Can Arcane Casters Heal? Disrupt Undead?

[ARandomGod]

Chromatic. Orb.

D@mn the orbs! Banish them all to hells

Well, really, all I see that as is an example of another mistake. I don't really care who published spells obviously disregarding rules, only that they're being disregarded.

 

[irdeggman]

D@mn the orbs! Banish them all to hells

Well, really, all I see that as is an example of another mistake. I don't really care who published spells obviously disregarding rules, only that they're being disregarded.

The problem was that in 2nd ed the "rules" were very fast and loose rgarding schools and shperes. In 3.5 they are a whole lot more definitive, whether or not we agree with them (e.g., healing being conjuration (healing) vice necromancy).

Now the orb spells (finally checked out my copy of Complete Arcane) look very much like a glaring mistake. In every other WotC 3.5 product that I've checked (I don't ahve a lot of the FR stuff) it appears they have been very consistent with using evocation (elemental descriptor) for these types of spells (fire and ice) while using conjuration for things like acid. Heck in T&B they were classified correctly.

Hmm they also didn't include this fairly obvious error in the CA errata nor have I found any mention of it in Sage Advice (i.e., FAQs). Looks like it deserves an e-mail to the powers that be (I don't really trust the cust-serv).

But overall WotC has been very consistent with their usage (barring this one example) in the use of schools for spells. When one looks at the sheer volume of spells that they have published for 3.5 (almost every book ahs new spells, feats and prestige classes) it is amazing that this is the only thing we've found so far that is inconsistent in the 3.5 usage.

Remember that one can be consistently wrong but remain consistent.

 

[ARandomGod]

Now the orb spells (finally checked out my copy of Complete Arcane) look very much like a glaring mistake. In every other WotC 3.5 product that I've checked (I don't ahve a lot of the FR stuff) it appears they have been very consistent with using evocation (elemental descriptor) for these types of spells (fire and ice) while using conjuration for things like acid. Heck in T&B they were classified correctly.

Hmm they also didn't include this fairly obvious error in the CA errata nor have I found any mention of it in Sage Advice (i.e., FAQs). Looks like it deserves an e-mail to the powers that be (I don't really trust the cust-serv).

Yup. Clearly a mistake.
Or something. I think that there are other examples. I think this because this conjuration getting new spells which should be in evokation was a minor rant at a game group I'm in, where other examples were pointed to.

Clearly healing being in conjuration is also a mistake, however. Even if a consistent one.

But really that doesn't matter in this thread, which was about 'can an arcane caster heal'. I mean, there's a better arguement in my opinion why arcane casters cannot do necromantic healing than how they can't do conjuration healing. And the arguement about positive energy healing and negative energy harming is more strongly supported by the fact that healing is now in conjuration. If you're using necromancy to heal with positive energy, you're manipulating the energy in a specific way that allows healing. If, on the other hand, it's just conjuration, then ANY positive energy will heal (and, as pointed out, massive doses of healing will harm).

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think they were made Conjuration so that specialists who ban Evocation could still get some decent damage spells. Yeah, I think that's stupid, too, but I'm pretty sure that was their reasoning behind it.

 

[irdeggman]

But really that doesn't matter in this thread, which was about 'can an arcane caster heal'. I mean, there's a better arguement in my opinion why arcane casters cannot do necromantic healing than how they can't do conjuration healing. And the arguement about positive energy healing and negative energy harming is more strongly supported by the fact that healing is now in conjuration. If you're using necromancy to heal with positive energy, you're manipulating the energy in a specific way that allows healing. If, on the other hand, it's just conjuration, then ANY positive energy will heal (and, as pointed out, massive doses of healing will harm).

And the answer is of course, yes they can, but not solely by channelling positive energy.

That is there are feats that allow them to gain the appropropriate spells and the entire bard thing.

But just because a spell involves channelling positive energy doesn't mean it performs healing. The entire issue about other forms of channelling positive energy without performing healing comes into play here or the counter channelling negative energy and causing damage (or healing undead).

Pretty much if the spell says it can then it can, if it doesn't then it can't. This is supposed to be how each spell works is supposed to be handled.