Why can't Wizards cast healing spells?

Why can't wizards cast healing spells in so many settings? It seems kind of arbitrary. I'm really not even sure why Dungeons and Dragons did it originally. Wizards can alter reality in such dramatic ways, why not mending torn flesh and broken bones? Even outside of Dungeons and Dragons this same trope get recycled a lot. Savage Worlds Fantasy companion even has it as a rule. I'm not saying wizards are underpowered in every setting, mythology, or game system, just asking why this trope? Is there a really good reason in the DnD Universe?
No good reason, no.  It's purely an arbitrary divide that arcane can't heal, only divine can.  4e undid this, fortunately, but since 4e is being swept under the bus, it looks like it's returning.
Good question.  Until they come up with an answer, my wizard can memorize any spell.  Phooey be to the rule lawyers.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

So Wizards can't do literally everything. They're supposed to be very versatile, but there are still some things they can't do. It's not entirely an arcane/divine thing, since the Bard will have healing it seems.
Bad design.
The generalist wizard being the base instead of the specialists, there are a lot of problems regarding balance and characterization, so the "solution" was to put an artificial limit and create an undefined "divine magic" that allows to heal. Like if putting religion in the core mechanics of a game was a good idea.
The fact that bards use arcane healing spells just increase the design incoherency.

Good luck killing this sacred cow. 
Because otherwise no one would ever play a cleric, and would only reflavor wizards to be their "white wizards" / cleric classes. It's always been this way, and will always be in D&D. You cannot have D&D with wizards casting healing spells, it's a sacred cow for a reason, it's one of the pillars of separation between the classes. Spellcasting classes have different iconic spell lines that only rarely overlap. Wizards have better utility and damage spells, clerics have different utility and less damage, but more buffs, restorations, etc. 

Only way to get both miracle and wish is to play epic and have a level 18 wizards / 18 cleric. Although I'm sure 3e there were ways. I liked how specialist clerics in 3e could chose their domains to get very specific wizard spells, but not the other way around. That's a good thing, since generally wizards tend to be far more powerful than clerics (so long as you can buy wands of CLW). I hope Next avoids these mistakes and makes clerics very important to have in most groups, especially those where undead are common. 

Clerics would be religious wizards, just like many mages were closely linked to religions in past cultures.
The strict separation between magic and religion is a recent concept, it wasn't the case before the current dominant religions.

Requiring a healing bot cannot be a good reason to play a class.
Stop the players' sacrifice ! Freedom for the D&D groups' slaves !

because mortals shouldn't normally control the forces of creation. They are too weak to control it fully. Healing requires greater power and more finite control due to the intricate nature of life. In fact it's not actually clerics casting healing, but the gods using mortal vessels to spill their power onto the mortal plane

That was a load of crap I just made up, but makes sense. DMs, feel free to quote me against rules lawyers.
because mortals shouldn't normally control the forces of creation. They are too weak to control it fully. Healing requires greater power and more finite control due to the intricate nature of life. In fact it's not actually clerics casting healing, but the gods using mortal vessels to spill their power onto the mortal plane

That was a load of crap I just made up, but makes sense. DMs, feel free to quote me against rules lawyers.

Healing a broken wrist requires the aid of a god, but summoning fireballs to incinerate entire forests is as easy as 1-2-3 for any mortal with a touch of the arcane?

I'm not sure I can follow that thinking.

My Sig
Reality is but the sum total of all illusions. Proud Hand of Karsus, now and forever Mess with one Hand, mess with 'em all I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
"just do what LM the lord of magical might does, and you'll be fine" - sfdragon, 10/12/09
Board Snippets
147048523 wrote:
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it." Repeat. Obstinance?
56790678 wrote:
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived. You haven't lived.
56902498 wrote:
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up! We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and.... One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to Go!
57062508 wrote:
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
56760448 wrote:
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison... MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development. TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment. You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
90571711 wrote:
Adding options at the system level is good. Adding options at the table level is hard. Removing options at the system level is bad. Removing options at the table level is easy. This is not complicated.
57333888 wrote:
112760109 wrote:
56902838 wrote:
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :| I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
158710691 wrote:
D&D definitely improves mental health; Just as long as you stay away from these forums ;)
because mortals shouldn't normally control the forces of creation. They are too weak to control it fully. Healing requires greater power and more finite control due to the intricate nature of life. In fact it's not actually clerics casting healing, but the gods using mortal vessels to spill their power onto the mortal plane

That was a load of crap I just made up, but makes sense. DMs, feel free to quote me against rules lawyers.



Because.

Once there was Magic User wandering inside the garden of D&D and then, pouf, God took the rib of the MU to make the Cleric. The rib is the healing power, bro. And the armor is there to hide Cleric's too large chest, but chhhhhh.
The cleric can take a flying leap, as far as I'm concerned.  I've rarely encountered anybody who wanted to play one, just people who felt forced to because of the stupid healing divide.

Again, a fine example of something 4e got perfectly right, that WotC is backpedalling on.
Ive always had this issue, myself. When I wanted to play a healer in 4e, I chose bard. Flavorful and I liked the feel that I am in control of my power instead of begging some deity for help.

For now, the only thing that will allow a wizard to heal is house ruling from a very nice DM.
Ive always had this issue, myself. When I wanted to play a healer in 4e, I chose bard. Flavorful and I liked the feel that I am in control of my power instead of begging some deity for help.

For now, the only thing that will allow a wizard to heal is house ruling from a very nice DM.
I usually went with Warlord, sometimes an Artificer, myself.
The only reason a wizard can't learn a healing spell(s) is tradition.  Bottom line.  It isn't really a valid balance reason any more.

After all, Bards have had access to arcane healing spells, and in prior editions some wizards could learn arcane healing spells (and dragons of course could).

Basically it's an old sacred cow.

-Polaris
My understanding is the original classes in DnD (in EGG's home games) were fighting-man and magic-user. Cleric was added because one of his players was a "vampire" and he needed a Van Helsing type as a "foil". Thus, the cleric was born.

Really, if the designers wanted to, they could easily break down all the classes to two: Hero and Mystic. Let backgrounds, feats, and multiclassing sort out the rest. 
As sort of a setting thing, I actually really, really like the idea that healing is the one thing that Arcane magic just can't do. There's something appealing about that idea. As a general thing codified into the game, it makes less sense (wizards casting healing magic is certainly at least as common in the genre as them doing most of the other things that wizards are allowed to do), but I like it as sort of a particular for a setting. (Also, D&D's influence is great enough that "the wizard can't heal" has become pretty standard in fantasy games, if not in fantasy fiction.) If you're looking for precedents, there's healing wizards just everywhere.

I do think there's also some value in defining classes in part by what they can't do. There's a balance there; if classes are too narrow in their capabilities or you restrict capabilities too tightly, you end up with every-party-must-have-an-X and also with boring your-turn-now teamwork (instead of working-together teamwork). At the same time, making it so that classes have at least a few things they're less able to handle lets people feel like they have different strengths. Interesting weaknesses enhance gameplay, and "can't really heal" is an interesting weakness. Whether or not it strictly makes sense, I think that primary arcanists being unable to heal has developed into a game mechanic that does have some upsides.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Why can't a Wizard heal, is sort of like asking why can't a Fighter pick a lock.
If a Wizard could heal and a Fighter could pick a lock, there would be no Clerics and Rogues in the game.

It takes time away from practicing fighting to maintain your skill in picking locks, so you as a lock picker should not be as powerful a fighter as someone who only dedicates themselves to fighting.

Clerics heal less than Wizards do in area damage. That is because Clerics spend time fighting in addition to healing.

This game balance was a result of years of playing and these rules were made so that every class was useful in some way.

Realistically there is no reason a Fighter can't also pick a lock or a Wizard can't also heal and swing a large sword. But then again, that Fighter won't be as good a Fighter as those fighters who only fight. That Wizard won't be as good as Wizards who only practice area spells.
The downside, of course, is that it limits game worlds and homebrew.  What if your game simply has no divine magic?  You either need to make extensive houserules, or major alterations to how you run the game.  This was why 4e was perfect for this.  I could easily jettison entire power sources and not have to screw around with basic tenets of running the game.

As I've said before, were it I, I would put the game's available spells into thematic lists, similar to domains, and let a spellcaster pick two.  That's your spell list.  If you want more, it's going to cost you some character-resource-currency.  You want Healing?  That's one of your two options.

This way, while wizards (as a whole) might be able to do almost anything, an individual wizard cannot.
The downside, of course, is that it limits game worlds and homebrew.  What if your game simply has no divine magic?  You either need to make extensive houserules, or major alterations to how you run the game.  This was why 4e was perfect for this.  I could easily jettison entire power sources and not have to screw around with basic tenets of running the game.

As I've said before, were it I, I would put the game's available spells into thematic lists, similar to domains, and let a spellcaster pick two.  That's your spell list.  If you want more, it's going to cost you some character-resource-currency.  You want Healing?  That's one of your two options.

This way, while wizards (as a whole) might be able to do almost anything, an individual wizard cannot.



Or you could simply merge all the lists and if they wanted to pick healing, then they pick healing ('pick' as in on level-up or however you handle magic disbursement).

Not really any different from jettisoning a whole power source.   You make divine mage and arcane magic simply 'magic magic' and the cleric becomes the martial-mage gish, a bit heavier on the mage than the martial (whereas a pally would be a bit heavier on the martial than the mage). 

It is FAR more limiting imo to force all spellcasters down to 2 spheres and lose everything else they previously had access to than to remove a dividing line and merge them all together.  Of course, you'd run into the problem of why anyone, ever, would play a wizard when a cleric can wear full plate, but that's a whole other topic.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

TRADITION
(imagine Fiddler on the Roof)

There are a couple of genre reasons that originated it if you read much Howard.
Also, as has been mentioned, nitche protection for the other Magic User class. 
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
Wizards would be too overpowered if they could also heal. They can already do almost everything BUT heal. Why do they need that too? Wizard spells are extremely versatile and useful and I feel they are more powerful and useful than cleric or druid spells in every way except healing. I personally like playing wizards, clerics and druids. If wizards could heal, I would only ever play wizards.
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
Wizards would be too overpowered if they could also heal.



Not if they took this into account designing the class, of course.  See my previous post.

Whether or not they can heal, their power level needs to be yanked WAY down.
because mortals shouldn't normally control the forces of creation. They are too weak to control it fully. Healing requires greater power and more finite control due to the intricate nature of life. In fact it's not actually clerics casting healing, but the gods using mortal vessels to spill their power onto the mortal plane

That was a load of crap I just made up, but makes sense. DMs, feel free to quote me against rules lawyers.

Healing a broken wrist requires the aid of a god, but summoning fireballs to incinerate entire forests is as easy as 1-2-3 for any mortal with a touch of the arcane?

I'm not sure I can follow that thinking.




How long does it take to build a house?  How long does it take to turn it to rubble?  There's your answer.

Creation is hard.  Destruction is easy. 
Setting specific reasons is all. If u want to make the Cure Wounds spell available to wizards go for it.
Wizards would be too overpowered if they could also heal.



Not if they took this into account designing the class, of course.  See my previous post.

Whether or not they can heal, their power level needs to be yanked WAY down.


Wizards are fine as they are, especially how they are designed now. If you really want to heal, why not play a cleric or druid? What's the point of making a wizard less good at all the things it's currently good at, just so it can heal, especially when there are solid choices to heal already?
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
Ironically, despite my calls for limits and caps on the Wizard, this is something I feel a specific Wizard Tradition could address.  White Witches, Wisemen and Wisewomen, Witch-Doctors, Alchemists, Artificers, etc feel close enough to Wizards and far enough away from Clerics and Druids to allow a Restoration Tradition in the Wizard class. 

Unfortunately, Sacred Cows demand that healing spells be arbitrarily located in Conjuration, whose tradition will certainly not include healing, as it will be focusing on the Summoner archetype (despite that healing wasn't ALWAYS contained in Conjuration – it used to be Necromancy).  Frankly, Healing and Abjuration, in my opinion, are really one the same school, and this is one place that The Elder Scrolls has infinitely more wisdom on the matter than Dungeons & Dragons does. 

Sacred Cows die hard.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

because mortals shouldn't normally control the forces of creation. They are too weak to control it fully. Healing requires greater power and more finite control due to the intricate nature of life. In fact it's not actually clerics casting healing, but the gods using mortal vessels to spill their power onto the mortal plane

That was a load of crap I just made up, but makes sense. DMs, feel free to quote me against rules lawyers.

Healing a broken wrist requires the aid of a god, but summoning fireballs to incinerate entire forests is as easy as 1-2-3 for any mortal with a touch of the arcane?

I'm not sure I can follow that thinking.




How long does it take to build a house?  How long does it take to turn it to rubble?  There's your answer.

Creation is hard.  Destruction is easy. 

My example of fireballs (and destruction spells in general) isn't the end-all, be-all of arcane magic, though. A wizard has spells to teleport, create images of himself, and float above the ground; none of them are destruction-based. If a wizard knows how to make himself harder to hit, from in-game and out-of-game perspectives, it would make sense that a mage would like to be able to snap his fingers and knit a few wounds for when he does get hit.

Ultimately, as others have said, it is niche protection/sacred cows that sort spells.

My Sig
Reality is but the sum total of all illusions. Proud Hand of Karsus, now and forever Mess with one Hand, mess with 'em all I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
"just do what LM the lord of magical might does, and you'll be fine" - sfdragon, 10/12/09
Board Snippets
147048523 wrote:
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it." Repeat. Obstinance?
56790678 wrote:
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived. You haven't lived.
56902498 wrote:
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up! We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and.... One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to Go!
57062508 wrote:
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
56760448 wrote:
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison... MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development. TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment. You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
90571711 wrote:
Adding options at the system level is good. Adding options at the table level is hard. Removing options at the system level is bad. Removing options at the table level is easy. This is not complicated.
57333888 wrote:
112760109 wrote:
56902838 wrote:
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :| I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
158710691 wrote:
D&D definitely improves mental health; Just as long as you stay away from these forums ;)
Wizards would be too overpowered if they could also heal.



Not if they took this into account designing the class, of course.  See my previous post.

Whether or not they can heal, their power level needs to be yanked WAY down.


Wizards are fine as they are, especially how they are designed now. If you really want to heal, why not play a cleric or druid? What's the point of making a wizard less good at all the things it's currently good at, just so it can heal, especially when there are solid choices to heal already?



Freedom and flexibility.  I don't LIKE clerics or druids.  Wizards could eliminate them from the game and I would be ecstatic.


How long does it take to build a house?  How long does it take to turn it to rubble?  There's your answer.

Creation is hard.  Destruction is easy. 



Except wizards create stuff, too, of course.
There is nothing wrong with combining all the spells and prayers into one list.

However, because the Cleric has armor and higher hit dice, the Cleric should do less damage and heal less with prayers.
The Wizard, as a reward for her lower HD and AC, should heal more and damage more with spells.
Why can't wizards cast healing spells in so many settings? It seems kind of arbitrary. I'm really not even sure why Dungeons and Dragons did it originally. Wizards can alter reality in such dramatic ways, why not mending torn flesh and broken bones? Even outside of Dungeons and Dragons this same trope get recycled a lot. Savage Worlds Fantasy companion even has it as a rule. I'm not saying wizards are underpowered in every setting, mythology, or game system, just asking why this trope? Is there a really good reason in the DnD Universe?



  Because the D&D Wizard/Magic-User wasn't really based that much on the classic spellcaster of myth, folklore, and literature to begin with.  It, the Vancian casting system, and quite a few of the spells were more or less based on the unique kind of spellcasters found in Jack Vance's Dying Earth  series of books.

  And since pretty much every fantasy RPG that has followed has taken some influence from D&D to varying degrees, it pops up a lot.
because mortals shouldn't normally control the forces of creation. They are too weak to control it fully. Healing requires greater power and more finite control due to the intricate nature of life. In fact it's not actually clerics casting healing, but the gods using mortal vessels to spill their power onto the mortal plane

That was a load of crap I just made up, but makes sense. DMs, feel free to quote me against rules lawyers.

Healing a broken wrist requires the aid of a god, but summoning fireballs to incinerate entire forests is as easy as 1-2-3 for any mortal with a touch of the arcane?

I'm not sure I can follow that thinking.




Cuz with fireballs you just clash some raw natural forces. You don't actually do any fine manipulating. You just put two things together that hate each other, add some bat guano to make a spark and boom. done. Manipulating life takes a finer touch.



How long does it take to build a house?  How long does it take to turn it to rubble?  There's your answer.

Creation is hard.  Destruction is easy. 



Except wizards create stuff, too, of course.



nothing with souls



How long does it take to build a house?  How long does it take to turn it to rubble?  There's your answer.

Creation is hard.  Destruction is easy. 



Except wizards create stuff, too, of course.



nothing with souls




and your point is?


Cuz with fireballs you just clash some raw natural forces. You don't actually do any fine manipulating. You just put two things together that hate each other, add some bat guano to make a spark and boom. done.

But it takes proper manipulation to actually produce the fireballs in the first place. A lacksadaisical approach is a recipe for self-immolation.

Also, the example of fireballs was just one random selection from the entirety of arcane magic. As I mentioned in my previous post, I wasn't trying to zoom in on destructive spells.

Manipulating life takes a finer touch.

Given the scope of divine and arcane magic, it doesn't really seem that way to me, but to each his own.
My Sig
Reality is but the sum total of all illusions. Proud Hand of Karsus, now and forever Mess with one Hand, mess with 'em all I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
"just do what LM the lord of magical might does, and you'll be fine" - sfdragon, 10/12/09
Board Snippets
147048523 wrote:
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it." Repeat. Obstinance?
56790678 wrote:
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived. You haven't lived.
56902498 wrote:
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up! We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and.... One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to Go!
57062508 wrote:
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
56760448 wrote:
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison... MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development. TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment. You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
90571711 wrote:
Adding options at the system level is good. Adding options at the table level is hard. Removing options at the system level is bad. Removing options at the table level is easy. This is not complicated.
57333888 wrote:
112760109 wrote:
56902838 wrote:
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :| I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
158710691 wrote:
D&D definitely improves mental health; Just as long as you stay away from these forums ;)
[..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Cuz with fireballs you just clash some raw natural forces. You don't actually do any fine manipulating. You just put two things together that hate each other, add some bat guano to make a spark and boom. done. Manipulating life takes a finer touch.




And there's no reason a wizard can't have that touch.
Cuz with fireballs you just clash some raw natural forces. You don't actually do any fine manipulating. You just put two things together that hate each other, add some bat guano to make a spark and boom. done. Manipulating life takes a finer touch.



And there's no reason a wizard can't have that touch.



Sure there is, the soul requies divinte magic, not arcane.
Cuz with fireballs you just clash some raw natural forces. You don't actually do any fine manipulating. You just put two things together that hate each other, add some bat guano to make a spark and boom. done. Manipulating life takes a finer touch.



And there's no reason a wizard can't have that touch.



Sure there is, the soul requies divinte magic, not arcane.



Says who?

That's the way you want your world to work, fine.  But you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us.  My game world doesn't even HAVE souls.  Why should I be forced to obey your preferences?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />

And there's no reason a wizard can't have that touch.



Sure there is, the soul requies divinte magic, not arcane.



Says who?

That's the way you want your world to work, fine.  But you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us.  My game world doesn't even HAVE souls.  Why should I be forced to obey your preferences?



Honestly, if you're going to just house rule it anyway, why bother asking the question. The clear answer of why you can't do it is because it's not in the class and pretty much against the rules. The implied mechanical answer derived from that is balance issues. The RP derived answer from that is that there is a difference between divine magic (use from a god and use wisdom) vs arcane magic (use from the arcane user and use intelligence).

If you are just going to ignore all that on your own regardless of the evident rules and answers, why bother posting anything? Why add to the conversation on the question of 'why can't wizards heal?'

It shouldn't BE a house rule.  That's the POINT.

The more flexible, open system should be the default, and individual tables can choose to restrict it.  That's what 'inclusive', which is one of D&DNext's design goals, means.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />

And there's no reason a wizard can't have that touch.



Sure there is, the soul requies divinte magic, not arcane.



Says who?

That's the way you want your world to work, fine.  But you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us.  My game world doesn't even HAVE souls.  Why should I be forced to obey your preferences?



Honestly, if you're going to just house rule it anyway, why bother asking the question. The clear answer of why you can't do it is because it's not in the class and pretty much against the rules. The implied mechanical answer derived from that is balance issues. The RP derived answer from that is that there is a difference between divine magic (use from a god and use wisdom) vs arcane magic (use from the arcane user and use intelligence).

If you are just going to ignore all that on your own regardless of the evident rules and answers, why bother posting anything? Why add to the conversation on the question of 'why can't wizards heal?'




Except there is no a priori reason (balance or otherwise) that any of what you suggest has to be true.  Thus by hard-coding it into the rules, you are in fact making the flavor text and genre choices part of the rules for everyone, and that seems problematic.

Naturally if a wizard could cast everything easily he would be unbalanced!  However, allowing the wizard as a class to perhaps cast healing spells doesn't mean the wizard class has to be unbalanced.  That depends on how strong magic is, how generally applicable magic is, and what limitations magic has.

-Polaris