|
Traditionally through the editions of Dungeons and dragons, and now continuing that tradition, the Pathfinder edition of dungeons and dragons, arcane spells have been divided into eight schools. If I remember they are Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation.
What was the philosophy behind this catagorization?
Abjuration “ are protective spells”. Page 157 of the Pathfinder Beta book, goes on to describe abjurations spells.
However I looked up the word Abjure on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.This was the definition given
Abjure- means to withdraw one's word or professed belief. abjure implies a firm and final rejecting or abandoning often made under oath <abjured the errors of his former faith>
I don’t quite see how “Abjurtion” describes protective spells.
What do the school names mean and how closely do they match the groupings of spells?
thanks
Abjuration “ are protective spells”. Page 157 of the Pathfinder Beta book, goes on to describe abjurations spells.
However I looked up the word Abjure on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.This was the definition given
Abjure- means to withdraw one's word or professed belief. abjure implies a firm and final rejecting or abandoning often made under oath <abjured the errors of his former faith>
I don’t quite see how “Abjurtion” describes protective spells.
They "abjure" the attack coming in.
But yeah, I've never been a huge schools of magic fan myself.
The schools aren't just for arcane magic, you know. All spells are from one of the eight schools (unless they're universal).
It matters for things like spell focus, which is for all classes, and for school specialisation, which is for wizards only (that used to be pretty much all arcane magic, but we have sorcerers and bards now, both arcane practitioners, but neither concerned with schools overmuch - though the bard does have a bit of a focus on enchantment and illusion).
As for abjuration: To abjure means to renounce, to deny. Fits the theme of the school rather well, and sounds better than Defend. Evokation isn't called Call Up, Illusion isn't called Fool, Enchantment isn't called Mess With Head, and so on (though I haven't looked at 4e in this regard)
Ditto on "Abjuration".
To abjure is to deny or reject, to separate one's self from the procedings.
You'll notice it contains spells like Dispel Magic, which instantly deny the very existence of other magic effects.
To increase your armor, or to add to your defenses in other ways, or to make things go away, all fall within the purview of denying or rjecting the ability of those things to exist or at the very least, denying or rejecting their ability to hurt you.
So yeah, it fits, though a bit more loosely than some of the others.
Look up "mancy" some time and then ask how raising up a skeleton to attack your enemies, or casting a death spell, belongs to "Necromancy"...
D&D made up the definition for Necromancy and has stuck with their made up definition for a long, long time. I guess it sounds cooler than "Necromagic" or "Necrospells". Within the D&D made up definition, the spells in this school seem OK, though there is a bit of crossover here or there, like Speak With Dead, which could be Necromancy (the real dictionary definition, too) or could be Divination.
Divination is is a bit blurred too, but if we overlook the fact that the dictionary will tell you that Necromancy is basically just divination, it's probably OK. Given that D&D made up a definition for Necromancy and separated it from Divination, what's left in Divination seems about right, both with the dictionary and with the D&D definition.
Conjuration brings stuff into existence, or brings stuff that exists somewhere else to where you are, though too many spells get lumped in here, like Acid Arrow for example, which really should just be Evocation.
Speaking of which, look up "Evoke" and you'll find that its definition is virtually identical with "Conjure", at least as pertains to magic. The modern world doesn't really understand magic, either real (superstition, stage magic, etc.) or fantasy, so many magic words get lumped together with the same definition.
So with such a real-world blurring of Conjuration and Evocation, D&D added some distinction that you won't find in the dictionary. And except for crossover Evocation spells that got dumped into Conjuration (probably because otherwise the Conjuration school would have about 15 spells in it), their two spell lists are pretty much OK within the D&D definitions.
Enchantment is pretty accurate, both by D&D and dictionary standards.
Transmutation is too, though it generally becomes a catch-all for spells that seem inappropriate somewhere else.
Illusion is the most accurate of the bunch. If it isn't real, but makes you think it is, put it here. The dictionary likes it too.
Evocation and Conjuration in D&D have been mixed up in the past. I don't know whether it was turned around in other editions, but I remember at least one FR novel trilogy (written by a certain writer who is writing serialised fiction for certain adventure paths) where there a mage who was said to be a really gifted at "evokation - the ability to call strange creatures."
And don't get me started on class names. Outside of D&D, things like wizard, mage, sorcerer, warlock, enchanter, conjurer.....(I could go on) - they all mean the same. But D&D has different flavours of spellcaster, and needed names to tell them apart, so many of them were nailed down to specific flavours.
|
Necromancy and Illusion are two of the worst offenders, as far as schools go.
Create light, it's evocation. Create darkness, it's evocation. Create a pattern of light, color and / or shadows, it's illusion.
Conjure up a critter from somewhere else, it's conjuration. Conjure up a liquid or gas from somewhere else, it's conjuration. Conjure up energy from somewhere else, it's conjuration (if positive energy), evocation (if elemental fire), illusion (if energy from the plane of shadow) *or* necromancy (if negative energy).
Emotion control (hope) is enchantment, love is enchantment, rage is enchantment, despair is enchantment, fear is necromancy... The masters of mind-magic, weavers of dreams and nightmares, if they take necromancy as an opposed school, can't even spook horses, because 'fear spells' aren't mind-affecting enchantments, they are mind-affecting death-magics?
These two schools are, in 2E Spells & Magic terminology are 'theme schools,' not 'schools of effect.'
Necromancy is a hodge-podge of evocations, transmutations, conjurations and enchantments related to death, dead bodies, negative energy, disease and scary, creepy stuff. Illusion is similarly a collection of transmutations, evocations, conjurations and enchantments (the hypnotism spells) loosely wrapped up in a package and sold as a school in it's own right.
Enchantment is pretty accurate, both by D&D and dictionary standards.
Transmutation is too, though it generally becomes a catch-all for spells that seem inappropriate somewhere else.
Personally, I preferred when spells that added a quality to an object or a person belonged in the enchantment school rather than transmutation.
I liked it better when "fly" was an enchantment spell as opposed to a spell that allows you to grow wings, which would be alteration (now transmutation).
'findel
Emotion control (hope) is enchantment, love is enchantment, rage is enchantment, despair is enchantment, fear is necromancy... The masters of mind-magic, weavers of dreams and nightmares, if they take necromancy as an opposed school, can't even spook horses, because 'fear spells' aren't mind-affecting enchantments, they are mind-affecting death-magics?
...and thus many spells in 2ed belonged to more than one school, allowing for two wizards to cast a spell with the same result with a slightly altered fluff in the way they wrought the spell.
In retrospect, I liked that a lot...
'findel