D&D (2024) Playtest 6: Spells

[Chaosmancer]

The word "necrotic" is a medical term that means the cells are dying, such as gangrene.

When an Undead inflicts Necrotic damage, it means the targets are starting to become corpses, literally rotting.

Deathliness is darkside. When the Spore Druid deals Necrotic damage and especially when using fungus to animate a zombie, the concept flirts with the darkside. This is Negativity influencing the natural world. The absence of Positive Energy.

And any "worships and understands nature" class that attempted to tell me that fungus and decomposers are unnatural and evil gets an immediate VETO from me. Heck, zombie fungus is a real-life part of nature. It is a perfectly natural and neutral part of life. Dangerous and Creepy? Yes. But not "negative" unless you find carnivore's red in tooth and claw negative too.

This reminds me of the stupid Ettercap lore that says they were cursed by the Gods of Nature because they were druids, who in spider form, engaged in cannibalism, exactly like real-life spiders. And that made them "evil". Do you know how many real-life plants and animals engage in cannibalism? Nature doesn't find that evil, because it IS natural for those animals.

It isnt about alignment, because Good characters can wield the powers of death and demons for Good purposes. Compare the Warlock.

At the same time, the themes are about death and demons. Namely, darkside flavor.

Enchantment can be taboo in some cultures because it violates free will. In Norse culture, warriors avoided manipulating the minds of opponents because it seemed unfair and a cowardly way to avoid a fight. The stories still describe warriors doing it, however. Even Thor resorts to mind manipulation on occasion.

But it DOES play into alignment. You can't say "this is the magic of darkness and demons, it is a black and fell magic, it is entirely neutral" because in DnD Fiends aren't neutral, they are completely and fully evil. Now, you and me might come to an agreement that that is a rather boring cosmology, but it doesn't change the presentation within DnD.

Take Enchantment, me and you agree that it goes into some dangerous and taboo territory, though it has good uses. DnD does not comment on the morality of Enchantment. DnD does say that Necromancy is evil, and I have had multiple, extended conversations about how it is possible to use necromancy for good, that have smashed themselves to bits upon the wall of "It is evil magic, by RAW, so everyone who uses it is evil or neutral and stupid at best"

The moment you start associating magic with the good guys and the bad guys, you are opening that door and spiking it open. Necromancy as the magic of decay, death, and souls? I'm all for it. Necromancy as the black (ie evil) magic of fiends and aberrations? No. That is far too much morality being put into a tool.

The Negative Void itself is strictly neutral, and serves a Good purpose by making creation possible. The Negativity is what allows finite things to be possible. Without the Negativity demarcating boundaries where something isnt, everything would be indistinguishable infinity.

That said, the absence of Positivity is bleak nihilation, like a black hole.

Heh. If you want blood and guts and death and corpses. Face it. This is darkside stuff. But not necessarily Evil.

Okay, but now we are shifting back into what I was saying. So, I guess this is a different question. Do you accept that DnD says that Fiends and Aberrations are evil?

Yeah. The folklore stories feature seers who foresee the future without flying around.

However, modern stories often have the telekinetic be precognitive as well. This is because the reallife scientific investigations of the "paranormal", tended to group the experiments that involved these claims together. The scientific terminology is new, but the what they describe is ancient, including "extra sensory perception" (Norse spá), "remote viewing" (Norse hamfarir), etcetera. "Telekinesis" (moving by spirit) and "Teleportation" are known in Jewish literature, where Teleportation (Hebrew kafats) is described in a way similar to a modern wormhole, that pulls two points in space together.

A modern theme "psionic" psychic character, would choose spells from the Dunomancy and Divination schools.


Yes, it matters which stories a player is drawing inspiration from. That is why it helps to organize the spells in a thematically salient way. Then the player can find the relevant spells more easily.


I distinguish between "objective" illusions that are quasi-real, versus "subjective" phantasms that are strictly mental sensory manipulation.

The objective illusions use force subtly to manipulate light and sound, or force with increasing strength for odor and solid touch, even fully virtual to support weight and so on. However, illusions have a mental affectation that ultimately can blur the lines between subjective imagination and objective reality, whence actually real scenarios with enduring mass and so on.

Yes, many Fey creatures are known for Illusion and Enchantment, as well as being immaterial Fey spirits. They are originally known for personifying and manipulating fate, namely Divination. A player who wants one or more of these narrative themes, selects the appropriate spell school.


Illusions are like art. One can describe the chemical properties of pigments, but that isnt really what the artist is doing with pigments. The artist is doing art. It is its own discipline, even its own mode of consciousness.


There are stories where something breaks because of being struck "just right". Whence luck. The imagery reminds me of cutting diamonds.


Organizing schools in a helpful and consistent way, matters.

Solid and salient organization helps in every aspect of D&D, just like in reallife.


Most spells are unambiguous and inflexible and belong to an obvious school.

Some spells are complex with moving parts that belong to more than one school.

Some schools depend on organizational decisions. For example, I intentionally make Divination include both precognition and teleportation. Conceptually they are inseparable because seeing remotely, being remotely present, and manifesting there via teleportation are related in principle. For example, one sends ones mind there, then once there, pulls the rest of body there. But the main reason for insisting on the link is for the purpose of the game: precognition is too passive (and boring), and teleportation is too much of a one-trick-pony (and boring). But together, they form a remarkably rich, powerful, diverse, and interesting spell list.

Transmutation combining the themes of Earth, Plant, and Beast, is arbitrary. But it can make sense, such as when creating objects from any or all of these. But the main reason for all three is, D&D has always done Transmutation this way, and this trio is one of the few things that is consistent about the Transmutation school.


The spell categories that I describe come from the bottom up.

I look at every spell that officially exists in D&D, especially 5e, but also earlier editions.

Every single spell that exists, fits well enough in one of these schools with these specific definitions.


The gist of these schools are solid, stable, and fun. I have been using them in my games for some years now. I continue to tinker with the school descriptions and the placement of a few specific spells. It proves useful.

I've got a meeting to get to, so I'll deal with the second half in a bit

 

[TwoSix]

Bleh. No offense, but yuck.

That seems like a weirdly emotional response. Is it using colors as a label that caused the revulsion, or the specific groupings of magical effects?

 

[mellored]

As mentioned, something like MtG color system would work better

Are you sure?

 

[Yaarel]

And any "worships and understands nature" class that attempted to tell me that fungus and decomposers are unnatural and evil gets an immediate VETO from me. Heck, zombie fungus is a real-life part of nature. It is a perfectly natural and neutral part of life. Dangerous and Creepy? Yes. But not "negative" unless you find carnivore's red in tooth and claw negative too.

You seem to misread what I said.

I never called anything "unnatural". You seem to be getting that idea from elsewhere?

I never called the Spore Druid "Evil".

I did say that a focus on "blood and guts and death and corpses ... is darkside", which it is.

This reminds me of the stupid Ettercap lore that says they were cursed by the Gods of Nature because they were druids, who in spider form, engaged in cannibalism, exactly like real-life spiders. And that made them "evil". Do you know how many real-life plants and animals engage in cannibalism? Nature doesn't find that evil, because it IS natural for those animals.



But it DOES play into alignment. You can't say "this is the magic of darkness and demons, it is a black and fell magic, it is entirely neutral" because in DnD Fiends aren't neutral, they are completely and fully evil. Now, you and me might come to an agreement that that is a rather boring cosmology, but it doesn't change the presentation within DnD.

Beasts are generally Unaligned and incapable of making ethical decisions.

Generally, Fiends are Evil. However, similar to how there is such thing as Evil Celestials, there is also such thing as Good Fiends.

In any case, player characters might have Good reasons for engaging Fiends.

Take Enchantment, me and you agree that it goes into some dangerous and taboo territory, though it has good uses.

Precisely.

DnD does not comment on the morality of Enchantment.

A particular setting can easily comment on the ethics of Enchantment.

In a Norse setting, it would be tricky to discuss, because it is gender divided. The men of the family have a duty to defend the family, and values of "courage" are existential. But it is generally acceptable for women to engage in mind manipulation.

(That said, in a Norse setting, a man can be respected for their skill at feminine magic even if viewed askance for their shirking masculine responsibilities. Likewise, a woman can be respected for their skill in warfare.)

Personally, I view the use of Enchantment to be more ethical than killing.

DnD does say that Necromancy is evil, and I have had multiple, extended conversations about how it is possible to use necromancy for good, that have smashed themselves to bits upon the wall of "It is evil magic, by RAW, so everyone who uses it is evil or neutral and stupid at best"

To say that Necromancy itself is Evil seems off. To say that Necromancy engages Evil or harmful creatures, and that many necromancers are Evil, would seem more fair.

Necromancy is essentially a weapon, like Fireball is. Perhaps Necromancy is more like modern biological weapons. The ethics of it depend entirely on how one uses them. It is easy to imagine many unethical scenarios − but the same goes for any weapon.

The moment you start associating magic with the good guys and the bad guys, you are opening that door and spiking it open.

I kinda agree. Evil characters can use "good" magic, like Healing. Good characters can use "evil" magic, like Necromancy. The magic itself is a neutral tool.

Necromancy as the magic of decay, death, and souls? I'm all for it.

That is my main point, when I say "darkside". I also include Fiends and Aberrants, tho.

Necromancy as the black (ie evil) magic of fiends and aberrations? No. That is far too much morality being put into a tool.

The magic itself is neutral, but it includes genres like temptation to do Evil, cruelty, insanity, fear, and so on.

Okay, but now we are shifting back into what I was saying. So, I guess this is a different question. Do you accept that DnD says that Fiends and Aberrations are evil?

Yes, Fiends and Aberrations are "typically" Evil. Celestials are "typically" Good. The exceptions are important.

Whether these creature types are Evil or not, has nothing to do with whether the player characters are Evil or not.

I've got a meeting to get to, so I'll deal with the second half in a bit

Cool.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That seems like a weirdly emotional response. Is it using colors as a label that caused the revulsion, or the specific groupings of magical effects?

It was far less fervid than it seemed. No, I just don't like the naming convention.

I don't understand how if someone is arguing if "Fear" (for a random example) ought to be "Necromancy" or "Enchantment" (or "Illusion" for that matter) that it being "Orange" is in any way better. At least the other three have some kind of meaning.

 

[TwoSix]

It was far less fervid than it seemed. No, I just don't like the naming convention.

I don't understand how if someone is arguing if "Fear" (for a random example) ought to be "Necromancy" or "Enchantment" (or "Illusion" for that matter) that it being "Orange" is in any way better. At least the other three have some kind of meaning.

Well, sure, but I think the whole point of using neutral labels like a color is precisely to avoid needless extrapolation FROM the top-level term; you simply assign meaning to the label by the contents you put into it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, sure, but I think the whole point of using neutral labels like a color is precisely to avoid needless extrapolation FROM the top-level term; you simply assign meaning to the label by the contents you put into it.

I mean, that'll stop some arguments on the internet (and create new ones), but it doesn't do anything that meaningfully fixes the issue. It's far easier, IMO, to understand that nearly every LABEL in D&D is only a best-fit label, and not a 100% perfect-all-the-time descriptor. At least Necromancy, Illusion, and Conjuration (et al) are in-world evocative of some sort of process! Personally, I'm happy that that process is unclear - it's "Magic" after all - best left unexplained.

 

[Tutara]

It’s my opinion that spell schools have as much validity in modern D&D as alignment. Whichever legacy hole you force the peg into makes not one jot of difference in actual play (in my experience). The words are all made up anyway!

Arcane/Primal/Divine are much more effective as categories, and I feel leaning into these makes more sense - and leaves the door open for Psionic/Occult or whatever other flavours you fancy.

 

[Horwath]

Man, I'm updating my player's Cleric to UA6 and level 7, and there's only eight level 4 spells to choose from, and most of them are hot garbage. Sadly, I don't think Banishment really suits him.

guess, upcasting Spirit guardians it is?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Okay, back to this

Yeah. The folklore stories feature seers who foresee the future without flying around.

However, modern stories often have the telekinetic be precognitive as well. This is because the reallife scientific investigations of the "paranormal", tended to group the experiments that involved these claims together. The scientific terminology is new, but the what they describe is ancient, including "extra sensory perception" (Norse spá), "remote viewing" (Norse hamfarir), etcetera. "Telekinesis" (moving by spirit) and "Teleportation" are known in Jewish literature, where Teleportation (Hebrew kafats) is described in a way similar to a modern wormhole, that pulls two points in space together.

A modern theme "psionic" psychic character, would choose spells from the Dunomancy and Divination schools.

Well, most folklore characters couldn't fly at all. Meanwhile, now in fantasy, a made being able to levitate or fly is pretty standard.

And I think there is a danger in going too far towards the old ways of thinking about magic and mysticism. Which is where a lot of our disagreements may come from. There are sometimes very good reasons to bundle these different powers together, based on a changed perception of what they mean.

Yes, it matters which stories a player is drawing inspiration from. That is why it helps to organize the spells in a thematically salient way. Then the player can find the relevant spells more easily.

Thematically salient for whom? This is the key point. For example, you wanted to put healing into transmutation, because from a Nordic Myth/Tradition standpoint, that is what healing is, altering the body. But if I were to be looking for healing from a typical American Fantasy standpoint, I'd look at it under evocation, because infusing a body with holy light is the most common way to depict healing.

In many ways, you may be approaching the idea backwards. Certain things are looked for in terms of the spell effect, rather than in terms of the thematics. For example, if I'm looking for a healing spell, such as Greater Restoration, I may not think to look under Abjuration, because to me Abjuration means shields and wards. But if you make a new system and say "Ah, since the best way to cure these conditions is to alter the body, I will make them transmutation"... I'm still not going to be looking there, because thematically Greater Restoration is a divine blessing, and I'd look under the divine spells which you labeled under Celestial Magic which you called Conjuration, which makes sense if I consider it as conjuring the holy forces to cleanse the body.

I distinguish between "objective" illusions that are quasi-real, versus "subjective" phantasms that are strictly mental sensory manipulation.

The objective illusions use force subtly to manipulate light and sound, or force with increasing strength for odor and solid touch, even fully virtual to support weight and so on. However, illusions have a mental affectation that ultimately can blur the lines between subjective imagination and objective reality, whence actually real scenarios with enduring mass and so on.

Yes, many Fey creatures are known for Illusion and Enchantment, as well as being immaterial Fey spirits. They are originally known for personifying and manipulating fate, namely Divination. A player who wants one or more of these narrative themes, selects the appropriate spell school.

But the game doesn't make that distinction. A quasi-real illusion might be conjuration, because it is a temporary summon, or it could be enchantment because it is so powerful. And now that you are bringing up Fate manipulation, if someone wanted "Fey Magic" the "appropriate School" is now four different schools. Which is just confusing.

There are stories where something breaks because of being struck "just right". Whence luck. The imagery reminds me of cutting diamonds.

But again, is this the way that the person looking for the spell is imagining their spell working? It certainly isn't how I envision enchanting a sword to cut better.

Organizing schools in a helpful and consistent way, matters.

Solid and salient organization helps in every aspect of D&D, just like in reallife.


Most spells are unambiguous and inflexible and belong to an obvious school.

Some spells are complex with moving parts that belong to more than one school.

Some schools depend on organizational decisions. For example, I intentionally make Divination include both precognition and teleportation. Conceptually they are inseparable because seeing remotely, being remotely present, and manifesting there via teleportation are related in principle. For example, one sends ones mind there, then once there, pulls the rest of body there. But the main reason for insisting on the link is for the purpose of the game: precognition is too passive (and boring), and teleportation is too much of a one-trick-pony (and boring). But together, they form a remarkably rich, powerful, diverse, and interesting spell list.

Transmutation combining the themes of Earth, Plant, and Beast, is arbitrary. But it can make sense, such as when creating objects from any or all of these. But the main reason for all three is, D&D has always done Transmutation this way, and this trio is one of the few things that is consistent about the Transmutation school.


The spell categories that I describe come from the bottom up.

I look at every spell that officially exists in D&D, especially 5e, but also earlier editions.

Every single spell that exists, fits well enough in one of these schools with these specific definitions.


The gist of these schools are solid, stable, and fun. I have been using them in my games for some years now. I continue to tinker with the school descriptions and the placement of a few specific spells. It proves useful.

It proves useful TO YOU with your SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING. That's what I'm trying to get across to you. To me many of the decisions are odd and atonal. Because they don't fit the understanding of magic that is typical in the sources I read and understand.