.

Go ahead, try it. No wizard is going to give up fireball, so that the fighter's player can *order* him to come over for healing. Now, I make my own decision to come over or not, but I get really tired of being told to.

I think you've hit on the exact reason I wouldn't allow healing to spread in the party. As it is now, the fighter is addicted to curing. Giving it to more classes just means more classes spending their spells to "bump up" the fighters rather then being their own character.

Curing is a force multiplyer for the fighter classes. I would think twice before changing a rule that add to the power of that class.