Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Inquiry: How do 4E fans feel about 4E Essentials?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8440296" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>My point is that if schools are something that apply only to wizards (as, in practice, they do) and wizards can't heal (which they can't) then that healing doesn't fit in the schools of magic doesn't matter. It is a type of magic that wizards don't categorise well because they don't do.</p><p></p><p>It's little more relevant a criticism than "Is a longbow a handgun or a rifle?" Well, no, it's not either although it might have some characteristics that overlap.</p><p></p><p>And once more you are asking questions that aren't particularly relevant. Indeed you're falling down exactly the same purity rabbit hole that the attempts to put schools of magic in opposition to each other made. To quote you:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>Most new players, IME, approach magic more thematically. For example, they want to play an elementalist, or a fire mage, or a dark magic, etc.</em></p><p>And you were absolutely right. But in order to play a dark mage (which as mentioned isn't catered to in D&D 5e as it uses the same school as the necromancer*) then the dark mage needs to be able to cast damaging dark spells that do shadowy things. And yes some of these dark and damaging spells will mechanically look like evocations. But they need to be there to enable the thematic casters to work properly. </p><p></p><p>You are making exactly the mistake made between Unearthed Arcana and the end of 3.5 with opposition schools of magic. Schools of magic should serve the game, not the other way around. The goal of schools of magic should be to encourage more viable character types - not to sacrifice viable character types on the procrustean bed of a defined magic system. And if that means almost doubling up some spells to put them in different schools then that's not a problem. If it means that some spells have multiple school tags attached then that's not a problem either.</p><p></p><p>* This is actually a mistake made by the 5e designers getting fluffier. When the pre-4e specialist wizards were bland and just got extra spells and +1s in their school then having the Necromancer and Nethermancer as the same school of magic made sense; necromancers cast dark spells because of course they do. And Nethermancers sometimes raise wraiths and skeletons. The same school covered both because there was about a 75% overlap between what they did and if you didn't want the rest of the school you just didn't take the spells. But with 5e actually making specialist wizards better at their own types of magic 100% of the dark-and-necromantic school went to the Necromancer specialism.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8440296, member: 87792"] My point is that if schools are something that apply only to wizards (as, in practice, they do) and wizards can't heal (which they can't) then that healing doesn't fit in the schools of magic doesn't matter. It is a type of magic that wizards don't categorise well because they don't do. It's little more relevant a criticism than "Is a longbow a handgun or a rifle?" Well, no, it's not either although it might have some characteristics that overlap. And once more you are asking questions that aren't particularly relevant. Indeed you're falling down exactly the same purity rabbit hole that the attempts to put schools of magic in opposition to each other made. To quote you: [INDENT][I]Most new players, IME, approach magic more thematically. For example, they want to play an elementalist, or a fire mage, or a dark magic, etc.[/I][/INDENT] And you were absolutely right. But in order to play a dark mage (which as mentioned isn't catered to in D&D 5e as it uses the same school as the necromancer*) then the dark mage needs to be able to cast damaging dark spells that do shadowy things. And yes some of these dark and damaging spells will mechanically look like evocations. But they need to be there to enable the thematic casters to work properly. You are making exactly the mistake made between Unearthed Arcana and the end of 3.5 with opposition schools of magic. Schools of magic should serve the game, not the other way around. The goal of schools of magic should be to encourage more viable character types - not to sacrifice viable character types on the procrustean bed of a defined magic system. And if that means almost doubling up some spells to put them in different schools then that's not a problem. If it means that some spells have multiple school tags attached then that's not a problem either. * This is actually a mistake made by the 5e designers getting fluffier. When the pre-4e specialist wizards were bland and just got extra spells and +1s in their school then having the Necromancer and Nethermancer as the same school of magic made sense; necromancers cast dark spells because of course they do. And Nethermancers sometimes raise wraiths and skeletons. The same school covered both because there was about a 75% overlap between what they did and if you didn't want the rest of the school you just didn't take the spells. But with 5e actually making specialist wizards better at their own types of magic 100% of the dark-and-necromantic school went to the Necromancer specialism. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Inquiry: How do 4E fans feel about 4E Essentials?
Top