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

[Lakesidefantasy]

Just trying to make sense out of nonsense. Personally, I prefer nonsense.

I say put more schools of magic in the game. Anything archaic and arcane sounding is cool by me. It builds an air of mystery. Sadly our hobby has done a great deal of damage to the mystery of magic.

It's what I call Mystical Magic versus Modern Magic. Mystical Magic deals in numinous mysteries, whereas Modern Magic operates with numeral predictabilities. It's a game of course so we need some structure, but I don't think we need to know too much about the differences between the schools of magic. Pinning magic to knowable things like the pituitary gland, hormones, and the parasympathetic nervous system is unnecessary; its good enough to speak in terms of humors and spirits. It's cool.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Just trying to make sense out of nonsense. Personally, I prefer nonsense.

I say put more schools of magic in the game. Anything archaic and arcane sounding is cool by me. It builds an air of mystery. Sadly our hobby has done a great deal of damage to the mystery of magic.

It's what I call Mystical Magic versus Modern Magic. Mystical Magic deals in numinous mysteries, whereas Modern Magic operates with numeral predictabilities. It's a game of course so we need some structure, but I don't think we need to know too much about the differences between the schools of magic. Pinning magic to knowable things like the pituitary gland, hormones, and the parasympathetic nervous system is unnecessary; its good enough to speak in terms of humors and spirits. It's cool.

several things your ability to apply medieval-sounding technobabble to make something mildly convincing is great.

perhaps a merger of both magic types with wizards using an early version of the scientific method to try to get to a good understanding of magic that other arcane casters do not necessarily like?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In fact they all deal with using supernatural arts. Why not just merge them all into one school?

That does not help at all... I guess.

My take:
Illusion: fools your senses or mind.
Enchantment: fools your emotions (and stolen from above: your personality or the perception thereof.)

 

[turnip_farmer]

Only Enchantment deceives the "mind".
Illusion deceives the senses. Illusion magic tricks the eyes and ears into giving the mind the wrong info.
Enchantment attempts to replace or shut off part of your "mind"

I always thought that Illusion should have it's own save. Having them both "Will" saving throws felt off. Sorta how Fortitude covered immunity and stability felt off.

If D&D does a 5.5e or 6e, I'm for resisting Illusions being mostly a Wisdom saving throw and resisting Enchantments being mostly a Charisma one.

Illusion spells are normally intelligence saves in 5e, aren't they?

 

[grimslade]

None of the 'Schools of Magic' are very different except for the slight boundaries we conjure for them. I think a reimagining of the D&D magic system would be great. Maybe Level Up will address it in the future, but it is an undertaking with lots of repercussions. You could go with elemental schools or color schemes.

 

[Mind of tempest]

None of the 'Schools of Magic' are very different except for the slight boundaries we conjure for them. I think a reimagining of the D&D magic system would be great. Maybe Level Up will address it in the future, but it is an undertaking with lots of repercussions. You could go with elemental schools or color schemes.

colour is not based on a concept and elemental is five different ways to kill someone with, rock, air or fire.
it would need stronger thematic to do the job properly maybe start with the divide on what the player wants to do with magic in interactions?

 

[grimslade]

colour is not based on a concept and elemental is five different ways to kill someone with, rock, air or fire.
it would need stronger thematic to do the job properly maybe start with the divide on what the player wants to do with magic in interactions?

Yes, they are as arbitrary as the schools. The divide of desire for the outcome is just as arbitrary. Is Cure Light Wounds only a healing spell or does it still damage undead and therefore a specific Harm? Is it intent or outcome that makes the divide? You can slice it up any way you want, in the end, it is a game mechanic of opportunities in a time period. The labeling of schools or intents is going to have cases that bleed over into the different categories because they are not fundamental, they are window dressing.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yes, they are as arbitrary as the schools. The divide of desire for the outcome is just as arbitrary. Is Cure Light Wounds only a healing spell or does it still damage undead and therefore a specific Harm? Is it intent or outcome that makes the divide? You can slice it up any way you want, in the end, it is a game mechanic of opportunities in a time period. The labeling of schools or intents is going to have cases that bleed over into the different categories because they are not fundamental, they are window dressing.

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

 

[jmartkdr2]

In-universe, no one care except for those two specialists, who will go into great detail about how different they are.

The way they are used in 5e is really just the specialists - as far as I know, there is no reason for the player of any non-wizard caster to know the school of their spells. It only interacts with certain wizard features - and even then, only the specialist schools (ie a bladesinger doesn't care either).

Helpfully, this gives us a heuristic for deciding which school a new spell should be in: which specialist wizard school would this fit with thematically?

 

[embee]

look all I am seeing is mess with the head magic and given that no one seems to be able to tell me what will is I presently see very little difference like comparing working iron to working steel.

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.