Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7323308" data-attributes="member: 92511">I think the idea of altering the magic system is a good one...and leads to another tangent of conversation in the sphere of "Class structure/organization"...The definitions and explanations of different supernatural and/or paranormal abilities and effects as "Magic" -for the use of and presuming 6e will end up with something resembling D&D's traditional structured class-based system, at least- must be delineated.Is the "Nature-based" magic of the druids and shamans and (potentially rangers) really just "Divine" magic? What are the sub-categories/schools of Arcane magic? I'm on record saying I don't believe we need all 8 of D&D 2+e "Specializations" ...though, I will attest to 5e's wonderful way of finally making each one a distinct and useful for adventuring kind of wizard...Illusions and enchantments, for example, go somewhat hand in hand. Do we really need an "Illusionist" and an "Enchanter" or can we just stipulate, these are the spells that fall in those categories, as a contained "school." If you want to be an "illusionist" generating images and color spraying everyone, then choose more of those spells than charms and compulsions. If you want to be a Morgan Le Faye-esque [who was known to heavily use illusions as well] or Circe-style "Enchantress," then load up on Charms and Sleep and Suggestions, rather than necessitating spell bloat to fill out the spell levels with at least a couple of options for each of 8 different kinds of magic.To my mind, the above Illusions/Enchantments as a single facet of arcane magic is a no brainer.Evocations and Abjurations : "Energy-based magic" creating it, controlling it, shaping and/or deleting it,  seem to go hand in hand.Conjurations and Transmutations : "Physical- or Form-based magic" bringing items and creatures, actual physical objects, into being, altering existing physical items/forms, and/or removing traits of a given form from them.Divination rather sits apart for its universal utility, as all magic (of any type) requires accumulating knowledge. Whether or not a devoted Diviner mage is necessary or simply giving all magic-users access to varying levels of Divination is appropriate is certainly a matter for debate. Even in the lowest magic settings around, there are soothsayers rolling their bones or reading their runes, priests making sacrifices to read the entrails or the starry sky for portents and omens. It's practically built into a society's DNA to seek out more information...divining is undoubtedly the original/first form of "formal" magical practice developed...Getting answers.Necromancy, similarly, sits alone for it's, shall we say "Soul-based magic"...rather than simply 'I make undead minions!" Necromancy, literally "Speaking with the Dead," is itself an form of Divination. But not solely, in D&D terms, of course. It is, however, the magic of Death and necrotic energies, but also, thereby, the flip-side of the last and greatest unknown, by delving into the depths of Death and Undeath, one is intrinsically defining Life at the same time...but whatever is NOT Life is where you are delving. So, I see plenty of room for Necromancers to be rather "vampiric" in nature -drawing from life around them to fuel their own health- making them stand out all the more in D&D as the "Wizards who can Heal?!" (but you might not like how it's done <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ). There is also the opening for flavors of "Blood Magic" type characters, of course the D&D tropes of the wizard pursuing lichdom, even a Dr. Frankenstein Johnny Deppian Ichabod Crane forensic anatomist type of "scientist" wizard. For all of this, I am now wondering if, indeed, Necromancers are required to stand alone as a sub-class (or Necromancy as a stand alone magical type/school), or if they are more appropriately shifted into the 'prestige-style-tack-on-a-few-levels-of-archetype" class. Thoughts?But back to the original matter of this post, could D&D get away with defining magics as DIVINE, NATURE, and ARCANE.With, then, each one of them broken down into limited subsets...not even the Spheres of 2e, and certainly not the cacophony of noise that were clerical spells in 3.x, but a very board, generalization and simplification of categories such as:Mind Magic (illusions & enchantments)Energy [or Force or Raw?] Magic (evocations & abjurations, maybe some conjurations)Physical [or Body or Form] Magic (conjurations & transmutations, maybe some abjurations)With Divination, then, as a catch-all for everybody's Detection spells and Scrying and, let's call it,..."Soul" Magic (necromancy and vivomancy[healing], using necrotic and/or radiant energies, respectively, that are normally the purview of -and so, many of their spells would fall in this category- the clerics)Does that help or hurt the dividing up of classes/subclasses? Make things simpler or more complicated? Or just distinct with no difference? [I looooathe distinctions without differences...almost as much as "change for change's sake" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=">:(" title="Mad    >:("  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=">:(" /> ]Thoughts on Magical structure for 6e that will, presumably, impact the way in which classes and subclasses are sorted out?</blockquote>

Verification