| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Artalis |
Posted - 03 Jun 2003 : 18:26:37
The issue at hand is that only Clerical types can heal. I find this to be ridiculous and I always have. If nothing else Necromancers should be able to heal, life/death magic is their specialty. Not to mention that all clerical healing spells are from the Necromantic school.
Now don't start playing the Holy Game Balance card I just don't buy it. I think that its crazy that a mage can polymorph himself into a tree or something but cant knit flesh and bone back together. What about Mend? 1st lvl spell that mends broken items up to a pound in weight why doesn't that work on a broken arm? or hand at least?
I believe in realism in my games and I have a lot of trouble with this particular aspect of magic.
Does anybody else agree/disagree?
|
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Icelander |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 23:07:22
A topic about necromantic healing?
If that isn't appropriate for an unholy reanimation, I don't know what is! 
In any event, I finished the novel Crimson Gold last night and without giving away spoilers, Szazz Tam seems very well able to heal wounds with his necromantic powers, if he so desires. It is even suggested that he might be able to reach into the Afterlife and give life back, if he had sufficient reason. That might be an unreliable narrator talking (not exactly a distinguished scholar, IMHO), but then again, the official stats for the character speaking indicate an Intelligence score of 18 and the character has several mage friends.
All in all, I rather enjoy the idea of necromantic healing, especially if it comes at a price. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 06 Jun 2003 : 06:25:18
No, one of the criteria for a feat is that it has to be at least somewhat unique and amazing. Ambidexterity is rare; I only know one person with it, my brother (though it's more favoring one hand for certain tasks, so he draws a bow and writes with his left, and fires a gun and throws a ball with his right). Using a bow is hard, so the various feats applying to that are good as well. But a feat just for knowing anatomy? How's that rare and amazing? A feat is something that sets someone apart. The common sort of knowledge like that is something that anyone could learn.
I'll see what I can do about it. You're right, it's no where near a class skill for a rogue, but it could be for an assassin. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 06 Jun 2003 : 00:40:39
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I understand the concern, Mournblade, but only after you pointed it out. Remember, I've never done any combat (that I've had to roll for, anyway -- the computer games don't count) so I've basically very little knowledge of how things actually work. I actually posted my work backwards. I did the feat first, the healing bonus for the skill second, and then after that I tried to think of some other use for Knowledge (anatomy).
I should have at least put in a need to use a finesse-able (is that the term?) weapon, such as a dagger. I did think it might go better with a rogue (I confess I didn't think of the assassin), but I wasn't sure. Like I said, no experience, little knowledge.
So how should I go about fixing it?
One trend I noticed in 3e, and one that is actually balanced, is allowing DOUBLE bonuses when you limit a feat to one particular type of creature. I think this anatomy would work as a FEAT, if say a fighter or anyone took it too get a double improved threat range (i.e. a Long sword with 19-20, now gets 15-20) against ONE type of creature. Alternately a +1 on damage might work.
OR perhaps it could just add +2 on your critical hit role. Because of the improved crit feat, this is a tough one to balance.
Maybe you can just make it as it was originally intended as a skill, and it would give a bonus to heal. Or if a thief has this skill it would give a +2 with a sneak attack. I am torn because I know how specific anatomy is for one species, yet I was able to save dogs with the Heimlich Maneuver (choking first aid). I think adding a bonus to sneak attack would work well. BUt then would it be a rogue class skill? Why should a rogue know it? HE already KNOWS how to backstab and WHERE, so why would he worry about studying it just to get it precisely in the heart when doing a backstab? I don't know.
As a feat it is tough to balance because of the Improved crit. OH WAIT!!!
Nah that won't work.... GRRRRRR. OK remember Improved crit works for ONE weapon. MAYBE you can make the anatomy feat only give a +1 number on the threat range for MANY weapons. This is a tough feat to work with but it can be done.
As a skill though, it has to be worth a characters time. If it is not a class skill for rogue (which it would not be in my campaign) it might be a bit pointless for a rogue.
hmmmmmmmmmmm........
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 05 Jun 2003 : 04:45:48
I understand the concern, Mournblade, but only after you pointed it out. Remember, I've never done any combat (that I've had to roll for, anyway -- the computer games don't count) so I've basically very little knowledge of how things actually work. I actually posted my work backwards. I did the feat first, the healing bonus for the skill second, and then after that I tried to think of some other use for Knowledge (anatomy).
I should have at least put in a need to use a finesse-able (is that the term?) weapon, such as a dagger. I did think it might go better with a rogue (I confess I didn't think of the assassin), but I wasn't sure. Like I said, no experience, little knowledge.
So how should I go about fixing it? |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 23:03:50
That was a good attempt at a feat and a skill. My problem with the skill is iti s allowing as much as a FEAT. To allow a +1 on damage if you have 5 ranks, or a +1 threat range (YIKES!!!) that is ALMOST as good as combining an IMPROVED CRITICAL with a WEAPON FOCUS. Personally I do not think a knowledge of anatomy would help a MELEE fighter. IF you have two fighters using a long sword, one knowing anatomy and one not, since they are fighters they know where the lethal spots are. THe fighter would know to hit the chest, and the anotomy fighter would know (HIT CHEST EXACTLY HERE). Well that is all well and good, but he may have to take more time to AIM for that spot, than the brute fighter. A fighter hitting your chest on the side will do as much damage as a fighter hitting the center. MAYBE you can use the anatomy skill asa FEAT and say it gives you a +2 THREAT RANGE on ONE TYPE OF CREATURE. I would say that the anatomy skill if it helped anything would be assassins, and possibly a thiefs backstab.
As a side benefit I would say it should allow a +2 on healing checks as well.
IN the Larp I do which is at www.laire.com We do not have Clerics at all. We have DRUIDS which heal with their own magic, but most healers are mages, (My warlock heals, but refuses to use magic for healing unless it is for himself or him). MANY people have developed characters based on the old apothecary type. I would agree that Magic should allow healing, but in D&D I think it is fine that only divine casting characters can do so. |
| Artalis |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 22:21:43
I was speaking in generalities when i mentioned that necromancers should be able to heal. And I still think they should but exactly as you said the life energy would have to come from somewhere, such as themselves.
I like your approach Bookwyrm it works very well for my purposes and has a nice scientific feel to it. I am a stickler for realism in my campaigns, not gritty icky realism but the kind that says everything has to make sense.
Good Stuff |
| Edain Shadowstar |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 21:33:51
As far as necromancers go, because of their life/death nature it never seemed appropriate to me for then to just be able to heal like a cleric. To me it seemed that any sort of healing magic would require some sort of death component (like George said the HPs have to come from somewhere). That doesn't mean wizards shouldn't be able to heal, but necromancers, in general, don't really seem to have any special right to have regular healing magics (if anything they shouldn't).
Also, veyr nice work Bookwyrm. The skill and feat in general seem fairly balanced and look like they would work very well. I might even throw them into a game one of these days and see how it goes. |
| Brynweir |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 18:24:23
quote:
Originally posted by Yasraena
Having necromancers heal... Now THAT'S an intersting thought. I agree that out of all of the mage classses, they should be able to because of their specialization in life/death magic. Although, being that most (99.99%) are evil, healing would probably be at the bottom of the list of magics they would want to learn; and if they did learn some healing magic, they'd literally want an arm and a leg to cast it for you.
I don't know about necromancers in particular, but I know plenty of evil people who would like to be able to heal. It is generally difficult to torture someone if they die, so heal 'em up and start over again. (Been there, done that) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 14:20:39
Yes, Bookwyrm, whenever you have something to say, will be great  .
Anyway, for those who have read about this idea, and find it interesting, I have continued the idea here.
Enjoy,
May your learning be free and unfettered
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 14:01:22
If by 'semi-regularly' you mean 'when you've got something to say' then yes. 
On the other hand, if you're talking about new things, why not start a thread for new things? New classes (I tried that myself, didn't generate much traffic), new skills, new feats, new non-tangible things in general. (I don't mean new spells; I have three, but I was planning on them going to your shop.)
If you're just looking for things relating only to skills and feats, that's fine too. I've had another feat knocking around in my brain for a while now. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 13:52:30
That's better, and it makes more sense as to what specifically happens.
I apologise if I was being a little difficult, but I just got off a 14 hour work day (14 hours of programming  ), and I am really tired. Perhaps I would have understood your post better, if I was more awake.
Anyway it is actually very good for a first attempt, I would like to see some other creations of your's if you are up to it. While we're on the topic, I was thinking about starting a thread specifically for FR feats and skills. Would you be interested in contributing semi-regularly?.
May your learning be free and unfettered
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 13:39:56
Oh, no no no. I'm sorry. I'll see if I can rephrase that.
For a wizard or sorcerer, the cure spells do not have an increase in effectiveness for level. Instead, for the "+1 per caster level" you treat them as if they were level-0 casters. A cure light wounds spell is just a dice roll. No extra bonus for how many levels it has.
Also, the spellcaster only gets the spell when the character would normally have a spell of that level. Ands the fact that it's one level higher is a penalty. It means that a wizard or sorcerer has to put aside a higher spell to make room for that cure spell than a bard or cleric would have needed.
In other words, a cleric can cast cure critical wounds at seventh level, but a wizard can't do that until he gets to ninth. And even then, the seventh-level cleric can heal at least 11 hit points (assuming four rolls of 1, plus 7 for caster level). A ninth-level wizard would only be guarenteed 4 points of healing.
That clear things up? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 13:23:34
Does the feat grant all these spells to the PC all at once?
I may be misreading the 'special' portion of the feat, but the problem I see is that, not only do they can access to these specific spells, but they occupy one spell level slot higher as well. This seems to be a little overpowered.
May your learning be free and unfettered
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 13:10:26
Could you tell me what exactly it is that you're objecting to? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 13:04:40
WHOOPS!, sorry Bookwyrm, I meant to say skill. Anyway, the feat is great, but I think it should be toned down, maybe add a penalty (not really effective in this case), or perhaps space out the benefits between highers levels, and not have the PC gain everything at so low a level.
Alternatively allow a level prerequisite of lvl 5+ maybe.
I'll post what I've got when I find my notebook.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 12:53:43
There's only one feat. The first part is just a skill.
And it was my first time doing this. I was wondering if it was fitting right or not. Especially how early it is availlable to the PC. Since no class has both those skill prerequesites as class skills, it's only avallible at 3rd-level. I didn't know if I should push it back or not, and figured I'd just throw it out.
Let me see what you've got. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 12:48:03
Bookwyrm, the first feat is great and has a lot of potential to be used effectively in a game. However the second feat seems a little over-powered. The 'special' portion of the feat seems to benefit the PC too much, too quickly.
I would like to revise it a little with a similiar feat I designed several months ago. Let me get my notebooks and I'll get back to you.
May your learning be free and unfettered
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 09:56:13
Okay Artalis. You got me going on this. It took me some time of working at it, but I think I’ve figured out a way to give you what you wanted, and still have some game-balance. It comes in the form of a new skill, Knowledge (anatomy), and a feat, Magical Healer.
NEW SKILL: Knowledge (anatomy)
You have studied the way bodies are put together, increasing the effectiveness to which you deal with them -- for good or ill.
Benefit:
If your character has five or more ranks in Knowledge (anatomy), he or she gains a +1 bonus to damage roles against enemies with a discernable anatomy. If your character has ten or more ranks in this skill, the range in which he or she threatens a critical hit is increased by one. This stacks with any other bonuses and applies to any weapon.
If your character has five or more ranks in Knowledge (anatomy), he or she gains a +1 bonus to Heal checks. This bonus increases by +1 for every two ranks beyond 5 (+2 at 7 ranks, +3 at nine ranks, and so on).
NEW FEAT: Magical Healer
You are in tune with the auras of others, allowing you to heal them more effectively.
Prerequisite: Heal 3 ranks, Knowledge (anatomy) 3 ranks.
Benefit:
A character with this feat can apply the result of his or her Heal check to increase the effectiveness of a cure spell. If a heal check beats a DC of 15 (standard Heal DC), the character being healed gains 1 extra point of healed damage per 2 points of that excess.
For example, Jozan wishes to heal Lidda, and casts cure light wounds on her. His player rolls 1d8, with a result of 5. Because Jozan is a third-level cleric, his player adds 3 to that roll, for a new result of 8.
Because Jozan has the feat Magical Healer, his player also rolls a Heal check. A roll of 1d20 yields 11. Jozan has a Wisdom modifier of +2 and five ranks in Heal. This gives a result of 18. (He only has three ranks in Knowledge (anatomy), and so cannot add a synergy bonus.) Because that result beats 15 by 3 points, Lidda is healed of another 1 point of damage.
Special:
Sorcerers and wizards who take this feat also gain access to the following spells: cure light wounds, cure moderate wounds, cure serious wounds, and cure critical wounds. They take up a spell slot one level higher than the norm for a bard or cleric, and do not gain a level-dependant bonus.
Thus, for a 5th-level bard or cleric, cure light wounds is a 1st-level spell that heals 1d8+5 points of damage. For a 5th-level sorcerer or wizard, however, it is a 2nd-level spell that heals 1d8 points of damage, with no bonus for caster level.
That what you were looking for, Artalis? |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 05:29:12
Hmm . . . those are some pretty good game-points there, Artalis. I've got some idea spinning in my head. I'll try to sort them out and then get back to you.
On the subject in general, I have to say I've never really questioned the game balance. After all, if clerics aren't the only ones who heal, their value goes way down. But when it's not a game I let magic do the healing.
Allow me to use an example. My first non-Earth story world was a planet called Gae'arth ('gay-arth' in the formal, but also 'garth' in some dialects). I've mentioned it elsewhere. Now, in this world, magic was all arcane, at least in the D&D sense. True clerics were rarer than saints. (By the way, the common religion was a sort of Jewish varient; some Jews had been trapped there long ago, and they went from a clan religion to one that seeks converts. But that's a whole other story.)
Anyway, magic-users all had access to healing magic. It took a particular talent, and could only enhance the body's natural abilities (no new limbs, unless you want a magical prosthetic). Healing cuts and burns and such were easy. Bones were harder. Surgery-like spells were rare, and sometimes dangerous. As for actual sickness, you were better off with the local herbalist; people who could do that were not only few and far between, you likely couldn't afford their prices.
Anyway . . . I'll get back to you one that game part.
[Bookwyrm walks over to his new desk and starts jotting down notes . . . .] |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 05:00:12
I remember an "Arcane Lore" column in Dragon many years ago that gave a bunch of necromantic healing spells. However, the premise of the article (which I thought was quite appropriate) was that necromantic healing didn't just happen, unlike divine healing. There was a quid pro quo aspect. In other words, if you wanted to heal Joe the Fighter of 20 hp of damage, then those hps had to come from somewhere, or more correctly, someone (i.e. a life force transfer). If anyone has the Dragon Magazine CD-Rom then I'm sure they'd be able to find the article - it was in the 100s IIRC.
-- George Krashos
|
| Yasraena |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 04:50:31
Mages can heal, just not as well as clerics. They use the Heal and Herbalism skills, potions and herbs to do what clerics do by divine magic. There are also spells by Laeral and the Simbul that can heal, as Mournblade has pointed out.
I'm also with Mournblade in that I don't allow mages to magically heal in my campaign. They can heal with the various above things, and if they're lucky enough to acquire the afore mentioned spells, with them as well.
As far as the game balance thing goes, I completely agree with it. Magical healing is one of the major things a cleric does, and if a mage was able to do it as well, it would significantly decrease the effectiveness and uniqueness of the class. IMO anyway.
Having necromancers heal... Now THAT'S an intersting thought. I agree that out of all of the mage classses, they should be able to because of their specialization in life/death magic. Although, being that most (99.99%) are evil, healing would probably be at the bottom of the list of magics they would want to learn; and if they did learn some healing magic, they'd literally want an arm and a leg to cast it for you. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 03 Jun 2003 : 23:51:29
Well I probably won't allow mages to heal ever unless they use Laeral's spell and the Simbul's spell. I jsut won't allow it in my game, because I don't want too. But you make sense artalis. Every other game including the larp I play Mages can heal. I beleive a BIG advantage over the Cleric healing and the mage healing is that a cleric has spontaneous cast.
BUT I have it set up in my campaign that Healing magic is in the skills of the DIVINE casters. Arcane magic does not produce healing effects. I think asking for REALISM in things that apply to a REAL world is OK, but MAGIC does not apply to the real world (well as far as I know anyway), so it never bothered me that arcane magic cannot produce healing effects. Who said magic is supposed to be LOGICAL? Magic is certainly not science and should not be treated as such, and if something doesn't make sense that just might be the nature of magic. |
| Edain Shadowstar |
Posted - 03 Jun 2003 : 21:36:03
Actually, if I am not mistaken there is one known arcane healing spell in FR. Unless my poor old (well, not so old) brain decieves me there was a healing spell created by the Phaerimm, something along the lines of Heal Self. I'll check into this, but I think there is some precedent for this, although not for players. |
| Artalis |
Posted - 03 Jun 2003 : 19:13:30
So lets see if we can come up with rules that allow Mages to heal without destroying game balance.
I am all for balance, I mean I don't want wizards to become the superclass or anything but there has to be a way to get rid of this antiquated game mechanic.
I mean it used to be that a warrior couldn't move silently or hide in shadows until they changed that in to a skill as it should be. Well cure light wounds is a SPELL and what do Mages cast?
Heck I would even be ok with a requirement that the wizard posess a feat that allowed it or had to have ranks in the Healing skill in order to have the knowledge sufficient to heal without hurting their target. Maybe that could be the advantage of clerics for them Healing just works like the equivalent of of the Clerical Magic Missile. A no miss thing since their magic is of divine origin and doesn't require them to know anything. Whereas a mage might have to KNOW HOW the bones go back together or nerves and blood vessels. So maybe in order to cast a healing (arcane version) spell the Wizard/Sorcer/Bard would have to make a skill check against the severity of the wound for dc or something.
Hows that? |
| Faraer |
Posted - 03 Jun 2003 : 19:07:28
One of the ways the Realms differs from the assumptions of D&D is the existence of arcane healing magic -- although only a few of the spells were ever published, the published references are fairly obscure, and the third edition inflection of the Realms ignores this in favour of game conventions.
In the World of Greyhawk, I love the distinction of class functions. But the rigid game balance of D&D only really helps bad campaigns not be worse, and we know that Ed uses healing Art (though it's weaker for its level) with no trouble in his campaigns. |
| Brynweir |
Posted - 03 Jun 2003 : 18:59:28
Based on your logic, Artalis, I would have to agree. |
|
|
