Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mercucio" data-source="post: 1571870" data-attributes="member: 7928">Just because the DMG says so, doesn't mean it's right&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> . After all the bard has access to cure light, medium, serious, and critical wounds. Along with mass cure light wounds and neutralize poison. Thus arcane magic *can* be used to cure damage.The biggest difference between clerical magic and arcane magic isn't really the healing of wounds or curing disease and poision. It is 1. Raising the Dead, and to a lesser degree 2. Restoring life energy--i.e the restoration series of spells. Think about it. Clerics can raise the dead and restore lost levels, wizards cannot (w/out limited wish or wish anyways). It's once wizards start intruding on those two things that distinction between the two types of magic begins to fade in my eyes.The argument that only divine spellcasters can heal is done to maintain class balance is laughably weak. I won't get into it too much here, but to claim that the cleric (HD 1d8, BAB 3/4, two good saves, turn undead, the ability to prepare and 1st-5th level spells at higher class levels, full access to all spells on the cleric spell list, domain bonus spells, and domain powers) is balanced compared to the wizard (HD 1d4, BAB 1/2, scribe scroll, 4 bonuxs feats at 20th level, familiar, limited access to spells on the wizard spell list, and possible specialization--which restricts access to 2 schools of magic) is silly.corrected formatting</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mercucio, post: 1571870, member: 7928"] Just because the DMG says so, doesn't mean it's right :) . After all the bard has access to [I]cure light, medium, serious,[/I] and [I]critical wounds[/I]. Along with [I]mass cure light wounds[/I] and [I]neutralize poison[/I]. Thus arcane magic *can* be used to cure damage. The biggest difference between clerical magic and arcane magic isn't really the healing of wounds or curing disease and poision. It is 1. Raising the Dead, and to a lesser degree 2. Restoring life energy--i.e the restoration series of spells. Think about it. Clerics can raise the dead and restore lost levels, wizards cannot (w/out [I]limited wish[/I] or [I]wish[/I] anyways). It's once wizards start intruding on those two things that distinction between the two types of magic begins to fade in my eyes. The argument that only divine spellcasters can heal is done to maintain class balance is laughably weak. I won't get into it too much here, but to claim that the cleric (HD 1d8, BAB 3/4, two good saves, turn undead, the ability to prepare and 1st-5th level spells at higher class levels, full access to all spells on the cleric spell list, domain bonus spells, and domain powers) is balanced compared to the wizard (HD 1d4, BAB 1/2, scribe scroll, 4 bonuxs feats at 20th level, familiar, limited access to spells on the wizard spell list, and possible specialization--which restricts access to 2 schools of magic) is silly. corrected formatting [/QUOTE]

Verification