D&D 5E Anyone else feel like the distinction between conjuration and evocation is really muddy?

[Fralex]

The difference, as I understand it, was supposed to be something along the lines of "Conjuration creates or transports matter, evocation creates or transports energy." But there seem to be tons of evocations that sound like they'd be conjurations, and vice versa. Like, wall of fire is an evocation and wall of thorns is a conjuration, which both make sense. But wall of stone is an evocation. Are rocks just considered a kind of energy because they're tied to an element? But then there's spells like flaming sphere and produce flame, which are conjurations even though they're generating energy. And sometimes (but not always) acid is treated like a kind of energy for some reason? I mean, I guess it has chemical energy, but it still seems weird to put a corrosive liquid in the same category as fire and lightning.

Look, I'm just very concerned that this collection of made-up powers might not be getting the proper cataloging and scrutiny that a true field of science would recieve. It's really important, I swear!

(Oh, and necromancers: your "ancient art" isn't even a real school of magic! It's just an arbitrary collection of spells from the schools of evocation, conjuration, transmutation, and divination that sound spooky! Yeah, I went there. You know it's true!)

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Wall of Stone being listed as an evocation spell is almost certainly an error. The spell has been conjuration in all previous editions (and Pathfinder for what it's worth) as far back as I can remember.

 

[Fralex]

I dunno, they also considered wall of sand and wall of water evocations, even though tidal wave is a conjuration. it's weird.

 

[Kramodlog]

The four elements (Air, Earth, Fire, Water) are linked the elemental planes (or is plane this time?). Tradtionally, those planes gave access to these elements in the form of raw energy that casters could shape the way they wanted. The pattern between wall of fire, ice and stone (all evocation spells) is that they are all tied to elemental planes and their energy (stone as an energy is weird, drawing energy from the elemental of Earth to make a wall of stone makes sense).

Thorns are a thing (a solid case could be made they are wood, the fifth element in Asian culture, but that is another matter), not energy. Just like spider webs (the Web spell is conjuration).

Acid was Earth's "energy" starting in 3e (as far as I know). Seems they are continuing the tradition in 5e. Why are acid and earth linked? I guess soil is acidic?

 

[Fralex]

Acid was Earth's "energy" starting in 3e (as far as I know). Seems they are continuing the tradition in 5e. Why are acid and earth linked? I guess soil is acidic?

Blarr, I dislike that. Ever since I saw the playtest version of the elemental monk that had the power to infuse their strikes with fire, cold, thunder, or lightning, I've always thought thunder damage was the perfect energy to link earth to. It's damage caused by pure, concussive force! Like the shockwave of an earthquake or the deafening rumble of a rockslide! Sure, thunder is associated with lightning and lightning is an air thing, but still. Doesn't thunder damage make so much more sense than acid?

 

[Kramodlog]

Blarr, I dislike that. Ever since I saw the playtest version of the elemental monk that had the power to infuse their strikes with fire, cold, thunder, or lightning, I've always thought thunder damage was the perfect energy to link earth to. It's damage caused by pure, concussive force! Like the shockwave of an earthquake or the deafening rumble of a rockslide! Sure, thunder is associated with lightning and lightning is an air thing, but still. Doesn't thunder damage make so much more sense than acid?

Not to me. Thunder is just sound. Without air you do not have sound or thunder. Sound is an energy type in 3.x/PF (the fifth and arguably the most powerful). Cold iron, mithril and adamantine make sense as Earth "energy" damage. At leat intuitively. With some reflection, acid can. That being said, having a fix number of energy types brings positive points and negative ones.

During 2e's reign, a gold dragon had two breath weapons; fire and chlorine. What is chlorine damage? Acid or something else? How does a chlorine breath intereact with a troll's regeneration ability? Brass dragons breathed heat in 2e. If you are immuned to fire damage are you immuned to head damage? The Dragon of Tyr, a super powerful foe in the Dark Sun setting, breathed super heated sand. How does fire immunity interact with that breath weapon? That sort of list goes on. You see the need to have a few categories of energy type. It makes things clearer (but you limit creativity at the same time). But then you create new problems like what do you do with all this acidic damage? Acid was very present in D&D prior to 3.x. Ditching it entirely caused others problems.

At some point designers have to make arbitrary choices. Those can be unsatisfaying. I'm not sure why energy damage needed to be linked to elemental planes. Maybe someone else has that answer.

 

[Fralex]

Not to me. Thunder is just sound. Without air you do not have sound or thunder. Sound is an energy type in 3.x/PF (the fifth and arguably the most powerful). Cold iron, mithril and adamantine make sense as Earth "energy" damage. At leat intuitively. With some reflection, acid can. That being said, having a fix number of energy types brings positive points and negative ones.

During 2e's reign, a gold dragon had two breath weapons; fire and chlorine. What is chlorine damage? Acid or something else? How does a chlorine breath intereact with a troll's regeneration ability? Brass dragons breathed heat in 2e. If you are immuned to fire damage are you immuned to head damage? The Dragon of Tyr, a super powerful foe in the Dark Sun setting, breathed super heated sand. How does fire immunity interact with that breath weapon? That sort of list goes on. You see the need to have a few categories of energy type. It makes things clearer (but you limit creativity at the same time). But then you create new problems like what do you do with all this acidic damage? Acid was very present in D&D prior to 3.x. Ditching it entirely caused others problems.

At some point designers have to make arbitrary choices. Those can be unsatisfaying. I'm not sure why energy damage needed to be linked to elemental planes. Maybe someone else has that answer.

Well, you have four elements, you have powers that draw energy from them, you want every power to have a unique way of damaging targets, I can sort of see the thought process. And I can see how corrosive chemicals can be tied to the least-energetic element, earth. But, I mean, oxidation requires air, too, doesn't it? And water is sometimes acidic. And acid burns like fire. You could make an argument for any of the four elements to be tied to acid damage. Thunder is vibration. It damages you by bludgeoning you with pressurized shockwaves. It feels like the most "solid" energy type, if that makes sense?

Acid I'd put in the same category as poison. Maybe make some creatures' venom acidic to make up for the huge amount of things that resist poison damage.

EDIT: Also, rock music is loud. Sonic damage!

 

[PnPgamer]

Earths damaging element should be related to all what it contains, such as precious metals, gems and other valuable...

Heck lets call it "bling".
Ie:
I cast ray of gems, and do 3d8 bling damage. Con save for half. Target wearing jewelry has disadvantage on the save.

 

[Fralex]

Earths damaging element should be related to all what it contains, such as precious metals, gems and other valuable...

Heck lets call it "bling".
Ie:
I cast may ray of gems, and do 3d8 bling damage.

Like this?

 

[PnPgamer]

Like this?