Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BiggusGeekus@Work" data-source="post: 442333" data-attributes="member: 7828">Well, first of all it's your campaign and as long as you guys are having fun that's all that matters.&nbsp;&nbsp; However ....If no one wants to play a cleric, then there's always bards and druids.&nbsp; Bards cast spells as a sorceror so if you need the bard to use up all his&nbsp; cures in one go, that's easy enough for him to do.Giving the wizards straight-up cures infringes on the abilities of the healing classes.&nbsp; Why play a cleric at all if the wizard gets heals that are just as good?That being said, I don't see a problem with &quot;life transfer&quot; spells for necromancers.&nbsp; to wit: a spell that &quot;heals&quot; 1d6 must cause 1d6 to a willing or unwilling creature.&nbsp; The ammount healed can never be more than the ammount caused.&nbsp; Unwilling creatures get&nbsp; save.&nbsp; That would be a cure spell for the wizards and&nbsp; the other healing classes wouldn't have someone moving in on their &quot;turf&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BiggusGeekus@Work, post: 442333, member: 7828"] Well, first of all it's your campaign and as long as you guys are having fun that's all that matters. However .... If no one wants to play a cleric, then there's always bards and druids. Bards cast spells as a sorceror so if you need the bard to use up all his cures in one go, that's easy enough for him to do. Giving the wizards straight-up cures infringes on the abilities of the healing classes. Why play a cleric at all if the wizard gets heals that are just as good? That being said, I don't see a problem with "life transfer" spells for necromancers. to wit: a spell that "heals" 1d6 must cause 1d6 to a willing or unwilling creature. The ammount healed can never be more than the ammount caused. Unwilling creatures get save. That would be a cure spell for the wizards and the other healing classes wouldn't have someone moving in on their "turf" [/QUOTE]

Verification