But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: making things and teleporting
Divination: seeing things
Enchantment: altering/controlling the minds of others
Evocation: damage and healing
Illusion: making it appear that you're creating or changing things
But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: making things and teleporting
Divination: seeing things
Enchantment: altering/controlling the minds of others
Evocation: damage and healing
Illusion: making it appear that you're creating or changing things
Necromancy: messing with life and death
Transmutation: changing things
Conjuration is more 'summoning things,' particularly on a temporary basis. The Fabricate spell, for example, literally makes things, as in assembles them from available parts and is transmutation rather than conjuration.
Yeah, I meant "create" as in "summon", rather than "build from existing components"
I'm a published novelist. I had a book come out in August. After I wrote it, I did a revision pass. Then I did a copy edit. Then I had three seperate people go through and do editing passes. Then I sent it to my publisher who hired a professional editor. The professional editor did a pass and sent it back to me. I did a pass, and sent it back to the editor. The editor did a second pass, and sent it back to me. I did a pass and sent it back to the editor. The editor did a third pass and sent it back to me. I did another pass, end sent it to my publisher. My publisher then sent it to a proof reader who did a pass. Then we published the book. After 12 editing passes. This morning, my mother sent me a message on Facebook telling me about a place where I'd used the wrong name for a character.
This stuff happens. It's the nature of publishing. You are very likely never going to get all of the minor mistakes out of any document of significant size.
As for the errate being available day one, the print books were very likely printed months ago, and have been in cardboard boxes in shipping containers ever since. The fact that the errate is available day one is a sign that they are on the ball.
IMHO it depends on the type of errata, rules from previous editions should be easy to find and remove, spelling/grammar mistakes as another matter, one I would expect. Were as previous edition rules to me is a huge problem.
Dragonlance is primarily a setting book, not a rule book, and given the long history of Dragonlance in D&D, it's likely that some parts of the text were cribbed from some sort of (possibly unpublished) 3.x sourcebook, with a pass to make sure the mechanics lined up, and something got missed.
I don’t have the book yet to check the credits page, but I figured the Will save thing is most likely from having one or more ex-Paizo employees on staff as well as some freelancers who work on both systems.
But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: making things and teleporting
Divination: seeing things
Enchantment: altering/controlling the minds of others
Evocation: damage and healing
Illusion: making it appear that you're creating or changing things
Necromancy: messing with life and death
Transmutation: changing things
Trick is, as someone who's also been playing through different editions for several decades... your characterization of these schools isn't how they are in every edition. Couple examples off top my head? Teleportation used to be transmutation. Life/Healing used to be conjuration. They like to shake things up between editions.
If they're just copy/pasting stuff from earlier editions and then forgetting to edit them into 5e parlance, it is absolutely a bad sign. If they're just hiring someone who works older editions or different games and that's how the errors got in there, that's not as bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: making things and teleporting
Divination: seeing things
Enchantment: altering/controlling the minds of others
Evocation: damage and healing
Illusion: making it appear that you're creating or changing things
Necromancy: messing with life and death
Transmutation: changing things
Trick is, as someone who's also been playing through different editions for several decades... your characterization of these schools isn't how they are in every edition. Couple examples off top my head? Teleportation used to be transmutation. Life/Healing used to be conjuration. They like to shake things up between editions.
If they're just copy/pasting stuff from earlier editions and then forgetting to edit them into 5e parlance, it is absolutely a bad sign. If they're just hiring someone who works older editions or different games and that's how the errors got in there, that's not as bad.
Life/Healing was originally Necromantic, back in 1e, at least. I think there was one edition where it was conjuration but necromancy is normal for that.
I think it makes sense that healing would be necromancy, but thematically it would be kinda weird for clerics and paladins to be using something listed as such. I guess evocation is now pretty much the miscellaneous school?
But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: making things and teleporting
Divination: seeing things
Enchantment: altering/controlling the minds of others
Evocation: damage and healing
Illusion: making it appear that you're creating or changing things
Necromancy: messing with life and death
Transmutation: changing things
Trick is, as someone who's also been playing through different editions for several decades... your characterization of these schools isn't how they are in every edition. Couple examples off top my head? Teleportation used to be transmutation. Life/Healing used to be conjuration. They like to shake things up between editions.
If they're just copy/pasting stuff from earlier editions and then forgetting to edit them into 5e parlance, it is absolutely a bad sign. If they're just hiring someone who works older editions or different games and that's how the errors got in there, that's not as bad.
Life/Healing was originally Necromantic, back in 1e, at least. I think there was one edition where it was conjuration but necromancy is normal for that.
I think it makes sense that healing would be necromancy, but thematically it would be kinda weird for clerics and paladins to be using something listed as such. I guess evocation is now pretty much the miscellaneous school?
What’s weird about Clerics and Paladins using Necromancy?!? The school of magic isn’t evil or anything, there are light and dark sides to all magic.
But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: making things and teleporting
Divination: seeing things
Enchantment: altering/controlling the minds of others
Evocation: damage and healing
Illusion: making it appear that you're creating or changing things
Necromancy: messing with life and death
Transmutation: changing things
Trick is, as someone who's also been playing through different editions for several decades... your characterization of these schools isn't how they are in every edition. Couple examples off top my head? Teleportation used to be transmutation. Life/Healing used to be conjuration. They like to shake things up between editions.
If they're just copy/pasting stuff from earlier editions and then forgetting to edit them into 5e parlance, it is absolutely a bad sign. If they're just hiring someone who works older editions or different games and that's how the errors got in there, that's not as bad.
Life/Healing was originally Necromantic, back in 1e, at least. I think there was one edition where it was conjuration but necromancy is normal for that.
I think it makes sense that healing would be necromancy, but thematically it would be kinda weird for clerics and paladins to be using something listed as such. I guess evocation is now pretty much the miscellaneous school?
What’s weird about Clerics and Paladins using Necromancy?!? The school of magic isn’t evil or anything, there are light and dark sides to all magic.
Clerics and paladins are archetypically opposed to raising the dead and such. I know necromancy isn't just about summoning zombies but it's heavily tied to "evil" rituals.
But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: making things and teleporting
Divination: seeing things
Enchantment: altering/controlling the minds of others
Evocation: damage and healing
Illusion: making it appear that you're creating or changing things
Necromancy: messing with life and death
Transmutation: changing things
Trick is, as someone who's also been playing through different editions for several decades... your characterization of these schools isn't how they are in every edition. Couple examples off top my head? Teleportation used to be transmutation. Life/Healing used to be conjuration. They like to shake things up between editions.
If they're just copy/pasting stuff from earlier editions and then forgetting to edit them into 5e parlance, it is absolutely a bad sign. If they're just hiring someone who works older editions or different games and that's how the errors got in there, that's not as bad.
Life/Healing was originally Necromantic, back in 1e, at least. I think there was one edition where it was conjuration but necromancy is normal for that.
I think it makes sense that healing would be necromancy, but thematically it would be kinda weird for clerics and paladins to be using something listed as such. I guess evocation is now pretty much the miscellaneous school?
What’s weird about Clerics and Paladins using Necromancy?!? The school of magic isn’t evil or anything, there are light and dark sides to all magic.
Clerics and paladins are archetypically opposed to raising the dead and such. I know necromancy isn't just about summoning zombies but it's heavily tied to "evil" rituals.
Historically opposed to animating, not to raising. Historically (and currently), they are the class that raising the dead is associated with.
I thought that role was attributed to Wizards and Warlocks? Unless you mean summoning spirits of the dead?
But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: making things and teleporting
Divination: seeing things
Enchantment: altering/controlling the minds of others
Evocation: damage and healing
Illusion: making it appear that you're creating or changing things
Necromancy: messing with life and death
Transmutation: changing things
Trick is, as someone who's also been playing through different editions for several decades... your characterization of these schools isn't how they are in every edition. Couple examples off top my head? Teleportation used to be transmutation. Life/Healing used to be conjuration. They like to shake things up between editions.
If they're just copy/pasting stuff from earlier editions and then forgetting to edit them into 5e parlance, it is absolutely a bad sign. If they're just hiring someone who works older editions or different games and that's how the errors got in there, that's not as bad.
Life/Healing was originally Necromantic, back in 1e, at least. I think there was one edition where it was conjuration but necromancy is normal for that.
I think it makes sense that healing would be necromancy, but thematically it would be kinda weird for clerics and paladins to be using something listed as such. I guess evocation is now pretty much the miscellaneous school?
What’s weird about Clerics and Paladins using Necromancy?!? The school of magic isn’t evil or anything, there are light and dark sides to all magic.
Clerics and paladins are archetypically opposed to raising the dead and such. I know necromancy isn't just about summoning zombies but it's heavily tied to "evil" rituals.
Not so. Just because animating the dead is also part of Necromancy, doesn’t mean that’s what the school is all about. Healing and resurrection is also historically part of Necromancy. There used to be “good” necromancers too.
But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: making things and teleporting
Divination: seeing things
Enchantment: altering/controlling the minds of others
Evocation: damage and healing
Illusion: making it appear that you're creating or changing things
Necromancy: messing with life and death
Transmutation: changing things
Trick is, as someone who's also been playing through different editions for several decades... your characterization of these schools isn't how they are in every edition. Couple examples off top my head? Teleportation used to be transmutation. Life/Healing used to be conjuration. They like to shake things up between editions.
If they're just copy/pasting stuff from earlier editions and then forgetting to edit them into 5e parlance, it is absolutely a bad sign. If they're just hiring someone who works older editions or different games and that's how the errors got in there, that's not as bad.
Life/Healing was originally Necromantic, back in 1e, at least. I think there was one edition where it was conjuration but necromancy is normal for that.
I think it makes sense that healing would be necromancy, but thematically it would be kinda weird for clerics and paladins to be using something listed as such. I guess evocation is now pretty much the miscellaneous school?
What’s weird about Clerics and Paladins using Necromancy?!? The school of magic isn’t evil or anything, there are light and dark sides to all magic.
Clerics and paladins are archetypically opposed to raising the dead and such. I know necromancy isn't just about summoning zombies but it's heavily tied to "evil" rituals.
Well, there are gods that are into that sort of thing, so it’s hard to make such a blanket statement. And in this edition you can, by RAW, play a cleric or paladin who doesn’t worship any gods.
The changes to healing have coincided with changes to planar descriptions and mechanics of magic changing over the editions.
Evocation makes sense if you're channel pure positive energy from the positive energy plane. Same as how evocation channels other elemental energy. 5e did away with this concept, instead of negative energy and positive energy being elemental planes just like earth, air, fire, water, they introduced radiant damage and necrotic damage as fill ins for those older energy type concepts and now they both just do damage. But when 'life energy' was a concept, healing makes sense as evocation.
Conjuration makes sense if you're pulling misc outer planar essence to actually fill the wounds with. You're literally conjuring skin and muscle and bone to patch everything back together. I never really liked this one, it had an element of body horror that normal magic healing probably shouldn't have.
Necromancy only really makes sense only if you're defying the natural cycle of life, allowing the person to function normally despite the injury. This is a far more grotesque type of 'healing', it would largely leave the wound as-is but then just make it not matter that the cut is there.
My hot take? Transmutation is the best fit for healing spells. It seems obvious. You just reconfigure the wound into not a wound. All the pieces are there you just need to reorganize them.
Anyway, it isn't unreasonable to mix these things up if you edition swap or play other games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Necromancy made sense because originally Necromancy was all about manipulating vital forces. The act of restoring life energy (via healing) was just a natural extension of that.
Also I think you're wrong on the Conjuration one too, the justification was that you were summoning energies from the positive plane to restore the target, not conjuring up spare bones... Conjuration in 3.5 got kind of goofy because pretty much everything could be justified as summoning something.
The thing was in third edition Wizards decided to change Necromancy from a focus on life/death to being a clearing house of 'evil-ish' magic. Which is why 3e made spells like Fear and Ray of Enfeeblement and the 3.5 equivalent of poison spray necromancy spells and spells like Cure and Regenerate got moved to other schools.
Speaking of, we have Fear and Cause Fear, which are somehow illusion and necromancy but not Enchantment, the school actually about manipulating emotions.
...All of this kind of makes that post earlier about the 'big, important differences' between schools of magic feel a little hollow in hindsight, given how often things get moved around and how relatively easy it's been to justify putting spells in different schools just by tweaking the flavor a bit.
Clerics and paladins are archetypically opposed to raising the dead and such. I know necromancy isn't just about summoning zombies but it's heavily tied to "evil" rituals.
well technically, the word Necromancy was originally meant to be the practice of speaking to the dead, in fact that's literally what the word means. The concept of it later turning into being able to manipulate, create, conjure, etc. the dead was something added in various forms of fantastical media.
So go back far enough, and it's not unusual that clerics and other holy types may be somewhat verse at it.
Clerics and paladins are archetypically opposed to raising the dead and such. I know necromancy isn't just about summoning zombies but it's heavily tied to "evil" rituals.
well technically, the word Necromancy was originally meant to be the practice of speaking to the dead, in fact that's literally what the word means. The concept of it later turning into being able to manipulate, create, conjure, etc. the dead was something added in various forms of fantastical media.
So go back far enough, and it's not unusual that clerics and other holy types may be somewhat verse at it.
Precisely this, just so. Necro meaning “dead,” and mancy meaning “divination by means of,” so the word necromancy literally translates as “divination by means of the dead.”
Clerics and paladins are archetypically opposed to raising the dead and such. I know necromancy isn't just about summoning zombies but it's heavily tied to "evil" rituals.
well technically, the word Necromancy was originally meant to be the practice of speaking to the dead, in fact that's literally what the word means. The concept of it later turning into being able to manipulate, create, conjure, etc. the dead was something added in various forms of fantastical media.
So go back far enough, and it's not unusual that clerics and other holy types may be somewhat verse at it.
Precisely this, just so. Necro meaning “dead,” and mancy meaning “divination by means of,” so the word necromancy literally translates as “divination by means of the dead.”
So pyromancy is "divination by means of fire?" I've been lied to all this time... although I guess you are divining how many hit points your opponent has.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
So pyromancy is "divination by means of fire?" I've been lied to all this time... although I guess you are divining how many hit points your opponent has.
The 'mancy' ending is from the Greek manteía, prophesy. For the curious, wikipedia has a giant list (not all are -mancy terms, but a lot are)
Yeah, but mancy clearly becomes a broader sense of "magic" if you just look at usage in modern English ... or maybe divination and even prophecy might have had broader contexts than the more oracular constraints we currently put them on when we look at the Greek. Knowledge is power so to speak, mancy means both.
I thought this was a thread about proofreading, I don't know how the schools of magic tie into bad omens for D&D (see what I did there?).
Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: making things and teleporting
Divination: seeing things
Enchantment: altering/controlling the minds of others
Evocation: damage and healing
Illusion: making it appear that you're creating or changing things
Necromancy: messing with life and death
Transmutation: changing things
[REDACTED]
Yeah, I meant "create" as in "summon", rather than "build from existing components"
[REDACTED]
I'm a published novelist. I had a book come out in August. After I wrote it, I did a revision pass. Then I did a copy edit. Then I had three seperate people go through and do editing passes. Then I sent it to my publisher who hired a professional editor. The professional editor did a pass and sent it back to me. I did a pass, and sent it back to the editor. The editor did a second pass, and sent it back to me. I did a pass and sent it back to the editor. The editor did a third pass and sent it back to me. I did another pass, end sent it to my publisher. My publisher then sent it to a proof reader who did a pass. Then we published the book. After 12 editing passes. This morning, my mother sent me a message on Facebook telling me about a place where I'd used the wrong name for a character.
This stuff happens. It's the nature of publishing. You are very likely never going to get all of the minor mistakes out of any document of significant size.
As for the errate being available day one, the print books were very likely printed months ago, and have been in cardboard boxes in shipping containers ever since. The fact that the errate is available day one is a sign that they are on the ball.
Congratulations!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don’t have the book yet to check the credits page, but I figured the Will save thing is most likely from having one or more ex-Paizo employees on staff as well as some freelancers who work on both systems.
Trick is, as someone who's also been playing through different editions for several decades... your characterization of these schools isn't how they are in every edition. Couple examples off top my head? Teleportation used to be transmutation. Life/Healing used to be conjuration. They like to shake things up between editions.
If they're just copy/pasting stuff from earlier editions and then forgetting to edit them into 5e parlance, it is absolutely a bad sign. If they're just hiring someone who works older editions or different games and that's how the errors got in there, that's not as bad.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think it makes sense that healing would be necromancy, but thematically it would be kinda weird for clerics and paladins to be using something listed as such. I guess evocation is now pretty much the miscellaneous school?
[REDACTED]
What’s weird about Clerics and Paladins using Necromancy?!? The school of magic isn’t evil or anything, there are light and dark sides to all magic.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Clerics and paladins are archetypically opposed to raising the dead and such. I know necromancy isn't just about summoning zombies but it's heavily tied to "evil" rituals.
[REDACTED]
I thought that role was attributed to Wizards and Warlocks? Unless you mean summoning spirits of the dead?
[REDACTED]
Not so. Just because animating the dead is also part of Necromancy, doesn’t mean that’s what the school is all about. Healing and resurrection is also historically part of Necromancy. There used to be “good” necromancers too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, there are gods that are into that sort of thing, so it’s hard to make such a blanket statement.
And in this edition you can, by RAW, play a cleric or paladin who doesn’t worship any gods.
The changes to healing have coincided with changes to planar descriptions and mechanics of magic changing over the editions.
Evocation makes sense if you're channel pure positive energy from the positive energy plane. Same as how evocation channels other elemental energy. 5e did away with this concept, instead of negative energy and positive energy being elemental planes just like earth, air, fire, water, they introduced radiant damage and necrotic damage as fill ins for those older energy type concepts and now they both just do damage. But when 'life energy' was a concept, healing makes sense as evocation.
Conjuration makes sense if you're pulling misc outer planar essence to actually fill the wounds with. You're literally conjuring skin and muscle and bone to patch everything back together. I never really liked this one, it had an element of body horror that normal magic healing probably shouldn't have.
Necromancy only really makes sense only if you're defying the natural cycle of life, allowing the person to function normally despite the injury. This is a far more grotesque type of 'healing', it would largely leave the wound as-is but then just make it not matter that the cut is there.
My hot take? Transmutation is the best fit for healing spells. It seems obvious. You just reconfigure the wound into not a wound. All the pieces are there you just need to reorganize them.
Anyway, it isn't unreasonable to mix these things up if you edition swap or play other games.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Necromancy made sense because originally Necromancy was all about manipulating vital forces. The act of restoring life energy (via healing) was just a natural extension of that.
Also I think you're wrong on the Conjuration one too, the justification was that you were summoning energies from the positive plane to restore the target, not conjuring up spare bones... Conjuration in 3.5 got kind of goofy because pretty much everything could be justified as summoning something.
The thing was in third edition Wizards decided to change Necromancy from a focus on life/death to being a clearing house of 'evil-ish' magic. Which is why 3e made spells like Fear and Ray of Enfeeblement and the 3.5 equivalent of poison spray necromancy spells and spells like Cure and Regenerate got moved to other schools.
Speaking of, we have Fear and Cause Fear, which are somehow illusion and necromancy but not Enchantment, the school actually about manipulating emotions.
...All of this kind of makes that post earlier about the 'big, important differences' between schools of magic feel a little hollow in hindsight, given how often things get moved around and how relatively easy it's been to justify putting spells in different schools just by tweaking the flavor a bit.
well technically, the word Necromancy was originally meant to be the practice of speaking to the dead, in fact that's literally what the word means. The concept of it later turning into being able to manipulate, create, conjure, etc. the dead was something added in various forms of fantastical media.
So go back far enough, and it's not unusual that clerics and other holy types may be somewhat verse at it.
Thank you!
Precisely this, just so. Necro meaning “dead,” and mancy meaning “divination by means of,” so the word necromancy literally translates as “divination by means of the dead.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So pyromancy is "divination by means of fire?" I've been lied to all this time... although I guess you are divining how many hit points your opponent has.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The 'mancy' ending is from the Greek manteía, prophesy. For the curious, wikipedia has a giant list (not all are -mancy terms, but a lot are)
Yeah, but mancy clearly becomes a broader sense of "magic" if you just look at usage in modern English ... or maybe divination and even prophecy might have had broader contexts than the more oracular constraints we currently put them on when we look at the Greek. Knowledge is power so to speak, mancy means both.
I thought this was a thread about proofreading, I don't know how the schools of magic tie into bad omens for D&D (see what I did there?).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.