D&D General Which school of magic is responsible for things such as Weapon & Armor enhancements and Magic Items?

[Yaarel]

do we make a thread on what a better idea for magic would be?

Two systems that already work better for me are Cleric domains, which are all consistently themes, and Psionic disciplines, that are all consistently means. They might some tweaking, but are generally pretty good.

If the spell lists simply added the domains and disciplines as tags, in addition to the school tag, I would just use those instead of schools, including for my Wizard characters.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeeeeah, 'cept no.

Yeaaaah, 'cept your opinion ain't fact.

The issue is with you representing your opinion as "irrefutable" when in fact it's easily refutable, because the facts refute it.

For starters, Enchant an Item, in the 1e PHB, is a Conjuration spell...actually, in print, as "Conjuration/Summoning." Permanency (as makes complete sense) is listed as "Alteration." Which, I am sure a scholar of your caliber is aware, in 2e the school was made "Alteration/Transmutation," as most (if not everything but Necro, I think) was "double" named: "Illusion/Phantasm," "Conjuration/Summoning", and so on.

But thanks for asserting the misinformation with such sureity.

Sure. Misremembered, but hey, I'll give you that one spell is transmutation in one edition. Enchant an item in 2e, though, was enchantment/invocation, not transmutation.

I am not suggesting what that 5e, or any other edition, SAYS this is what it is. But Transmutation, not Enchantment (regardless of the "Name/Title" of the spell), is the magic which changes things. Not just literal "form/shapechanging." The magic to make "something" into "something else" is Transmutation, whether that is "visible" or "physical" is not really relevant...though, clearly, those types of spells are obviously transmutation as well.

I get it, and it makes sense. It's just not irrefutable.

1e: Enchant an Item: Conjuration/Summoning.
2e: Enchant an Item: Enchantment/Invocation
3e: Enchant an Item not required, nor is alteration unless the item alters things.
4e: Unknown
5e: Alteration not required.

My point was, the generally vague "rules/rulings/suggestions" for "enchanting items," is like the structure of a computer program. You can have circles within circles, within four dimensional shapes... abjuration runes traced inside an illusion triangle wrapped in a transmutation square. When you "close" that program and "run" it (in a neverending repeating loop, i.e. Permanency), you have a cloak of invisibility.

Yeah, and I thought it was a cool idea. Again, it was only the declaration of irrefutability that I had an issue with. While it's a cool idea and it makes sense, it's not fact or irrefutable.

 

[Sithlord]

Yeaaaah, 'cept your opinion ain't fact.

The issue is with you representing your opinion as "irrefutable" when in fact it's easily refutable, because the facts refute it.

Sure. Misremembered, but hey, I'll give you that one spell is transmutation in one edition. Enchant an item in 2e, though, was enchantment/invocation, not transmutation.

I get it, and it makes sense. It's just not irrefutable.

1e: Enchant an Item: Conjuration/Summoning.
2e: Enchant an Item: Enchantment/Invocation
3e: Enchant an Item not required, nor is alteration unless the item alters things.
4e: Unknown
5e: Alteration not required.

Yeah, and I thought it was a cool idea. Again, it was only the declaration of irrefutability that I had an issue with. While it's a cool idea and it makes sense, it's not fact or irrefutable.

Now. How many different methods of initiative had their been since the games inception?

 

[Maxperson]

Now. How many different methods of initiative had their been since the games inception?

None that were alteration.

 

[Sithlord]

None that were alteration.

Haste spell modified initiative. It was alteration. Does that count

 

[Maxperson]

Haste spell modified initiative. It was alteration. Does that count

I'll give you half a point.

 

[Leatherhead]

I'm going to get all "actually" on you all.

The correct answer is: None of them.

Schools of magic are for casting spells. Creating a permanent +1 Sword doesn't actually require you to cast a spell.

This was also true in previous editions. While some specific items did require you to know and cast some spells, as a base rule, the magic item crafting system is accounted for by other subsystems, like feats, or residuum, or even just pure DM fiat. Heck, in 5e, you don't even have to be a spellcaster to make magic items, you could be an otherwise mundane blacksmith who just happened to get some fine materials and work them into a magical blade.

 

[Umbran]

Enchantment is needed to make the items...

Not by the Xanathar's Guide to Everything rules for crafting magic items, it isn't. No spells are required - you need time, money, the formula for the item, the materials, and either the Arcana skill or proficiency in the relevant tool to create a non-magical version of the item.

The result may still sit in a school of magic, but the process of creation does not require any magic at all.

 

[Maxperson]

Not by the Xanathar's Guide to Everything rules for crafting magic items, it isn't. No spells are required - you need time, money, the formula for the item, the materials, and either the Arcana skill or proficiency in the relevant tool to create a non-magical version of the item.

The result may still sit in a school of magic, but the process of creation does not require any magic at all.

While it's vague about the formula, I'd bet that magic would be involved somewhere in it, and the ingredient examples also seem exotically magical in nature. Crafting a magical item completely from non-magical components seem pretty nonsensical to me and I doubt there are many DMs that would run it that way.

 

[Orsapod]

How to "Enchant" an Item

<Transmutation1: Open: Gonna make this sword a magic weapon>

<Abjuration: Open: Hold and protect the following alterations applied to this weapon>​

<Transmutation2>This blade will now be sharper than mundanely possible; +2 to hit </transmutation2>​

<Evocation>Generate Light on this blade​

<Enchantment>when it is willed in the attuned possessor's hand</enchantment>​

<Enchantment><Divination: Autotrigger><Necromancy: Autotrigger>when within 50' of an undead creature</necromancy></divination></enchantment2>​

</evocation>​

<Evocation><Necromancy>Generate Radiant energy; 2d6 added damage to undead</necromancy></evocation>​

</Abjuration: Seal the protective insulation for alterations applied to this weapon>​

</Transmutation1: Seal the alterations to the weapon>

So, yeah, Transmutation is, irrefutably, responsible for applying and sticking magic on an item.

What magics are actually then stuck with/in the "programming" of the Transmutative processes and incantations is dependent on what the item does/is supposed to do.

Nice description pattern of magic item creation. Easily adapted to fit most cases in my world. Thanks.