Could we get the schools of magic that magic items fall into in their description. I know one of my DM's always used to say that it was enchantment magic until we pointed out that none of the things controlled peoples mind. When I dm I always have to think about it when ever someone uses detect magic.
Magic items don't actually need to have schools of magic, but here's a quick reference list that can be used to attach a fitting school (according to the definitions of the schools, which are often poorly applied to spells) to any item:
If its function is to protect: Abjuration
If its function is to create, summon, or transport something, or allow access to another dimension: Conjuration
If its function is to find, know, or perceive things: Divination
If its function is to alter, control, or access the mind or emotions: Enchantment
If its function is to channel dangerous energy: Evocation
If its function is to deceive, obscure, hide, or disguise something: Illusion
If its function is to directly reduce or repair life force, or animate the dead: Necromancy
If its function is to enhance, alter, or change the physical properties of something: Transmutation
I understand the schools but detect magic shows the schools of magic and it seems odd that magic items don't have schools.
(I'm not going to bring up my pet peeve that healing magic is evocation not necromancy cause I've gotten into it with too many people).
Thanks again.
It says "school of magic, if any" (emphasis mine).
Regarding healing, if you are saying that you think healing magic should be evocation rather than necromancy (which I am aware 5th edition has many spells that restore hp labelled as evocation), I'd love to hear your reasoning. To me it has always seemed clear that they are necromancy because A) that's what they were as far back as I am aware of schools of magic being assigned to spells, B) it fits the definition provided for the necromancy school that has stayed consistent throughout editions, and C) at one point along the line someone decided to move healing from necromancy to conjuration and invent a sub-school of healing, and I don't find "let's change the definition of evocation so it includes something it never has before" to be a more suitable solution than "let's put healing spells back in necromancy where they fit without changing any definitions or making up something new".
Actually I was saying exactly what you are. My pet peeve is that healing spells have been put into evocation even though the description of the school of magic in 5e is the study of life, death and undeath. I think healing is clearly necromancy & when ever I dm I tell my players as such.
There is the association (perhaps because of 3rd edition) that necromancy is evil. I realize 4th and 5th edition has tried to lower than connotation so that a good cleric could potentially cast a necromancy spell. Potentially I would say the difference is that necromancy disrupts the natural flow of things, while most healing magic just restores your health, closes wounds, etc.
My guess is that a lot of people mentioned how only evil creatures should be using necromancy and how they tend to not allow good or neutral clerics/paladins to do so. Hence the need to leave healing magic out of necromancy. So my guess is a lot of people would have complained about healing magic being part of necromancy for various reasons and a good portion would suddenly say that their cleric can no longer cast healing spells because they are necromancy. Also in general, in everyday life , necromancy is seen as evil, in fact D&D might be the only place where necromancy is no longer considered an act of evil. So, most likely the didn't want healing to be a associated with necromancy.
I think there is also this idea that necromancy doesn't just benefit people. If it restores life, it takes that life from somewhere else. Or restores life breaking with the natural order of the world. In other words, healing magic doesn't really fit with breaking the natural order of things.
As far as the rules themselves, necromancy states that it manipulates the energies of life and death. Healing isn't quite a manipulation of life and death. It is a restoration of energy/healing of cuts/etc. and may certainly prevent you from dying, but it isn't manipulating your life. All of this is really a pointless discussion.
When it comes down to it, the fact that more than a few people continue to not allow clerics to use necromancy spells and view necromancy as the domain of only evil entities, almost assured that WotC would not have healing in necromancy.
I understand the connection between necromancy and evil but I think that is just because of the fact that necromancers are a type of villian and undead is a creature type.
As for the fact that necromancy distrupts the natural flow of things the wording from the PHB is the school of necromancy "The school of necromancy explores the cosmic forces of life, death and undead. As you focus your studies on this tradition you learn to manipulate the energies that animates all living things." Manipulating the energies that animate living things should surely include restoring it.
Also I feel sorry for clerics who can't use necromancy spells cause that means that they have no spells to bring people back to life (like revivify, raise dead, resurrection, ect) cause all of them are necromancy spells. Also have fun when your characters die because the only spell that you can use to bring them back to life (if you avoid necromancy spells) is reincarnate the druid spell which changes your race at random
Also why are healing spells evocation. The school of magic which as about controlling the elements & unleashing their destructive potential?
I understand the connection between necromancy and evil but I think that is just because of the fact that necromancers are a type of villian and undead is a creature type.
As for the fact that necromancy distrupts the natural flow of things the wording from the PHB is the school of necromancy "The school of necromancy explores the cosmic forces of life, death and undead. As you focus your studies on this tradition you learn to manipulate the energies that animates all living things." Manipulating the energies that animate living things should surely include restoring it.
Also I feel sorry for clerics who can't use necromancy spells cause that means that they have no spells to bring people back to life (like revivify, raise dead, resurrection, ect) cause all of them are necromancy spells. Also have fun when your characters die because the only spell that you can use to bring them back to life (if you avoid necromancy spells) is reincarnate the druid spell which changes your race at random
Also why are healing spells evocation. The school of magic which as about controlling the elements & unleashing their destructive potential?
A large part of this is left over from third edition where Resurrection spells are part of Conjuration, not necromancy. I believe it was 4th? that moved the Resurrection spells to necromancy, which I feel like was itself a huge debate because "good creatures don't cast necromancy spells." A large part of this whole thing is influenced by 3rd edition.
To defend healing spells as not being part of Necromancy, they don't exactly deal with life or death, they more or less heal cuts, restore blood, etc. Essentially they lack the actual ability to restore life itself or prevent death, beyond closing wounds.
But in reality, I imagine a large part of healing spells not being part of necromancy has more to do with those who complained about "good" spells becoming part of an "evil" school.
Since I only have the pathfinder book available on my computer, I think it is representative to say that 3rd edition was the same and all healing magic was part of conjuration. So if you want an honest answer, why are healing spells evocation, it is because WotC really didn't need to fight people on moving healing to necromancy. 4th edition was by far a horrible failure on WotC part, and 5th was a hope to bridge 3rd edition and 4th into something acceptable by both parties. Moving healing to necromancy, was essentially a fight that wasn't worth having. So baring any logical explanations within game, the reason is the view that still prevails that necromancy is an evil school. It just wouldn't be worth the risk of people not coming to 5th because of moving healing spells to necromancy.
I seem to recall this being a huge debate when the Playtest for 5th was going on. So the best answer I can give is because WotC needed 5th to be a success and if it wasn't, D&D was itself going to be in jeopardy of continuing. Kind of important to remember, the moment Habsro thinks replacing the WotC headquarters with a G.I. Joe factory would bring in more money, WotC is gone. So given the entire environment and how much WotC needed 5th to succeed and not drive any more players to Pathfinder (This is also a very good business lesson in not removing the livelihood of another company, when they might become your major competitor). Best to not move the spells to necromancy.
With that said, The reason healing is in evocation is because evocation manipulation of "magical energy to produce a desired effect." In this case, you are manipulating magical energy to restore hp, heal cuts, restore blood, etc. So basically if necromancy wasn't an option, evocation is the best option. Sure you can join in the debate on whether or not it should be evocation or necromancy, or if they should just make a healing school and call it a day. But best reason I can come up with in game, is that you are using magical energy to heal cuts and restore vitality. With the abstract nature of hp to begin with, cure spells are a bit odd as they don't always heal cuts, but make you less tired... I digress.
Should this then, be more a discussion that we need a new TYPE of magic that encompasses healing? Maybe something along the lines of 'Restoration Magic.' You could then also move revivify and resurrection into this and out of necromancy, to satisfy the cleric issue.
For me, Necromancy is the manipulation of the dead through force of will and without their consent. But then I'm a big Lumley fan..
You could then play up that a Cleric using revivify must get the dead soul's consent to be returned to life, otherwise they begin to go down a darker path. Same as for someone who starts as a necromancer, but begins asking for the dead's help could be redeemed by only using the spells with consent. "Look, I know and you're dead and only a skeleton, but these invaders are messing up your old home. I could force you to, but I would much prefer if you could take it upon yourself to, you know, lend a hand." As the skeleton smiles, hands the necromancer his hand, and crumples back to the earth in a pile of bones.
From what I recall of 4th Edition I didn't think the schools of magic were a big part of it. I certainly don't remember ever having a school of magic with any of my arcane caster. Maybe it was something that was brought in later that we didn't play with.
As for evocation being the best place for it. Evocation is specifically elemental in the PHB. I don't understand how healing is elemental. If evocation was just manipulating magical energy to produce a desired effect surely the wish spell would be evocation but it isn't it is conjuration. I feel like taking out necromancy then conjuration would be a reasonable typing for healing spells (as you conjuring back life energy) but i don't understand evocation.
I wouldn't mind another school of magic like Vitalomancy, (possibly make necromancy a sinister sub school of that)
(ps i love that there is a place were we can have logical and thought out debates about dnd without it turning into a battle of hate and name calling)
I've played like two 4th edition game sessions, so I really don't remember what 4th did with spells. My PHB is under a bunch of stuff, but where does elemental come in to evocation? At least in the basic rules it doesn't seem to mention anything about elemental things. My assumption with wish is that wish goes beyond manipulating magical energies and literally creates effects out of nothing, hence conjuration.
Healing is in Evocation because it manipulates magical energies. Wish isn't because wish creates effects out of nothing.
Really these are my attempts at coming up with legit explanations. I mean, I still stand by my primary explanation being because there was too much debate around putting them in necromancy so they had to put them somewhere else. Evocation won. Simple as that.
I strongly feel that making up a new type of magic, or continuing to try to fit healing into some other school because necromancy has become inaccurately viewed as "for bad guys." Is a waste of effort.
I mean, seriously, the majority of folks I have seen say that necromancy is for bad guys are people that have played most of their gaming life-time thus far in an edition that actually puts a label on any spell that is meant to be considered "evil, no matter what" so they don't even have sound reasoning to label necromancy as bad. And the idea that 3.X changed healing out of necromancy because people were already thinking "necromancy is for bad guys" is even less sound in its reasoning because so very many spells that were definitely meant for good guys were clearly marked necromancy (with reversed versions that some versions of the game specifically noted evil characters were more likely to use), and the entire set of spells which serve to return fallen heroes to life has remained consistently marked necromancy (and the necromantic sphere).
But for some reason restore life that is entirely lost is clearly necromancy and no one questions that, but restoring vitality before your target is a corpse is, despite still fitting the description given for the school of necromancy since it is manipulating life energy, gets shot off to some other school of magic and has a special "also healing" section added to that school's previously established edition.
Or maybe I'm just bothered by the fact that inflict wounds is necromancy, rather than evocation described as "channel negative energy to cause wounds."
Edit: added the end of my first thought... trailed off when originally typing because I'm distracted by a shiny new video game console.
Could be a mammal, could be a marsupial... In reality it's a monotreme. :)
I agree, it is nice to converse, as opposed to bully and rant. However i do have to admit to, from time to time, going to some of these other sites and posting a divisive comment on a post, before sitting back and watching the show.
@dragoD i know its fun to watch the fireworks sometimes.
The fact that Healing was in necromancy up until 3rd ed makes me think that it should just go back in there. I'm not sure why it was moved out but like I said before in all of the games I run I just tell players straight up that Healing spells are necromancy. Since Wizards are the only ones that really deal with schools mechanically and they can't have access to any of the healing spells anyway it doesn't really matter.
Since Wizards are the only ones that really deal with schools mechanically and they can't have access to any of the healing spells anyway it doesn't really matter.
When dealing with specialist wizards as bad guys, such as a lich that happens to be a necromancer as an example, the school of spell that healing spells counted as in those editions that had undead take damage from spells that restored hp to living creatures mattered.
If they were necromancy, the lich gets his save bonus for being a necromancer. When they were conjuration, then it's the conjurer lich that is more resistant to damage from cure wounds spells - more resistant to having his unnatural life-force assaulted because he specializes in summoning monsters, and it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
@dragoD i know its fun to watch the fireworks sometimes.
The fact that Healing was in necromancy up until 3rd ed makes me think that it should just go back in there. I'm not sure why it was moved out but like I said before in all of the games I run I just tell players straight up that Healing spells are necromancy. Since Wizards are the only ones that really deal with schools mechanically and they can't have access to any of the healing spells anyway it doesn't really matter.
For whatever reason 3rd edition didn't have the spells in necromancy. Fast forward, 3rd edition was massively popular and I'm not sure if 5th edition has recovered from the failure of 4th. And really 5th edition is an attempt at recovery and regrowing D&D. From what I recall there was debate about it during the playtest. So at this point they aren't in necromancy specifically because of third edition.
I'd like to ask a question. Is it possible to put a cost next to items? The reason i came here to post this is my main concern is Potion of healings. I seem to be either over or underpricing them. As well as simple drinks. :/
Potion of Healing is a mundane item, so the price is set. As for other magic items, the DMG gives you an approx value, but it's up to the DM to determine what an NPC pays for such items. I know there are unofficial resources out there with magic item prices though.
I'd like to ask a question. Is it possible to put a cost next to items? The reason i came here to post this is my main concern is Potion of healings. I seem to be either over or underpricing them. As well as simple drinks. :/
For drinks you can just say your party gets a drink. Certain alcohols/special drinks might have costs you enforce on your PCs, but the average stuff is probably like 5 copper to maybe 5 gold. (If you have access to the third edition PHB it should tell you those costs. I can't remember if the 5th edition has food costs or not.)
As for the potion of healing, you can't really over price or underprice them. Over pricing really just means that in that area/city potions of healing are very rare. Underpricing means that the potions are so common everyone has one in their house for emergencies and they are really common. These prices can differ between cities. But follow this general rule.
If you know there is going to be a challenging fight ahead, and the party really needs potions, have plenty available at a lower price. If the party is currently hoarding potions, then have few available and those that are, cost a lot more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey,
Could we get the schools of magic that magic items fall into in their description. I know one of my DM's always used to say that it was enchantment magic until we pointed out that none of the things controlled peoples mind. When I dm I always have to think about it when ever someone uses detect magic.
Thanks
Galahad
Magic items don't actually need to have schools of magic, but here's a quick reference list that can be used to attach a fitting school (according to the definitions of the schools, which are often poorly applied to spells) to any item:
If its function is to protect: Abjuration
If its function is to create, summon, or transport something, or allow access to another dimension: Conjuration
If its function is to find, know, or perceive things: Divination
If its function is to alter, control, or access the mind or emotions: Enchantment
If its function is to channel dangerous energy: Evocation
If its function is to deceive, obscure, hide, or disguise something: Illusion
If its function is to directly reduce or repair life force, or animate the dead: Necromancy
If its function is to enhance, alter, or change the physical properties of something: Transmutation
Thanks,
I understand the schools but detect magic shows the schools of magic and it seems odd that magic items don't have schools.
(I'm not going to bring up my pet peeve that healing magic is evocation not necromancy cause I've gotten into it with too many people).Thanks again.
In case the magic item's description does not say any school of magic, Detect Magic will just reveal that that item is....magic.
Actually I was saying exactly what you are. My pet peeve is that healing spells have been put into evocation even though the description of the school of magic in 5e is the study of life, death and undeath. I think healing is clearly necromancy & when ever I dm I tell my players as such.
There is the association (perhaps because of 3rd edition) that necromancy is evil. I realize 4th and 5th edition has tried to lower than connotation so that a good cleric could potentially cast a necromancy spell. Potentially I would say the difference is that necromancy disrupts the natural flow of things, while most healing magic just restores your health, closes wounds, etc.
My guess is that a lot of people mentioned how only evil creatures should be using necromancy and how they tend to not allow good or neutral clerics/paladins to do so. Hence the need to leave healing magic out of necromancy. So my guess is a lot of people would have complained about healing magic being part of necromancy for various reasons and a good portion would suddenly say that their cleric can no longer cast healing spells because they are necromancy. Also in general, in everyday life , necromancy is seen as evil, in fact D&D might be the only place where necromancy is no longer considered an act of evil. So, most likely the didn't want healing to be a associated with necromancy.
I think there is also this idea that necromancy doesn't just benefit people. If it restores life, it takes that life from somewhere else. Or restores life breaking with the natural order of the world. In other words, healing magic doesn't really fit with breaking the natural order of things.
As far as the rules themselves, necromancy states that it manipulates the energies of life and death. Healing isn't quite a manipulation of life and death. It is a restoration of energy/healing of cuts/etc. and may certainly prevent you from dying, but it isn't manipulating your life. All of this is really a pointless discussion.
When it comes down to it, the fact that more than a few people continue to not allow clerics to use necromancy spells and view necromancy as the domain of only evil entities, almost assured that WotC would not have healing in necromancy.
I understand the connection between necromancy and evil but I think that is just because of the fact that necromancers are a type of villian and undead is a creature type.
As for the fact that necromancy distrupts the natural flow of things the wording from the PHB is the school of necromancy "The school of necromancy explores the cosmic forces of life, death and undead. As you focus your studies on this tradition you learn to manipulate the energies that animates all living things." Manipulating the energies that animate living things should surely include restoring it.
Also I feel sorry for clerics who can't use necromancy spells cause that means that they have no spells to bring people back to life (like revivify, raise dead, resurrection, ect) cause all of them are necromancy spells. Also have fun when your characters die because the only spell that you can use to bring them back to life (if you avoid necromancy spells) is reincarnate the druid spell which changes your race at random
Also why are healing spells evocation. The school of magic which as about controlling the elements & unleashing their destructive potential?
Should this then, be more a discussion that we need a new TYPE of magic that encompasses healing? Maybe something along the lines of 'Restoration Magic.' You could then also move revivify and resurrection into this and out of necromancy, to satisfy the cleric issue.
For me, Necromancy is the manipulation of the dead through force of will and without their consent. But then I'm a big Lumley fan..
You could then play up that a Cleric using revivify must get the dead soul's consent to be returned to life, otherwise they begin to go down a darker path. Same as for someone who starts as a necromancer, but begins asking for the dead's help could be redeemed by only using the spells with consent. "Look, I know and you're dead and only a skeleton, but these invaders are messing up your old home. I could force you to, but I would much prefer if you could take it upon yourself to, you know, lend a hand." As the skeleton smiles, hands the necromancer his hand, and crumples back to the earth in a pile of bones.
- Stu
#6321 on Discord.
From what I recall of 4th Edition I didn't think the schools of magic were a big part of it. I certainly don't remember ever having a school of magic with any of my arcane caster. Maybe it was something that was brought in later that we didn't play with.
As for evocation being the best place for it. Evocation is specifically elemental in the PHB. I don't understand how healing is elemental. If evocation was just manipulating magical energy to produce a desired effect surely the wish spell would be evocation but it isn't it is conjuration. I feel like taking out necromancy then conjuration would be a reasonable typing for healing spells (as you conjuring back life energy) but i don't understand evocation.
I wouldn't mind another school of magic like Vitalomancy, (possibly make necromancy a sinister sub school of that)
(ps i love that there is a place were we can have logical and thought out debates about dnd without it turning into a battle of hate and name calling)
I've played like two 4th edition game sessions, so I really don't remember what 4th did with spells. My PHB is under a bunch of stuff, but where does elemental come in to evocation? At least in the basic rules it doesn't seem to mention anything about elemental things. My assumption with wish is that wish goes beyond manipulating magical energies and literally creates effects out of nothing, hence conjuration.
Healing is in Evocation because it manipulates magical energies. Wish isn't because wish creates effects out of nothing.
Really these are my attempts at coming up with legit explanations. I mean, I still stand by my primary explanation being because there was too much debate around putting them in necromancy so they had to put them somewhere else. Evocation won. Simple as that.
I strongly feel that making up a new type of magic, or continuing to try to fit healing into some other school because necromancy has become inaccurately viewed as "for bad guys." Is a waste of effort.
I mean, seriously, the majority of folks I have seen say that necromancy is for bad guys are people that have played most of their gaming life-time thus far in an edition that actually puts a label on any spell that is meant to be considered "evil, no matter what" so they don't even have sound reasoning to label necromancy as bad. And the idea that 3.X changed healing out of necromancy because people were already thinking "necromancy is for bad guys" is even less sound in its reasoning because so very many spells that were definitely meant for good guys were clearly marked necromancy (with reversed versions that some versions of the game specifically noted evil characters were more likely to use), and the entire set of spells which serve to return fallen heroes to life has remained consistently marked necromancy (and the necromantic sphere).
But for some reason restore life that is entirely lost is clearly necromancy and no one questions that, but restoring vitality before your target is a corpse is, despite still fitting the description given for the school of necromancy since it is manipulating life energy, gets shot off to some other school of magic and has a special "also healing" section added to that school's previously established edition.
Or maybe I'm just bothered by the fact that inflict wounds is necromancy, rather than evocation described as "channel negative energy to cause wounds."
Edit: added the end of my first thought... trailed off when originally typing because I'm distracted by a shiny new video game console.
Healing magic is a little like a platypus...
Could be a mammal, could be a marsupial... In reality it's a monotreme. :)
I agree, it is nice to converse, as opposed to bully and rant. However i do have to admit to, from time to time, going to some of these other sites and posting a divisive comment on a post, before sitting back and watching the show.
- Stu
#6321 on Discord.
@dragoD i know its fun to watch the fireworks sometimes.
The fact that Healing was in necromancy up until 3rd ed makes me think that it should just go back in there. I'm not sure why it was moved out but like I said before in all of the games I run I just tell players straight up that Healing spells are necromancy. Since Wizards are the only ones that really deal with schools mechanically and they can't have access to any of the healing spells anyway it doesn't really matter.
I'd like to ask a question. Is it possible to put a cost next to items? The reason i came here to post this is my main concern is Potion of healings. I seem to be either over or underpricing them. As well as simple drinks. :/
Rev. 6:8
Potion of Healing is a mundane item, so the price is set. As for other magic items, the DMG gives you an approx value, but it's up to the DM to determine what an NPC pays for such items. I know there are unofficial resources out there with magic item prices though.
Site Rules & Guidelines --- Focused Feedback Mega Threads --- Staff Quotes --- Homebrew Tutorial --- Pricing FAQ
Please feel free to message either Sorce or another moderator if you have any concerns.