This is simple. I've always been put off by most healing spells being a part of the Evocation spell list and most spells that raise people from the dead being Necromancy magic. I know that the "8 schools of magic" is a sacred cow from previous editions of D&D, but I feel that one more that makes sense both vibes well thematically with the other schools of magic while also fixing one issue many people have with the schools of magic warrants a change like this. I'd still keep Reincarnate as a Transmutation spell, and Life Transference as Necromancy, but the rest of the bunch of healing spells and resurrection spells can be moved to a ninth school of magic: Restoration, which would be all about restoring hit points and life to creatures (basically just restoring "life essence", while Abjuration would be protecting people from losing their "life essence" in the first place).
I'm interested to see what people think of this, especially if any older-style D&D players would get on board with this. I get that many people would be hesitant (to say the least) about changing one of the parts of D&D that has been with the hobby for many editions, but I feel that this one fits well enough that people shouldn't be too hostile to the idea (right? who am I kidding? This is the internet).
Let's get discussing!
(Keep in mind, this poll isn't about whether or not you think it's likely to happen, but whether or not you want it to happen. Two very different questions.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The earliest edition I've played was actually pre-magic schools, so I'd have no issue on those grounds. But consider this: "restoration" would only be a relevant school for some classes. Sure, some classes are more balanced toward certain schools (i.e. Bards have more Enchantment) but no school is restricted to certain classes. It's a core idea, however, that Wizards and the like don't get healing, while Clerics and the like get loads of it. The idea of a whole school of magic being out for certain classes doesn't feel right.
The earliest edition I've played was actually pre-magic schools, so I'd have no issue on those grounds. But consider this: "restoration" would only be a relevant school for some classes. Sure, some classes are more balanced toward certain schools (i.e. Bards have more Enchantment) but no school is restricted to certain classes. It's a core idea, however, that Wizards and the like don't get healing, while Clerics and the like get loads of it. The idea of a whole school of magic being out for certain classes doesn't feel right.
Plus, it sounds too Skyrim. :-)
...so you played 1e? because the schools of magic have been a thing since 2e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
The earliest edition I've played was actually pre-magic schools, so I'd have no issue on those grounds. But consider this: "restoration" would only be a relevant school for some classes. Sure, some classes are more balanced toward certain schools (i.e. Bards have more Enchantment) but no school is restricted to certain classes. It's a core idea, however, that Wizards and the like don't get healing, while Clerics and the like get loads of it. The idea of a whole school of magic being out for certain classes doesn't feel right.
Plus, it sounds too Skyrim. :-)
...so you played 1e? because the schools of magic have been a thing since 2e.
Red Box, actually. I'm not sure if that qualifies as 1e or 2e: it was the "Basic Set" when AD&D (2e) was around, but mechanically it's closer to 1e.
The earliest edition I've played was actually pre-magic schools, so I'd have no issue on those grounds. But consider this: "restoration" would only be a relevant school for some classes. Sure, some classes are more balanced toward certain schools (i.e. Bards have more Enchantment) but no school is restricted to certain classes. It's a core idea, however, that Wizards and the like don't get healing, while Clerics and the like get loads of it. The idea of a whole school of magic being out for certain classes doesn't feel right.
Plus, it sounds too Skyrim. :-)
...so you played 1e? because the schools of magic have been a thing since 2e.
Pardon? Wizard subclasses? (And played 0e, not that that changes the fact there are indeed still schools in 5e)
The schools of magic are a classification of spells.
There are two spells called "Restoration" A 5th level one called "Greater Restoration", and a 2nd level one called "Lesser Restoration". That's it, and neither one of them actually restores hit points. The Greater version remove "One effect reducing the target's hit point maximum", The Lesser version doesn't mention hit points at all. They are both listed as "Healing" under Damage/Effects, and they are both Abjuration under Schools.
Adding a School called "Restoration" risks adding ever more complication to an already complicated system. That serves no useful purpose.
Edit: I don't like the wording for the fourth option. It sounds vaguely negative. I'd simply put "Absolutely Not, (I don't like the idea). please explain below."
The name Restoration is confusingly shared with two spells, but the idea is good. You would also, presumably, make Mending a part of this school, right? Or no?
What problem would you be you solving with this change? Are there characters that are getting access to evocation spells that you don’t think should be allowed to cast healing spells or something? Because if it’s just a terminology change with no game effect, then what’s the point? And if there is a game effect, what would it be?
What problem would you be you solving with this change? Are there characters that are getting access to evocation spells that you don’t think should be allowed to cast healing spells or something? Because if it’s just a terminology change with no game effect, then what’s the point? And if there is a game effect, what would it be?
The main effect would be for Wizards, Detect Magic, and maybe some other things. Detect Magic can become unnecessarily unnerving because Evocation and Necromancy might kill you, but they also might heal you. Restoration would make it a bit easier to tell, which would be nice. Additionally, it would imply a new Wizard subclass with access to healing, which could be neat. It also might make certain wizards have to pay more for certain spells that are no longer in their school, but there aren’t many “restoration” spells that wizards get anyways.
I don't like restoration as a word choice. It's a little too normal for a school of magic. How about something like vitalmancy? I mean necromancy evokes, so to speak, the negative plane/shadow etc. You know the stuff that Necrotic damage works with. The opposite of Necrotic is Radiancy, and there is a lot of overlap between sun and healing gods in a lot of pantheons. But I think necromancy actually should be refined to magic that uses "dark tricks" of necrotic energy for its ends, whereas Vitalmancy touches the positive planes to bring life bringing energy or dares to safely conduct souls back to restored bodies or even new bodies.
So I agree "healing magic" seems a bit weird being considered necromancy (with the association thing necrotic have with the negative plane). It seems Necromancy should involve manipulating the weave to draw upon negative plane forces, and there should be a school that more explicitly draws from the positive (or your worlds "soul or life spring" or whatever you got). Of course if you do that, I don't know if it'd be as simple as shifting spell lists around. Sure healing seems more in line with positive planes, and false life clearly indicates necrotic negative magics. Resurrection could go either way, maybe even Clone (though I think that leans more to necromancy). I think a flesh golem is arguably a necromantic act whereas other golem materials would be more positive/maybe. Lore wise the magic that delivers Warforged their souls would be this opposite of necromancy too, while the Reborn's nature is necromantic.
Practically speaking, I don't know how well this would play out, but it's fun to speculate.
EDIT: per usual I caught a typo just after posting correcting vitalmancy to the "life bringing" magic. I had initially written "life brining" and I'm pretty sure that practice lands in necromancy.
Of course Death Domain clerics can argue that death isn't necessarily negative.
Another EDIT: Maybe a school Ennervation? Or maybe Necromancy and what I've suggested be called Vitalmancy are wings of Ennervation. Ennervation being magics that draw from the positive and negative energy planes that lore as written "energize" the multiverse.
There are two spells called "Restoration" A 5th level one called "Greater Restoration", and a 2nd level one called "Lesser Restoration". That's it, and neither one of them actually restores hit points. The Greater version remove "One effect reducing the target's hit point maximum", The Lesser version doesn't mention hit points at all. They are both listed as "Healing" under Damage/Effects, and they are both Abjuration under Schools.
I am aware of that. There's also Illusion spells known as Minor Illusion, Programmed Illusion, a transmutation spell called "Transmute Rock", many conjuration spells named "Conjure X". If one does get confused by two spells sharing the same name as a possible school of magic, those two spells could be name-changed to "Greater/Lesser Restore Vitality" or something like that.
Adding a School called "Restoration" risks adding ever more complication to an already complicated system. That serves no useful purpose.
As mentioned above, there could be a Wizard subclass that gets access to restoration spells (I know, I know, "Wizard's aren't supposed to heal/raise people from the dead!!!", but counterpoint: Transmutation Wizards' Master Transmuter feature). I'd personally probably give some major downside to them, like making them choose one school of magic besides Restoration and then be unable to cast that one school of magic's spells.
Edit: I don't like the wording for the fourth option. It sounds vaguely negative. I'd simply put "Absolutely Not, (I don't like the idea). please explain below."
It's a bit too late to change it. You can't edit polls on this site.
I agree with this. I don't know why moved healing spells from Necromancy to begin with.
Because WotC wanted to make Necromancy exclusively about negative energy (what's referred to as necrotic damage in 5E) and undead when they wrote 3rd Edition.
Personally, I think that creating a new school of magic to stick healing spells in seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I agree with this. I don't know why moved healing spells from Necromancy to begin with.
Because WotC wanted to make Necromancy exclusively about negative energy (what's referred to as necrotic damage in 5E) and undead when they wrote 3rd Edition.
Personally, I think that creating a new school of magic to stick healing spells in seems like a solution in search of a problem.
I'll agree mechanically I see no reason to put healing spells in a special school. I think the idea of re-ordering the schools to acknowledge some of the weirdness of healing magic being classified as necromancy. I mean necromancy, lore aside, literally translated into "death or dead stuff" magic. And the word outside of D&D lore overwhelming connotes something different from healing. So I think yes, mechanically this isn't really necessary, but it's an interesting exercise in D&D metaphysics or "weave-ology."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I agree with this. I don't know why moved healing spells from Necromancy to begin with.
Because WotC wanted to make Necromancy exclusively about negative energy (what's referred to as necrotic damage in 5E) and undead when they wrote 3rd Edition.
Personally, I think that creating a new school of magic to stick healing spells in seems like a solution in search of a problem.
I'll agree mechanically I see no reason to put healing spells in a special school. I think the idea of re-ordering the schools to acknowledge some of the weirdness of healing magic being classified as necromancy. I mean necromancy, lore aside, literally translated into "death or dead stuff" magic. And the word outside of D&D lore overwhelming connotes something different from healing. So I think yes, mechanically this isn't really necessary, but it's an interesting exercise in D&D metaphysics or "weave-ology."
Healing magic is textbook death or dead stuff magic. There’s no weirdness there at all. 3e’s “solution” was to make it Conjuration. I don’t think there’s any thought there worth admiring.
I agree with this. I don't know why moved healing spells from Necromancy to begin with.
Because WotC wanted to make Necromancy exclusively about negative energy (what's referred to as necrotic damage in 5E) and undead when they wrote 3rd Edition.
Personally, I think that creating a new school of magic to stick healing spells in seems like a solution in search of a problem.
I'll agree mechanically I see no reason to put healing spells in a special school. I think the idea of re-ordering the schools to acknowledge some of the weirdness of healing magic being classified as necromancy. I mean necromancy, lore aside, literally translated into "death or dead stuff" magic. And the word outside of D&D lore overwhelming connotes something different from healing. So I think yes, mechanically this isn't really necessary, but it's an interesting exercise in D&D metaphysics or "weave-ology."
Healing magic being the domain of necromancy wasn't really weird though, because it was defining necromancy as being the power of life and death, being a mirror of each other. Cure Wounds and Cause Wounds, Raise Dead and Slay Living.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I like it being Evocation. Evocation is not Destruction. It's just creating and manipulating energy in a more direct way towards a particular effect, which is what evocation is - you're evoking life energy and supplying it to the target to restore health.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is simple. I've always been put off by most healing spells being a part of the Evocation spell list and most spells that raise people from the dead being Necromancy magic. I know that the "8 schools of magic" is a sacred cow from previous editions of D&D, but I feel that one more that makes sense both vibes well thematically with the other schools of magic while also fixing one issue many people have with the schools of magic warrants a change like this. I'd still keep Reincarnate as a Transmutation spell, and Life Transference as Necromancy, but the rest of the bunch of healing spells and resurrection spells can be moved to a ninth school of magic: Restoration, which would be all about restoring hit points and life to creatures (basically just restoring "life essence", while Abjuration would be protecting people from losing their "life essence" in the first place).
I'm interested to see what people think of this, especially if any older-style D&D players would get on board with this. I get that many people would be hesitant (to say the least) about changing one of the parts of D&D that has been with the hobby for many editions, but I feel that this one fits well enough that people shouldn't be too hostile to the idea (right? who am I kidding? This is the internet).
Let's get discussing!
(Keep in mind, this poll isn't about whether or not you think it's likely to happen, but whether or not you want it to happen. Two very different questions.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Healing being Evocation does seem off, I'm sure in earlier editions they were part of Necromancy which made more sense
The earliest edition I've played was actually pre-magic schools, so I'd have no issue on those grounds. But consider this: "restoration" would only be a relevant school for some classes. Sure, some classes are more balanced toward certain schools (i.e. Bards have more Enchantment) but no school is restricted to certain classes. It's a core idea, however, that Wizards and the like don't get healing, while Clerics and the like get loads of it. The idea of a whole school of magic being out for certain classes doesn't feel right.
Plus, it sounds too Skyrim. :-)
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
...so you played 1e? because the schools of magic have been a thing since 2e.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Red Box, actually. I'm not sure if that qualifies as 1e or 2e: it was the "Basic Set" when AD&D (2e) was around, but mechanically it's closer to 1e.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
The schools of magic are a classification of spells.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
There are two spells called "Restoration" A 5th level one called "Greater Restoration", and a 2nd level one called "Lesser Restoration". That's it, and neither one of them actually restores hit points. The Greater version remove "One effect reducing the target's hit point maximum", The Lesser version doesn't mention hit points at all. They are both listed as "Healing" under Damage/Effects, and they are both Abjuration under Schools.
Adding a School called "Restoration" risks adding ever more complication to an already complicated system. That serves no useful purpose.
Edit: I don't like the wording for the fourth option. It sounds vaguely negative. I'd simply put "Absolutely Not, (I don't like the idea). please explain below."
<Insert clever signature here>
Nah. Healing should be Necromancy.
The name Restoration is confusingly shared with two spells, but the idea is good. You would also, presumably, make Mending a part of this school, right? Or no?
I agree with this. I don't know why moved healing spells from Necromancy to begin with.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
What problem would you be you solving with this change? Are there characters that are getting access to evocation spells that you don’t think should be allowed to cast healing spells or something?
Because if it’s just a terminology change with no game effect, then what’s the point? And if there is a game effect, what would it be?
The main effect would be for Wizards, Detect Magic, and maybe some other things. Detect Magic can become unnecessarily unnerving because Evocation and Necromancy might kill you, but they also might heal you. Restoration would make it a bit easier to tell, which would be nice. Additionally, it would imply a new Wizard subclass with access to healing, which could be neat. It also might make certain wizards have to pay more for certain spells that are no longer in their school, but there aren’t many “restoration” spells that wizards get anyways.
I don't like restoration as a word choice. It's a little too normal for a school of magic. How about something like vitalmancy? I mean necromancy evokes, so to speak, the negative plane/shadow etc. You know the stuff that Necrotic damage works with. The opposite of Necrotic is Radiancy, and there is a lot of overlap between sun and healing gods in a lot of pantheons. But I think necromancy actually should be refined to magic that uses "dark tricks" of necrotic energy for its ends, whereas Vitalmancy touches the positive planes to bring life bringing energy or dares to safely conduct souls back to restored bodies or even new bodies.
So I agree "healing magic" seems a bit weird being considered necromancy (with the association thing necrotic have with the negative plane). It seems Necromancy should involve manipulating the weave to draw upon negative plane forces, and there should be a school that more explicitly draws from the positive (or your worlds "soul or life spring" or whatever you got). Of course if you do that, I don't know if it'd be as simple as shifting spell lists around. Sure healing seems more in line with positive planes, and false life clearly indicates necrotic negative magics. Resurrection could go either way, maybe even Clone (though I think that leans more to necromancy). I think a flesh golem is arguably a necromantic act whereas other golem materials would be more positive/maybe. Lore wise the magic that delivers Warforged their souls would be this opposite of necromancy too, while the Reborn's nature is necromantic.
Practically speaking, I don't know how well this would play out, but it's fun to speculate.
EDIT: per usual I caught a typo just after posting correcting vitalmancy to the "life bringing" magic. I had initially written "life brining" and I'm pretty sure that practice lands in necromancy.
Of course Death Domain clerics can argue that death isn't necessarily negative.
Another EDIT: Maybe a school Ennervation? Or maybe Necromancy and what I've suggested be called Vitalmancy are wings of Ennervation. Ennervation being magics that draw from the positive and negative energy planes that lore as written "energize" the multiverse.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I am aware of that. There's also Illusion spells known as Minor Illusion, Programmed Illusion, a transmutation spell called "Transmute Rock", many conjuration spells named "Conjure X". If one does get confused by two spells sharing the same name as a possible school of magic, those two spells could be name-changed to "Greater/Lesser Restore Vitality" or something like that.
As mentioned above, there could be a Wizard subclass that gets access to restoration spells (I know, I know, "Wizard's aren't supposed to heal/raise people from the dead!!!", but counterpoint: Transmutation Wizards' Master Transmuter feature). I'd personally probably give some major downside to them, like making them choose one school of magic besides Restoration and then be unable to cast that one school of magic's spells.
It's a bit too late to change it. You can't edit polls on this site.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think healing magic deserves its own school, but I do not mind it being a part of Necromancy or Abjuration either.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Because WotC wanted to make Necromancy exclusively about negative energy (what's referred to as necrotic damage in 5E) and undead when they wrote 3rd Edition.
Personally, I think that creating a new school of magic to stick healing spells in seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'll agree mechanically I see no reason to put healing spells in a special school. I think the idea of re-ordering the schools to acknowledge some of the weirdness of healing magic being classified as necromancy. I mean necromancy, lore aside, literally translated into "death or dead stuff" magic. And the word outside of D&D lore overwhelming connotes something different from healing. So I think yes, mechanically this isn't really necessary, but it's an interesting exercise in D&D metaphysics or "weave-ology."
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Healing magic is textbook death or dead stuff magic. There’s no weirdness there at all. 3e’s “solution” was to make it Conjuration. I don’t think there’s any thought there worth admiring.
Healing magic being the domain of necromancy wasn't really weird though, because it was defining necromancy as being the power of life and death, being a mirror of each other. Cure Wounds and Cause Wounds, Raise Dead and Slay Living.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I like it being Evocation. Evocation is not Destruction. It's just creating and manipulating energy in a more direct way towards a particular effect, which is what evocation is - you're evoking life energy and supplying it to the target to restore health.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.