D&D General what is the difference between enchantment magic and illusion magic?

[Mind of tempest]

If you want to use this analogy, fine.

Iron and steel are two different substances and are useful in different ways. Iron needs to be smelted to melt it into a workable form and to remove impurities. Steel needs to be smelted and then refined to reach the proper balance. Iron weapons are work-hardened (cold hammered on an anvil); steel weapons are quench-hardened (rapid cooling through quenching). Two different methods used to make two different things, both for killing.

Iron is cheaper because it is a base metal. But it is prone to being bent or nicked. An iron sword is pretty weak. But a spear with an iron tip is the basic building block of a phalanx. Steel is an alloy. It is harder and (generally) less brittle, meaning it will be make a more durable sword. But it is more expensive and harder to find because it needs refining to get the proper balance.

So if you are outfitting an infantry, you may give them spears with iron tips as you need a lot of spears and an infantryman's lifespan is pretty short. Similarly, your archers' arrows are probably going to have iron arrowheads because you're flinging a lot of them into the air and you just need to puncture, not slice.

But if you're a knight or a cavalier, you may go with steel. It's more expensive but you need a metal that won't be bent and will keep an edge. And, as a trained soldier, you are worth the expenditure

Both are metal. Both are used for weapons. But both have their uses.

but both are made by blacksmiths I am suggesting the two type are simply different areas of the same school of arcane magic.

 

[embee]

but both are made by blacksmiths I am suggesting the two type are simply different areas of the same school of arcane magic.

Following the analogy, it's like saying that a blacksmith, a weaponsmith, and an armorer are all the same profession because they all work with metals. In this analogy, a weaponsmith would be an illusionist and an armorer would be an enchanter. Both outfit you for war but the former provides you with a weapon and the latter your armor. The techniques for smithing and honing a sword are different from those for bending and shaping armor.

As has been stated, an illusionist is altering what you perceive. An enchanter is altering how you behave. An illusionist can make himself look like a bugbear to fool a goblin. An enchanter can make the goblin think that they are allies.

 

[jgsugden]

Transmutation changes things.
Necromancy deals with the life force.
Evocation blasts energy.
Illusion fools the senses.
Enchantment alters the mind.
Conjuration makes things.
Abjuration protects.
Divination predicts things.

Those (along with the now defunct 'ALL') schools of magic are sacred cows of D&D, and there is no real reason to change - because any categorization that tries to break down all spells in D&D into just 8 different buckets is going to have massive failures and inconsistencies. It is like trying to tell us the 8 (and only 8) different types of people.

If a RAW spell does not fit into a school you think it belongs within, make a second copy of it that exists in the school you think that it belongs within. I think D&D is best when roughly half of the spells that are used are not from the books, but are homebrew. That preserves the feeling of magic (as opposed to the feeling of a video game where you select from menus).

 

[steeldragons]

Bottom line is, you can define and divide up "kinds of Magic" however you see fit, what makes the most sense to you, or your setting/game... or, as illustrated by others here, makes the least sense, for that matter, if that produces the most fun and flavor for your group.

As I recall, Dragonlance had all mages tied to their alignment and corresponding "deity of magic/moon of a certain color." This affiliation, by the setting/playable material, dictated what types of magic you could learn/use. Like "Red [Neutral] Mages" were the only ones who could learn illusion spells, I think (s'been a long time since I looked at them). "White [Good] Mages" were the only ones who could learn abjurations, and so forth.

[sparked by the current Alignment conversation happening elsewhere] One could make a world in which all magic is simply divided up into Light or Darkness....and then it's up to the individual wizard to determine how far into one power source or the other they are comfortable or willing to delve.

My understanding of Magic:TG, admittedly limited, associates the different kinds of spell-users by thematic colors. "Blue" is mind magic, I think[?] I've read. "Green" magic controls plants/nature. Am I close? Some people seem to like that.

Elementalists have been around forever and since Avatar:TLA, I am certain setting after setting have made their magic all focused around the four cardinal elements. Plenty more worlds go for the classic Asian elements, and make it six or seven: plant and metal as separate from "earth," right?

I have an OSR clone (not sure which one off the top of my head, maybe [edit, I looked through my stuff]Fantastic Swords & Wizardry? Fantastic Heroes & Witchery[/edit]) that breaks all magic down into "White/Grey/[and of course]Black" Magic. Magic in this game/worlds of this system have your type of magic based in "Intention" moreso than alignment. Are you lookign for a spell that "does good/benefits" people or "harms/disrupts/furthers evil." Most "schools/descriptors" of different spells fit into one, two, or all three if these "categories" of magic. Your class dictates which type of magic. The basic "arcane magic-user/wizard/mage" class has access to all three, I believe.

You could make a world where the sorcery existed in the world before people...created by a set of Primordial Animals. You could break this down by "allowed schools" or by spell slot level, or by theme of the animal or whatever else you wanted. Your power in the world is determined by how many different animal totems you find/learn. If you know Lion, but never learned Dragon, then you can't cast fireball. All mages wander the world seeking out masters of various types and/or looking to accumulate the proper animal glyphs to pile up their power. You don't have "Illusoinists" and "Evokers" and "Necromancers" you have Bear wizards and Bat wizards and Griffon wizards.

An Elementalist "Fire mage" can hypnotise someone with their scintillating dancing colored flames and tell them what to do. The "Green mage" [druid] conjures and combines fragrances and spores to cloud the target's mind. The "Psychic" Enchantress just flat out telepathically suspends judgement and tweaks emotions to be agreeable.

All/any of them have "Charm Person" on their spell list. Charm Person is still an "enchantment" spell, specifically a "charm" as opposed to a "compulsion." But how the individual magic-worker achieves the same spell effect need not be the same from caster to caster...or even class to like class.

So, yeah....long story, long, the differences are whatever you want/make them to be. The schools have existed through the game. They are just there. A shorthand for categorizing and organizing the endless bevy of spells and magic that have NO boundaries or defined edges...because it's MAGIC. By definition anything is possible.

Did it have to be these eight schools? No, it certainly didn't. But in the roots of magical practices, legends, characters, and myths of the world, and based on the game origins whence this allll is spawned, they make sense...even if all the edges or where "this kind of magic" ends and "that kind of magic" begins are n't always crystalline.

If it is problematic or bothersome for you, take the illusion spells and enchantment spells and make them all one "Mind/Will/Electro-Chemistry of the Brain" Magic for your game world.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Generally the schools of magic being confused and thematically weak don't bother me much, as they really aren't used for anything and can mostly be ignored. What is a problem though is that the wizard subclasses are based on them, which leads most of them being super meh.

 

[DEFCON 1]

true but we might get schools that make internal sense and make game design slightly easier.

Easier for who?

I mean the folks at WotC already have multiple editions with all the spell broken down by school and rarely do they get moved from one school to another. So for them putting their spells is as simple as seeing where they were before and maybe taking 10 seconds of thought if it needed to be changed.

Whereas coming up with an entire new school system would mean hours of them trying to hammer out where things go. And unless there's truly something to be gained by that (and I personally don't see that there is), it's easier to just leave things be.

Now if you personally want to change up the schools for your own personal game, great! Have at it! That's a homebrewing gig that might take some time but could be ultimately satisfying, so I hope it works out for you.