Why healing is conjuration?

[ayvango]

If heal operates positive energy, then it should rather be evocation. If someone consider positive energy out of evocation energies range, then heal should be necromancy, since necromancy works with negative energy and its perfectly normal to shift its positive counterpart to it. If we think that heal just mends body, than like mending and repair light wounds it should be transmutation. Why conjuration of all things?

[Kurald Galain]

Because evocation is about explosives and necromancy is evil.

No, those aren't the official definitions but (too) many people associate it with that. So a spell that creates energy but not explosive energy and not evil energy has to be conjuration.

[CharonsHelper]

Because evocation is about explosives and necromancy is evil.

No, those aren't the official definitions but (too) many people associate it with that. So a spell that creates energy but not explosive energy and not evil energy has to be conjuration.

+1

In earlier editions I believe that it WAS necromancy, but they decided that it didn't fit the dark/creepy vibe that necromancy has going on.

[Silva Stormrage]

I swapped it back to necromancy in my campaign setting. It is mostly as others had said though, they designers didn't want healing to be in the "Evil" school of magic. Feel free to swap it around as you want for continuity

[Baby Gary]

I personally think it should be necromancy, as should every spell dealing with life/death. IMO necromancy is not the school of evil magic, but one of the harnessing positive and negative energy to do cool stuff. This still lets it have the deathy vibe with the spells that are already there but it also lets a necromancer do a few more cool things. Conjuration is not taking a bit hit by making all healing/ bringing back to life spells necromancy, and that doesn't suddenly make necromancy super powerful.

I also like that flavor wise. A necromancer is now someone who can tap into the positive and negative energy plane to do cool stuff. I am actually thinking of making a revision of necromancy that is more like what I just said, not your classical death and destruction stuff

[Zanos]

I think putting it back in necromancy fits better. The inflict spells are still in necromancy, and are the mirror for most healing spells.

It seems like the designers wanted to make necromancy the Evil spell school, but didn't go all the way.

[Kurald Galain]

It seems like the designers wanted to make necromancy the Evil spell school, but didn't go all the way.

It seems some of the designers wanted it to be Evil and others did not, so they ended up making it half-evil. Semi-evil. Quasi-evil. The margarine of evil. The Diet Coke of evil, just one calorie, not evil enough.

[Scots Dragon]

I think in AD&D 2E they're only listed as necromancy so we know how they interact with certain things in the spell-schools and resistance area, since priest spells aren't really organised by school but by their own set of groupings called spheres.

I kinda think it'd be worth bringing the priest spheres back for D&D 3.5E, since the spheres allowed for a whole bunch of different and unique priest types with their own spell lists based on which spheres they did or did not have access to.

[Boggartbae]

I think that all the schools assigned to all the spells need to be overhauled. The orb spells are more egregious than any cure spell, and invisibility should be abjuration, since it provides a purely defensive benefit. Also, why are Mage Armour and shield in different schools?

Schools of magic are just all over the place, and as much as I fantasise about enforcing some sort of regulation and consistency, it’s just too much work.

[Necroticplague]

If heal operates positive energy, then it should rather be evocation.

Evocations are mostly about Force and Elemental energy. Positive and Negative are neither.

If someone consider positive energy out of evocation energies range, then heal should be necromancy, since necromancy works with negative energy and its perfectly normal to shift its positive counterpart to it.

Necromancy deals with negative energy, not positive energy. There’s no reason to assume any kind of symmetry like that when Necromancy has no other positive energy spells I can find.

If we think that heal just mends body, than like mending and repair light wounds it should be transmutation. Why conjuration of all things?

Simply patching a body back together is only part of restoring the health of a living creature. A living creature is more than just its physical body (it has life forces and a soul), so simply affecting only the physical form (as transmutation does) is not enough. Meanwhile, a construct is nothing but its body and its animating force. The animating force will stick around as long as the body’s intact, so you only need to mend the body. It’s the same reason you can’t defibrillated someone once they’re already dead in real life, even if their body is intact: their vital spark is irretrievably gone. Meanwhile, a statue can be fixed back to be as good as new.

Healing is conjuration because it involves bringing force more vital force from elsewhere. You conjure it into being from the infinite wellspring of the PEP.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think that all the schools assigned to all the spells need to be overhauled. The orb spells are more egregious than any cure spell, and invisibility should be abjuration, since it provides a purely defensive benefit. Also, why are Mage Armour and shield in different schools?

All these have fluff reasons to be in the schools they're in. I mean, they're not perfect, but the classification is right overall. Invisibility, in particular, is nothing like an abjuration. It is an illusion that makes it harder to see you (+40 to Hide, effectively), not a protective, warding, or counter-magic spell. Shield should probably be dual-school abjuration/evocation, like mage armour. Orb of force is dual-school evocation/conjuration, the rest are conjurations.

Fluff-based classification isn't conducive to good balance, but it shouldn't be disregarded because of that.

[Boggartbae]

All these have fluff reasons to be in the schools they're in. I mean, they're not perfect, but the classification is right overall. Invisibility, in particular, is nothing like an abjuration. It is an illusion that makes it harder to see you (+40 to Hide, effectively), not a protective, warding, or counter-magic spell. Shield should probably be dual-school abjuration/evocation, like mage armour. Orb of force is dual-school evocation/conjuration, the rest are conjurations.

Fluff-based classification isn't conducive to good balance, but it shouldn't be disregarded because of that.

Still the balance that I’m primarily concerned with though. classifying schools based on fluff isn’t conducive to good gameplay, especially since it gives the school that “makes things“ way too powerful

Idk, it’s not a big deal, but it just bothers me.

[Bohandas]

Because evocation is about explosives and necromancy is evil.

No, those aren't the official definitions but (too) many people associate it with that. So a spell that creates energy but not explosive energy and not evil energy has to be conjuration.

This. It's basically a plothole with no relevance to balance introduced purely for reasons of tone. My advice is to ignore it and treat healing spells as necromancy.

[Bohandas]

Still the balance that I’m primarily concerned with though. classifying schools based on fluff isn’t conducive to good gameplay, especially since it gives the school that “makes things“ way too powerful

Idk, it’s not a big deal, but it just bothers me.

In 3.0 different specializations cost a different number of opposing schools

[ayvango]

Evocations are mostly about Force and Elemental energy. Positive and Negative are neither.

So there are only two energy based schools: necromancy and evocation.

Conjuration is about physical things, it provides energy with forms. And healing has no material form, it is pure energy. So conjuration are misfit with its usage basic. Both Evocation and Necromancy matches basic using and differs only in particular energy habits.

In case the spell fits neither energy school it should be assigned new school rather then being merged into a school that has nothing common with energies. If necromancy had branched from evocation as a special school dealing with negative energy, why another specific energy could not go the same route and establish standalone school?

It is still better then sticking with conjuration. And if 8 is mystic number that should be kept under all conditions, then Evocation is good to hold healing as parent and Necromancy as sibling.

[Shoreward]

As it turns out, mages are wrong about the origins of their own spells. What we call "healing" involves summoning invisible bacteria for rapid cell repair. Since these bacteria are intelligent, they dislike martial classes as much as the rest of us educated folk do, and so refuse to mend the dramatic scars on your half-orc companion despite their obvious ability to do so. Next time you heal or get healed, make sure to offer your thanks to our tiny friends.

Or your harshest vitriol. I can't tell you what to do with your life.

[Arkhios]

Evocation creates energy out of nothing.
Conjuration creates matter out of nothing.

While life can be seen as a metaphysical thing (energy), restoring hit points to an already living thing is a tad more physical thing (matter) for the most part (although, not all damaging effects leave visible wounds).

Necromancy (in case of raise dead) restores life to a dead person, wrestling with the forces of death makes is reasonable as necromancy.

[grarrrg]

Necromancy deals with negative energy, not positive energy. There’s no reason to assume any kind of symmetry like that when Necromancy has no other positive energy spells I can find.

See the other posts, Healing&friends used to be under Necromancy (2nd edition and previous).
You won't find any Positive Energy Necromancy spells in 3rd because they moved all of them, and made it a design decision going forward that "Necromancy has nothing to do with the living".

[Venger]

If heal operates positive energy, then it should rather be evocation. If someone consider positive energy out of evocation energies range, then heal should be necromancy, since necromancy works with negative energy and its perfectly normal to shift its positive counterpart to it. If we think that heal just mends body, than like mending and repair light wounds it should be transmutation. Why conjuration of all things?

in 3.0, healing spells (including raise dead/resurrection/etc the basic definition of necromancy) were all necromancy, then in 3.5, monte decided he didn't want wizards (especially conjurers) to have any disadvantages at all, so it was all rolled into necro so you could ban it without a second thought.

[Necroticplague]

See the other posts, Healing&friends used to be under Necromancy (2nd edition and previous).

Yes, but how things operate in previous editions is irrelevant to how things currently operate. Currently, to the best of my knowledge, no positive-energy based spell are Necromancy. This is D&D 3e/3.5e/d20, not Older D&D/AD&D and Other Systems.

You won't find any Positive Energy Necromancy spells in 3rd because they moved all of them, and made it a design decision going forward that "Necromancy has nothing to do with the living".

Which is exactly my point. Unless you count inflicting them with deleterious affects (via Negative infusion), which Necromancy has plenty of.

[Venger]

Yes, but how things operate in previous editions is irrelevant to how things currently operate. Currently, to the best of my knowledge, no positive-energy based spell are Necromancy. This is D&D 3e/3.5e/d20, not Older D&D/AD&D and Other Systems.

Which is exactly my point. Unless you count inflicting them with deleterious affects (via Negative infusion), which Necromancy has plenty of.

there are several. one prominent example is manifest life, but yes, they are quite rare.

[ayvango]

Evocation creates energy out of nothing.
Conjuration creates matter out of nothing.

While life can be seen as a metaphysical thing (energy), restoring hit points to an already living thing is a tad more physical thing (matter) for the most part (although, not all damaging effects leave visible wounds).

Well, if restoring hit points is a physical process (matter) than reducing them should also considered physical. Evocation are full of spells used for reducing hit points that has instantaneous duration just like healing instantaneous restore hit points. Another thing, necromancer could also restore hit points if he directs negative energy to undead and deplete hit points if negative energy is target at a living creature. Seems very similar to healing.

[Crake]

in 3.0, healing spells (including raise dead/resurrection/etc the basic definition of necromancy) were all necromancy, then in 3.5, monte decided he didn't want wizards (especially conjurers) to have any disadvantages at all, so it was all rolled into necro so you could ban it without a second thought.

Except wizards don't get any of those spells anyway, so what does it really have to do with wizards? The only difference is maybe whether or not you can access a spell through wish or not, but if you can't you can just make a scroll instead and pass it to the rogue with UMD, or the cleric with the magic domain.

[Jormengand]

Because WotC are fallible and do silly things sometimes.

[Fizban]

Because the schools of magic were designed for Wizards, and then later applied to Cleric spells. Since Wizards don't heal, those schools weren't seriously designed with room for healing spells. So originally they were crammed into necromancy because life/death, but then people went "eww necromancy" so they changed it to, uh, I dunno man maybe you summon positive energy power? Yeah sure let's go with that.

I think that's a reasonable line of thinking anyway.

I kinda think it'd be worth bringing the priest spheres back for D&D 3.5E, since the spheres allowed for a whole bunch of different and unique priest types with their own spell lists based on which spheres they did or did not have access to.

Incidentally, can you tell or link me to a good source of those spheres? I was tinkering on something a while back and someone just piqued my interest in it again, but I don't actually know what those old spheres were so I've not much to tinker from.

[Bohandas]

Evocation creates energy out of nothing.
Conjuration creates matter out of nothing.

While life can be seen as a metaphysical thing (energy), restoring hit points to an already living thing is a tad more physical thing (matter) for the most part (although, not all damaging effects leave visible wounds).

Necromancy (in case of raise dead) restores life to a dead person, wrestling with the forces of death makes is reasonable as necromancy.

So there are only two energy based schools: necromancy and evocation.

Conjuration is about physical things, it provides energy with forms. And healing has no material form, it is pure energy.

I think you've hit upon the crux of the problem. If they had got rid of positive and negative energy and just made healing spells conjure blood/flesh it would work as conjuration, but since healing magic still works entirely through woo it fits better in necromancy or evocation

[Coidzor]

Yes, but how things operate in previous editions is irrelevant to how things currently operate. Currently, to the best of my knowledge, no positive-energy based spell are Necromancy. This is D&D 3e/3.5e/d20, not Older D&D/AD&D and Other Systems.

It is incredibly relevant for establishing the context in which the decision was made, because 3.0 and 3.5 were not made in a vacuum.

[heavyfuel]

in 3.0, healing spells (including raise dead/resurrection/etc the basic definition of necromancy) were all necromancy, then in 3.5, monte decided he didn't want wizards (especially conjurers) to have any disadvantages at all, so it was all rolled into necro so you could ban it without a second thought.

Do wizards even have Conjuration (Healing) spells available to them?

[Thurbane]

Do wizards even have Conjuration (Healing) spells available to them?

The only one that springs to mind is Hoard Life (RoTD p.113): Sorcerer 4 (so technically no, not for Wizards).

Even Simbul's Synostodweomer (MoF p. 119) [Sor/Wiz 7] is Transmutation, and doesn't have the Healing sub school.

[LuminousWarrior]

I actually support the idea of healing spells as necromancy effects. I actually had an idea for an wizard NPC that was part of a thought experiment. How to make a Good Necromancer? The conclusion I came up with is a semi-atheist wizard that was attempting to use arcane magic to mimic divine magic, using necromancy as a stepping stone to making true healing magic.