Healing spells and Necromancy

[reanjr]

On a slightly related note, does anyone know why they limited each spell to only one school in 3e?


glass.

I think in general it was to make things simpler overall (a big theme in 3e), but there is at lease one very good reason: the way wizards specialize. What happens if a spell is from a wizard's specialized school AND their opposed school. Can they learn it? I think it just didn't make sense in certain ways. Plus with all the additional descriptors (which in 2e were schools of effect) and whatever they call those subschools (things like glamer, summoning, healing, etc.), they've made things alot more cut and dry and technical.

I never understood why limited wish and wish were in different schools in 2e...

 

[Ferret]

On the same subject why isn't healing in evocation. It makes sense to me it's not like you summoning healing from another plane, your just healing, from nothing.

 

[reanjr]

This sounds reasonable. It would make the necro about as viable a healer as a paladin or bard unless the necro used all his spell slots for healing. And even then the necro would be a poor cleric/druid. The "worst case" scenario would be that the necro made a wand, but since the spell would be second level to start out with, he'd be blowing a lot of exp to keep the party at full health all the time.

A sorcerer would tear up a cleric in healing potential. I'd say 2 to 3 levels would be more appropriate. It would also nerf spells like mass heal and mass cure critical wounds from their list, which I think would be a good idea. I don't think an arcane caster should be a replacement for a cleric, just a fallback. I see healing as the direct perview of the gods, which is probably why it is under conjuration (like (limited) wish used to be).

 

[reanjr]

There is a spell in Tome and Blood called Negative Energy Ray and does 1d6/level with a cap of 5d6.

It seems that since Necromancers have to deal with undead all the time they would want a good low-level damaging spell just in case. And that would be Negative Energy Ray's planar opposite: Positive Energy Ray. I don't see why this spell can't be researched and used to great effect on undead.

Of course, that would mean Necromancers now have a ranged 5d6 heal spell. Add the Chain Spell metamagic feat and you have a 4th level spell which mimics Mass Cure Light Wounds (5th level), whose healing power is more potent for the primary target and less so for the arcs. And if your party was fighting undead at the time, then you can simultaneously heal your buddies and harm your foes!

Kinda makes you feel better about having a Necromancer in the party, doesn't it?

Except healing spells aren't raw positive energy. If they were then they'd be necromancy spells now wouldn't they?

No, as I see it living creatures are a balance of the two energies. Positive or negative energy will injure them equally. On the other hand you have negative creatures (undead) who are healed by one and injured by the other.

 

[reanjr]

It's not a healing spell, strictly speaking. Healing spells are Conjuration (Healing). This is Necromancy. And since they can channel a bit of the Negative Energy Plane (in Negative Energy Ray), what is stopping them from channeling the Positive?

And I am not suggesting that Necromancers be given access to the cleric's healing spells. I am suggesting that their frequent contact with the undead would lead to the development of an anti-undead spell. And it already has a precident: take a look at Disrupt Undead.


Disrupt Undead:
It does not say what happens if it hits a living creature, so a DM could rule that it would do 1d6 points of healing.

That's absurd. The DM can say fireballs heal elves too, that doesn't mean the rules support it. And d6 points of healing out of a 0 level spell? That's ridiculously overpowered. Virtue (the orison) only heals 1 point.

This is also proof supporting my last post that said healing is not raw positive energy. Raw positive energy is not healing. Disrupt Undead proves that.

 

[Felix]

Necromancers muck about with dead people. Yeah, it's really hard to make a necromancer that's a good guy.
...snippage...
They both deal death as their primary occupation, using methods most folks would find repugnant even in war.

Do Necromancers also deal death to the undead?

If yes, then:

Does Positive energy deal death to undead?

If yes, then:

Would a Necromancer use Positive energy to deal death to undead?

If yes, then:

Would an extremely intelligent Necromancer realize that the properties of a plane's energy allow him to simultaneously deal death to undead and reviatalize the meatshields stopping the undead from killing him?

If yes, then:

It makes sense that a Necromancer, familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of undead, would use the resources at hand both to slay enemies and protect himself.

 

[reanjr]

On the same subject why isn't healing in evocation. It makes sense to me it's not like you summoning healing from another plane, your just healing, from nothing.

Actually I think that's EXACTLY what is happening. You are summoning divine force from your god to heal. Kind of like summoning a Balor - but only his finger shows up.

 

[Felix]

mostly to reanjr

Except healing spells aren't raw positive energy. If they were then they'd be necromancy spells now wouldn't they?

I've never come accross this rule myself.

No, as I see it living creatures are a balance of the two energies. Positive or negative energy will injure them equally.

Staying on the plane will kill living creatures, after healing them up. So raw positive energy does cure. It is the overdose of positive energy that kills, but you don't have that in a 5d6 spell.

That's absurd. The DM can say fireballs heal elves too, that doesn't mean the rules support it. And d6 points of healing out of a 0 level spell? That's ridiculously overpowered. Virtue (the orison) only heals 1 point.

This is also proof supporting my last post that said healing is not raw positive energy. Raw positive energy is not healing. Disrupt Undead proves that.

I cited Disrupt Undead for two reasons.

1) To show precident that arcane casters can channel positive energy. This is unerringly true.

2) To note that Disrupt Undead only specifies what happens when an undead is hit. Because of the healing nature of Positive energy, a DM could rule that when a living creature is hit, it is healed. I italicised the "could" last time to emphasize that this would be a DMs decision, and not strictly supported by the rules. Perhaps you missed that when you said it was absurd.

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.

A DM could not rule that a fireball heals elves; all creatures within the blast radius are hurt. Disrupt Undead lacks this catch-all.

And d6 points of healing out of a 0 level spell? That's ridiculously overpowered. Virtue (the orison) only heals 1 point.

Virtue is a Transmutation spell which gives the target 1 temporary hp. Cure Minor Wounds is the Conjuration (healing) 0-level divine spell.

But pedantry aside, you're right. 1d6 of healing is powerful. But it's not a game breaker.

Raw positive energy is not healing. Disrupt Undead proves that.

No; Disrupt Undead proves that arcane casters can channel positive energy. It proves that positive energy harms undead. But it neither supports nor contradicts the proposition that positive energy does not heal living beings.

 

[ARandomGod]

I think that really, healing is the perview of clerics and not wizards so there is no need for necromancy to have healing spells. Besides, to me at least, necromancy is about creating undead and strengthening them, not about healing.

And the above is really the reason, Anime. Because, to some, that's just what necromancy IS. They don't want or like change. Clerics heal, mages don't. It's flavor. Noone is allowed to think that someone else might want to think differently. Everyone must feel as I do or they're wrong (*Note: I'm not implying that this is DragonLancer's opinion, I'm just using his quote as the common opinion and stating why common people want to keep that untainted).

Necromancy should, logically, include healing. Flavor reasons have attempted to keep healing out of arcane spells. People (*they*) will make/accept completely godless clerics before they'll accept healing mages.

On the other hand, I say allow it. There have been many people (subversives) who want mages to be able to do this, and there are many arguements to allow it, even with maintaining flavor. Pick your favorite. My personal favorite flavor is to have the arcane version do the *same thing* as the clerical one, at the same level, but instead of healing have it convert damage to subdual. I like it because of it's synergy with clerical healing, the slower nature of the healing gives acknowledgement to the fact that this really isn't what arcane is made for. You could also combine it with various "true" healing spells, but it's generally recommended that arcane healing spells should be higher level and/or less effective than clerical ones.

If you love your mind, set it free.
If it returns to you, it will be all the better for it.
If not, well... insanity is it's own brand of fun.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

A sorcerer would tear up a cleric in healing potential. I'd say 2 to 3 levels would be more appropriate. It would also nerf spells like mass heal and mass cure critical wounds from their list, which I think would be a good idea. I don't think an arcane caster should be a replacement for a cleric, just a fallback. I see healing as the direct perview of the gods, which is probably why it is under conjuration (like (limited) wish used to be).

Hmmmmm.

OK, I'll back off from my position a little.

I ran the numbers. At lower levels a sorceror isn't that great a healer compared to the cleric. At high levels the sorc is something to think about. Even if you take away the "mass" versions of the spells, it's still nice.

Maybe 1d4 instead of 1d8 to reflect the necromantic origin of the spell and to tone it down for arcane casters?