D&D (2024) Playtest 6: Spells

[Chaosmancer]

It is a fair question that if wizard subclasses stop using spell schools (which miiiight happen).... is there really any point to schools anymore?

Its kind of like alignment, it still "exists" technically but in a hippy go with the flow kind of way, nothing really works off it anymore. So at the end of the day you can say a spell is from any school per say, what does it really matter?

Well, there is still detect magic, but that could actually be made better by removing spell schools, as you would be more inclined to give effects than broad schools that are vaguely defined and often contain oopsy surprises (ie "this door is laced with divination magic. Oops. Mind spikes for all")

 

[Chaosmancer]

With regard to necromancing the undead, its ethics depends on the memory and dignity of those who died.

"No amount of reasoning" can erase the reallife meanings of "necromancy".

Just like the ethics of using cadavers for scientific research. Or putting mummies and other cadavers on display in museums.

There is a famous museum collection created by Fukushi Masaichi of tattooed skin taken off of dead bodies. He went and he asked Yakuza members to donate their skin, so the artwork of their tattoos could be preserved and saved. Some people would say that is gross, weird, and inhuman, because skinning the dead to preserve their tattoos just sounds wrong. Other people would point out the preservation of art and the fact that every single person gave permission, and all of it was done with the utmost respect to the people.

Reason can be used to discuss ethics. It is the most powerful tool of ethics.

 

[Stalker0]

Well, there is still detect magic, but that could actually be made better by removing spell schools, as you would be more inclined to give effects than broad schools that are vaguely defined and often contain oopsy surprises (ie "this door is laced with divination magic. Oops. Mind spikes for all")

its strong enchantment. Haha power word kill, gotcha!

 

[Chaosmancer]

I didnt know this, but the two meanings of "necromancy" − undead magic and fiendish magic − derive from two separate etymologies.

Originally, Greek nekromanteía means "corpse oracle", namely visiting graves or summoning ghosts to reveal knowledge. Compare modern mediums who describe speaking with ghosts. This Greek term enters Latin as necromantia, whence Old French necromancie and English necromancy.

However, Medieval Latin also altered the Latin term to innovate nigromantia to describe "black magic", namely magic done via harmful or evil spirits.

Under the influence of the undead magic itself being a forbidden (biblically unkosher) method of magic, sometimes understood to be dangerous, deceptive, or idolatrous, these two terms necromantia and nigromantia merged back together, whence English necromancy.

For D&D, the dangerous and forbidden creature types are Undead, Fiend, and Aberration.

Right, this right here gets to the heart of my point.

Nekromanteía was not evil. Speaking to the Dead and recieving knowledge from them was not an evil act in the Greek understanding of what was going on. Dangerous? Sure. But so was walking outside the city limits or getting on a boat. We have records of the ancient greeks going to "necromancers" to call upon the spirits of the dead to ask for advice, or to find where they hid the family wealth. It was a common and accepted practice. As common as asking the gods for help.

But the biblical understanding was a little more complicated. The only dead worth talking to were in Heaven, and that was God's domain, and you didn't summon them, God sent them. So the idea of using this magic BECAME dangerous and forbidden and evil. But the root of that was black magic, the magic of doing harm with evil spirits. Which is VASTLY different than summoning a wise spirit to ask them for advice on how to survive a catastrophe.

 

[Dausuul]

One thing that would improve the system a lot would be to rethink the idea behind the schools, more along the lines of M:tG's color pie.

A color in Magic is not defined by a single "function" -- each color can do many different things, and most things can be done by more than one color. At the same time, each color has some things that it does better than anybody, and some things it cannot do at all (at least not directly). Colors are self-sufficient, in that you can build a deck with cards of just one color and win games with it; but such a deck will have weaknesses that it must find a way to cover for.

If the schools of D&D were built along these lines, they would be more like literal schools; each one represents a whole tradition of magic, aiming to give its practitioners a full suite of spells to pursue that tradition's goals. This would mean a lot of spells being shared between schools. For instance, the School of Divination is oriented around gathering information; the School of Illusion is oriented around deception and evasion; both of them find dimension door extremely useful, and so it appears on both lists. On the other hand, misty step is more of an escape tactic than an exploration tool, so Illusion would have it but Divination probably wouldn't.

With this approach, it would be possible to put more mechancial weight on the schools -- if each school comes with a basic toolkit built in, then you can make it a little more difficult to cherry-pick from other schools. Not impossible, mind you, or even particularly hard, just... non-trivial. It would also make it possible to balance the schools properly against each other. Diviners would no longer need to be compensated with bonus features for the fact that their spell list sucks.

 

[Yaarel]

Right, this right here gets to the heart of my point.

Nekromanteía was not evil. Speaking to the Dead and recieving knowledge from them was not an evil act in the Greek understanding of what was going on. Dangerous? Sure. But so was walking outside the city limits or getting on a boat. We have records of the ancient greeks going to "necromancers" to call upon the spirits of the dead to ask for advice, or to find where they hid the family wealth. It was a common and accepted practice. As common as asking the gods for help.

But the biblical understanding was a little more complicated. The only dead worth talking to were in Heaven, and that was God's domain, and you didn't summon them, God sent them. So the idea of using this magic BECAME dangerous and forbidden and evil. But the root of that was black magic, the magic of doing harm with evil spirits. Which is VASTLY different than summoning a wise spirit to ask them for advice on how to survive a catastrophe.

There seems to be two unrelated points.

The meaning of "necromancy" has little to do with healing. I prefer Heal and Resurrection as part of Abjuration.


On the other hand, I agree, necromancy can be ethical, at least situationally.

The biblical prohibitions can relate to certain ethical problems, but can also relate to ethically neutral ceremonial taboos. Anthropologists demonstrate that every biblical taboo relates to mixing a symbol of life with a symbol of death. Famously, the prohibition against mixing milk and meat is mainly nonbiblical but coheres with the cultural biblical pattern, where the milk corresponds to nourishment and life and the meat corresponds to killing and death, whence the symbolic taboo against mixing them together.

In the case of the undead, the ghost itself is a symbol of death while speaking with it is a symbol of life. Thus there is cultural taboo against mixing two. The prohibition appears in a context of concerns about invoking powers other than the Divine, but mainly this prohibition is symbolic. Biblical contexts include ancestor veneration, especially of Avraham, Yitskhak, and Yaakov, but these are "kosher" when in the context of invoking the Divine and the sense they are genuinely alive with the Divine. Thus there is no "death" mixing with life.

But these finer distinctions were often lost in medieval contexts, where anything prohibitive was viewed as if "evil". Thus they conflated the ethically neutral necromantia with evil spirits of nigromantia.


In the context of D&D, the dark side of Necromancy including its spooky undead and full-on evil fiends and modern cosmic horror of aberrations is part of what makes it fun for a fantasy game. One can look at the Warlock class to see the appeal.

It is possible to wield Evil powers for the sake of a Good purpose. Plenty reallife folklore from various cultures makes this point.

 

[lall]

Beckon Water: I guess creating a single cup of water that evaporates is the entire point? It isn't enough to do anything with, because thirst requires half a gallon of water so... what's the point?

Couldn’t one just cast it 16 times or 32 times on a hot day?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Couldn’t one just cast it 16 times or 32 times on a hot day?

It evaporates within a minute. It isn't even clear if you get any benefit from drinking it. You might be able to cast it 16 times and get the full benefit, but it is unclear.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There seems to be two unrelated points.

The meaning of "necromancy" has little to do with healing. I prefer Heal and Resurrection as part of Abjuration.

Well, this gets back into "what is necromancy". If Necromancy consists solely of speaking to the ghosts of the dead, then you are right, it has little to do with healing. The moment Necromancy involves taking a body and making it move and function again, you've stepped directly into the concept of healing. Because controlling a body is a key element.

And remember, currently, all ressurection and raise spells are Necromancy. Only the ability to heal is abjuration, and that seems to be solely for the benefit of things like the Moon Druid.

In the context of D&D, the dark side of Necromancy including its spooky undead and full-on evil fiends and modern cosmic horror of aberrations is part of what makes it fun for a fantasy game. One can look at the Warlock class to see the appeal.

It is possible to wield Evil powers for the sake of a Good purpose. Plenty reallife folklore from various cultures makes this point.

Necromancy in DnD has nothing to do with fiends.
Necromancy in DnD has nothing to do with Cosmic Horrors.

I don't care if necromancy is spooky and not trusted. I don't even care if necromancy is used mostly by villains. Where I get frustrated is that it is the only magic that the game and many players continually insist must be evil, dark, irredeemable magic.

Part of making healing connected to necromancy is not only for the logic of it (if you can make a dead corpse move as though it is alive, then it makes sense the same power can be used to prevent a living body from dying. In fact, many origins of undeath are rooted in the idea of preserving life in the face of death) but also because it creates that ability to have more nuanced discussions instead of DnD typically absolutist views. I mean, the ability to mind control people or summon demons isn't called out as always and forever evil, and I would argue that both are worse.

 

[lall]

It evaporates within a minute. It isn't even clear if you get any benefit from drinking it. You might be able to cast it 16 times and get the full benefit, but it is unclear.

Agreed. It looks like to avoid exhaustion, the requirement is to drink the water, but I can see some/many DMs ruling no benefit is gained.