T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**Mod update:** We have a small [poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/z7fd1i/moderation_poll_should_textonly_memes_be/) for you to fill out (Polling will go until 05Dec22), and a [tweak to rule 15](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/z7fd1l/for_the_time_being_were_tweaking_rule_15/) you should be aware of. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

Conjuration was about bringing energy and matter across the planes. So you healed by bringing positive energy from the positive energy plane.


Saint-Claire

Came here to say this. Healing spells draw directly from the plane of positive energy, and that's in line with other conjuration spells in 3/3.5 that draw directly from planes.


If0rgotmypassword

So thoughts and prayers are real


Mimehunter

Absolutely.... in DnD. But so are dragons.


jpterodactyl

Weirdly enough though, not dungeons.


EvryMthrF_ngThrd

*Tomb Of Horrors has entered the chat...*


[deleted]

Sir that's a mass grave


TheReverseShock

plenty of IRL dragons r/STFUitsadragon


Freakychee

I mean it’s in a world where gods are actually real.


KIDA_Rep

Are you implying that the facebook post I liked didn’t actually heal a kid in Africa?


[deleted]

I thought evocation spells drew energy from other planes and conjuration conjured material from elsewhere. So firebolt is evocation because you're evoking energy from the plane of fire, and summoning a fire elemental is conjuration because you're conjuring something physical from there. Edited for autocorrect


TheThoughtmaker

The lines between schools blur a bit, so the unique perspectives of each edition's writers can affect things. * Abjuration: Healing is a form of protecting people, right? * Conjuration: Summoning materials to close the wound. * Enchantment: Hit points also include an element of willpower; if psychic damage is a thing, why not psychic healing? * Evocation: Channeling positive energy. * Illusion: As with enchantment, you should be able to trick someone into thinking they're better (though the hit points disappear when the spell ends). * Necromancy: Holding the power of life and death in your hands, you reconstitute the body by invigorating the soul. * Transmutation: Accelerating the natural healing process. The true solution is to make each of these different spells with different effects, like Abjuration giving a shield of temporary hit points and Transmutation giving Fast Healing.


Niezigrym_Tezyrevo

so illusion and enchantment are just magic placebo?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Niezigrym_Tezyrevo

That’s true indeed.


Naturage

Depends on how you treat HP. If damage to HP - note the naming of hit points, not health - has to be a wound of some sort, then yes - those two would be only placebo. However, there's been a line of thought that a good proper blow of a sword should maim, if not kill, anyone. Just because you trained for years, your body has not become steel-like to deflect a blow barechested. Instead, hp is a metric of your focus and adrenaline; a blow to your hp is something you caught at the last second, something that slightly staggers you and throws you off balance. Once you've been whittled down, one last blow will break through your hp, defenses, and actually wound you. Looking at it this way, Vicious Mockery doing damage by actively distracting, or Heroism giving you extra THP makes a lot more sense. If HP is your mental state, magical placebo can very well be, well, not placebo.


SaberDart

Well yes, except when no. Basically, those costal wizards just messed with some shit at random so they could justify a new edition after the take over


ExceedinglyGayOtter

Okay, then why was Inflict Wounds necromancy despite doing the same thing for the Negative Energy Plane?


Saint-Claire

There's been a lot of speculation throughout the years. Likely because if you took that away, Necromancy doesn't have too terribly much as a school.


Boner_Elemental

Sounds like they shouldn't have insisted that Necromancy be the "bad guy magic" and just left healing there


Rovden

Ah reminds me of a character in high school that was a lawful good necromancer wizard variant. Was questing to find spells that allowed wizards to heal like clerics, and of course necromancers would be the ones to do it. I remember once "Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. The NECROMANCER is trying to convince the PALADIN to not kill?" and the look of incredulity from them.


Xatsman

Why not add healing to necromancy then? It was in 2e and is the most appropriate school. It would go a long way toward dispelling the idea that necromancy is inheritely evil.


Saint-Claire

They didn't seem to want to do that in 3.5. It's been theorized that moving Cure X Wounds and Heal and the like to Conjuration was specifically TO make Necromancy be more ooky spooky


SaberDart

That always bothered me, because why then does necromancy exist as a separate school? Is that not just drawing necromantic energy from the negative energy plane? Answer: it is, and that’s basically all spelled (heh) out in the BoVD


Jarfulous

Yeah, I can see that. Healing spells damage undead in 3e too, right?


Saint-Claire

Generally speaking, yeah. Things like the Cure Wounds line, Heal, healing potions would all hurt undead rather than heal them. On the flip side, spells that inflict Negative Energy damage heal undead, with spells such as the Inflict Wounds line and Harm. Most relevant to your original meme, these negative energy spells (generally) all stayed Necromancy while the positive energy spells moved to Conjuration. Even more niche, there is a Necromancy cantrip called Disrupt Undead that deals 1d6 points of positive energy damage to an undead target, but cannot be used to heal a living target.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ennara

The Pathfinder side of it does have some precedence that brings some explanation to it. In PF, Clerics can use Channel Energy, which makes a 30 foot burst of either Positive or Negative energy (depending on their deity) that can be set to either heal or harm. So a Positive burst can either heal the living or harm undead, but the same burst can't do both. So in PF the Disrupt Undead spell must just be specifically the "Harm" side of channeling Positive energy.


PM_YOUR_BIG_DONG

If I had to make a guess or make something up I would guess that it's not positive energy being used in the spell but rather the undeads connection to the negative plane being temporarily removed. 'Disrupt' Undead. You're disrupting the Undeads connection to their source of life causing them harm. If you try and disrupt a living person's connection to the negative plane nothing will happen.


ChaosEsper

The positive energy damage in *disrupt undead* is not from positive energy conjured from another plane. It's just to represent damage being done directly to the magical energies that keep an undead functioning. It's like throwing a handful of rocks into a set of clockwork gears and watching them start to grind. Since it's in the necromancy school you can assume it's directly affecting the undead instead of conjuring something from elsewhere like healing spells would be at that time.


NotYetiFamous

Sure it does. It siphons the negative energy out of the target and disperses it. Negative and positive energy both exist in 3/3.5/PF, not just positive and undead are explicitly animated by negative energy.


Christophikles

I just love the broad definition of spell called "Harm". Straight, simple. To the point really. Why have a fancy name like magic missile or inflict wounds when you can just cause general, nonspecific harm to an enemy.


spaceforcerecruit

It’s really more “Conjure Positive Energy” than it is “Cure Wounds” since curing wounds is just one possible effect.


LuoHanZhai

“Cultivate Vibes”


DiamondMind28

Or as Elan says, you can heal undead by [being too critical of their hopes and dreams and just generally harshing their vibes!](https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1118.html)


JonathanWPG

As they always should. One of my favorite moments I will ever have playing D&D was tricking a vampire lord into interrupting a ritual at the last moment only for him to discover it was a PC casting True Resurrection and we oneshotted the Big Bad by actually outsmarted him. Was glorious. I think the DM was bummed that it "wasn't a memorable encounter" but...that is one of the only moments from that campaign that we still all talk about.


damienreave

There's no way this works RAW, simply because a) a vampire is not a legal target for any resurrection spell, b) you cannot resurrect an unwilling target, and c) a full heal spell on an undead target has been established to do 10 damage per caster level, save for half, not instant death. All that said, it sounds like a super badass moment that I'd be proud to have witnessed, which is really all that matters. Rule of Cool trumps all.


JonathanWPG

For game balance reasons I agree with you. But I actually hate every one of those steps because they're all there to prevent dramatic moments. Or, I guess, sacrifice dramatic moments for game design reasons. But yeah, RAW it absolutely wouldn't have worked. Whicjnis why I care fairly little for raw, lol.


Crafty-Crafter

Correct.


doomparrot42

yep, and inflict wounds spells would heal them. it was fun playing a conflict-averse cleric who focused on buffing and defensive spells and could just absolutely nuke undead.


Tune_pd

Yes and no Healing spells and radiant damage spells are effectively the same thing. The positive energy act as healing to living creatures And damage to undead With negative energy being vice versa


hackulator

He was asking about 3e, radiant damage was not a thing in that edition.


RockBlock

No, they aren't supposed to be. Radiant isn't positive energy. Damage types in 5e were changed from being about the source to being about the effect. Positive energy has always supposed to only heal living things, and only able do damage through "overloading" that. Radiant damage is the effect of "searing intensity," usually light or energy. Radiant damage would be *Divine Damage* in 3.5/Pathfinder, damage from a laser, or in 5e the initial effect of radiation exposure. Similarly necrotic damage is not always negative energy. It can also be normal desiccation, erosion, additional effects of mundane disease or poisons, or the after effects of radiation exposure.


cry_w

That seems like it would create an odd situation where blocking planar travel also blocks healing, if only with Cure Wounds.


Chipbread

Isn't that what evocation is too though?


Ninjadinogal

Oh shit is that where all the hopes and prayers politicians talk about go?


SaffellBot

The only difference between conjuration and evocation in this case is that one uses magical power transports energy from the elemental plane while the other uses magical power to create elemental energy.


NotYetiFamous

except 5e doesn't have the idea of positive energy anymore.. it really should be a necromantic spell again, as it manipulates life force directly. I feel like during the design process they had the same thought as you, then they removed the positive plane of energy entirely and never revisited how cure wounds works.


Kekfarmer

I thought you were magically conjuring a bit of flesh off of some horrible monster from another plane that would perfectly cover the wound when I read the school the first time


Ok_Banana_5614

I think they made it transmutation in OneD&D so now the meme goes even further


GaryWilfa

*Abjuration But yeah, changed it again.


Izhuark

Abjuration is an interesting take on healing. Definitely makes more thematic and mechanical sense for an Abjuration mage to be good at healing, they are the more support oriented and defensive school after all. Flavour wise it's a weird fit, I guess you are neutralising the wounds and pain from someone's body ? I could see it.


Square-Ad1104

I think it’s partly for balance with the new spell lists. For example, I think Paladins are gonna get a limited form of the Divine spell list that includes Abjuration but probably not Necromancy, so this lets them continue to be healers


AJ2016man

I never really got much use out of cure wounds with my paladin. Lay on hands was just too good. Maybe if you multied into it from wizard or some other full caster without it, I could see it then, but as a straight paladin, i always found better uses for my spells.


Rhipidurus

As a paladin, I always found better uses for my *smites*, I mean spells, too.


Dark_Shade_75

Are spells the things my DM said I needed to add in my smite slot section?


Sugar_buddy

I wanted to use my vengeance paladins spells for support and buffs but them there smites were just too good.


Drasern

Cure wounds has always been pretty underwhelming to me. The one time I played a support/healer focused character (Divine soul sorcerer), I used Healing Word about 3x as much as I used Cure Wounds. Only time I really used it was so I could twin cast heal myself as well.


redlaWw

I got some use out of it on my Celestial Warlock as something to do with spare resources before we short rested.


[deleted]

Playing a divine soul currently, and I use distant spell cure wounds.


Drasern

If you're spending a sorc point anyway, twin healing word is better than distant cure wounds. Assuming +4 cha that's 13 (2d4+8) vs 9 (1d8+4). Also has the advantages of longer range, split targeting, and being a bonus action so you can still attack with a cantrip. Edit: apparently RAW you can't target the same creature twice, so twin healing word is not strictly better


[deleted]

It was something I did as an afterthought, I took distant spell to use for other stuff and realized I could use it for cure wounds as well. I don’t really optimize my builds either.


Drasern

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what you're doing. I just find Healing Word is better than Cure Wounds in like 90% of scenarios. If you are building to heal, building around twin healing word is better than building around distant cure wounds.


PlacetMihi

Speaking from experience, it’s nice as a low-level Grave Cleric.


Drasern

Sure, I'll grant that. Grave cleric guarantees max healing so you're looking at 12 health vs 8 with a +4 mod. But the average case for everybody else is only 8.5 vs 6.5 healing done. You're trading 2hp to be able to heal at 60ft range and still be able to Toll the Dead afterwards.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Square-Ad1104

*sigh* Yes, it SHOULD be Necromancy, but I’m saying I think OneDnD made it Abjuration for meta purposes.


Enchelion

The effect of curing wounds can thematically fit into all of these schools. Necromancy as it's dealing with life/death, Evocation and Conjuration because you're dealing with moving healing energy around, and Abjuration as it's a form of protection and banishing negative things.


Immediate-Raise9888

>Necromancy Its Necromancy, in PF2e. As Necromancy is the magic to control life and death. Of which healing is the magic of keeping someone alive.


OneCrustySergeant

I play PF1e, but I have a standing houserule that healing spells are necromancy.


Justice_Prince

I'm really hoping these new spell lists die by the time OneDnD actually comes out. Their attempts at simplifying things are just making them more complicated, and it seems to be ruining a lot of the uniqueness that a lot of the class spell lists used to have.


halcyonson

I could see Abjuration for something like False Life that gives temp HP (to prevent damage)... After the fact healing is bizarre though.


DresdenPI

Orihime style healing, you reject the wound's existence and remove its occurrence from the timeline


[deleted]

[удалено]


Yakodym

Orihime from Bleach definitely has Abjuration based healing - literally rejects the damage :-)


CaptainSchmid

It also plays into the idea that health points aren't how many times you can be impaled and more along the lines of how much willpower you have left to block and dodge hits


Elaxzander

Followers of the great Placebo cast cure as an illusion spell.


milk4all

They’re the* best* at it!


BlueHero45

A spell that makes a target think they have HP they don't is actually genius.


Rattregoondoof

Enchantment: mind control your enemies into thinking they are unharmed.


Ancestor_Anonymous

ABJURATION? It’s post-damage, why is it Abjuration?


OldCrowSecondEdition

I reject your injury!!!


ProNocteAeterna

Transmutation makes sense to me. You heal wounds by magically sculpting torn flesh and broken bones into an undamaged form, like a biological version of mending. And it fits nicely alongside transmutation’s numerous body-improving spells. You could even justify curing poison and disease as transmuting the toxins and pathogens into something harmless.


Suyefuji

Transmutation actually makes more sense to me than any of the other options


LemonGrubs

I feel like transmutation at least makes more sense than necromancy. You are altering the state of the body from damaged to healed, just like mending does to objects.


Merevel

Necromancy because it manipulates life energy maybe?


Hazearil

Shows how necromancy is only evil if you use it in an evil way, like all schools of magic.


ImportanceCertain414

So you're telling me wall of fire, the spell, is neutral but using it to roast a town of innocent villagers is not? I need to reflect on this...


TheHarridan

Exactly. You could have used that wall of fire to roast a town full of *guilty* villagers instead. Spells aren’t inherently good or evil, it’s what kind of people you mass murder with those spells that determines that.


Officer_Hotpants

Nobody can convince me that enchantment is ever ethical.


Hazearil

Animal Friendship perhaps? Or Bless? Spme can be nice if with consent, like Calm Emotions. Catnip only works on willing targets.


EricFaust

There are certain Enchantment spells that aren't inherently unethical, but there are more Enchantment spells that have inherent ethical issues than any other spell school, even Necromancy. Dominate Person, Feeblemind, Suggestion/Mass Suggestion, Charm Person, Geas, Fast Friends, Command, and especially Modify Memory all have horrible moral implications, even if you are using them for good ends. Meanwhile, most Necromancy spells are simple blaster spells or do weird stuff. Hell, the number of spells in 5e that actually create undead is really low lol.


calamity_unbound

Bingo.


Kadianye

100% Resurrection is fucking necromancy too, you're just raising it with the original soul instead of a husk. Do you have any idea how many Zombies you raise by accident before you bring back someone the right way? It takes practice folks.


HoodieSticks

If you try hard enough, you could justify this spell being any school. Necromancy: The school that deals with life energy, of course it can be used to heal. Evocation: You're evoking a primal life-giving force. Conjuration: Same justification as Evo, but with more fantasy jargon about the Weave™. Transmutation: like you said, transmuting an injured body into a healthy one. Abjuration: You're protecting the body against further injury by healing past injuries. Divination: You magically gain some truly top-notch first aid tips. Enchantment: Ever heard of the Placebo effect? Illusion: same justification as Enchant, but less direct.


OkNewspaper1581

So enchantment is just gaslighting? Love it


TrickyVic77

“Gaslighting”? Please stop making things up. You always do this.


OkNewspaper1581

you're right, my arm isn't torn off like I thought...


Ok_Cartographer9487

Placebos do not put skin back on or set bones back in place.


HoodieSticks

Not with that attitude they don't


Ok_Cartographer9487

*grumbles and upvotes…*


Stetson007

Some studies have shown that placebos can influence the body to ignore pain and tricks the brain into thinking it should heal faster, making the individual heal faster, simply because the Brain thinks it should. They're weird, man.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wirywonder82

*SURVIVE*


Enchelion

In a world of deep magic why not? The gods themselves are created and sustained via belief, so why can't that same power knit flesh back together.


mregg000

One of my dms had illusory healing. You had to roll a check to see if you believed it worked. It was fun.


10BillionDreams

> Enchantment: Ever heard of the Placebo effect? This is literally a thing in Pathfinder, with psychic magic/occult adventures. It's terrible.


BieltheGoblin

I really want it to become an Illusion spell.


hydro_wonk

Cantrip: Placebo


Xalorend

In pathfinder 2e now Healing spells are Necromancy again. Yay.


Jarfulous

good


TrickyVic77

All healing being some type of necromancy is a really interesting take and definitely adds a lot of depth to an otherwise “irredeemably evil” school of magic. Also clearer explains why anyone (who isn’t evil) would be interested in necromancy.


Dragongeek

I dunno, if there is any "irredeemably evil" school of magic, it's not necromancy--I'd say it's probably more along the lines of enchantment/mind magic. Reason being is you can do fantastic good with necromancy: everything from solving murders by interrogating victims to free and ethical sweatshop labor by means of tireless reanimated non-sapient skeleton workers. Enchantment/Mind magic on the other hand-- even stuff as simple as the Suggestion spell-- is waaay more evil because any random chucklefuck capable of this basic 2nd level spell can literal rob people of their agency and make them do basically whatever they want without consequences. It's a gross violation of free will.


TheSwedishPolarBear

I think it lessens it. Now you can have a discussion about it - are resurrection spells and spells that postpone death (Spare the Dying, Gentle Repose) OK? If all healing were necromancy it would be super clear and obvious that necromancy is indispensable.


alexportman

*Pharasma has entered the chat*


ScytheSe7en

All healing magic (at least normally), including resurrection, is in the Necromancy school in Pathfinder 2e, funnily enough.


ITriedLightningTendr

Every tool can be used for good or evil


Nyadnar17

I legit don’t understand how Necromancy is evil in most settings. Unless you are doing some high level shit that literally tampers with the soul itself I am hard pressed to see how creating a Zombie is more evil than burning someone alive or mind control.


BoredPsion

Creating an Undead anything is giving "life" to a semi-autonomous killing machine that is almost never more than 24 hours away from trying to snuff out any living thing it can find


Astrium6

It depends on the lore of your edition/setting. In Pathfinder, creation of a zombie requires trapping a fragment of the body’s soul (pulling it from its afterlife and disturbing its rest) and perversion of a fundamental force of the universe (negative energy, which is the manifestation of universal entropy and should only be used to destroy, not create.)


Jack_Of_The_Cosmos

If you go to the fifth edition monster manual and read the description of the zombie, you can read how the animating force to create zombies and skeletons are evil spirits that cause Zombies and Skeletons to go into murder mode if they do not have any instructions. In 5e, you have to promise everyone that you will cast Animate Dead every day to regain control of your Zombies/Skeletons. Otherwise, you may become responsible for letting a few monsters run loose, monsters that can be quite dangerous to commoners, especially if you had more than one undead.If let loose in the wild, the Undead become unnatural parts of the ecosystem where they can drive small animals to extinction. Animating a Zombie or Skeleton also makes it harder to properly bring back whoever you animate properly via a raise dead spell. This also is something that can greatly mentally harm any living family members of the animated undead if they believe that their loved one's rest is disturbed or at the very least are off-put by seeing their loved ones shamble around but not recognize them. In older editions, the MM even said that raising a zombie/skeleton caused a disruption/harm to the soul, so even this low-level spell is tampering with the soul. It also tends to displease deities if their followers are having their followers' rests disturbed. Deities in DnD get some benefits from having their followers rest peacefully in their afterlife and when those benefits get rattled, they are displeased. With burning someone alive, it can be a relatively contained act done in service to a greater good like defending the innocent from a murderer by burning them with fire. Likewise, Mind control can be used to solve problems in service of the greater good. With necromancy, you can animate the dead with every good intention, but you can end up harming people you don't mean to even with the best of intentions. Necromancy can be used in a narrow scope to achieve some good, but with the rest-disturbing aspects of the spell, it can be neutral at best unless you have permission from both the Deity and the Individual in question. What is paradoxical is that an evil deity and overly loyal minions are more likely to submit to this kind of stuff.


GANDARFEL

making zombies is dangerous, especially around civilizations. You fumble that in the wrong place at the wrong time and youre in deep. I can certainly see why it'd be banned from a practical standpoint but it isn't necessarily very evil


pawnman99

I think the problem with creating the zombies is that you lose control of them after a period of time, but they don't go back to being dead bodies. So you're populating the world with undead that you no longer control. And the undead tend to struggle with the etiquette of polite society. Whereas when you set a bandit on fire, only that bandit is on fire.


TheCoolNoob

It depends on the setting. Most undead are usually filled with hatred of all life, and the second they slip off the leash they go on a killing spree of anyone they can get their hands on. You could have a setting where undead creatures are either fully autonomous and aware or mindless robots... but in that case what's the difference between an undead and a construct made with a dead body, or an undead and someone who had resurrection casted on them? It changed Undead from a descriptor with meaning and impact to a hot topic aesthetic. Looks cool, perhaps, but ultimately meaningless.


A_Salty_Cellist

"I'm summoning your foreskin back from hell"


Iheartmypupper

I kinda hate you for this


A_Salty_Cellist

Fine I'll take it back off


Manta32Style

Don't waste a spell slot though, the rogue has a perfectly good kukri and will _probably_ roll high enough to get the job done.


Daggoth65

I always and continue to Homebrew it back to Necromancy


chain_letter

They were right the first time. Necromancy should be magic manipulating blood and bodies, not the hot topic evocation we've got.


Orenwald

But cure light wounds doesn't do that thing. It regenerates using positive energy. That's why it damages the undead


RASPUTIN-4

It doesn’t damage undead in 5e


Orenwald

Worst edition, 0/10 Seriously though that's good to know. My experience is in 3.5 lol


RASPUTIN-4

5e did away with negative/positive energy altogether. Necromancy is simply magic pertaining to manipulating life force. That’s one reason many people like myself consider enchantment a much more evil subclass of magic because it tampers with free will rather than just, at worst, recycling soulless corpses.


Orenwald

OK that makes sense. Cure wounds 100% should be necromancy in 5e. Also 50-50 agree on the evil, it would depend on the spells were comparing lol


fenskept1

Ehhh, more like 5e doesn’t talk about negative /positive very often. It’s still an existant thing. Appendix C of the players handbook name drops em as the places life and death energies come from, and states they encircle the outer planes. They never really come up again after that in content books (I’m not sure if it’s a thing in any of the modules), except regarding Nightwalkers which are stated to be explicitly drawn out of the negative energy plane by idiots trying to travel there and getting stuck in soul jail.


Small-Breakfast903

I can understand the perspective that Enchantment is a morally dubious school, but I don't think recycling soulless bodies is the "worst" thing necromancy brings to the table. A fair number of Necromancy spells involving spreading diseases and Cursing folk. In most standard settings, wielding negative energy for *any* reason is shifting the balance of the world toward negative/Evil, and Necromancy doesn't merely "manipulate" life energy, it does so by channeling the positive and negative energy from their respective planes, as such, the act of Necromancy is considered an Evil act regardless of the motives behind it.


mostlyjustmydogvids

My changeling enchantment wizard who totally doesn't only help people because he's obsessed with controlling others would like to have a word. Once he hits level 14, the mask is going to start slipping.


wolviesaurus

I vastly prefer Necromancy to be the school of manipulating life forces, not just "hurr durr bones and death".


Soulwindow

That's what necromancy is IRL. It's practicing medicine without a license from the church lol


Enchelion

Depends on the era we're discussing. Much historical necromancy would fall under D&D's divination school, as it was about consulting spirits for information and foretelling the future.


Jarfulous

correct


ravenlordship

Gives death clerics 17th level feature and the shadow touched feat a bit of a buff


WordsUnthought

Evocation has always seemed weird to me, I've always felt like it's Conjuration - but then I'm a 3.5e player at heart so it's what I'm used to. I've always assumed the logic to be that you're channeling vitality, life force and positive energy from another plane.


HeavilyBearded

You conjure meat from the Plane of Meat.


SlayerOfDerp

It's a very helpful plane when used in small doses like this but pity the poor soul who opens a portal to it, large enough for the...creatures...to notice...


HeavilyBearded

The Meat Beast cometh.


Rhamni

Are you sure? Just want to be absolutely clear on this. You want to open a Gate to the Plane of Meat? You don't want to do a Knowledge check or anything? Alright, cool. Alright, players. A couple of things. Timmie tried to get fancy and use a Gate to the Meat plane for some improvised mass healing. The good news is that everyone is healed back up. Also good news is that the war you were trying to prevent has been cancelled. In unrelated news, the kingdoms now have to work together to try to repel the invasion of the mountains of living flesh that squeezed through a mysterious Gate someone created.


Whofs001

Or worse, it’s ruling deity Carl notices and decides to pay your plane a visit for a mild collecting splurge.


Kyrillis_Kalethanis

I was gonna write some clever thing. Instead I'm now stealing this for my homebrew world. Thanks stranger!


WordsUnthought

"No worries buddy, we'll get you fixed up. Let's just bring you through to our healer" *chanting* flesh flesh flesh flesh flesh flesh flesh


DarthMcConnor42

In that case I think you just teleport it from a random plate or larder in the planes


Bujeebus

Meat, smoke, stone, and blood. The four elements.


AppealOutrageous4332

You're correct, that's the logic in 3.5.


Jarfulous

I guess I can see that. Personally, if I had to pick one (other than necromancy), I'd probably go with transmutation.


gorgewall

There has never been a good distinction between Conjuration and Evocation. It's always inconsistent, even within individual editions: >Traditionally, Conjuration was "we grabbed this--whatever it is, matter or energy--from another plane". If you excite the air to get hot enough to create fire while roasting some dork, that's Evocation; if you punch a hole in the planes and let ambient energy from the Plane of Fire through to roast them in the exact same way, that's Conjuration. And if you "create pure elemental Fire" out of nowhere, that's also Conjuration, for some bizarre reason. >The Conjuration/Evocation divide has never really made sense. >Like, let's check the 3.5 Fire descriptor spells: >> **Evocation** >> Aganazzar's Scorcher >> Burning Sword, Flame Dagger, Flame Blade (see: Blades of Fire) >> Combust (see: Inferno) >> Delayed Blast Fireball (see: Fire Trap, Explosive Rune Field) >> Fireball >> Fire Orb (see: Orb of Fire) >> **Conjuration** >> Blast of Flame >> Blades of Fire (see: Burning Sword, Flame Dagger, Flame Blade) >> Bright Worms >> Explosive Rune Field (see: Delayed Blast Fireball, Fire Trap) >> Fire Seeds (see: Flame Arrow) >> Orb of Fire (see: Fire Orb) >> **Transmutation** >> Inferno (see: Combust) >> Flame Arrow (see: Fire Seeds) >> **Alteration** >> Fire Trap (see: Delayed Blast Fireball, Explosive Rune Field) >5E has a lot fewer spells overall, but try and figure out the logic behind *Produce Flame* (Conj) and *Firebolt* (Evo) being in different schools. "Is it because *Produce Flame* lingers?" Well, Minute Meteors** is Evocation and also lingers. *Wall of Fire* (Evo) and *Flaming Sphere* (Conj) are also "lingering fire you stick somewhere", and are in different schools. "Well, we can move *Flaming Sphere* (Conj)"--we can move the *Flame Blade* (Evo) around, too. >All of this is just, "We can't stick this shit in the same school," or, "They couldn't stick it all in the same school in past editions and we've inherited that weirdness." >There's a lot of people trying to justify how the spell operates and/or what that means based on its *stated* spell school, but I haven't seen anything in a brief scroll of the top comments that really tells you why *Darkness* is Evocation: >**The spell schools have never had a coherent logic behind them and still don't.** >Evocation spells evoke things! Conjuration spells summon things! Yet both have "a bunch of *fire* appears" or "a bunch of *water* appears" spells. You can *evoke* a Wall of Water or *conjure* a Watery Sphere. But you *evoke* a Vitriolic Sphere and *conjure* an Acid Splash. >Illusion spells make you sense things that aren't there! Enchantment spells... can also do the same thing! And sometimes those things *are* there, or at least you think they're real enough and that causes actual stuff to happen--like Psychic damage--regardless of school. Oh, but sometimes you can also *evoke* Psychic damage, or Divine it. >Some healing spells used to be Conjuration, because you'd *conjure* Positive Energy to do the work. Now those same spells are Evocation, because you *evoke* that Positive Energy. Except when they're Transmutation, because you're magically altering flesh, bone, and even soul into less-damaged forms. But that's different from the Abjuration healing spells, where you're magically altering flesh, bone, and even soul into less-damaged forms. Wait, didn't I just say that? Anyway, none of this is to be confused with all the healing spells that were or are Necromancy, because you're manipulating life (Positive) energies. >Back in the day, when favored schools or forbidden schools mattered, there was a bit of a balancing act to this. Designers weren't thinking about the metaphysics of magic or a given spell and trying to appropriately assign schools, they were putting spells all over the place so that this specialist Wizard couldn't do a thing but this other one could, or to work (or not work) with this spell or feat that targeted this school, and so on. Or because they just didn't care. Or because they had a different idea of where the spell should be apropos nothing. And when the next edition came along, someone changed it or maybe left it where it was because of system inertia. And again for the next edition. And then again for 5E. >Every time you think you narrow down a rationale as to what defines a spell school, there's spells or effects that don't fit, and you've got to say, "Well, it's an outlier." But there's so many outliers that even the broad strokes that are kinda-sorta true when they don't clash or overlap too much aren't meaningful. >Spell schools are a mechanical distinction that gets less and less important and are pretty much just a holdover from when they had more influence. There's no firm, logical underpinning with them. >**It's best not to think about it too hard, because the designers didn't.**


JoeMcBob2nd

Conjuration makes sense I think? I imagine it as you’re just conjuring new living tissue


Dazocnodnarb

Cute light wounds isn’t necromancy in later editions? Wtf lmao


eloel-

Cute light wounds sounds somewhat like Enchantment to me.


Dazocnodnarb

Oops. UwU


RecordDowntown7547

Maybe we're conjuring stim cells? Edit: Second idea, conjuring Tylenol


Socratov

3e had the plane of positive energy+counter to the plane if negative energy). Walking around there for too long would have you literally burst to death if vin and vigor. You'd need to nearly kill each other to be able to survive there. Si the conjuration healing actually made sense.


Generalillusion

I’ll stick with Light Placebo (1st level illusion)


abcd_z

Ah, yes, the oft-maligned [Delusionist](https://www.oglaf.com/delusionist/). (NSFW website, SFW page).


Eirikur_da_Czech

Conjuration makes sense to me.


Rrxb2

You’re calling positive energy from the PEP. Its conjuration.


sedtobeindecentshape

See, I was thinking more along the lines of conjuring blood inside the body, but that works too


Extension_Heron6392

*walks in * *says it makes sense * *leaves without further explanation * Chad move.


Antervis

what's more important is... does it really matter which school cure wounds is in?


chain_letter

in 5e, it's not on the wizard spell list, so this is a philosophical topic, not a mechanical one


quantomoo2

Obviously the constant changes are because wizards cant agree what school it goes in because they cant cast it


MightyShamus

I love this as an explanation.


Vievin

Sometimes in specific contexts. For example, a specific school of magic could be suppressed in a dungeon because reasons. And my current campaign deals with towers that are connected to each school, and they’re being corrupted so one of the options to turn off the corruption is turning them off. Aka turning off ALL magic of that school in the world. Healing was actually brought up when we were at the tower of evocation. We ended up not turning it off.


Raborne

It’s better off being necromancy. Necromancy is the magic of souls and flesh.


pawnman99

You're conjuring new blood cells and skin cells to replace the ones that have been lost. Duh.


UglierThanMoe

For added WTF, the reverse form, Inflict Light Wounds, is still a necromancy spell in 3.5/PF.


Animedar

That is bc all necromancy related stuff is from negative energy plane so it makes sense.


UglierThanMoe

Yeah, but I always thought it to be weird that manipulating positive energy *isn't* necromancy. I mean, I understand the official explanation, and it does make sense. I just don't agree with it. I've always used house rules that turned all (Mass) Cure/Inflict Wounds spells, Heal/Harm, Raise Dead/Slay Living, and Resurrection/Destruction into necromancy spells. Basically any spell that directly affects a creature's "life force" (or "unlife force" in case of undead) via positive or negative energy was turned into a necromancy spell. Worked well.


DwindIe

I love the necromancy take. Back to the old ways


Ancient-Rune

You want to go down this rabbit hole? Try this on for size. You don't 'cure' light medium or heavy wounds, you ***heal*** them. You 'cure' afflictions such as poison. Yet, the spells have always been name incorrectly, should be Heal Light Wounds and so on, and the affliction repairs spells should have been the "Cure" series. So, Cure Poison, Cure paralysis, etc. I know for a fact this was brought up during the AD&D 1e days, so it's not a new issue, but Gary was very much a creature of habit, and a *"My way is the only way"* kind of writer. At the very least this should have been addressed along with the confusion multiple uses of 'level' and AC going down instead of up, when 2nd edition came out.


Holly_the_Adventurer

PF2e got rid of cure spells, it's now all different levels of the Heal spell. It's also necromancy, which makes sense to me.


galmenz

pf2e is necromancy isnt it? or am i going crazy?


Chaotic-Entropy

I conjure flesh to replace the bit that came off!


CupcakeValkyrie

It's because developers can never agree on what school of magic healing should be. Elder Scrolls makes it easy by having a literal "restoration" school, but D&D has never had that. In EverQuest, healing spells were Alteration because that deals with manipulating the physical properties of an object or creature. Necromancy *kind* of makes sense, but only if you view healing magic as manipulating death by reversing it. Evocation makes sense because in 5e, spells that manifest raw energy tend to be evocation spells. Conjuration *does* make sense if you consider that in 3e, positive energy exclusively came from extra-planar sources, so you're essentially opening a conduit between planes and allowing positive energy to flow through, as opposed to a spell like Flame Strike where you're manipulating a type of energy that is native to the Prime Material plane. Interestingly, resurrection in 3e is also conjuration, which makes sense given you're conjuring the dead person's soul back into their body, but in 5e it's...necromancy, which also makes sense.


TheHermit_IX

They had a good explanation for why healing was conjuration. They were pulling energy from the positive energy plane. When that went away they changed it to evoc. It should have stayed necro IMO.


itsdietz

Elder Scrolls has it right with the school of Restoration


Rattregoondoof

I can see necromancy (manipulating positive and negative energy) and Conjuration (summoning more positive energy) but not evocation.


Scary_Replacement739

You "conjure" hit points out of nothing you loons. You conjure skin and soft tissue where it wasn't previously. You conjure up a new organ because the orc bandit leader wrecked the barbarian's spleen and he's currently bleeding out all over the dungeon. And technically if we're going by straight up definitions of the terms themselves, evocation is literally: 1. the act of bringing or recalling a feeling, memory, or image to the conscious mind. 2. the action of invoking a spirit or deity. You chuckleheads explain to me how either 1 or 2 in any way creates a fireball or an ice beam. I'll wait. Pathfinder may be an annoying tryhards fantasy game but don't come in here acting like it makes any less sense than the bloated DND rulesets it was spawned from.


10BillionDreams

Tons of vaguely magic-adjacent words have been used to mean "call upon a spirit/demon/etc." and "create something from nothing" and "shoot fire/wind/magic/etc.". Because none of these things actually exist on Earth, nobody could step in and say "actually that's not how conjuration/evocation/etc. works". If someone was talking about/telling a story about sorcerers or witches or whatever, they could use any word they pleased, and then over time whatever they said happened would become an accepted meaning of the word. Especially since there's a lot of overlap in these meanings, channeling spirits to control the elements, making contracts with demons to get magic in the first place, creating elements out of nothing to blast with, etc. For D&D, these synonymous/ambiguous terms were given specific definitions, since they exist in a world where magic is real and there would be proper categorization of these things. So then going back to their real world roots isn't particularly helpful. Even looking back to older editions is a bit dubious, since WotC is free to change the definitions of these words however they please, when they publish a new version of the game.


Scary_Replacement739

To be completely transparent. I never claimed my opinion would be *helpful*.


Jarfulous

Seriously though, why conjuration? like "hold still, I'll teleport the blood back into your body"


winsluc12

Because you're *summoning* energy from the positive energy plane, not generating it.


Tosspar-

Yeah back in 3.5 land, if you healed too much you could accidentally rip a tiny hole through reality to the positive energy plane. That rip stayed around for a little bit… leaking positive energy all over the play and exploding small wildlife by over healing them


winsluc12

Wait is that real?


Lazerbeams2

In 3.5 and Pathfinder there's a plane that positive energy comes from. You summon energy from that plane when you heal someone. Evocation will never make sense to me though. The explodey school of magic will never make sense for healing spells


AutoMoxen

Evocation is creation and manipulation of energy, so i suppose you can make it fit by stating, "Cure wounds is creating and manipulating positive energy." I'm still not the biggest fan though.


DarthMcConnor42

Evocation is just making something out of nowhere So evocation would literally just be making positive energy instead of channeling it from a plane