D&D (2024) Playtest 6: Spells

[Kobold Stew]

Another thought, about spell components:

The playtest packs seem to be fudging what the Material component of spellcasting is. In the 2014 PHB, material components, when not assigned a gp value ("if a cost is indicated for a component"), are entirely cosmetic: they can be replaced either with a focus or with a component pouch.

However...

Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley have a material component: "a melee or ranged weapon worth at least 1 cp." Given that a dart costs 5cp, and a club 1 sp, it seems probable that this wording is intended to get around the exception for material components. I'm not sure "a cost is indicated", but it's close enough that a minimum cost is indicated. Nevertheless, it's a bit of a fudge.

This, at least, fixes the mistake in Playtest5, where Memorize Spell and Modify Spell have, as a component, "your spellbook". Now that doesn't have a cost indicated, but it clearly isn't something that could be substituted for a wand, since both spells refer to a spellbook (sometimes "Spellbook", capitalized) in the description.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley have a material component: "a melee or ranged weapon worth at least 1 cp."

That has been a thing for years now, most known for Booming/Greenflame Blades, and it is there purely so you cannot punch with these spells. Or combine them with Shadow Blade...

 

[Dausuul]

I meant if we are at that point than the schools of magic literally don't matter. I can literally make any spell any school if I'm willing to stretch this hard.

The schools of magic should have been scrapped several editions ago. They have never done a good job of covering the full scope of D&D spells. WotC can keep them as the names of the wizard subclasses if that's what it takes to appease Tradition, but I wish they would quit trying to shoehorn every spell into one of the eight.

Healing magic is the poster child for this issue. With this latest update, we have now seen healing magic put in five of the eight schools. It was necromancy in 1E/2E; conjuration in 3E; evocation in 5E; and now 1D&D has put it in both abjuration and enchantment. (And if you count regeneration, add transmutation to the list. All we need now is divination and illusion and we get bingo.)

But while healing is the most egregious case, it's far from the only one. Take planar travel. If you want to move somebody from one plane to another in 5E, what school is that? Before you say "conjuration, duh," I invite you to consider banishment (abjuration), etherealness (transmutation), and astral projection (necromancy).

You could argue that astral projection is different since you're separating your spirit from your body, which does seem like a necromancy thing -- though that argument gets a little wobbly when you enter another plane and the silvery cord yanks your body physically into that plane. But etherealness and banishment are both straight-up physical plane-shifting. Yes, they are time-limited, but so are all the "summon X" spells.

On a related note, creating extradimensional spaces is both transmutation (rope trick) and conjuration (maze, Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion). If there is a qualitative difference between rope trick and the other two, I sure can't see what it is.

I could dig up plenty of other examples. There's an enormous range of spell effects that don't have an obvious home, and have had to be assigned by fiat. On top of that, some schools are much more potent and versatile than others, which is why diviners have always received extra goodies to make up for their school's pathetic spell list.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have wanted all healing spells to be Necromancy for years -- so that "necromancer" is both evil animating of corpses and preserving life. as it is, it's the only school with a presumptive valence (= evil).

I love healing spells for necromancy. It fits beautifully.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I feel like WotC should just bite the bullet and revamp the Schools of Magic and what spells qualify for which school. The problem at the moment is that the descriptions for these schools haven’t really changed after all this time, but many spells have moved around enough to make those old descriptions not really hold up today.

I’m sure people will not be happy with this those.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I love healing spells for necromancy. It fits beautifully.

I am on the opposite side of the spectrum. I like the Abjuration change to consolidate the healing into the general "protect and sustain life" paradigm. It is a solid theme to build character concepts on without requiring "nasty" necromantic energy. It also broadens the spell list for Abjuration magic which has been painfully lacking.

Not everything needs to be shades of grey that prevent you from being able to make some snap decisions. If healing was also necromancy, if a Detect Magic spell reveals that a fountain is giving off necromantic magic, the PC will be stuck thinking "It could be healing or it could be death," and be no closer to making a useful decision. That has pissed me off in older editions when a DM has made that ruling (I also didn't like when healing was conjuration.)

Necromancy is not "white magic". Necromancy should not have a positive connotation, and it muddies things up to push for it to be so. If a PC wants to play with Necromantic magic, they are going to be a lil edgy to do so, though not necessarily evil (the same way a warlock can have a pact with a fiend and not be evil.)

Enchantment also has a negative connotation with me, as it commonly removes free will. You can use it and not be "evil", but you're flirting with dangerous themes.

 

[Yaarel]

I am on the opposite side of the spectrum. I like the Abjuration change to consolidate the healing into the general "protect and sustain life" paradigm. It is a solid theme to build character concepts on without requiring "nasty" necromantic energy. It also broadens the spell list for Abjuration magic which has been painfully lacking.

Not everything needs to be shades of grey that prevent you from being able to make some snap decisions. If healing was also necromancy, if a Detect Magic spell reveals that a fountain is giving off necromantic magic, the PC will be stuck thinking "It could be healing or it could be death," and be no closer to making a useful decision. That has pissed me off in older editions when a DM has made that ruling (I also didn't like when healing was conjuration.)

Necromancy is not "white magic". Necromancy should not have a positive connotation, and it muddies things up to push for it to be so. If a PC wants to play with Necromantic magic, they are going to be a lil edgy to do so, though not necessarily evil (the same way a warlock can have a pact with a fiend and not be evil.)

Enchantment also has a negative connotation with me, as it commonly removes free will. You can use it and not be "evil", but you're flirting with dangerous themes.

I feel Abjuration should be a tag, rather than a school. For example, healing spells are a kind of shapeshift magic, to knit wounds, form a whole body, and so on, probably the Transmutation school. But, its purpose is protective (including healing, restoration, defense, warding, and the like), so does well to have the Abjuration tag.

 

[Yaarel]

For me, Necromancy is danderous magic relating to death, undead, fiend, and aberration. I think of the "Necromicon" and medieval "necromancers" with their devilish magic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am on the opposite side of the spectrum. I like the Abjuration change to consolidate the healing into the general "protect and sustain life" paradigm. It is a solid theme to build character concepts on without requiring "nasty" necromantic energy. It also broadens the spell list for Abjuration magic which has been painfully lacking.

I don't mind it being abjuration. That works too.

Not everything needs to be shades of grey that prevent you from being able to make some snap decisions. If healing was also necromancy, if a Detect Magic spell reveals that a fountain is giving off necromantic magic, the PC will be stuck thinking "It could be healing or it could be death," and be no closer to making a useful decision. That has pissed me off in older editions when a DM has made that ruling (I also didn't like when healing was conjuration.)

Necromancy is not "white magic". Necromancy should not have a positive connotation, and it muddies things up to push for it to be so. If a PC wants to play with Necromantic magic, they are going to be a lil edgy to do so, though not necessarily evil (the same way a warlock can have a pact with a fiend and not be evil.)

I disagree. This could be in part because of the media I've consumed, where Necromancy as "control over bones" or "soul magic" has led to it being used in many positive, healing contexts. I don't like this idea that necromancy almost exclusively should have no positive connotations. Divination can be used for stalking, evocation for murder, conjuration for summoning fiends, Transmutation for human experimentation, ect.

Raising the Dead via clerical magic is... just straight necromancy. The difference is the soul, and if necromancy is soul magic then that SHOULD have positive uses, even if it is an incredibly risky and dangerous thing to mess with.

Enchantment also has a negative connotation with me, as it commonly removes free will. You can use it and not be "evil", but you're flirting with dangerous themes.

I agree here. I generally view enchantment in a negative light.... but it is mind magic, and that can also be used for things like communication and stepping into someone's mind to heal their broken psyche. Again, dangerous territory, proceed with caution, but I'm fine with it being "grey" as a tool. People studying virology and genetically altering viruses are playing with dangerous things that could wipe out humanity... but there is also good in what they do, because the most dangerous tools are sometimes the most vital to master.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For me, Necromancy is danderous magic relating to death, undead, fiend, and aberration. I think of the "Necromicon" and medieval "necromancers" with their devilish magic.

I disagree. For me it is the magic of life and death, the soul and how to affect it. Dangerous if misused, but if used responsibly, powerful.

And I've often been an advocate that the creation of undead does not necessarily have to be evil.