What is Evocation

[Nagog]

I've been working on making open-ended reworks for all of the Wizard Spell school subclasses (making them more playstyle-focused), and I'm really struggling to figure out what Evocation's actually supposed to be. My friend claims it's drawing elemental energy from the elemental planes, but that sounds like Conjuration to me. I could see it as a raw creation of energies/power, but there are quite a few noticable outliers that frankly feel like they should be elsewhere, such as:

Leomund's Tiny Hut (Abjuration)
Wall of Force (Abjuration)
Olituke's Resilient Sphere (Abjuration)
Contingency (Abjuration)
Vitriolic Sphere (Transmutation)
Sending (Transmutation, like Message)
Telepathy (Transmutation)

But all these are currently listed as Evocation. I'm totally at a loss for what Evocation is supposed to be, it almost feels like a "Miscellaneous" category. Does anybody have any idea what Evocation is intended to be?

[JackPhoenix]

As PHB says: "Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect. Some call up blasts of fire or lightning. Others channel positive energy to heal wounds."

[Nagog]

As PHB says: "Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect. Some call up blasts of fire or lightning. Others channel positive energy to heal wounds."

But how does that explain all the outliers on the spell list? As well as the fact that this definition is incredibly broad, and would encompass a huge percentage of other spell schools spells as well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But how does that explain all the outliers on the spell list? As well as the fact that this definition is incredibly broad, and would encompass a huge percentage of other spell schools spells as well.

Exactly. If you're trying to understand the spell schools...just don't. They're a jumbled mess of ad-hoc assignments and "definitions" that neither define nor constrain. And the exceptions outnumber the rules. It's better to just start fresh.

[JackPhoenix]

But how does that explain all the outliers on the spell list? As well as the fact that this definition is incredibly broad, and would encompass a huge percentage of other spell schools spells as well.

WotC's incompetence and legacy rules. And some spells would have reasons to fall into multiple groups, but they had to pick just one. Wall of Stone's evocation, for Gygax's sake! All of wall spells are, in fact, except Prismatic Wall, which is abjuration, and Wall of Thorns, which is conjuration. Don't think about it too hard. Some spells will be changing schools in D&Done, but more as a fix of the stupid 3 spell list system rather than due to anything resembling logical reasoning.

[OldTrees1]

I could see it as a raw creation of energies/power, but there are quite a few noticable outliers that frankly feel like they should be elsewhere, such as:

Leomund's Tiny Hut (Abjuration)
Wall of Force (Abjuration)
Olituke's Resilient Sphere (Abjuration)
Contingency (Abjuration)
Vitriolic Sphere (Transmutation)
Sending (Transmutation, like Message)
Telepathy (Transmutation)

But all these are currently listed as Evocation. I'm totally at a loss for what Evocation is supposed to be, it almost feels like a "Miscellaneous" category. Does anybody have any idea what Evocation is intended to be?

In prior editions Evocation was the creation of energy (which included things like cold, acid, electricity, sonic, and force) and then the manipulation of that created energy.

Leomund's Tiny Hut (Evoke Force)
Wall of Force (Evoke Force)
Olituke's Resilient Sphere (Evoke Force)
Vitriolic Sphere (Evoke Acid)

Sending/Telepathy and Contingency are legacy inclusions. I would have put Sending/Telepathy into Divination since nothing is being transmuted. Contingency is a weird one since you are manipulating the energies of a spell and telling it to pause until trigger. Abjuration fits the outcome and Evocation fits the means.

However then someone had the funny idea of "Well since Conjuration is 'bring here something from elsewhere', well then it could bring just about anything right?" (which interacted weird with the idea of "Well Illusion can pretend to conjure something") Which lead to:

Conjure Evocation (Summon Energy) ala Acid Arrow
Conjure Abjuration (Summon Protection) ala 3E Mage Armor
Conjure Transmutation (Summon Craftmanship) ala Fabricate
Conjure Necromancy (Summon Negative Energy / Summon Undead) ala Summon Undead
* Illusionary Conjuration: Pretend to cast anything from Conjuration, Conjure Evocation, Conjure Abjuration, Conjure Transmutation, or Conjure Necromancy.

This is before the debate about who gets Cure Light Wounds (Abjuration, Conjuration, Evocation, Necromancy, & Transmutation are all good choices).


Ultimately there are multiple ways to weave the same desired outcome. It might be wise to consider houseruling the spell school based on the spellcaster's method of casting it rather than having only a single valid school.

Edit: Eventually there is only the conjuration school of magic. They are summoning the spell.

[Kane0]

As PHB says: "Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect. Some call up blasts of fire or lightning. Others channel positive energy to heal wounds."

Which is a pretty funny description when you think about it. 'Evocation manipulates magic to do what you want. Sometimes you generate energy, sometimes you summon it'


Exactly. If you're trying to understand the spell schools...just don't. They're a jumbled mess of ad-hoc assignments and "definitions" that neither define nor constrain. And the exceptions outnumber the rules. It's better to just start fresh.

Yeah this more or less.

[Tanarii]

Evocation is creating/manipulating energy, including transporting it from the planes. Including positive or negative energy.

That's not conjuration, which is the creation and/or transport of objects or creatures (the latter also being known as summoning if it's moving them to you).

At least until 5e, when they decided to randomly mix energy damaging spells between evocation and conjuration based on whim. And in some cases necromancy as well, for negative energy.

[JNAProductions]

Evocation is creating/manipulating energy, including transporting it from the planes. Including positive or negative energy.

That's not conjuration, which is the creation and/or transport of objects or creatures (the latter also being known as summoning if it's moving them to you).

At least until 5e, when they decided to randomly mix energy damaging spells between evocation and conjuration based on whim. And in some cases necromancy as well, for negative energy.

Because 3.5 didn’t have direct energy damage spells in Conjuration, no sirree.

[Tanarii]

Because 3.5 didn’t have direct energy damage spells in Conjuration, no sirree.
Eh, sure it might have been 3.5 that came along and did it. I've lived through a lot of D&D sometime I get mixed up which did what first, who's to blame for which silliness :smallamused:

[Rafaelfras]

I would also advise to look at prior editions as they are more fleshed out and better thought i.e. if I remember correctly contingency used to be universal.
But evocation deals with creation of energy. Be it raw force (wall of force shield and magic missile) or elemental energy like fireball and lightning bolt, but you are specifically NOT drawing energy from the planes, you are creating then through magic. Conjuration bring energy from the planes or summon natives of said planes so any spell of that school is specifically doing this


Eh, sure it might have been 3.5 that came along and did it. I've lived through a lot of D&D sometime I get mixed up which did what first, who's to blame for which silliness :smallamused:

Yeah it get mumbled through the editions
But on 3.0 when a damaging spell was conjuration it implied that the energy came from another plane, when it was evocation it was implied that you created it on the spot and it didn't came from anywhere else

[Willowhelm]

Nobody knows what it means, but it’s evocative.

[Tanarii]

Yeah it get mumbled through the editions
But on 3.0 when a damaging spell was conjuration it implied that the energy came from another plane, when it was evocation it was implied that you created it on the spot and it didn't came from anywhere else
I went back and looked, and couldn't find the definitions of schools in AD&D. It only says "The type of magic is given in the PLAYERS HANDBOOK in order that you may creatively develop material regarding spells".

So either I'm remembering something from 2e definitions ... or if I can't find a 2e pic it never happened :smallamused:

Edit: nope 2e is ambiguous wording for both schools, so I was mistaken.

2e definitions:
Conjuration / summoning spells bring something to the caster from elsewhere. Conjuration normally produces matter or items from some other place. Summoning enables the caster to compel living creatures and powers to appear in his presence or to channel extraplanar energies through himself.
Invocation/ Evocation spells channel magical energy to create specific effects and materials. Invocation normally relies on the intervention of some higher agency (to whom the spell is addressed), while evocation enables the caster to directly shape the energy.

[Necrosnoop110]

Some spells will be changing schools in D&Done, but more as a fix of the stupid 3 spell list system rather than due to anything resembling logical reasoning.
3 spell list system?

[JackPhoenix]

3 spell list system?

Instead of every spellcasting class having its own spell list, there are 3 spell lists in total: Arcane, divine and primal. It leads issues like bards requiring a class feature just so they can get back access to healing spells not on arcane list, or Thunderwave and Shatter changing school to transmutation, because bards don't have access to evocation spells.

[Necrosnoop110]

Instead of every spellcasting class having its own spell list, there are 3 spell lists in total: Arcane, divine and primal. It leads issues like bards requiring a class feature just so they can get back access to healing spells not on arcane list, or Thunderwave and Shatter changing school to transmutation, because bards don't have access to evocation spells.

Thanks. Is this definitive yet or just a possibility?

[Kane0]

Thanks. Is this definitive yet or just a possibility?

Still a possibility, but given the trends appears far more likely than not.

[Schwann145]

Thanks. Is this definitive yet or just a possibility?

It's one of those "technically a possibility, but realistically it's guaranteed to happen," kinda things.

[Rafaelfras]

Edit: nope 2e is ambiguous wording for both schools, so I was mistaken.

2e definitions:
Conjuration / summoning spells bring something to the caster from elsewhere. Conjuration normally produces matter or items from some other place. Summoning enables the caster to compel living creatures and powers to appear in his presence or to channel extraplanar energies through himself.
Invocation/ Evocation spells channel magical energy to create specific effects and materials. Invocation normally relies on the intervention of some higher agency (to whom the spell is addressed), while evocation enables the caster to directly shape the energy.


Yes this is exactly what I remember my introduction to the schools back then.
Everything after just reinforced this initial concept.
Another thing worth noting I think in 3rd there was a push to include more damaging spells to other schools. Specially because most divine ones where more conjuration than evocation. So you had damaging conjuration spells, shadow illusions so you wasn't gimping yourself choosing evocation as your forbidden school

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes this is exactly what I remember my introduction to the schools back then.
Everything after just reinforced this initial concept.
Another thing worth noting I think in 3rd there was a push to include more damaging spells to other schools. Specially because most divine ones where more conjuration than evocation. So you had damaging conjuration spells, shadow illusions so you wasn't gimping yourself choosing evocation as your forbidden school

Which kinda cheapens the whole opportunity cost thing of specializing. Somewhat necessarily, but it shows that doing it by school isn't a good plan--either you can easily get characters incapable of pulling their weight OR you get incoherent school definitions. Without a really good middle ground.

[Rafaelfras]

Which kinda cheapens the whole opportunity cost thing of specializing. Somewhat necessarily, but it shows that doing it by school isn't a good plan--either you can easily get characters incapable of pulling their weight OR you get incoherent school definitions. Without a really good middle ground.

Funny enough, 3rd Ed mentality evolved to "if you are using damage to kill things you are doing it wrong" and evocation was considered one of the weakest specialists.
Also the specialisation wasn't that steep (1 extra spell per level from your school of choice and +2 to spell craft) so you could stay a generalist without losing anything because you could learn from all schools.
What was overpower was that you could combo feats + prestige classes + items and get your save DC 30+ from a chosen school.
Transmutation, necromancy, enchantment and illusion had a lot of save or die and that made then op.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Funny enough, 3rd Ed mentality evolved to "if you are using damage to kill things you are doing it wrong" and evocation was considered one of the weakest specialists.
Also the specialisation wasn't that steep (1 extra spell per level from your school of choice and +2 to spell craft) so you could stay a generalist without losing anything because you could learn from all schools.
What was overpower was that you could combo feats + prestige classes + items and get your save DC 30+ from a chosen school.
Transmutation, necromancy, enchantment and illusion had a lot of save or die and that made then op.

Agreed, mostly. There's a lot of weirdness in 3e's implementation specifically.

However, I think the "if you're doing damage you're doing it wrong" mentality is overblown and only holds for specific level bands and specific (very high) optimization levels that fed into DM-side optimization. Sometimes, being a caster to just make things go boom feels right.

I still stick to the idea that if they want to specialize wizards (which they should, IMO), there needs to be real opportunity cost. And that doing so via the traditional spell schools is not going to work out well. For the wizard specifically, it should be a double-edged sword at the spell-list level. Gain access to the best X spells (thematically, not school wise) at the cost of not getting access to the best Y spells. The difficulty is deciding what sets X and Y are drawn from. So imagine if the base wizard had, say, lightning bolt but not fireball. And only the "Big Boom" wizards got fireball. And if everyone had, say, summon minor elementals but only the "summon stuff" wizards got conjure elemental (or something like that). Effectively a wizard who doesn't specialize in X only gets the knock-off, generic-brand versions of X's classic spells. For some value of X.

[Rafaelfras]

Agreed, mostly. There's a lot of weirdness in 3e's implementation specifically.

However, I think the "if you're doing damage you're doing it wrong" mentality is overblown and only holds for specific level bands and specific (very high) optimization levels that fed into DM-side optimization. Sometimes, being a caster to just make things go boom feels right.

I still stick to the idea that if they want to specialize wizards (which they should, IMO), there needs to be real opportunity cost. And that doing so via the traditional spell schools is not going to work out well. For the wizard specifically, it should be a double-edged sword at the spell-list level. Gain access to the best X spells (thematically, not school wise) at the cost of not getting access to the best Y spells. The difficulty is deciding what sets X and Y are drawn from. So imagine if the base wizard had, say, lightning bolt but not fireball. And only the "Big Boom" wizards got fireball. And if everyone had, say, summon minor elementals but only the "summon stuff" wizards got conjure elemental (or something like that). Effectively a wizard who doesn't specialize in X only gets the knock-off, generic-brand versions of X's classic spells. For some value of X.

I totally agree, it was not at all the way I played my wizard through the life of 3rd Ed.
I played as wizard lvl 1 to 20, as a generalist (because I wanted access to all schools) that liked evocation spells to do my damage (so I got spell focus and greater spell focus for Evo) and my last 5 levels where on the Arch mage prestige class so I could get sculpt spells change elements higher DC and reach, so a versatile wizard good at exploding stuff. Never had a problem or felt underpowered. So I totally agree you on this.
Also I agree with your idea of specialisation, the schools can be themes (evoker = big boom) so you can cut all the overlaps with conjurer summoning creatures, but not doing blasts of elemental energy.
And you need to balance only the most powerful spells of each theme so one isn't way better than the others, but not the lower end as all wizards have access to then

[Chronos]

One complication in 2nd edition was that the school wasn't just Evocation; it was Evocation/Invocation. Evocation spells were more or less the sort of thing we recognize as such nowadays, things like Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and Magic Missile. Invocation, however, was based on calling upon the powers of other planes. Precisely why those two got lumped together in the same school, I have no idea, unless it was just because the words sounded similar. But it's led to some legacy issues where some old spells that used to be Invocation (and made sense for that) became just Evocation (where they didn't).

[Sigreid]

I'd just think of it like Renessaunce science. They've got some understanding and some working models, but their theories and classifications are shakey.

[Witty Username]

The three primary schools of note:
Abjuration, Conjuration, and Evocation.
We are going to ignore 5e lore because there isn't any and go straight to 3.5.
Abjuration is the manipulation of raw magic.
Evocation is the creation of energy.
Conjuration is the the creation of matter.

All of these schools have some degree of overlap in application but have widely different dotrines and secondary outcomes.

Abjuration is considered the most fundamental of all magic, as all spells use magic, but Abjuration is focused on manipulation of magic in its most fundamental state. Many force effects fall under Abjuration, especially persistent ones, but also many defensive effects and most importantly includes "metamagic", magic that effects other magical effects such as dimensional anchor, dispel magic, and counterspell.
Evocation is the creation of energy using magic, while advanced Evocation can include persistent effects (Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice, Bigby's hand) isn't the focus of the methodology, and has some provisions, what Evocation does the most readily is create energy, usually momentarily and of tenuous shape (fireball is in the shape of a shpere, because that is how explosions work). Back in the day this included fine manipulation use cases of energy, like telekinesis as an example of the creation of a small amount of kinetic energy. But this is less of a thing in 5e (probably due to not having lore).
Conjuration is the third leg of this chair, the creation and summoning of matter, note that usually this translates to objects or creatures this does relate to persistent effects, flaming shpere for example. Back in the day this was an 'under the hood' distinction, where evocation would use magic to create fire, conjuration would summon fire, and this had a few effects, the most notworthy things is that conjuration wouldn't be affected by magic resistance (the fire in conjuration was Not magic, but actual fire) and evocation would not have persistent effects (like igniting objects with fire spells) as it wouldn't be fire so much as magic converted to the semblance of fire.

5e dropped all of this, in favor of nothing for the most part. But some remements of the ideas still exist.

[Aimeryan]

Ultimately there are multiple ways to weave the same desired outcome. It might be wise to consider houseruling the spell school based on the spellcaster's method of casting it rather than having only a single valid school.

This. Consider the following: Tim has your ball. You want your ball. Do you a) Get Tim to throw you your ball; b) Take the ball by force; c) Slight of hand the ball; d) Get Big Bob to get your ball; e) Summon the authorities? All will result in you getting the ball, only the journey changes. There are multiple ways are getting to the same outcome. The School listed is not meant to be the only way, just this spell's way.

To be honest though, 5e sucks at Spell Schools. Consider Dragon's Breath; is it a) the spell evokes the breath on targets; b) the spell conjures the breath on targets; c) the spells makes an illusion of the breath; d) the spell enchants targets into believing that there is a breath; e) the spell transmutes a target into being able to use a breath; f) the spell transmutes targets, some into a form that allows the display of a breath and some into a form that represents the damage the displayed breath would have dealt to them?

Well, according to Jeremy Crawford the spell targets multiple creatures. The School says Transmutation. So it must be f) - which seems absurd. The simpler explanation is e) - which would only have one target of the spell. I'm pretty sure JC didn't consider the Spell School at all, which doesn't say much for 5e doing so in general.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Trying to understand the 'schools' of magic in 5e is asking for the concrete rules of the English Language. Short of starting a sentence with a capital letter, having a subject of the sentence, and ending with punctuation, it's more about the exceptions that the rules.

Better to ask, "Why do we care?" What problems are addressed by having schools of magic? How does it improve our enjoyment and/or understanding of the game? What purpose do the schools serve in the design of the game and/or how it is played?

Answering my own questions here, I see it used in 5e exclusively to LIMIT certain classes/features (Arcane Trickster comes to mind) when that class/feature allows any spellcasting. It's not meant to serve any other function, and limiting the schools below the current number despite the illogic of it all accomplishes little beyond what others have said, namely outright disabling certain classes.

The schools exist (IMO) to carve out a small bit of spellcasting for some classes/features. It becomes pointless to examine it deeply, logically, or critically beyond this point.

[Rafaelfras]

Trying to understand the 'schools' of magic in 5e is asking for the concrete rules of the English Language. Short of starting a sentence with a capital letter, having a subject of the sentence, and ending with punctuation, it's more about the exceptions that the rules.

Better to ask, "Why do we care?" What problems are addressed by having schools of magic? How does it improve our enjoyment and/or understanding of the game? What purpose do the schools serve in the design of the game and/or how it is played?

Answering my own questions here, I see it used in 5e exclusively to LIMIT certain classes/features (Arcane Trickster comes to mind) when that class/feature allows any spellcasting. It's not meant to serve any other function, and limiting the schools below the current number despite the illogic of it all accomplishes little beyond what others have said, namely outright disabling certain classes.

The schools exist (IMO) to carve out a small bit of spell casting for some classes/features. It becomes pointless to examine it deeply, logically, or critically beyond this point.

Disagree. The schools are themes for magic. What it is accomplishing and how it does that. Groups of effects that follows the same principle and help characters who want to focus on those themes: "I want to play a Illusionist, a wizard who main theme are illusions trickery and deceit" then here the school of illusion has all these effects grouped, all theses spells operate under these principles of tricking peoples perception and creating fake sensory effects be it visual effect, noises temperature or even textures as they get stronger. Illogical sorting like "Why wall of stone is evocation not transmutation" are the fault of the developers not thinking too much or not understanding those themes not the themes themselves.


This. Consider the following: Tim has your ball. You want your ball. Do you a) Get Tim to throw you your ball; b) Take the ball by force; c) Slight of hand the ball; d) Get Big Bob to get your ball; e) Summon the authorities? All will result in you getting the ball, only the journey changes. There are multiple ways are getting to the same outcome. The School listed is not meant to be the only way, just this spell's way.

To be honest though, 5e sucks at Spell Schools. Consider Dragon's Breath; is it a) the spell evokes the breath on targets; b) the spell conjures the breath on targets; c) the spells makes an illusion of the breath; d) the spell enchants targets into believing that there is a breath; e) the spell transmutes a target into being able to use a breath; f) the spell transmutes targets, some into a form that allows the display of a breath and some into a form that represents the damage the displayed breath would have dealt to them?

Well, according to Jeremy Crawford the spell targets multiple creatures. The School says Transmutation. So it must be f) - which seems absurd. The simpler explanation is e) - which would only have one target of the spell. I'm pretty sure JC didn't consider the Spell School at all, which doesn't say much for 5e doing so in general.

The spell transmute several targets into being able to breath when it has more than one target. JC was just trying to not let you use twin spell on it Thats it

[KorvinStarmast]

The schools exist (IMO) to carve out a small bit of spellcasting for some classes/features. It becomes pointless to examine it deeply, logically, or critically beyond this point.Mechanically, yes (good post) but there is some thematic stuff also involved.

To be honest though, 5e sucks at Spell Schools. Consider Dragon's Breath Crawford's ruling is a load of {censored}. At my table, if the sorcerer wants to twin it, both creatures can move and breath to their hearts content. :smalltongue:

Disagree. The schools are themes for magic. {nice example snipped}
Illogical sorting like "Why wall of stone is evocation not transmutation" are the fault of the developers not thinking too much or not understanding those themes not the themes themselves. And this is why we can't have nice things. They were not very thorough in making that thematic thing translate well ...

[Amnestic]

In a hypothetical future, would people prefer the schools be removed entirely, or simply reworked?

I confess I find their existence flavourful in some ways but pretty shallow in others - there's a certainly an indication from a worldbuilding perspective that all spellcasters - regardless of origin or culture - categorise magic in the same eight-school ways, especially (but not limited to) wizards. Indeed Detect Magic's workings imply that in the fiction of the universe, magic is just...attuned to certain schools, that the school's separation are baked into the way magic works at its core.


For the Duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your Action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its School of Magic, if any.


So I guess the circular answer for "why is [x] spell [y] school?" is "because it is, in universe, fundamentally, made up of that spell school's 'magic'."

And I don't really like that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In a hypothetical future, would people prefer the schools be removed entirely, or simply reworked?

I confess I find their existence flavourful in some ways but pretty shallow in others - there's a certainly an indication from a worldbuilding perspective that all spellcasters - regardless of origin or culture - categorise magic in the same eight-school ways, especially (but not limited to) wizards. Indeed Detect Magic's workings imply that in the fiction of the universe, magic is just...attuned to certain schools, that the school's separation are baked into the way magic works at its core.



So I guess the circular answer for "why is [x] spell [y] school?" is "because it is, in universe, fundamentally, made up of that spell school's 'magic'."

And I don't really like that.

I'd say "removed, except maybe as wizard-specific flavor, and even so reworked". And yes, I totally agree about detect magic. And that makes detect magic really really weird to adjudicate when it comes to, say, magic items. It made sense in 3e, when magic items listed what spells they needed to be created (which set the schools of magic). Now? It's much more difficult and less meaningful.

I've actually sub-rosa modified detect magic--I'll say the school names, sure, but I do three additional things:
1. it detects way more than just spells and magic items.
2. it gives a sense (if you focus) on the character of the magic. Warding? Offensive? Protection? Etc. Or at least allows an Intelligence (Arcana) check to determine that, even if you can't see the glyphs/etc that are producing it (which would allow such even without the spell).
3. It detects traces of fading/inactive magic. So if someone summoned something evil a while ago, it'll say that there was conjuration magic here a while ago, but now it's fading.

On a related note, I also modified the Divine Sense ability to allow detection of things like the residue of contact with covered entities. If you're a demon cultist, you're going to smell like someone who hangs out in a chain-smoker's house. But also if you're just around that kind of summoning. Or were rescued from a place where mass blood magic/demon summoning was happening.

[JackPhoenix]

I'd say "removed, except maybe as wizard-specific flavor, and even so reworked". And yes, I totally agree about detect magic. And that makes detect magic really really weird to adjudicate when it comes to, say, magic items. It made sense in 3e, when magic items listed what spells they needed to be created (which set the schools of magic). Now? It's much more difficult and less meaningful.

Assigning spell schools to magic items was always meaningless.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Assigning spell schools to magic items was always meaningless.

Ok, it made more sense (possibly only infinitesimally) in 3e. And even if it was arbitrary, at least you had some source to draw from (the spells required for creation). 5e? It's not only meaningless, it's an arbitrary annoyance. Especially with how ill-defined the schools themselves are and how they mix the means the magic uses (eg changing existing things vs summoning new things) with the ends (blocking magic, making people believe things).

[JackPhoenix]

Ok, it made more sense (possibly only infinitesimally) in 3e. And even if it was arbitrary, at least you had some source to draw from (the spells required for creation). 5e? It's not only meaningless, it's an arbitrary annoyance. Especially with how ill-defined the schools themselves are and how they mix the means the magic uses (eg changing existing things vs summoning new things) with the ends (blocking magic, making people believe things).

The only thing anyone ever cared about was binary "is this thing magical or not?". There's no need for assigning school to a magic item at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The only thing anyone ever cared about was binary "is this thing magical or not?". There's no need for assigning school to a magic item at all.

I've seen it happen most often with structural magic items. Things like...there's a shimmering field stretching across the door. What kind of magic is it? An alarm? A barrier? A big "melt my hand" thing?

Well...unless it's a glyph of warding (which has very particular characteristics) or is otherwise identical to a spell...you have to make it up.

Or things that may or may not be triggers for stuff.

[Aimeryan]

The spell transmute several targets into being able to breath when it has more than one target. JC was just trying to not let you use twin spell on it Thats it

No, Twinned lets you have multiple targets once Twinned, otherwise it wouldn't work in the first place. JC has said that the spell itself has multiple targets, which only makes sense if the spell is transmuting multiple targets because the school is Transmutation. If, instead, the spell transmuted one target and then that target uses the transmuted result against other targets that is not the spell targeting multiple targets. Consider if you transmute a crooked branch into a longspear and stab multiple people with it - did the transmuting spell target multiple targets? The answer should be no, unless you are apparently JC.

[Rafaelfras]

No, Twinned lets you have multiple targets once Twinned, otherwise it wouldn't work in the first place. JC has said that the spell itself has multiple targets, which only makes sense if the spell is transmuting multiple targets because the school is Transmutation. If, instead, the spell transmuted one target and then that target uses the transmuted result against other targets that is not the spell targeting multiple targets. Consider if you transmute a crooked branch into a longspear and stab multiple people with it - did the transmuting spell target multiple targets? The answer should be no, unless you are apparently JC.

That's what I meant. It transmute one target, more if you are using twin spell. JC was just trying to not let you use twin on it. His rulling is clearly wrong. It's the same thing as saying mage armor affect multiple targets because all enemies are affected by higher AC or your spear example

[Chronos]

Personally, I like Detect Magic telling you a school. The players have something that they need to know. Giving them all the information right away is uninteresting, and giving them no information at all is also uninteresting. Giving them some information, a clue, is interesting.

And yes, that does sometimes mean that, when I'm DMing, I've had to decide on the spot what school of magic some novel magical phenomenon best fits in. Like, some items that the party found that were being used in a BBEG ritual to kill someone (specifically, the party) from a distance: I decided that they looked necromantic, under Detect Magic. And now they have to figure out why portraits of them would have a necromantic aura. That sort of adjudication is just part of the job of DMing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I like Detect Magic telling you a school. The players have something that they need to know. Giving them all the information right away is uninteresting, and giving them no information at all is also uninteresting. Giving them some information, a clue, is interesting.

And yes, that does sometimes mean that, when I'm DMing, I've had to decide on the spot what school of magic some novel magical phenomenon best fits in. Like, some items that the party found that were being used in a BBEG ritual to kill someone (specifically, the party) from a distance: I decided that they looked necromantic, under Detect Magic. And now they have to figure out why portraits of them would have a necromantic aura. That sort of adjudication is just part of the job of DMing.

Not giving them a school (or not having schools) doesn't mean you don't give them anything--it means you can actually give them actionable, interesting, pertinent information instead of shoehorning it into 8 "categories" that have no more depth or meaning than your average fortune cookie. And without actually encoding these arbitrary "categories" into the structure of the universe and forcing the "it's all spells" mentality.

See above for what I do, which rarely cares about the schools.

[MadMusketeer]

Damn. I hadn't fully noticed before this thread, but taking a look, spell school classifications in 5e (and maybe other editions, I'm less familiar) are a MESS. One example that I haven't seen mentioned yet - Revivify is a Conjuration spell. Every other spell for raising the dead (other than Reincarnate, which is Transmutation spell, which makes sense) is Necromancy, but Revivify, which isn't meaningfully different from Raise Dead or Resurrection or True Resurrection in any way that would change the school? Conjuration. I think it's been mentioned earlier in this thread, but for some incomprehensible reason, Wall of Stone, a spell that should OBVIOUSLY be Conjuration (you could maybe make an argument for Transmutation, or possibly Abjuration, although that would be kind of iffy), is Evocation. Bless is, for reasons beyond my understanding, an Enchantment spell, a classification that seems like it derived from a misunderstanding of the meaning of Enchantment (like, I'm not sure where I would classify this either, on another spell list the mechanics could make sense for a Divination or Transmutation spell, but not really for Clerics - however it almost certainly wouldn't be Enchantment). For some reason, Fear is classified not as an Enchantment, but as an illusion. Wall of Force being Evocation I can see the argument for, but Leomund's Tiny Hut has no business being in any school other than Abjuration. This would be consistent with Mage Armor, which also creates a 'magical force', yet is Abjuration.

This leads on nicely to a broader point - there is no clear way of classifying spell schools. Abjuration is about the purpose of the spells (there is no connection between spells like Aid, Mage Armor, Alarm or Arcane Lock other than that they're intended to be defensive), whereas Evocation is about the process of casting the spell. Almost every Necromancy spell could, if it weren't for the fact that they involve dead bodies, be classified as either Conjuration or Transmutation (I was originally going to exclude Necromantic damage spells, but... rotting the flesh of your enemies could debatably be classed under Transmutation). It's truly unclear whether schools like Divination, Illusion, or Enchantment are classed based on purpose or process, and that's fine - it could be either - apart from the fact that the way Abjuration is so clearly one and Evocation is so clearly the other cast doubt on the whole thing. Further complicating matters, there are spells like Mirror Image or Blur, which are very clearly Abjuration-oriented spells that are classified as Illusions, and then there are spells like Sanctuary, which is classified as an Abjuration spell but is thematically just as much an Enchantment spell as either of the previous spells are Illusions. Likewise, there is Barkskin, an extremely Abjuration-seeming spell that is classified as a Transmutation spell for thematic reasons. Banishment spells would make just as much sense as Conjurations (Plane Shift is a Conjuration spell, and you can Banish with that), but they're classified as Abjuration spells, which has a certain logic to it, I suppose, but it further adds to the problem of Abjurations being unclear in purpose when the only consistent thread with them is purpose.

I think my main point is this: are spell schools defined by purpose, or process, or some combination of the two? From what it seems, Abjuration is a combination of Banishment spells and all defensive type spells that can't be easily classified somewhere else for thematic reasons. Evocation is a hodgepodge of everything that could even remotely be considered to have anything to do with energy (even if stuff like Healing spells don't make much sense there, let alone wall spells). Cleric spells on the whole are classified inconsistently (Bless, like I mentioned earlier, is Enchantment, healing spells are Evocation, Lesser/Greater Restoration and Aid are Abjuration, Spiritual Weapon is Evocation, Spirit Guardians is Conjuration, etc.) to the point where I'm not even sure what the point is? Like, spell schools make sense for Wizards, but outside of stuff that lets other classes cast spells from the Wizard list, along with Wizard subclass abilities, it doesn't really affect any other classes. The only time I can see not classifying them (or classifying them as 'Divine' or something) having an impact is if a Wizard managed to get access to them and wanted to use them in concert with abilities like Expert Divination, but this wouldn't have to be every cleric spell - just ones that don't make sense in other lists.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Damn. I hadn't fully noticed before this thread, but taking a look, spell school classifications in 5e (and maybe other editions, I'm less familiar) are a MESS. One example that I haven't seen mentioned yet - Revivify is a Conjuration spell. Every other spell for raising the dead (other than Reincarnate, which is Transmutation spell, which makes sense) is Necromancy, but Revivify, which isn't meaningfully different from Raise Dead or Resurrection or True Resurrection in any way that would change the school? Conjuration. I think it's been mentioned earlier in this thread, but for some incomprehensible reason, Wall of Stone, a spell that should OBVIOUSLY be Conjuration (you could maybe make an argument for Transmutation, or possibly Abjuration, although that would be kind of iffy), is Evocation. Bless is, for reasons beyond my understanding, an Enchantment spell, a classification that seems like it derived from a misunderstanding of the meaning of Enchantment (like, I'm not sure where I would classify this either, on another spell list the mechanics could make sense for a Divination or Transmutation spell, but not really for Clerics - however it almost certainly wouldn't be Enchantment). For some reason, Fear is classified not as an Enchantment, but as an illusion. Wall of Force being Evocation I can see the argument for, but Leomund's Tiny Hut has no business being in any school other than Abjuration. This would be consistent with Mage Armor, which also creates a 'magical force', yet is Abjuration.

This leads on nicely to a broader point - there is no clear way of classifying spell schools. Abjuration is about the purpose of the spells (there is no connection between spells like Aid, Mage Armor, Alarm or Arcane Lock other than that they're intended to be defensive), whereas Evocation is about the process of casting the spell. Almost every Necromancy spell could, if it weren't for the fact that they involve dead bodies, be classified as either Conjuration or Transmutation (I was originally going to exclude Necromantic damage spells, but... rotting the flesh of your enemies could debatably be classed under Transmutation). It's truly unclear whether schools like Divination, Illusion, or Enchantment are classed based on purpose or process, and that's fine - it could be either - apart from the fact that the way Abjuration is so clearly one and Evocation is so clearly the other cast doubt on the whole thing. Further complicating matters, there are spells like Mirror Image or Blur, which are very clearly Abjuration-oriented spells that are classified as Illusions, and then there are spells like Sanctuary, which is classified as an Abjuration spell but is thematically just as much an Enchantment spell as either of the previous spells are Illusions. Likewise, there is Barkskin, an extremely Abjuration-seeming spell that is classified as a Transmutation spell for thematic reasons. Banishment spells would make just as much sense as Conjurations (Plane Shift is a Conjuration spell, and you can Banish with that), but they're classified as Abjuration spells, which has a certain logic to it, I suppose, but it further adds to the problem of Abjurations being unclear in purpose when the only consistent thread with them is purpose.

I think my main point is this: are spell schools defined by purpose, or process, or some combination of the two? From what it seems, Abjuration is a combination of Banishment spells and all defensive type spells that can't be easily classified somewhere else for thematic reasons. Evocation is a hodgepodge of everything that could even remotely be considered to have anything to do with energy (even if stuff like Healing spells don't make much sense there, let alone wall spells). Cleric spells on the whole are classified inconsistently (Bless, like I mentioned earlier, is Enchantment, healing spells are Evocation, Lesser/Greater Restoration and Aid are Abjuration, Spiritual Weapon is Evocation, Spirit Guardians is Conjuration, etc.) to the point where I'm not even sure what the point is? Like, spell schools make sense for Wizards, but outside of stuff that lets other classes cast spells from the Wizard list, along with Wizard subclass abilities, it doesn't really affect any other classes. The only time I can see not classifying them (or classifying them as 'Divine' or something) having an impact is if a Wizard managed to get access to them and wanted to use them in concert with abilities like Expert Divination, but this wouldn't have to be every cleric spell - just ones that don't make sense in other lists.

Yeah. The whole model is busted. Much better to categorize spells in two different, non-exclusive ways:
- Generic source (Arcane/Divine/Primal)
- "tags" (of which each spell might have more than 1 and many spells will share the same tags). It's what the schools are supposed to be, but both too rigid and too...sloppy. At the same time.

Don't pretend these are fundamental universe properties--they're just UI-level information for the players' convenience.

[KorvinStarmast]

Re: What is Evocation
Repeat after me:
The English language is not computer code

[Kane0]

Repeat after me:
The English language is not computer code

Ironic, considering different codes also being known as languages.

[Witty Username]

Yeah 5e has a lot of weird, 3.5 and prior have have alot of weird too but they are content oceans so people don't get to see as much of it.
For specific notes:
Bless, in 3.5 it has the tags compulsion, mind affecting. And has the flavor text of filling the subject with courage. 5e dropped all the tags and flavor for crickets (and a little in game effect, now your cleric can bless their zombie battalion or the rest of the party).

Revifiy, and by extension healing magic, back in the olden days, they were classified as Necromancy, in 3E they were reclassified as conjuration, as far as I can tell because Necromancy has scary and weird as part of its brand and where cleric has wholesome and good, and conjuration interacts with the planes so it manipulating positive energy and calling a spirit from beyond make sense if you squint at it. Then 5e, are they Evocation? Conjuration? Necromancy? A weird mix of all 3? Yep

As for banishment, that one has always been Abjuration so YMMV, but as I understood it, the idea is extraplanar travel is inherently magical which Abjuration unmakes. 5e added the ability to banish anything though, not just extraplanar creatures. So there's that. I could see it moved to conjuration in its new take, 5e even did that with creation (permanent created object, changed to semi-real object with a time limit, moved from conjuration to illusion).

Wall of Stone reads like a typo to me, it was conjuration (because that is what it is) but got moved to evocation, because that is what all the other walls are?