PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder Changing the rules for healing (3.PF Cure spell changes)



Demonic Kitten
2015-04-29, 04:29 AM
So, a friend and I were discussing the Cure line of spells a while back, and between things I've seen on this forum and the things he said, I've come to the conclusion that the (Healing) subschool really has no business being Conjuration. I mean, what are you conjuring? If the answer is positive energy, then it belongs to Evocation, but the spells could also be interpreted as altering one's life force, making them Necromancy.

I'm debating changing the (Healing) subschool to one of either Evocation or Necromancy, but I'm worried about how it could alter the balance of power, and thus, I'm asking here: which of these schools is better/makes more sense for the (Healing) subschool, and what potential or unforeseen consequences could this change have on the game I'm running?

EDIT: After some discussion, I have decided to try and fix Necromancy a bit, and put several spells from other schools back into Necromancy.

Current list of spells:
All Conjuration (Healing)
All spells to raise the dead

MercantileOtter
2015-04-29, 12:05 PM
I have always considered them far more akin to necromancy spells. Inflict spells are all Necromancy and cure spells are just inflict spells in reverse, by the definition of necromancy as the manipulation of life forces, they are clearly necromancy effects.
I don't currently have the foresight to see the possible outcomes of reclassifying them as necromancy, but I am curious to see what other people think, and in my own games will almost certainly house rule them as necromancy if people here conclude it doesn't ave any disastrous implications.

Demonic Kitten
2015-04-29, 02:41 PM
That's a good point about Inflict spells. One potential consequence would be that both Cure and Inflict would fall under the same Spell Focus feat to increase their save DCs, but I don't see that breaking a game any.

Aergoth
2015-04-30, 11:21 AM
Arguably the other spot they could fall under, depending on how you define the cure spells to work, is Transmutation, since you're basically performing Mending/Make Whole etc. on a living breahting creature instead of on an inanimate one.

Necromancy as a school is really weird since it doesn't have a cohesive structure other than "generally unpleasant and also relating to bodies/evil/undead/negative energy"
Evocation makes sense since generating the energy fits with its overall rules.

Ilorin Lorati
2015-04-30, 01:00 PM
The reason why necromancy is "generally unpleasant" is because in 3e they moved healing magic out of the school. Necromancy was originally "life/death magic" and included healing and resurrection magic in addition to undeath-related magic.

Aergoth
2015-04-30, 01:11 PM
That makes a lot more sense. It seems like a waste of a school right now (at least in pathfinder) when it seems like you could distribute the contents of that among the other schools fairly evenly.

MercantileOtter
2015-04-30, 04:05 PM
That makes a lot more sense. It seems like a waste of a school right now (at least in pathfinder) when it seems like you could distribute the contents of that among the other schools fairly evenly.

Rather than tearing apart necromancy to redistribute its contents, let's see if we can't make it less of a waste, ad change it to be more in line with the manipulation of life and death energies.
Let's start off a list of spells that obviously should be necromancy under this idea.
All cure spells, obviously.
Raise Dead/Resurrection/True Resurrection (These are literally spells with raising the dead, how much more "life and death magic" can you get?)
What are some more?

The Evil DM
2015-04-30, 04:13 PM
Yes necromancy was originally life/death magic. In 2nd ed and prior you could lump necromantic spells into categories of White Necromancy, Grey Necromancy and Black Necromancy based on whether the spells were considered generally beneficial and thus good (healing) or harmful and thus evil (black). Grey necromancy was everything in between.

When WotC put out 3.x which migrated to pathfinder someone in the design process decided that all necromancy is evil and moved out all the potentially beneficial stuff. They also did this to eliminate arguments that white necromancers can be healers violating the cleric role.

Some good places to start if you want to really explore necromancy in the D&D context is the first ed and second ed material especially the out of print book Complete book of Necromancers if you can find it.

Demonic Kitten
2015-04-30, 05:18 PM
I'm fairly certain anything that falls under Conjuration (Healing) is really a Necromancy spell, if you think about it. Especially the spells that actually raise the dead, either as undead or as living people. If people want to start posting spells they think could safely be put into Necromancy, I'll post them in the OP and we can discuss them.

And all this history of the necromancy school is fascinating! I started with 3.5, so I had no idea about all this stuff! I'll need to look into this, I've always like the idea of a Good necromancer.