Cure & Inflict - two different schools?

[Quasqueton]

Cure X wounds spells are conjuration.

Inflict X wounds spells are necromancy.

Huh? Since they are both manipulating positive/negative energy, shouldn't they be the same?

Is there errata on this?

Quasqueton

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Certainly not errata, no.

Generally, Necromancy has been defined (in practice, if not literally) as "Nasty Evil Spells that Use Negative Energy."

I like my Cure spells (as well as all other Positive Energy spells) Necromantic, but WotC disagrees - largely due to player pressure, I'd imagine.

 

[Spatula]

In previous editions, both were necromancy spells.

In 3E, necromancy is the "Eeeeeevil" school of spells, and thus, healing spells were moved to conjuration.

 

[drnuncheon]

Cure X wounds spells are conjuration.

Inflict X wounds spells are necromancy.

Huh? Since they are both manipulating positive/negative energy, shouldn't they be the same?

Not necessarily. Planar Ally is Conjuration. Banishment is Abjuration. Both involve sending a target on an involuntary planar trip.

J

 

[ARandomGod]

SHHH! You have uncovered a dirty secret. They're both necromancy. But, as necromancy has a bad connotation, they've redone the spells slightly so that you can conjure the necromantic energy to heal instead of simply using necromancy.

On the other hand, using this logic you can do anything with any school! Just point to this as a precedence, and there are no more "banned schools" for specialist wizards! You want to turn invisible but you're "banned" illusion? Conjure a light shield! Transmute the air around you so that you can't be seen?

For more fun, read the "darkness" spell, and you may discover that it not only doesn't create darkness, but it instead summons light! The Hilarity!