Healing spells and Necromancy

[ARandomGod]

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

Sure he could.
Well, *fire* elves at any rate.
In fact, I've had a GM make just such a ruling, having a creature that was healed by fire damage.

And we already know that in core there is a ruling that prime material creatures are healed by positive energy. ...

(Ancient "alter memory" spell enacted by all the elder gods acting in concert, contingently cast upon anyone thinking along these lines)

Nah, no connection. It's patently impossible for arcane spells to ever heal.
And these are not the droids...
... wait, why did I say that?

 

[Lamoni]

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?

I don't see anything wrong with that... as long as it is limited to affecting undead and not healing allies.

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.

True. I just wouldn't be one of those DM's

The healing isn't as good (d6), the spell takes up slots that would ordinarily be filled with other spells, necromantic spells have precident for channeling the Positive Energy Plane, and most players of clerics hate being thought of as the First Aid Wagon.

It might actually work fine to give wizards and sorcerers healing spells. I just like having each class as unique as possible. The more powers you give each class that normally belongs with another, the more you end up with a lot of classes that aren't that unique... or you end up with a single class that is clearly better than any other. It is more about preference than balance why I wouldn't allow it. On the other hand, everyone is free to buy healing potions.

Do you not like Tenser's Transformation? Because this is basically what it gives them...

I have no problem at all with Tenser's Transformation. While it is a nice spell if you are going into melee combat, it isn't near as good as having a D10 hit die, full BAB, and heavy armor proficiency. Having things be a part of who your character is 24/7 is much better than having temporary changes that you can do a limited number of times/day at the cost of other options. If I had to fight with no offensive magic, I'd much rather be a fighter than a wizard with Transformation cast.

...and the bard?

I forgot about the bard. I often make the mistake of referring to arcane casters when I mean to refer to sorcerers/wizards. I am fine with Bards having healing magic. I wouldn't like their healing to be as potent as the cleric though. I would also be fine with the wizard having healing spells if all their flashy offensive spells were taken away... but then it would be no fun to play a wizard.

I think that how it is now works best for me. Sorcerers/Wizards get the best offensive spells, and many of the best utility spells (Fly, invisibility, D-Door, etc.) Clerics get the best healing/restoring spells, and many of the best divination spells. If you want to play without a sorcerer/wizard, you give up on a lot of those utility spells unless you invest in expensive magic items. If you want to play without a cleric, you give up on a lot of healing potential and divination unless you invest in healing items. You also miss out on things if you don't have a fighter/barbarian or a rogue/bard. There are always ways to compensate... and that is good, but I don't see a need for any changes.

As for the original question. I don't see a problem with no healing spells in the necromancy school. Of course, if they were there I would find no problem with them being there either. I think they fit about equally well in conjuration and necromancy and it is least confusing to put them in just one rather than both.

 

[Anime Kidd]

I am really surprised that many people don't like healing as a necromacy spell; or rather I should say, arcane casters using healing spells. While I like this discussion on the viability of arcane spellcasters using such spells, my post wasn't exactly for that. I merely wanted to know why healing spells, regardless of it being arcane or divine in origin, were in conjuration.

As for that whole disrupt undead spell to heal allies and harm undead... For a spell like that, I would have any healing properties be severely weaked when compared to the damage done to the undead. So if I would rule Disrupt undead, when used on a living creature, as healing only like 1 point. This could then mean that even a little positive energy will harm undead, but it still requires a good amount to start to heal the living.

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

I like this idea, it allows the the ability for arcane healing but it is still severely weak compared to true divine healing of a cleric but only if the spell level is the same as the divine version. If you had them at 1d4 and as one level higher, I think it might be to weak a spell to keep prepared. If it was 1d6 then it might be a bit more favorable.

 

[Kax Tuglebend]

there was a rather good 1st level arcane healing spell in an old issue of Campaign magazine i think it was, it did something like heal 1d6+caster level hit points, but due to its necromantic nature inflicted -1 temporary strength on the recipient

 

[Saeviomagy]

Like I said before. Some people just can't get past the idea that necromancy, because they have some sort of personal thing about corpses or dead people, is evil. They're probably the sort of people that find morticians creepy.

Saying "necromancers are all evil because they deal in death" should be balanced by "almost all adventurers make their living killing people and or things and taking their stuff".

Yet somehow "making a dead body move" comes out beyond "killing the guy in the first place" in it's evilness.

 

[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.

Yes they can. Or, no they can't. Either way it is one extra line in the PHB. Doesn't really seem that complicated to me.

ISTM that by limiting each spell to one school the the designers denied themselves a way of fine-tuning the balance between schools. Plus which, some spells just make sense in more than one school, flavour wise.


glass.