Wizards are not "reshaping reality to their whim." They aren't actually pseudo-gods reshaping reality at whim; this isn't Mage the Ascension. That's something players like to say about them, but its actually not anything but fandom enthusiasm and over exaggerations. Wizards are scholars that learned how to shape natural energy, nothing more.
From the wizard class description (under the subheading "Scholars of the Arcane"):
Some aspire to become like the gods, shaping reality itself.
The one-line description from the front of chapter 3 of the PHB:
A scholarly magic-user capable of manipulating the structures of reality
From the School of Transmutation's introductory description:
You wield the raw stuff of creation and learn to alter both physical forms and mental qualities. Your magic gives you the tools to become a smith on reality’s forge.
[...] seeking the power of the gods to make and destroy worlds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
If arcane magic is meaningless in 5e, so wizards should not have a limitation most arcane casters always had - i. e. lack of healing spells.
Again, I'm not advocating for *all* wizards getting healing spells. A subclass option, like that of a sorcerer or warlock, should be more than enough. Think Mystic Theurge, White Necromancer or even some variatino of Transmuter. There are precedents for that in previous editions and UA for the current edition, so the idea is not at all ridiculous.
Gods of magic do not grant power to classic wizards, true, but all I said was that they *could*, potentially (see Theurge subclass in UA), so it'd be perfectly fine, lorewise, to make a subclass of wizards who gain *some* power from deities to perforl mealing magic.
Lastly, semantics aside, wizards *are* scholars. And it boggles the mind to suggest that they would not research life and healing - one of the most important areas of knowledge for mortals, if not the most important. And if bards are able to blend different magics together, so should wizards. Especially given the fact that wizards do not spread their efforts too thin between magic, art and martial training and dedicate their whole focus to magic.
My point is, there is no legit reason for wizards to be limited the way they are, except for tradition. I am glad that we've got Life Transferrence now. It is a step in the right direction. But we have a long way to go.
I've addressed this point already. Theurges are not an official subclass. I might as well play some homebrew monstrosity.
My issue is with currently available official class options. Hopefully, Theurge or some other similar subclass will become available for wizards. As it stands now, every arcane class in the game has consistent healing options, except for wizard.
I agree with you when it comes to Theurges. I used them purely as an example, though. It is possible to make a subclass that would preserve the spirit and the feel of being a scholarly master of the arcane, while giving a new take on how arcane magic works, along with healing ability. Schools of Necromancy and Transmutation already come close to unlocking restorative effects. Necromancy is described as exploring "cosmic forces of life, death and undeath" (PHB 118), with "life" being the key word here. School of Transmutation is described as giving its practitioners "tools to become a smith on reality's forge" (PHB 119). Spells that fall under the perview of these Schools can reshape flesh, create clones and homunculi and trap souls. It's not difficult to imagine, for example, a subclass that combines these two Schools, in a way War Mage combines Abjuration and Evocation, to create spells that knit wounds, reform bones and purge infections.
There's already a possibility: Life Transference. You dismissed it out of hand as "not healing in the strictest sense" even though it is healing in strictest sense and transferring your life energy to someone else is thematically appropriate for a necromancy spell.
There's also the Master Transmuter feature which can literally cast Raise Dead or heal all of a creature's HP while removing all poisons, diseases and curses.
You're being far too picky by demanding options that are identical to cure wounds.
Wizards literally have the greatest swath of available spells and have an archetype for almost any type of wizard you'd want to play as, sans outright playing a dedicated healing class. Lines gotta be drawn somewhere, and if nothing else, it keeps wizards from being the all consuming monstrosities that they tend to be otherwise. Hardly what I'd consider to be a red headed stepchild. After all, that's the Sorcerers shtick.
Again, it seems to elude most people, so I have to reiterate: I'm not asking for heling spells to be just dumped into the wizard spell list. I'm asking for one subclass that would give some consistent healing options to the wizard class. And no, waiting to level 14 (most campaigns never go that far) to be able to heal one person once per day is not good enough. Sorcerers and warlocks can consistently heal from level 1, and get better at it. They also get enough class features to compete with wizards in other areas.
As for the wizard spell list - again, wizards have the *potential* to learn those spells. That doesn't mean that they'll get the chance. You know who gets to know ALL of their spells? Divine spellcasters. So wizards are limited enough as they are.
I'm not sure what game are we talking about here - maybe you're still under the effect of 3,5 - but in D&D 5e wizards are not "all consuming monstrosities", by any stretch of imagination. All spellcasters are much more toned down in 5e. Concentration requirement removes tons of abuseability, and most broken spells have been nerfed significantly. Personally, I've never seen a wizard dominating an encounter. All examples of supposedly OP wizards I've seen on the Internet have one thing in common: palyers were using spells/wizard class features in violation of the rules, and GMs were too inexperienced to notice or too lenient to care. So giving wizards a subclass option that would allow them to play a more supportive role would not turn them into a game-breaking class.
I'm not really sure what we are talking about here either. You want a Healy subclass, but it's never going to happen outside homebrew for reasons already covered (ie massively unpopular). You don't want the feats or multicalssing. You don't like abjurers to fill this niche. You dont want a homebrew. What is left?
Wizards are generally acknowledged as one of the best classes in 5e. Yes, even though this is not 3e and balance is different, wizards are still a top, massively popular class. You're not going to get many to agree that wizards are somehow lacking when they have access to abilities no one else does and some of the best mechanics in the game. So, you're unlikely to have sympathy either.
I'm not really sure what we are talking about here either. You want a Healy subclass, but it's never going to happen outside homebrew for reasons already covered (ie massively unpopular). You don't want the feats or multicalssing. You don't like abjurers to fill this niche. You dont want a homebrew. What is left?
Wizards are generally acknowledged as one of the best classes in 5e. Yes, even though this is not 3e and balance is different, wizards are still a top, massively popular class. You're not going to get many to agree that wizards are somehow lacking when they have access to abilities no one else does and some of the best mechanics in the game. So, you're unlikely to have sympathy either.
So, what do you want out of your thread here?
What he wants, I think, is to somehow convince WotC to print a Theurge. Unfortunately, this isn't a WotC forum--and, as of a few days ago, when I last checked, there is no WotC forum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Honestly? I wanted to check if there's anyone who feels about wizards like I do - that their lack of healing options goes against everything they are. That is to say, they are praised as the ultimate utility/capable of anything class, both in fiction and in meta, and yet here is the area in which they are almost helpless.
As for convincing WotC - I don't really believe one measly thread would be able to change their minds, even if there were a WotC forum.
I guess it's my pet peeve and no one else is really bothered by the current relations between wizards and healing maigc. Oh well.
I guess it's my pet peeve and no one else is really bothered by the current relations between wizards and healing maigc. Oh well.
I spent all the energy I could on the matter back in the 90s.
Reason: way back in the day, there was this little game called Dungeons & Dragons, and the magic-user class had this high-level spell named "heal"... and instead of keeping it, and leaving the similar-but-cleric-spell "cureall", the 'advanced' version of the game switched the name of "cureall" to "heal" and erased "heal" from the magic-user (sorry, "wizard") spell list.
I guess it's my pet peeve and no one else is really bothered by the current relations between wizards and healing maigc. Oh well.
I spent all the energy I could on the matter back in the 90s.
Reason: way back in the day, there was this little game called Dungeons & Dragons, and the magic-user class had this high-level spell named "heal"... and instead of keeping it, and leaving the similar-but-cleric-spell "cureall", the 'advanced' version of the game switched the name of "cureall" to "heal" and erased "heal" from the magic-user (sorry, "wizard") spell list.
Back in the 90s in AD&D, was my first game of Dungeons and Dragons. I made a Storm Cleric... they didn't have access to healing magic. My party was extremely unhappy.
Back in the 90s in AD&D, was my first game of Dungeons and Dragons. I made a Storm Cleric... they didn't have access to healing magic. My party was extremely unhappy.
I had a similar thing happen about 10 years ago. I was running AD&D and had already started the campaign, someone new joined and asked what the party needed, to which I responded "Play whatever you want to play, the party will be fine." So they decided to play a storm cleric... and they got surprised and a little upset that they didn't have any healing magic, which apparently was the only reason they were choosing to play a cleric (which would have been nice if they'd have mentioned wanting to heal at any point during the process of me helping them create their character).
Clerics get their magic from their god; divine magic, therefore healing.
Druids use nature based magic to heal.
A paladin can use divine magic to heal.
Bards dabble in arcane, divine, and natural magic. Thus, they can heal.
A divine soul sorcerer has a direct link to divine magic; hence the name. And the divine magic and healing that comes with it
A warlock gets their magic from a patron. If they happened to make a pact with a celestial, then that patron would give them divine magic by default. So, healing.
A wizard studies, and can learn arcane magic.
Under the (I think fair) assumption that divine magic *must* be coming from a divine being, and that natural magic *must* come about from a strong connection to nature; neither divine or nature-based magic can be studied.
Therefore, a wizard by definition, one who learns through study, shouldn't be able to learn healing magic. I don't necessarily think they're op in any respect, but I understand where you're coming from. But that's my interpretation of the matter, and it might've been said already but there it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Therefore, a wizard by definition, one who learns through study, shouldn't be able to learn healing magic. I don't necessarily think they're op in any respect, but I understand where you're coming from. But that's my interpretation of the matter, and it might've been said already but there it is.
Since magic is made up in the first place, there is no greater reason for "you can't study healing magic" to be true than for "you can study healing magic" to be true.
You are basically just explaining how things currently are, and are claiming it as a reason why they should be as they are.
Clerics get their magic from their god; divine magic, therefore healing.
Druids use nature based magic to heal.
A paladin can use divine magic to heal.
Bards dabble in arcane, divine, and natural magic. Thus, they can heal.
A divine soul sorcerer has a direct link to divine magic; hence the name. And the divine magic and healing that comes with it
A warlock gets their magic from a patron. If they happened to make a pact with a celestial, then that patron would give them divine magic by default. So, healing.
A wizard studies, and can learn arcane magic.
Under the (I think fair) assumption that divine magic *must* be coming from a divine being, and that natural magic *must* come about from a strong connection to nature; neither divine or nature-based magic can be studied.
Therefore, a wizard by definition, one who learns through study, shouldn't be able to learn healing magic. I don't necessarily think they're op in any respect, but I understand where you're coming from. But that's my interpretation of the matter, and it might've been said already but there it is.
Bard magic is arcane, so it's perfectly possible to heal without divine magic. Also, druid/ranger magic is divine, not a separate category. Warlock magic is arcane regardless of patron.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorcerers and warlocks have a single subclass that can heal. If you need a wizard to do it, play a theurge.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
If arcane magic is meaningless in 5e, so wizards should not have a limitation most arcane casters always had - i. e. lack of healing spells.
Again, I'm not advocating for *all* wizards getting healing spells. A subclass option, like that of a sorcerer or warlock, should be more than enough. Think Mystic Theurge, White Necromancer or even some variatino of Transmuter. There are precedents for that in previous editions and UA for the current edition, so the idea is not at all ridiculous.
Gods of magic do not grant power to classic wizards, true, but all I said was that they *could*, potentially (see Theurge subclass in UA), so it'd be perfectly fine, lorewise, to make a subclass of wizards who gain *some* power from deities to perforl mealing magic.
Lastly, semantics aside, wizards *are* scholars. And it boggles the mind to suggest that they would not research life and healing - one of the most important areas of knowledge for mortals, if not the most important. And if bards are able to blend different magics together, so should wizards. Especially given the fact that wizards do not spread their efforts too thin between magic, art and martial training and dedicate their whole focus to magic.
My point is, there is no legit reason for wizards to be limited the way they are, except for tradition. I am glad that we've got Life Transferrence now. It is a step in the right direction. But we have a long way to go.
I've addressed this point already. Theurges are not an official subclass. I might as well play some homebrew monstrosity.
My issue is with currently available official class options. Hopefully, Theurge or some other similar subclass will become available for wizards. As it stands now, every arcane class in the game has consistent healing options, except for wizard.
Thank you!
I agree with you when it comes to Theurges. I used them purely as an example, though. It is possible to make a subclass that would preserve the spirit and the feel of being a scholarly master of the arcane, while giving a new take on how arcane magic works, along with healing ability. Schools of Necromancy and Transmutation already come close to unlocking restorative effects. Necromancy is described as exploring "cosmic forces of life, death and undeath" (PHB 118), with "life" being the key word here. School of Transmutation is described as giving its practitioners "tools to become a smith on reality's forge" (PHB 119). Spells that fall under the perview of these Schools can reshape flesh, create clones and homunculi and trap souls. It's not difficult to imagine, for example, a subclass that combines these two Schools, in a way War Mage combines Abjuration and Evocation, to create spells that knit wounds, reform bones and purge infections.
Possibilities are out there.
There's already a possibility: Life Transference. You dismissed it out of hand as "not healing in the strictest sense" even though it is healing in strictest sense and transferring your life energy to someone else is thematically appropriate for a necromancy spell.
There's also the Master Transmuter feature which can literally cast Raise Dead or heal all of a creature's HP while removing all poisons, diseases and curses.
You're being far too picky by demanding options that are identical to cure wounds.
Wizards literally have the greatest swath of available spells and have an archetype for almost any type of wizard you'd want to play as, sans outright playing a dedicated healing class. Lines gotta be drawn somewhere, and if nothing else, it keeps wizards from being the all consuming monstrosities that they tend to be otherwise. Hardly what I'd consider to be a red headed stepchild. After all, that's the Sorcerers shtick.
Life Transferrence is, in fact, a great spell that has been a long time coming.
Again, it seems to elude most people, so I have to reiterate: I'm not asking for heling spells to be just dumped into the wizard spell list. I'm asking for one subclass that would give some consistent healing options to the wizard class. And no, waiting to level 14 (most campaigns never go that far) to be able to heal one person once per day is not good enough. Sorcerers and warlocks can consistently heal from level 1, and get better at it. They also get enough class features to compete with wizards in other areas.
As for the wizard spell list - again, wizards have the *potential* to learn those spells. That doesn't mean that they'll get the chance. You know who gets to know ALL of their spells? Divine spellcasters. So wizards are limited enough as they are.
I'm not sure what game are we talking about here - maybe you're still under the effect of 3,5 - but in D&D 5e wizards are not "all consuming monstrosities", by any stretch of imagination. All spellcasters are much more toned down in 5e. Concentration requirement removes tons of abuseability, and most broken spells have been nerfed significantly. Personally, I've never seen a wizard dominating an encounter. All examples of supposedly OP wizards I've seen on the Internet have one thing in common: palyers were using spells/wizard class features in violation of the rules, and GMs were too inexperienced to notice or too lenient to care. So giving wizards a subclass option that would allow them to play a more supportive role would not turn them into a game-breaking class.
I'm not really sure what we are talking about here either. You want a Healy subclass, but it's never going to happen outside homebrew for reasons already covered (ie massively unpopular). You don't want the feats or multicalssing. You don't like abjurers to fill this niche. You dont want a homebrew. What is left?
Wizards are generally acknowledged as one of the best classes in 5e. Yes, even though this is not 3e and balance is different, wizards are still a top, massively popular class. You're not going to get many to agree that wizards are somehow lacking when they have access to abilities no one else does and some of the best mechanics in the game. So, you're unlikely to have sympathy either.
So, what do you want out of your thread here?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Honestly? I wanted to check if there's anyone who feels about wizards like I do - that their lack of healing options goes against everything they are. That is to say, they are praised as the ultimate utility/capable of anything class, both in fiction and in meta, and yet here is the area in which they are almost helpless.
As for convincing WotC - I don't really believe one measly thread would be able to change their minds, even if there were a WotC forum.
I guess it's my pet peeve and no one else is really bothered by the current relations between wizards and healing maigc. Oh well.
I guess in a few years I'll tire of being bugged by the "wizards cannot be allowed to heal, otherwise all is lost!" situation.
Clerics get their magic from their god; divine magic, therefore healing.
Druids use nature based magic to heal.
A paladin can use divine magic to heal.
Bards dabble in arcane, divine, and natural magic. Thus, they can heal.
A divine soul sorcerer has a direct link to divine magic; hence the name. And the divine magic and healing that comes with it
A warlock gets their magic from a patron. If they happened to make a pact with a celestial, then that patron would give them divine magic by default. So, healing.
A wizard studies, and can learn arcane magic.
Under the (I think fair) assumption that divine magic *must* be coming from a divine being, and that natural magic *must* come about from a strong connection to nature; neither divine or nature-based magic can be studied.
Therefore, a wizard by definition, one who learns through study, shouldn't be able to learn healing magic. I don't necessarily think they're op in any respect, but I understand where you're coming from. But that's my interpretation of the matter, and it might've been said already but there it is.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?