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

[Fralex]

Enlarge/reduce is probably one of my favorite transmutations. It leads to great stories. Like the time I used it to get a ride from my familiar. Or the time we were on a riverboat, and some kobolds tried to block our way by narrowing the passageway, and we all would've died a hilariously gruesome death had I not told my party my plan to make the boat smaller before casting the spell.

 

[Staffan]

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?

Ideally, earth element spells ought to do physical damage: mostly bludgeoning, but occasionally piercing or slashing.

The problem is that D&D's spells are poorly adapted to elemental balance, because that was not a thing Gygax considered back in the late 70s. Heck, he didn't even bother with school balance - the schools listed in 1e spells were mostly flavor. I think the first attempt at elemental-themed wizards was in Tome of Magic, and after that you had the slightly different elemental schools in Al-Qadim (sand/flame/wind/sea instead of earth/fire/air/water) - but these were both a matter of retro-fitting the existing spells into the new schools, with a handful of spells added.

Then came 3e, notably Tome & Blood, the 3.0 wizard/sorcerer splatbook (as an aside, I still think they should have called the rogue/bard book "Lute & Loot"). Of course it had an element-themed prestige class in it, and as a result they had to try to map the 3e energy types to the classical elements, and then that mapping mostly stuck with us. A better solution would have been to make spells with elemental balance in mind from the start, but that ship sailed in the 70s and we don't have the water magic needed to bring it back.

 

[Minigiant]

In my head, evocation creates energy and matter. Conjuration just transports it.

Evocation: I create a ball of fire or wall of stone.

Conjuration: I summon fire from the Plane of Fire or a wall of stone from underground

Transmutation: I change the air into fire or make the horizontal earth into vertical earth.

Necromancy: I create a ball of necrotic energy or a wall of bones from that guy.

Abjuration: I reflect your ball of fire back at you or dispel your wall

Enchantment: I make someone else throw a flaming rock at you or stand in front as meat wall

Illusion: I totally did all those things. Honest.

Divination: I see what you did there.

 

[77IM]

I wish they had designated certain spells as members of multiple schools. I can undersad why they didn't; it causes some other problems. But it solves this one nicely.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I usually think of evocation as being "raw" power, while conjuration is summoning things that require a bit of finesse or artifice. Evocations tend to be instantaneous, while conjurations are more likely to persist. That's why wall of stone is an evocation, it's a BAM, look, tons of rocks. That's why it will stay there permanently as long as you maintain the initial magic. It's admittedly not a perfect paradigm, but I can usually find rationale for the difference by using that framework.

Also not a fan of the earth = acid. I can see the reason, acids are usually derived from mineral salts of various types. I tend to rationalize the energy types as deriving from one of the element's para-elemental associations. Earth has a connection to ooze, which breaks down matter's cohesiveness, which is the archetypal function of acid. Water has a tie to ice, which manifests as cold, which is a loss of water's fluid nature. Air is generally placid and soothing, but tied to fire it becomes energetic, overly kinetic and loud, which manifests as lightning (and possibly thunder). Fire consumes and has no fixed form, but when tied to earth, its energy can linger, which is why spells like fireball and wall of fire can persist, and not immediately dissipate in a blast of heat.

 

[Dausuul]

Evocations tend to be instantaneous, while conjurations are more likely to persist. That's why wall of stone is an evocation, it's a BAM, look, tons of rocks. That's why it will stay there permanently as long as you maintain the initial magic.

But create or destroy water is BAM, look, a bunch of water; and it's conjuration. Meanwhile, Bigby's hand and forcecage are evocations that create temporary but persistent effects.

I agree with the OP, it's pretty incoherent. The problem can be summed up simply by observing that acid splash is conjuration but Melf's acid arrow is evocation. What gives?

 

[TwoSix]

But create or destroy water is BAM, look, a bunch of water; and it's conjuration. Meanwhile, Bigby's hand and forcecage are evocations that create temporary but persistent effects.

Yea, there's also a thing that evocation is energy and conjuration is matter. It's nowhere close to 100%. Sadly.

I agree with the OP, it's pretty incoherent. The problem can be summed up simply by observing that acid splash is conjuration but Melf's acid arrow is evocation. What gives?

I can only blame legal weed in Washington at this point.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I wish they had designated certain spells as members of multiple schools. I can undersad why they didn't; it causes some other problems. But it solves this one nicely.

They used to in AD&D. I wonder 5E does not. What problems do you see?

 

[Gadget]

At least they have not reached 3e levels of ridiculousness, where, to get around the spell resistance of certain elemental evocation spells, you had almost the exact same spells in orb form that were Conjuration and therefore bypassed spell resistance.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Schools are basically flavor (and inconsistent flavor at that), but I've toyed around a bit with a more....consistent....model...

Illusion (hiding or changing sensory information) vs. Divination (revealing hidden truths) is about truth and lies, trickery and deceit. A spell like phantasmal force would be illusion, but a spell like color spray would not.

Abjuration (barring, protecting, and containing) vs. Conjuration (teleporting, summoning, and dimensional transition) is about isolation and interaction. A spell like planar ally would be conjuration, as would a spell like blink, but a spell like flaming sphere would not.

Enchantment (charms, mind-control, domination) vs. Necromancy (life/death, undead creation, enervation) is about mind and body, our thoughts and our physicality. A spell like create undead or wall of bones would be Necromancy, but a spell like chill touch might not.

Evocation (lightning, fire, ice, explosions) vs. Transmutation (shapechanging, altering qualities) is about unleashing immediate energy and containing lasting energy. A spell like enlage/reduce would be Transmutation, but a spell like etherealness probably not.