PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Moving cure/inflct spells from Conjuration to...where? Sound off!



Rogue Shadows
2011-07-24, 02:39 AM
Conjuration: Spells that bring creatures or material to the caster.

Why are the cure and inflict spells conjurations?!

This is a problem that's been bugging a lot of people, not just me. In 2nd Edition, the cure and inflict spells (or at least their 2nd Edition equivalents) were in Necromancy, on the idea that Necromancy represents spells dealing with life, death, and the dead. Flavorfully, this makes sense.

Cure and inflict spells deal with positive and negative energy. Evocation spells manipulate energy. Mechanically, it would make sense for them to be moved into Evocation.

That's my take, anyway. As part of a big bad fix I'm working on for the entire 3.5 system, spells are being shuffled around. Some of them seem pretty clear to me - moving cause fear from Necromancy to Enchantment, for example - but right now, I'm stuck on which to do: move cure/inflict back to Necromancy, or move cure/inflict over to Evocation.

They are leaving Conjuration, that much is decided. But I'd like to hear what the Playground thinks of the idea.

So...sound off!

Togath
2011-07-24, 02:48 AM
Changing cure/inflict over to transmutation could be good, since transmutation deals with changing the physical nature of something it seems like opening/closing wounds would work well for it, that or necromancy for the manipulation of live/death

Hiro Protagonest
2011-07-24, 02:54 AM
Necromancy would seem contradictory in some cases, since it's associated with undead and some gods hate undead. I think either evocation for the energy thing, or transmutation for the physical nature of healing/inflicting wounds.

Domriso
2011-07-24, 03:30 AM
While I can understand the nature of gods disliking undead, I still think it works best in Necromancy. Evocation is a definite second, though, because of the the control of energy and the like. I think that the reasoning behind putting it in Conjuration (Healing) was specifically for the reason of some gods disliking the whole idea of necromancy. However, you also need to think about the results of putting it in Evocation. Would some gods frown on that, since it (potentially) deals with negative energy?

Transmutation I say boo to, mostly because, while the spells technically alter a substance, they do so by flooding the body with energies that naturally heal or harm.

Silva Stormrage
2011-07-24, 03:36 AM
Ya I second necromancy as well. Despite 3.5's rather... odd decision to have necromancy be a mostly "evil" school of magic it still fits better there. I the deities that hate undead probably don't hate the repose domain which is also necromancy so I am not quite sure about limiting it because of that.

Kuma Kode
2011-07-24, 03:42 AM
Necromancy would seem contradictory in some cases, since it's associated with undead and some gods hate undead. I think either evocation for the energy thing, or transmutation for the physical nature of healing/inflicting wounds.

Necromancy is merely "the manipulation of life force," not "UNDEAD OMFG." Originally resurrection and reincarnate were both Necromancy, but as 3E went on they started pushing NECROMANCY IS EVULZ more and more. Depending on how your DM likes his necromancy, it may or may not fall well into that school.

Rogue Shadows
2011-07-24, 03:53 AM
Necromancy is merely "the manipulation of life force," not "UNDEAD OMFG." Originally resurrection and reincarnate were both Necromancy, but as 3E went on they started pushing NECROMANCY IS EVULZ more and more. Depending on how your DM likes his necromancy, it may or may not fall well into that school.

Please note that when I say cure/inflict, it will probably also include any like spells. Heal and harm, of course. Probably the ressurection-type spells, as well, though maybe not Reincarnate (dunno what that would be).

As for Necromancy being evil...I think that it lends itself to evil easier than, say, Abjuration or Divination. But I don't think it's at all evil in and of itself.

Who's more evil...the conjurer who summons creatures and makes them fight against their will or the enchanter who manipulates the very minds of his targets; or the necromancer who uses a mindless dead body that no one's using anyway?

Shpadoinkle
2011-07-24, 04:02 AM
Please note that when I say cure/inflict, it will probably also include any like spells. Heal and harm, of course. Probably the ressurection-type spells, as well, though maybe not Reincarnate (dunno what that would be).

Necromancy involves manipulating life and death. I find it difficult to think of a more iconic example of that than bringing a dead person completely back to life (not as a zombie- as they were before dying.)

Raise Dead and the like being anything other than Necromancy makes no sense to me.

Pennance
2011-07-24, 02:56 PM
Granting them the benefit of the doubt, I'd assume that the Conjuration classification is because Cure is via Positive Energy, Inflict is via Negative Energy, and both are being drawn from their planes.

The counterargument would obviously be that Evocation spells are flavored as drawing fire from the relevant plane for your Fireball, and Necromancy is nothing if not negative energy, but there you go.

Transmutation takes out the holy aspect of healing, and, while logical and practical, would require some other changes down the line, such as making all shape-changing spells of Transmutation (polymorph, etc) be full-heals in addition to their normal effects, unless the caster was able to make a Spellcraft check high enough to maintain the wounds between stages?

While I can certainly see it's placement in Conjuration as odd, I don't really think there's an easy way to drop it into another school. While Evocation would make sense based on the energy-manipulation aspect, from a balance perspective, nobody wouldn't specialize in Evocation if it was the source of healing in addition to a very powerful damage and even somewhat utilitarian school. It would be the most powerful out of hand, and while the others would still see use, in your system, Evocation wouldn't be something people would be willing to sacrifice.

You shouldn't decide it needs to be in a different school, so much as you should look to see if, between flavor and balance, it fits smoothly into another school in such a way that the switch is worthwhile.

My thoughts.

deuxhero
2011-07-24, 03:00 PM
Due to the spells not being on the Wizard spell list and not allowing saving throws (no Spell Focus bonuses), is there any mechanic effect on the school?

Yitzi
2011-07-24, 03:02 PM
Inflict is already necromancy, not conjuration.

That said, if not conjuration/necromancy I'd agree the next bet would probably be evocation, since it is using positive/negative energy. Of course, if you move inflict to evocation, then other negative energy spells such as Chill Touch and enervation/energy drain should be moved there too.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-07-24, 03:04 PM
Technically, only Cure spells are in Conjuration. Inflict are already in Necromancy (:smallsigh:).

I just shove them all in Necromancy. It deals with life and death (or is supposed to, and would do so if death were not so heavily emphasised), and positive and negative energy are the basic forms of each, respectively.

Swordsaged, apparently.

Kobold-Bard
2011-07-24, 03:06 PM
Move Cure/Inflict to Evocation, since they're essentially just shooting someone full of energy from an inner plane, no different to a Fireball spell.

All other Conjuration [Healing] spell (excepting other evocation appropriate ones) should go to Necromancy, since they deal with manipulating life-force.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-07-24, 03:32 PM
In second edition cure spell were infact necromacncy.

Rogue Shadows
2011-07-24, 09:39 PM
While I can certainly see it's placement in Conjuration as odd, I don't really think there's an easy way to drop it into another school. While Evocation would make sense based on the energy-manipulation aspect, from a balance perspective, nobody wouldn't specialize in Evocation if it was the source of healing in addition to a very powerful damage and even somewhat utilitarian school. It would be the most powerful out of hand, and while the others would still see use, in your system, Evocation wouldn't be something people would be willing to sacrifice.

This would be a valid point, if not for a small flaw: Evocation is generally considered to be one of the weakest schools of magic, especially compared to the juggernauts that are Conjuration and Transmutation. A couple-three Illusion spells can duplicate virtually the entire school!

Marginally weakening Conjuration by removing the cure spells and strengthening Evocation by placing them there, does not seem like a bad idea.


Due to the spells not being on the Wizard spell list and not allowing saving throws (no Spell Focus bonuses), is there any mechanic effect on the school?

Also, there's this.

Welknair
2011-07-24, 10:53 PM
While I can understand the nature of gods disliking undead, I still think it works best in Necromancy. Evocation is a definite second, though, because of the the control of energy and the like. I think that the reasoning behind putting it in Conjuration (Healing) was specifically for the reason of some gods disliking the whole idea of necromancy. However, you also need to think about the results of putting it in Evocation. Would some gods frown on that, since it (potentially) deals with negative energy?

Transmutation I say boo to, mostly because, while the spells technically alter a substance, they do so by flooding the body with energies that naturally heal or harm.

+1

Necromancy deals with life and death. Cure and Inflict spells deal with life and death. Hence: Necromancy.

The actual Cure and Inflict spells could arguably be Evocation. Fireballs are drawn from the Elemental Plane of Fire, Cure spells are drawn from the Positive Energy Plane. The other healing spells would be Necromancy though.

Yitzi
2011-07-24, 11:01 PM
Due to the spells not being on the Wizard spell list and not allowing saving throws (no Spell Focus bonuses), is there any mechanic effect on the school?

Yes:
-They do allow saving throws (Inflict normally has Will half, Cure has the same when used on undead).
-A specialist wizard gets a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks involving his school and a -5 penalty on checks involving his prohibited schools. Some uses of Spellcraft, such as identifying a spell, are relevant even to spells not on your own spell list.
-Arcane Sight can show the school involved in a spell.
-Wish/Limited Wish have more severe limits when duplicating an effect from a prohibited school, and this applies even when a spell from another class list entirely is being duplicated.

DeAnno
2011-07-24, 11:06 PM
Generally, Conjuration spells dealing with energy are SR: No, since they conjure real energy and donk someone over the head with it. Since all positive energy spells (even including the Raise Dead branch!) are SR: Yes, it makes sense to stick them in Evocation with the other SR: Yes energy spells.

Negative energy is also all SR: Yes, but grouping it on its own in Necromancy seems cool to me.

ForzaFiori
2011-07-24, 11:40 PM
I have to reiterate the Necromancy thing. If someone can master death (like the stereotypical "necromancer"), wouldn't that mean that they can delay it (cure spells) as well as bring it (inflict), not to mention give (resurrection) and remove it (death effects)?

Pennance
2011-07-25, 08:52 PM
I've never really considered Necromancy as dealing with both life and death. I do agree that it is without an inherent moral axis, as are the other spell schools. Nothing that I've seen in necromancy would indicate a propensity for life. The closest I can imagine is the Necrotic Cyst tree of spells, and those ones are still just killing flesh and then animating it. With Negative energy.

Nothing in D&D suggest that you can make something like a Negative energy Vacuum or in any other way pull so much out that it works like an area of Positive energy. If you do add it to Necromancy (since this is ultimately your system and at your discretion) then I suppose it could be a fairly simple fix to re-flavor the school and create a mirrored progression. One for the more typical Negative energy/Undead/Inflict route, one for Positive/Deathless/Cure spells?

As an aside, Evocation doesn't seem all that weak to me. I know that when I'm building a necromancer I drop Evocation since Necromancy is capable of killing without any real difficulty, and yes, those Illusion spells throw things for a loop, balance-wise. I'd rate it second, if only because Conjuration is sometimes absurdly powerful. As I said above, it's your choice in the end. Whatever you pick, it sounds like you're going to end up with a very interesting game!

Gamer Girl
2011-07-25, 09:19 PM
I have to reiterate the Necromancy thing. If someone can master death (like the stereotypical "necromancer"), wouldn't that mean that they can delay it (cure spells) as well as bring it (inflict), not to mention give (resurrection) and remove it (death effects)?

I've always had the Cure spells as necromancy in my games. As well the other healing spells and any spell that uses positive or negative energy.


I never liked the 3E idea that necromancy was only evil. I too think a necromancer should be able to destroy undead, by using positive energy necromancy spells, for example.

I still use the 2E idea that Necromancy comes in three types: White, Gray and Black. White is healing and such, Black is soul trapping or destruction and Gray is stuff 'in the middle' like fear or clone.

Rogue Shadows
2011-07-25, 09:41 PM
I think Necromancy gets a bad rap based on its name alone. Removing D&D from the table for a second, when people think Necromancer, they don't usually think of healing; they think of skeleton armies and ghosts and that guy from the original version of Aladdin.

Maybe if it was called Vitamancy or something, I dunno.

(Note that I am not, personally, going to change the school's name. Necromancy is Necromancy. I just think that if it had a different name it would have a better reputation, and so a more balanced version of it would exist).

Welknair
2011-07-25, 09:50 PM
I think Necromancy gets a bad rap based on its name alone. Removing D&D from the table for a second, when people think Necromancer, they don't usually think of healing; they think of skeleton armies and ghosts and that guy from the original version of Aladdin.

Maybe if it was called Vitamancy or something, I dunno.

(Note that I am not, personally, going to change the school's name. Necromancy is Necromancy. I just think that if it had a different name it would have a better reputation, and so a more balanced version of it would exist).

Well first you need to understand the origin of the name itself. IIRC the "-mancy" suffix means something akin to "One who speaks to/with". So a Necromancer speaks with the dead. And as any politician knows, what you can speak with you can control. So you can use various roots (Hydro, Pyro, Chrono, etc.) and have it make a decent amount of sense. You're speaking to water, fire, time etc. Vitamancy... You're talking to people's vitality? Can you... do that? I don't think it's tangible enough to be a mancy.

And really, I don't think the name makes any sort of difference. Sure, Necromancy has a bad rap. But that doesn't mean we need to rename it. Surely we, and your players, are open-minded enough to realize that not all Necromancy is evil. It's reputation doesn't matter. What matters is what we do with it.

Rogue Shadows
2011-07-25, 10:04 PM
Well first you need to understand the origin of the name itself. IIRC the "-mancy" suffix means something akin to "One who speaks to/with". So a Necromancer speaks with the dead. And as any politician knows, what you can speak with you can control. So you can use various roots (Hydro, Pyro, Chrono, etc.) and have it make a decent amount of sense. You're speaking to water, fire, time etc. Vitamancy... You're talking to people's vitality? Can you... do that? I don't think it's tangible enough to be a mancy.

"vita" just meaning "life" in this case. Though I think it's Latin, not Greek, so it wouldn't make sense anyway...

Welknair
2011-07-25, 10:08 PM
"vita" just meaning "life" in this case. Though I think it's Latin, not Greek, so it wouldn't make sense anyway...

That's what I was getting at. Your "Life" isn't really something that you can talk to. Well, less so than talking to water. Or time.

Kuma Kode
2011-07-25, 10:13 PM
You're speaking to water, fire, time etc. Vitamancy... You're talking to people's vitality? Can you... do that? I don't think it's tangible enough to be a mancy. Time, however, is totally tangible. Far more than other, non-material things, like life force, which is a demonstrable force in fantasy.

/scarcasm

Welknair
2011-07-25, 10:17 PM
Time, however, is totally tangible. Far more than other, non-material things, like life force, which is a demonstrable force in fantasy.

/scarcasm

Uh.. Yeah. But we can at least firmly define and measure time. Well, not really. But still.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-07-25, 10:21 PM
Uh.. Yeah. But we can at least firmly define and measure time. Well, not really. But still.

Time is an illusion. After all, Time Stop is using magic to speed up your perception. Time doesn't change, but you now see it differently. Same with the haste and slow spells.

And now I want to make a chronomancer.

Ziegander
2011-07-25, 10:31 PM
I must throw my hat into the arena and agree with the many people suggesting to move Cure spells into Necromancy.

Welknair
2011-07-25, 10:35 PM
And now I want to make a chronomancer.

Time to homebrew a Wizard PrC?