Which spell school should (Healing) spells be in?
- Thread starter sukael
- Start date
Corlon
First Post
Well, I guess I'll go through process of elimination:
Divination...I don't think that even warrants explanation.
Abjuration: it's not really protecting you as much as curing you so I don't think it'd be abjuration.
Illusion: Well, it's not an illusion, it's pretty real.
Enchantment: This generally has to do with the mind and such, not the physical body, so I'd say that's out.
Evocation: Granted, you could be evoking new skin into existence, but evocation generally deals with energies that come and go, so healing wouldn't fit there.
These are the one I think are pretty blatantly out...
Now for the other three: Transmutation, Conjuration, and Necromancy
Conjuration: you could be conjuring new skin/blood/muscle/etc. into existence on their body, and thereby healing them, but conjuration generally doesn't affect a creature, and generally conjures a whole new creature or body into existence. I'd say the other two are a bit more warranted.
Necromancy: This school generally deals with life force, so if it can be negative in dealing with life force, why shouldn't it be able to be positive as well?
Transmutation: This generally involves altering creatures and objects, therefore it would be a good qualifier for morphing the body back into its original form.
Eventually I chose transmutation, but I think Necromancy and Transmutation are pretty close together.
Divination...I don't think that even warrants explanation.
Abjuration: it's not really protecting you as much as curing you so I don't think it'd be abjuration.
Illusion: Well, it's not an illusion, it's pretty real.
Enchantment: This generally has to do with the mind and such, not the physical body, so I'd say that's out.
Evocation: Granted, you could be evoking new skin into existence, but evocation generally deals with energies that come and go, so healing wouldn't fit there.
These are the one I think are pretty blatantly out...
Now for the other three: Transmutation, Conjuration, and Necromancy
Conjuration: you could be conjuring new skin/blood/muscle/etc. into existence on their body, and thereby healing them, but conjuration generally doesn't affect a creature, and generally conjures a whole new creature or body into existence. I'd say the other two are a bit more warranted.
Necromancy: This school generally deals with life force, so if it can be negative in dealing with life force, why shouldn't it be able to be positive as well?
Transmutation: This generally involves altering creatures and objects, therefore it would be a good qualifier for morphing the body back into its original form.
Eventually I chose transmutation, but I think Necromancy and Transmutation are pretty close together.
Well, according to the d&d rules... which is easily house ruled, its only the wizard and sorcerer that uses school, and its pointed out on several pages, that it would be imbalanced if they could heal too, anyway,
If you really want them within a school, make a new one.... with a 'healing' name of some kind
If you really want them within a school, make a new one.... with a 'healing' name of some kind
John Q. Mayhem
Explorer
Schools are also important for Spell Focus.
HellHound
ENnies winner and NOT Scrappy Doo
I like them as Conjuration instead of Necromancy.
In third edition, ALL forms of energy can be tapped by conjuration... all but one. tapping into the inner planes seems to be all find and dandy for these magics, but they just can't tap into the negative energy plane - must be very dangerous and creepy - which is where necromancy comes in.
I've heard a lot of arguments in favor of bringing healng back to necromancy, but I like the new feel of necromancy as the one magic that can tap the negative energy plane, and no other.
In third edition, ALL forms of energy can be tapped by conjuration... all but one. tapping into the inner planes seems to be all find and dandy for these magics, but they just can't tap into the negative energy plane - must be very dangerous and creepy - which is where necromancy comes in.
I've heard a lot of arguments in favor of bringing healng back to necromancy, but I like the new feel of necromancy as the one magic that can tap the negative energy plane, and no other.
DreamChaser
Explorer
The problem with this question is that some of the schools describe effects (illusion) and some describe method (conjuration). Then there is necromancy which in 3.x is anything that it is mean or evil to use or anything relating to death (I suppose that is sort of effect).
By the wording of the description, Necromancy seems like it (manipulating life force).
The current idea is the you are channeling (conjuring) positive energy. Of course then inflict spells should also be conjuration.
Every other spell that makes energy from nothing (until the travesties that were the Orb spells) were Evocation (okay, Acid Arrow is an exception but that is because ACID ISN'T ENERGY!!!!! *pant* *pant*) So Evocation seems to make more sense than conjuration.
I go with Necromancy cause it makes the most sense to me.
DC
By the wording of the description, Necromancy seems like it (manipulating life force).
The current idea is the you are channeling (conjuring) positive energy. Of course then inflict spells should also be conjuration.
Every other spell that makes energy from nothing (until the travesties that were the Orb spells) were Evocation (okay, Acid Arrow is an exception but that is because ACID ISN'T ENERGY!!!!! *pant* *pant*) So Evocation seems to make more sense than conjuration.
I go with Necromancy cause it makes the most sense to me.
DC
Sigurd
First Post
I think it belongs in its own school of "healing & positive energies". I'm not averse to some small examples in necromancy, even conjuration but I think magical healing is essentially devine in nature - and the devine powers that be are careful of who they heal.
The game dinamic becomes more important than the physics of magic. Healing is a role not really an abstract force. Only those who commit to the role - and draw their efforts away from other things - can be very good at it. Institutionally, I think its also an appropriate limitation for Necromancy.
It is tempting to allow Necromancy to control all the manipulations of flesh and bone. There is a sound reasoning that they already do so much with dead tissue, living tissue would be easy. This would make Necromancy way too powerful. That would give necromancy the keys to life and death - what game isn't about staying alive? Necromancy needs to concentrate on reanimation to stay scary and fill its niche.
Some spells - Repose, bone setting & basic divination of life force - might overlap. Some healers might be gentle necromancers resisting the temptation of the dark path but most will not trust Necromancy. This is as it should be for game reasons -- there simply are too many dead bodies lying around to animate. It has to stay a horrific thing for reanimation to take the honoured dead and make them cursed slaves.
thats my .02
Necromancy is one of the last great evils left in the game and even it is trespassed upon by raise dead, reincarnation, good undead, and sensitive new age vampires (SNAVS for short). Life deserves its day in the sun and shouldn't share its time with reanimates & ancient liches. Undead must remain horrific or the game becomes less of a great struggle more of squabble in a shopping mall.
Sigurd
Who likes necromancy as an _evil_ concept.
The game dinamic becomes more important than the physics of magic. Healing is a role not really an abstract force. Only those who commit to the role - and draw their efforts away from other things - can be very good at it. Institutionally, I think its also an appropriate limitation for Necromancy.
It is tempting to allow Necromancy to control all the manipulations of flesh and bone. There is a sound reasoning that they already do so much with dead tissue, living tissue would be easy. This would make Necromancy way too powerful. That would give necromancy the keys to life and death - what game isn't about staying alive? Necromancy needs to concentrate on reanimation to stay scary and fill its niche.
Some spells - Repose, bone setting & basic divination of life force - might overlap. Some healers might be gentle necromancers resisting the temptation of the dark path but most will not trust Necromancy. This is as it should be for game reasons -- there simply are too many dead bodies lying around to animate. It has to stay a horrific thing for reanimation to take the honoured dead and make them cursed slaves.
thats my .02
Necromancy is one of the last great evils left in the game and even it is trespassed upon by raise dead, reincarnation, good undead, and sensitive new age vampires (SNAVS for short). Life deserves its day in the sun and shouldn't share its time with reanimates & ancient liches. Undead must remain horrific or the game becomes less of a great struggle more of squabble in a shopping mall.
Sigurd
Who likes necromancy as an _evil_ concept.
silvermane
Explorer
What kind of pool is that? Healing spells are from the Conjuration school in 3e, and that's that. They were under Necromancy in 2e. So the real thing you should be debating is why were they transferred at all? As you can see, both positions are justified.
Similar Threads
- Poll
