| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I was reading the core rulebook and I came to the section on magic. The section on necromancy said
Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force.
So I was wondering: Why are healing spells conjuration? Is it to make them seem less evil even though not all necromancy spells are evil? Can someone enlighten me please?
My comical response to this question is often "because you're conjuring hit points".
I was going to say "You're conjuring missing flesh, blood, bone, and assorted bodily fluids", but that works too.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Life force isn't how... intact a specific individual is, it's manipulating it's essence. It only works with what is there, it doesn't add anything to a body, though sometimes it takes things away.
Healing either A. conjures up missing flesh, or/and B. conjures up missing spirit (as with resurrecting people).
Though, would removing a tumor be considered conjuration? O.o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it has to with the idea that conjuration spells also open gates to other planes of existence. Essentially you're opening a small portal to a positive energy plane and letting a little bit of that positive energy flow through to heal the target. Or at least that's how I figure it because I've always wondered the same thing.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because of unfair stereotypes against the school of Necromancy.
Seriously though, it should be under necromancy. Anything involving toying with life and death energy should be.
I think it has to with the idea that conjuration spells also open gates to other planes of existence. Essentially you're opening a small portal to a positive energy plane and letting a little bit of that positive energy flow through to heal the target. Or at least that's how I figure it because I've always wondered the same thing.
But why are inflict spells necromancy if, as you say, they should be opening a portal to the negative energy plane?
Life force isn't how... intact a specific individual is, it's manipulating it's essence. It only works with what is there, it doesn't add anything to a body, though sometimes it takes things away.
Healing either A. conjures up missing flesh, or/and B. conjures up missing spirit (as with resurrecting people).
Though, would removing a tumor be considered conjuration? O.o
This pretty much.
You are restoring damaged flesh and creating new tissue in place of the old where the wound is. The stronger the spell is, the more new flesh you can create to replace the damaged flesh.A necromancy esk curative spell would be something more along the lines of reversing/negating the aging process, and keeping life from progressing, or even making someone older or younger.
Life force isn't how... intact a specific individual is, it's manipulating it's essence. It only works with what is there, it doesn't add anything to a body, though sometimes it takes things away.Healing either A. conjures up missing flesh, or/and B. conjures up missing spirit (as with resurrecting people).
OK, I guess that makes sense.
Because of unfair stereotypes against the school of Necromancy.
Seriously though, it should be under necromancy. Anything involving toying with life and death energy should be.
Just for the sake of argument, would that make a troll's regeneration a necromatic effect? Is healing magic fundamentally different from regeneration?
|
In my home games I treat them as one of those cases where a given spell is in multiple schools
I find that the explication for it being conjuration makes sense, but under their logic inflict light should also be conjuration
Better question why are the inflict spells necromancy/why aren't they conjuration
Life force isn't how... intact a specific individual is, it's manipulating it's essence. It only works with what is there, it doesn't add anything to a body, though sometimes it takes things away.
Healing either A. conjures up missing flesh, or/and B. conjures up missing spirit (as with resurrecting people).
Though, would removing a tumor be considered conjuration? O.o
then why do they hurt undead?
|
|
Just for the sake of argument, would that make a troll's regeneration a necromatic effect? Is healing magic fundamentally different from regeneration?Because of unfair stereotypes against the school of Necromancy.
Seriously though, it should be under necromancy. Anything involving toying with life and death energy should be.
that's an ex ability and therefor not a school of magic at all but for the sacke of the thought excercise,
I would answer with: possibly and somewhatEven a mass heal spell can't bring back a lost limb for example and you can have all your HP but not have any arms or legs
Just for the sake of argument, would that make a troll's regeneration a necromatic effect? Is healing magic fundamentally different from regeneration?Because of unfair stereotypes against the school of Necromancy.
Seriously though, it should be under necromancy. Anything involving toying with life and death energy should be.
Nope. That is extraordinary not magical so it is not under any school of magic.
3e's designers felt that Conjuration lacked power and versatility.
|
I'm not 100% sure, and my 3.0 books are 20 feet away, do inaccessible (;)), but iirc, healing spells were necromancy as late as 3.0. I generally don't rely this much on straight memory, so may be wrong. As I recall, the idea was that it was thought conjugation needed a boost. Ironically, in the 3.5 era, conjugation was seen as one of the strongest schools, largely due to lack of SR.
Is it rational? I don't think so bid it reasonable, I don't think so, but is debatable. Ultimately, the answer is because it was that way in 3.5.
Personally I think both cure and inflict spells should be evocation.
If I call raw fire from the plane of fire to make a fireball then I don't see why calling positive or negative energy from those planes should count as any different.
Restoration would be something different (abjuration perhaps?), since it is not raw positive energy (which only heals or adds temp hit points). Likewise animate dead would still be necromancy, since raw negative energy only does damage or heals undead (but doesn't create them). Same for vampiric touch (since raw negative energy doesn't transfer hp to the caster).
But cure and inflict spells (as well as heal and harm) are just an application of raw energy from the positive and negative planes. The should both be evocation.
The only reason I can see for them not to be is that there are already a lot of good spells in evocation so adding more would imbalance things.
Peet
3e's designers felt that Conjuration lacked power and versatility.
That was snarkier than the hit point quip. Well done! : )
It was done so spell focus conjuration actually did something...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was done so spell focus conjuration actually did something...
As if awesome spells like Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Stinking Cloud, or Cloudkill didn't make it worthwhile.
There are some spells, such as "regenerate" that make sense for conjuration, but most of the cure spells work by stuffing the target full of positive energy. They aren't directly conjuring anything. The necromancy school is a better fit, although evocation could also work.
It was done so spell focus conjuration actually did something...As if awesome spells like Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Stinking Cloud, or Cloudkill didn't make it worthwhile.
There are some spells, such as "regenerate" that make sense for conjuration, but most of the cure spells work by stuffing the target full of positive energy. They aren't directly conjuring anything. The necromancy school is a better fit, although evocation could also work.
You're hard pressed to find a conjuration spell of every level that has a save without the cure type spells. You're much more likely to find a to hit roll instead.
I think there could be several reasons why healing and necromantic spells would be separated now.
First off, Necromancy used to draw from the Negative Material Plane while Healing spells drew from the Positive Material Plane.
Basically, polar opposites.
Another reason, perhaps more pertinent to PF is that as a conjuration it could be creating something new, as in new flesh to replace the flesh that has been damaged or destroyed.
As it is a conjuration, and not necromantic, when faced with such things such as Anti-Magic Field, it continues to exist as a pure conjuration (if memory serves right) while some necromantic items would not (once again, relying on memory and not reading the rules right now).
Conjuration has some special effects that necromancy does not...and apply better for healing and such...at least I'd imagine.
You're hard pressed to find a conjuration spell of every level that has a save without the cure type spells.
Sticking to CRB, the only wizard spell levels that lack a conjuration spell with a saving throw are the 4th and 9th. If you add so much as the APG, that's no longer true and there are excellent conjuration spells with saves at every spell level. Beyond this, it's the quality of the conjuration school's offerings are what make it so worthwhile.
As for the Cleric's spell list, that's intentionally limited. The Cleric very specifically wasn't given spells from the evocation, conjuration, and illusion schools. Given that abjuration and divination have few offensive spells, and the cleric has few offensive transmutation spells on his list, that leaves only necromancy and enchantment as reliable schools for spell focus. Conjuration isn't the exception to the rule for the cleric: it's the norm.
|
|
In my home games I treat them as one of those cases where a given spell is in multiple schools
I find that the explication for it being conjuration makes sense, but under their logic inflict light should also be conjuration
Better question why are the inflict spells necromancy/why aren't they conjurationthen why do they hurt undead?Life force isn't how... intact a specific individual is, it's manipulating it's essence. It only works with what is there, it doesn't add anything to a body, though sometimes it takes things away.
Healing either A. conjures up missing flesh, or/and B. conjures up missing spirit (as with resurrecting people).
Though, would removing a tumor be considered conjuration? O.o
Undead have had their life force twisted from drawing from positive energy to negative energy. Conjuration, being positive, as in additive. Necromatic, being negative, as in subtraction].
Conjuration spells hurt undead literally at their life force, even though they might heal the wounds.
Necromatic spells heal undead by reinforcing their life force (because it draws from negative energy), even though they may gain more serious wounds.
As for why wounding an undead with a necromatic spell doesn't damage it, well, I don't think zombies, ghosts, or skeletons care about internal bleeding or gaining a laceration across it's body, so long as their life force stays up. Perhaps inflict spells can move flesh/bone around, and while potentially fatal for any living being, is a non-issue to undead.
My backpedalling make-it-fit argument:
Conjuration (healing) spells either create living matter, or teleport away nonliving matter.
OR
It effectively creates a localized conduit of creation/teleportation flowing from the positive plane (plane shift is conjuration), to the negative plane. So positive energy comes in, while negative material goes out... which is effectively the natural flow of existence anyway (birth, live, die).
On the other hand, Necromantic magic is a reversal of cosmic nature (negative to material to positive; undeath), which is often why its seen as evil.
|
So I was reading the core rulebook and I came to the section on magic. The section on necromancy saidNecromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force.So I was wondering: Why are healing spells conjuration? Is it to make them seem less evil even though not all necromancy spells are evil? Can someone enlighten me please?
Healing used to be necromancy, back in AD&D.
Cure Light Wounds (Necromantic) Reversible
Level: 1 Components: V, S Range: Touch Casting Time: 5 segments Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: None Area of Effect: Character touched
Explanation/Description: Upon laying his or her hand upon a creature, the cleric causes from 1 to 8 hit points of wound or other injury damage to the creature's body to be healed. This healing will not affect creatures without corporeal bodies, nor will it cure wounds of creatures not living or those which can be harmed only by iron, silver, and/or magical weapons. Its reverse, Cause Light Wounds, operates in the same manner; and if a person is avoiding this touch, a melee combat "to hit" die is rolled to determine if the cleric's hand strikes the opponent and causes such a wound. Note that cured wounds are permanent only insofar as the creature does not sustain further damage, and that caused wounds will heal - or can be cured - just as any normal injury will. Caused light wounds are 1 to 8 hit points of damage.
then why do they hurt undead?Undead have had their life force twisted from drawing from positive energy to negative energy. Conjuration, being positive, as in additive. Necromatic, being negative, as in subtraction].
Conjuration spells hurt undead literally at their life force, even though they might heal the wounds.
Necromatic spells heal undead by reinforcing their life force (because it draws from negative energy), even though they may gain more serious wounds.As for why wounding an undead with a necromatic spell doesn't damage it, well, I don't think zombies, ghosts, or skeletons care about internal bleeding or gaining a laceration across it's body, so long as their life force stays up. Perhaps inflict spells can move flesh/bone around, and while potentially fatal for any living being, is a non-issue to undead.
It's true, the game conception of Necromancy has changed from earlier editions and it is now much rarer than before to find Necromantic spells that work with positive energy (and it was never common in any edition), but there are still a tiny handful of spells whose designers somehow failed to get the memo that Necromancy must be dark and eeevil. The cantrip Disrupt Undead is one of the last remnants of the spell tradition that Necromancy can deal in positive energy, aside from the granted powers of necromancer wizard specialists, who do have a few healing or undead-hostile options (substandard though they are).
Because conjuration did not have enough good spells.
Healing is a conjuration spell because the healer is conjuring energy from the positive material plane. That energy boosts the recipients natural healing to superhuman level and they heal quickly in moments.
That logic cover like half of the spell in the game. WHy fireball is evocation? you could just conjure fire from the elemental plane of fire.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That logic cover like half of the spell in the game. WHy fireball is evocation? you could just conjure fire from the elemental plane of fire.Healing is a conjuration spell because the healer is conjuring energy from the positive material plane. That energy boosts the recipients natural healing to superhuman level and they heal quickly in moments.
We used to be able to do this, with the Orb of X spells (Orb of Force being the go-to spell). No save, no SR, ignores Anti Magic Fields. You needed to make a ranged touch attack, but that's what Arcane Fusion was for.
That's right, back in 3.5, even blasting was done best with Conjuration.
Its a product of the attempt to nicify the game along with initially removing demons and devils. Its likely paizi didn't care or didn't think of it.
That logic cover like half of the spell in the game. WHy fireball is evocation? you could just conjure fire from the elemental plane of fire.Healing is a conjuration spell because the healer is conjuring energy from the positive material plane. That energy boosts the recipients natural healing to superhuman level and they heal quickly in moments.
We used to be able to do this, with the Orb of X spells (Orb of Force being the go-to spell). No save, no SR, ignores Anti Magic Fields. You needed to make a ranged touch attack, but that's what Arcane Fusion was for.
That's right, back in 3.5, even blasting was done best with Conjuration.
I know, it was crazy. In PF, The snowball spell recieved a lot of criticism for that reason.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it to make them seem less evil even though not all necromancy spells are evil?
This is basically it. They USED to be necromancy, pre -3e, and rightly so, but when 3e was underway, someone got a bug up their butt about 'necromancy must be nasty-wicked-evil, so we can't have it healing people'.
It's BS, really.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it to make them seem less evil even though not all necromancy spells are evil?This is basically it. They USED to be necromancy, pre -3e, and rightly so, but when 3e was underway, someone got a bug up their butt about 'necromancy must be nasty-wicked-evil, so we can't have it healing people'.
It's BS, really.
This a hundred times. Necromancy, like atomic power, should be scary only in the hands of a wicked person.
I think it has to with the idea that conjuration spells also open gates to other planes of existence. Essentially you're opening a small portal to a positive energy plane and letting a little bit of that positive energy flow through to heal the target. Or at least that's how I figure it because I've always wondered the same thing.
This is precisely how I've interpreted it. Conjuration is bringing something from point A to point B instantaneously, in the case of healing it's bringing positive energy from the positive energy plane.
Same thing with teleportation; bringing you from one place to another instantaneously.
Because when someone mentions "necromancy", one of the first things that pop into a person's mind is "death, evil, bad", not "healing, good, happiness". Why did they choose conjuration instead of abjuration, evocation, or go back to necromancy? I couldn't tell you.
Personally, when I think of the necromancy school, I think of things that have to do with death and undeath. Healing, to me, should fall into transmutation (repairing the body), abjuration (protecting their life from ending), or evocation (manipulating the pure energy of the positive plane, similar to fireball with the fire plane).
That's just my thinking on this. If they were going to change it from necromancy, it should have been transmutation, not conjuration.
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Healing is conjuration because that's the way it was in 3rd edition, and that's something that we didn't feel comfortable changing or tinkering with in the tumultuous switchover from the previous edition to Pathfinder.
Back when 3rd edition was being built, I remember there being a lot of in-house internal discussions about healing and what school it should be in, but I don't remember the details. It may indeed be that folks in house felt that necromancy should be "evil" and that healing shouldn't be in there because healing is "good." Another train of thought is that healing magic "conjures" energy from the positive energy plane to heal people.
Regardless... it's a legacy we decided to keep and it is what it is. I don't think that the game will suffer or crash or burn if you house rule healing to be necromancy, though, and in fact, that's a really good idea if you want to give necromancy more oomph. I've often considered doing so myself for my games, in fact... but never really followed through since healing is not something wizards do, and wizards are usually the only ones who care about a spell's school due to specialization, so it's not really an issue. If I had a cleric player who wanted to, say, take spell focus (necromancy) and wanted to include healing spells in there, I'd probably go ahead and make that house rule happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another train of thought is that healing magic "conjures" energy from the positive energy plane to heal people.
Then isn't Necromancy actually Conjuration, too, because it 'conjures' negative energy from the negative material plane?
Regardless... it's a legacy we decided to keep and it is what it is.
I thought the legacy was that it was necromancy... Legacy is confusing.
Another train of thought is that healing magic "conjures" energy from the positive energy plane to heal people.Then isn't Necromancy actually Conjuration, too, because it 'conjures' negative energy from the negative material plane?
Eh, if you really wanted to dig into it you could turn a lot of spells into conjuratoni because a lot of spells make things out of thin air. You summon up the color spray from another world. You summon up the form of another beast and use it, that's a lot of extra mass right? You conjure up space parasites that dominate the person's mind. Go nuts with it! Mind you some ideas are crazier than others.
|
Creative Director
|
Another train of thought is that healing magic "conjures" energy from the positive energy plane to heal people.Then isn't Necromancy actually Conjuration, too, because it 'conjures' negative energy from the negative material plane?
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
Anyway... I wasn't involved in the actual development of the rules way back then; I was just watching from the sidelines. Just reporting what I heard at one point and offering an explanation why it ended up the way it did. I was certainly NOT trying to defend the decision.