Earthdawn also only has caster-adepts and non-caster adepts (all Adepts use mana to power abilities). There are 4 types of magic, and of these Nethermancers and Elementalists have access to some early healing buffs. Sky Raiders also get the Fireblood talent (flames burst forth from their blood to cauterize and seal up wounds), which allows using a "short-rest" Recovery Test in combat. Thing is, in ED, magical healing is baked into the setting's history/mythology/metaphysics. Healing Potions, Last Chance Salves, and various healing magics work because the Named Spirit "DEATH" has been trapped and weakened by the Passions under Death's Sea (a great sea of lava southwest of the province of Barsaive). Wounds heal quickly, quicker than in the old tales, and people can be "saved" up to an hour after death with magic, or even pulled from Death's Realm far after that with the right sacrifices. There are no "clerics" (no "gods" in earthdawn), and while there are "Questors of the Passions" which represent organized cultic worship (the passions being Named Spirits representing human emotions/desires/drives), Healing only pops up in Garlen - Passion of Hearth, Healing, & Home's portfolio (her Questors are good places to find said "Last Chance Salve").

Quote from: Lunamancer;933562It should go without saying that a pastime of imagination is in rough shape when anything that doesn't fit neatly inside the box must be altered or abolished. Like magic-user healing, which doesn't fit the narrative that classes are about niche protection and the niche of the priest is that of the party's heal bitch.

Totally agree with that, and would you mind me using the line in bold for a signature:D?

Quote from: Spinachcat;933569According to what I've read, Ken St. Andre didn't like clerics when he played OD&D so when he wrote Tunnels & Trolls, he included only Warriors and Wizards so there was no divide, only a caster class and a non-caster class.

It works great.

I second that, though there's also a Rogue class in the newer versions of T&T, which could use magic if he finds a way to learn it. Most people aren't willing, but it's possible, and still works great;).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;933444Thing is, D&D is its own thing, and unless you want to rewrite the entire system from scratch, sometimes, leaving it well enough alone is the best you can do.

Yeah, but I have to admit that the D&D cleric and all its baggage can be a real pain to world-build around, so I can't blame anyone for getting an itch to bypass it. I resent 4e and 5e for making the warlock similarly setting-defining.

Quote from: AsenRG;933576Totally agree with that, and would you mind me using the line in bold for a signature:D?

Go ahead. If you like it that much, maybe I should use it more often. It's probably the best expression of what I felt about the evolution of D&D ever since 2nd Ed took away the Ranger's extra hit die at 1st level and upgraded their hit die type just for the sake of making them uniform with the other "warrior" classes.

Truth be told, it breaks nothing to put all the spells in the magic-user spell list; it's the weakest class apart from spells and has the slowest progression. Of course, doing the reverse, putting the spells in the cleric list, is a different story.

Quote from: Lunamancer;933591Go ahead. If you like it that much, maybe I should use it more often. It's probably the best expression of what I felt about the evolution of D&D ever since 2nd Ed took away the Ranger's extra hit die at 1st level and upgraded their hit die type just for the sake of making them uniform with the other "warrior" classes.

Maybe you should use it more often, indeed:).
I'm not sure why those changes to the ranger were such a big deal, but then I am one that prefers mixing barbarians and rangers.

Quote from: KingofElfland;933593Truth be told, it breaks nothing to put all the spells in the magic-user spell list; it's the weakest class apart from spells and has the slowest progression.

I know you aren't talking about that edition, but I suspect a lot of people familiar with the later editions just felt confused at reading this:D.

Quote from: KingofElfland;933593Truth be told, it breaks nothing to put all the spells in the magic-user spell list; it's the weakest class apart from spells and has the slowest progression. Of course, doing the reverse, putting the spells in the cleric list, is a different story.

That actually reminds me,

I do this thing when rolling up random magic items, if the percentile roll I use to indicate that a magic item is present rolls a 01, whatever magic item I ultimately roll, I give it a beneficial tweak (and likewise if I roll 00, I continue to roll a magic item, but it is either a cursed version or one where the magic is "reversed" in some negative way). So a common one I do to scrolls is I allow the possibility of it being a "mixed" scroll with regards to spell type. The scroll is usable by any and all casters whose spell type is present on the scroll, and any who can use the scroll can use any powers on it.

So I might roll up a scroll that contains Magic Missile and Cure Light Wounds. It can be used by a Magic-User, Cleric, or Druid (since CLW is also a Druid spell). The Magic-User would be able to cast Cure Light Wounds off the scroll and even transcribe it into a spellbook. Clerics and Druids can likewise cast the Magic Missile spell, but as they do not keep spellbooks, their usage of a magic-user spell would be a one-off novelty.

Understandably, these sorts of things are rare enough so as to not warrant a change in the rules, but once a mage has learned Cure Light Wounds, it is possible to teach it to an apprentice, meaning anyone who plays a magic-user could hypothetically learn Cleric healing spells IF they are able to find the right mentor.

Palladium Fantasy has Priests and Wizards, but they use the same spell list. There is also a Healer which uses a separate psionics list. As well as medical related skills like First Aid, Holistic Medicine, and so on.

Man, that's the second time I've posted about Palladium Fantasy in as many days. Haven't even played it in a decade.

Quote from: Lunamancer;933562Yeah, that's about what I consider "newer" anything from 2nd Ed on. That's where I see a lot of the annoying tenets of "modern" RPG design popping up. Like rationalizing and categorizing things to the detriment of nuance. "Two types of magic" is certainly one example from that. It should go without saying that a pastime of imagination is in rough shape when anything that doesn't fit neatly inside the box must be altered or abolished. Like magic-user healing, which doesn't fit the narrative that classes are about niche protection and the niche of the priest is that of the party's heal bitch.

    The rationale given in the passing reference in the 2nd Ed DMG is actually niche protection. "In the case of [adding spells to improve] the necromantic school, the first reaction is to add some of the priest healing spells. However, this takes away from the role of the cleric and makes the necromantic specialist too powerful."--2nd Ed. DMG, p.43 (1989) or 64 (1995).

     Of course, this may have been just another case of 2nd Edition assuming what everyone had been doing for years. Although it was before my time, I remember reading Zeb Cook floating the idea of removing the cleric from core 2E on the grounds that everyone just treated them as fantasy medics anyway.

   But then, I have issues with defining the class as 'priest' anyway, for a whole variety of reasons. The 1st Edition PHB, and even the 2nd Edition, points to religious knights like the Templars and Hospitalers as antecedents, and those were monks but not priests. Indeed, assuming that the BECMI spell list is pretty well grounded in the OD&D one, the spell selection actually fits pretty well with those knights' historic mission--guard and shelter pilgrims--with some biblical miracles mixed in. I really need to track down a copy of Playing at the World to see what it says about the ancestry of the cleric.

The cleric was introduced as a foil to a PC Vampire (yes a player was getting too cocky and the GM introduced a whole class to re-balance the world).

It was supposed to be a "Van Helsing"-ish vampire hunter combined with the Hospitaler "fighting healer" arch-type.

Earthdawn, btw, keeps the vampire/monster hunter theme going with the "Horror Stalker" Discipline.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;933631The rationale given in the passing reference in the 2nd Ed DMG is actually niche protection. "In the case of [adding spells to improve] the necromantic school, the first reaction is to add some of the priest healing spells. However, this takes away from the role of the cleric and makes the necromantic specialist too powerful."--2nd Ed. DMG, p.43 (1989) or 64 (1995).

OMG, is that where that goofy word "necromantic" came from? Sounds like a description reserved for a suave vampire or a couple of zombies on a hot date.

QuoteOf course, this may have been just another case of 2nd Edition assuming what everyone had been doing for years.

Yeah, I remember reading that back in the day when 2nd Ed first came out. I thought it was bullshit then, and I think it's bullshit now. I wasn't cranky about it. It just struck me as... not so credible... that gamers from all over just spontaneously started using a d10 rather than a d6 for surprise rolls, and Zeb was just humbly observing and recording the new standard. There are a lot of examples of small, almost insignificant changes that undermine the narrative that he was just writing how people were playing.

QuoteAlthough it was before my time, I remember reading Zeb Cook floating the idea of removing the cleric from core 2E on the grounds that everyone just treated them as fantasy medics anyway.

That seems to be an uncontroversial truth in the culture for sure. But the funny thing is, that had NEVER been my experience. 2nd Ed came out when I was 12 years old. Prior to that, I'd been doing mostly one-offs, solo adventures, mostly playing with my brother, and occasionally getting in on my cousin's game. But at that time, I'd just gotten my first really long-term campaign on line with a consistent group, and I continued to game consistently in longer-term campaigns over the next 6 years or so. The point being, we weren't a bunch of sophisticates. Nor were we getting advice from "on high." We didn't have some special secret insight on how to effectively use the cleric's other abilities. We were just playing the game according to what was written in the books and according to what we found fun.

One thing does occur to me, though. The way my cousin introduced me to the game, and then I in turn introduced others is, if this is your first time (or one of your first times) playing D&D, you're playing a fighter. End of story. It's just the simplest introduction into the game. After you've gotten the hang of that, you can start trying out the cleric and the thief, and when you really know what you're doing, only then do you get to play a magic-user.

Now in hindsight there are a couple of other benefits to this. First, when I first started playing (and even during those early days of solo-gaming or just playing with my brother) we had fighters. No one in the party could heal. So we learned to deal with the expectation that there wouldn't be healing. We had to manage our hit points accordingly. And the other benefit is, we had a good amount of experience before ever getting to play a spell caster. So we were aware of all the trials and frustrations and "wouldn't it be nice if's"... not just the obvious winning vs losing states of hit points going up and down. So when we did play a cleric, we were well aware of how valuable all the other spells were.

What I would also say in hindsight is, if a game designer's observations and experience about the state of D&D is that everyone just treats them as fantasy medics, he's clearly got less insight than a bunch of pimple-faced teens who had no idea wtf they were doing and just learning and making shit up along the way. And so I'd steer clear of any RPG product written by anyone with that mentality. I guess that eliminates about 99% of what's out there.

QuoteBut then, I have issues with defining the class as 'priest' anyway, for a whole variety of reasons. The 1st Edition PHB, and even the 2nd Edition, points to religious knights like the Templars and Hospitalers as antecedents, and those were monks but not priests. Indeed, assuming that the BECMI spell list is pretty well grounded in the OD&D one, the spell selection actually fits pretty well with those knights' historic mission--guard and shelter pilgrims--with some biblical miracles mixed in. I really need to track down a copy of Playing at the World to see what it says about the ancestry of the cleric.

You are even fussier than me, which makes me feel totally justified in my fussiness.

Quote from: Lunamancer;933747OMG, is that where that goofy word "necromantic" came from? Sounds like a description reserved for a suave vampire or a couple of zombies on a hot date.

I thought neckromantic is about romance between giraffes;).

Quote from: Lunamancer;933747OMG, is that where that goofy word "necromantic" came from? Sounds like a description reserved for a suave vampire or a couple of zombies on a hot date.

  Sorry, you can thank Gygax for that one. 1st Edition Player's Handbook, such as the school descriptor for cure light wounds on p. 43. I don't have the resources to tell if it goes back any earlier in the game's history.

QuoteYou are even fussier than me, which makes me feel totally justified in my fussiness.

  Curse of the specialist.