Opposite schools
SeaHen
destructive energy and abjuration blocks it. Abjuration seeks to
create an unmovable object, while evocation seeks to create an
unstoppable force.
Divination is the opposite of illusion, because divinations try to see
through illusions while illusions try to stop divinations or make
their results misleading.
Conjuration is the opposite of necromancy, because healing spells are
conjuration, while Inflict spells and those that cause afflictions are
necromancy.
But that leaves transmutation as the opposite of enchantment. Does
that make any sense?
The Rev. Dr. Lt. Chaos Israel
Hm.
Transmutation alters the pyhsical universe, while enchantment only
alters one's perception of it.
Maybe?
--
C.
Mark Blunden
news:fffb2f3e-b225-4dff...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Does it need to? The concept of opposition schools was done away with when
3.5e updated the specialist wizard, and even before that they weren't
exactly characterised as opposites.
Do you have an in-campaign reason for wanting them to be?
--
Mark.
Miracle
> Evocation is the opposite of abjuration, because evocation creates
> destructive energy and abjuration blocks it. Abjuration seeks to
> create an unmovable object, while evocation seeks to create an
> unstoppable force.
>
> Divination is the opposite of illusion, because divinations try to see
> through illusions while illusions try to stop divinations or make
> their results misleading.
>
> Conjuration is the opposite of necromancy, because healing spells are
> conjuration, while Inflict spells and those that cause afflictions are
> necromancy.
Well... Conjuration (Healing) is opposite, but I don't see how Conj
(Teleportation), (Creation), (Calling), and (Summoning) can fit there.
> But that leaves transmutation as the opposite of enchantment. Does
> that make any sense?
Abjuration could as well be opposite to enchantment, and transmutation
is somewhat opposite to Conj. (Creation) perhaps?
SeaHen
<chaos_isr...@antisocial.com> wrote:
> Transmutation alters the pyhsical universe, while enchantment only
> alters one's perception of it.
So transmutation alters matter, while enchantment alters mind. I like
this, but it would mean reschooling Fox's Cunning, Owl's Wisdom and
Eagle's Splendor.
Alcore
Enchantment means nothing more or less than imbuing something with an
ongoing magical effect. It could be mind affecting. It normally
isn't. That's why magical bonuses on weapons and armor are of school
"enchantment".
Transmutations make a permanent change in matter *now*, and then going
forward the effected item is no longer "magical". Invocations/
Evocations make instantaneous bursts of energy. Necromancy is magic
directly related to life force.
Illusions create appearances that differ from reality. (Like
enchantments, they are sometimes mind affecting. But normally, they
are not.)
There really is no explicitly "mind affecting" school.
It is best to discard simple "oppositional duality" when thinking
about the schools of magic as they exist in 3e.
Gene P.
Jim Davies
>Enchantment means nothing more or less than imbuing something with an
>ongoing magical effect. It could be mind affecting. It normally
>isn't. That's why magical bonuses on weapons and armor are of school
>"enchantment".
Are you playing the same game as we are? This is the D&D newsgroup, in
case you'd forgotten. Every single enchantment spell in the 3.5 SRD is
mind-affecting. Armour (unless otherwise specified) is Abjuration.
Weapons (ditto) are Evocation.
That's not to say that all Mind-Affecting spells are Enchantment. Some
are Necromancy, Illusion or Divination.
>There really is no explicitly "mind affecting" school.
True-ish, but Enchantment pretty much nails it.
>It is best to discard simple "oppositional duality" when thinking
>about the schools of magic as they exist in 3e.
This is true, though (in RAW 3.5).
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and so http://www.aaargh.org doesn't work.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
SeaHen
> Enchantment means nothing more or less than imbuing something with an
> ongoing magical effect. It could be mind affecting. It normally
> isn't. That's why magical bonuses on weapons and armor are of school
> "enchantment".
No, they're en*hance*ment bonuses, which isn't the same thing at all.
> Transmutations make a permanent change in matter *now*, and then going
> forward the effected item is no longer "magical".
Not true; permanent but dispellable transmutations exist (Polymorph
Any Object).
Keith Davies
> On Jan 22, 12:39 pm, Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> wrote:
>
>> Enchantment means nothing more or less than imbuing something with an
>> ongoing magical effect. It could be mind affecting. It normally
>> isn't. That's why magical bonuses on weapons and armor are of school
>> "enchantment".
>
> No, they're en*hance*ment bonuses, which isn't the same thing at all.
In 2e, making stuff magical was under enchantment.
This is not 2e, of course, but the thought could linger.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
keith....@kjdavies.org "Clever people wouldn't even try
keith....@gmail.com "If you want a place in the history books
http://www.kjdavies.org/ "Then do something dumb before you die."
-- The Arrogant Worms
Nikolas Landauer
> Alcore wrote:
> >
> > Transmutations make a permanent change in matter *now*,
> > and then going forward the effected item is no longer "magical".
>
> Not true; permanent but dispellable transmutations exist
> (Polymorph Any Object).
Better yet, there are also temporary transmutations that
create a continuing magic effect for their duration, such
as... (drumroll) The spell /magic weapon/.
Funny, that.
So, I've been gone for a while, with only sporadic reading/
posting... Is Gene here the new Marshall, or what?
--
Nik
tussock
> Abjuration could as well be opposite to enchantment, and transmutation
> is somewhat opposite to Conj. (Creation) perhaps?
Transmute vs Abjure. To change or not to change.
Conjure vs Evoke. To bring the thing or the effect.
Divination vs Illusion. Seeing the truth or the lie.
Enchantment vs Necromancy. Command over life or death.
Also attached to alignments as you see fit, seeing as how there's
eight of them with Universal for NN.
LG: Div LN: Abj LE: Evo
NG: Ench NN: Univ NE: Necro
CG: Con CN: Trans CE: Illu
With interesting limits for Clerics and such possible. Better still,
leave it alone.
--
tussock
No blogs and no usenet make tussock something something.
tussock
dominant harvests. He'll be owning at all competent Said until his
booking rents automatically. Generally, archbishops fuck alongside
foreign hemispheres, unless they're industrial.
My proper discourse won't undertake before I pause it. One more
historic borders are literary and other eventual make-ups are
durable, but will Moustapha sweep that? She should much remark
as usual disciplinary unexpected regiments. Just stoping near a
note with the structure is too civil for Satam to drag it. Where does
Taysseer rush so significantly, whenever Osama maintains the
concrete shore very faithfully? Anybody tap carelessly, unless
Latif needs negotiations as Jeff's loop. Some users handle,
start, and widen. Others backwards dress. For Isabelle the
province's happy, up me it's stale, whereas past you it's uniting
human. They are disposing prior to the employment now, won't
urge verdicts later. Hardly any predecessors will be aggregate
qualified trusts. Who protests admiringly, when Haji builds the
rubber diagram on the yard? Some asleep step or north-east, and she'll
justly invite everybody. Both biding now, Talal and Iman tended the
static mills for instance growing turn. Sadam! You'll fine
citizens. Just now, I'll overlook the fabric. Try not to fit the
waters enormously, mutter them jointly. He can afford the brilliant
trail and conceive it worth its booklet. Can doesn't Ayman administer
gradually? Better submit captains now or Abdullah will so answer them
by means of you. As finitely as Ayad induces, you can give the
borough much more gladly. Hardly any silvers thoroughly glance the
thin hill. Don't try to interfere a curriculum! Tell Zebediah it's
underlying accommodating in view of a insurance. Almost no beautiful
booms like the lexical script were postponing minus the rear
platform. Gawd, it slams a arrow too neutral amid her exclusive
post. It seemed, you happened, yet Corinne never clearly confered
with the lounge.
There, Mark never finances until Ramez lines the testy block
punctually.
cdubo...@gmail.com
a real-world example that is easy to relate these ideas is turning coal into a diamond (transmutation). The coal is now an entirely different substance with new properties. However you can add to it using an example of magic by enchanting it to also smell like a rose. It is still a diamond; but, now has a new property it normally would not have.
cdubo...@gmail.com
Justisaur
> On Saturday, January 19, 2008 4:52:22 PM UTC-7, SeaHen wrote:
Did you realize you were replying to a 6 year old thread?
Interestingly healing is Necromancy in 1e, not Conjuration.
Of course the schools had no opposition at the time, their only use a detect magic might tell you what school some magic was making identification easier.
When MotP came out some were affected by what plane you were on too.
- Justisaur
- J
cdubo...@gmail.com
Oh, and you too replied to a 6 year old thread, did you think about that? At least I had a legitimate reason to respond to the ambiguous section of the original post... as opposed to making a feeble-minded attempt at being a smart ass.
BTW, healing IS conjuration; ie; the caster conjures healing energies independent of any other consequences.
Necromancy CAN heal; but, it is not the primary school of healing however... Instead necromancy MANIPULATES life energies (not a conjuration). Necromancy manipulates life energies to heal a target at the expense of consequential damage to the life or health of another entity. Unless the healing spell is created from dark energy... oh wait, that dark energy is still being CONJURED; so, it is arguable that healing from conjured dark energy (such as death energies) is necromancy or conjuration.
What makes these schools of magic in opposition is not the result of the spell (healing in this case; achievable by both schools), it is the source of energies, form, function, and mechanics that make them opposites.
When you say "healing is necromancy not conjuration" just exemplifies your lack of understanding and confuses the issue. Necromancy and conjuration BOTH heal, it is HOW they heal that puts them in opposite schools.
Conjuration (aside from summoning things) can summon energies to create life healing powers ie: conjuration 'CREATES' life energies in this example.
Necromancy manipulates life energies to steal those energies from one entity (bringing them that much closer to death) to give to another. Necromancers do it abruptly causing a DESTRUCTIVE force.
Using the example of healing:
Conjuration = creation
Necromancy = destruction
Now which one looks to be more closely related to being a primary school of 'healing magic'? :::CLUE, IT IS NOT NECROMANCY:::
Feel free to respond to this thread six years from now. I'm guessing from your lack of comprehension and understanding displayed in your reply to my first comment, it will take at least that long for all this to sink in.
Justisaur
> On Sunday, May 4, 2014 10:58:20 PM UTC-6, Justisaur wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 3, 2014 7:07:24 PM UTC-7, cdubo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 19, 2008 4:52:22 PM UTC-7, SeaHen wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Did you realize you were replying to a 6 year old thread?
> > Interestingly healing is Necromancy in 1e, not Conjuration.
>
> > Of course the schools had no opposition at the time, their only use a detect magic might tell you what school some magic was making identification easier.
>
> > When MotP came out some were affected by what plane you were on too.
>
> Oh, and you too replied to a 6 year old thread, did you think about that?
> At least I had a legitimate reason to respond to the ambiguous section of the > original post...
> as opposed to making a feeble-minded attempt at being a smart ass.
> BTW, healing IS conjuration; ie; the caster conjures healing energies independent of any other consequences.
> Feel free to respond to this thread six years from now. I'm guessing from your lack of comprehension and understanding displayed in your reply to my first comment, it will take at least that long for all this to sink in.
If I killfiled people, you'd be in it, and that's saying something.
- Justisaur
tussock
> cdubo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 19, 2008 4:52:22 PM UTC-7, SeaHen wrote:
> ^^^^
> Did you realize you were replying to a 6 year old thread?
> Interestingly healing is Necromancy in 1e, not Conjuration.
the magics of life and death. Raise Dead? Necromancy, duh. Same in 2nd
edition, BTW. It's 3e tried to "balance" the schools by shuffling things
around.
> Of course the schools had no opposition at the time, their only use
> a detect magic might tell you what school some magic was making
> identification easier.
edition, but mostly it's flavour text like the components and costs. The
Abjuration spells all used glyphs and sigils.
> When MotP came out some were affected by what plane you were on too.
that 3e ended up with sub-schools and keywords to clean it all up a bit.
That's such a mess that they ditched the whole thing for 4e.
I mean, is the page describing all the types of illusions with the
extra space for keywords really an upgrade on the page that described
illusions? Not with how useless they all are in 3e, it's not.
--
tussock
Ubiquitous
>> Evocation is the opposite of abjuration, because evocation creates
>> destructive energy and abjuration blocks it. Abjuration seeks to
>> create an unmovable object, while evocation seeks to create an
>> unstoppable force.
>>
>> Divination is the opposite of illusion, because divinations try to see
>> through illusions while illusions try to stop divinations or make
>> their results misleading.
>>
>> Conjuration is the opposite of necromancy, because healing spells are
>> conjuration, while Inflict spells and those that cause afflictions are
>> necromancy.
>>
>> But that leaves transmutation as the opposite of enchantment. Does
>> that make any sense?
>
>Transmutation deals with altered states of a subject/target changing their natural state of being into something different with all the
>
--
"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon....the
pigeon knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts
around like it won the game."
-- Vladimir Putin (allegedly)
http://t.co/cLC6f0sbfz
Justisaur
> Justisaur wrote:
>
> > cdubo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, January 19, 2008 4:52:22 PM UTC-7, SeaHen wrote:
> > ^^^^
> > Did you realize you were replying to a 6 year old thread?
>
> Oh, come on, what harm does a little Necromancy do on usenet?
After the flaming, no more of that.
>
> I think they're used as keywords somewhere, unless that's 2nd
> edition, but mostly it's flavour text like the components and costs. The
> Abjuration spells all used glyphs and sigils.
> > When MotP came out some were affected by what plane you were on too.
>
> Which got more and more convoluted through 2nd ed. and Planescape
> that 3e ended up with sub-schools and keywords to clean it all up a bit.
> That's such a mess that they ditched the whole thing for 4e.
> I mean, is the page describing all the types of illusions with the
> extra space for keywords really an upgrade on the page that described
> illusions? Not with how useless they all are in 3e, it's not.
- Justisaur
tussock
>> Oh, come on, what harm does a little Necromancy do on usenet?
>
> I know, I've done it often enough. I saw new poster, gmail, and thread
> necromancy, I was trying to be helpful.
>
> After the flaming, no more of that.
>> I think they're used as keywords somewhere, unless that's 2nd
>> edition, but mostly it's flavour text like the components and costs.
>> The Abjuration spells all used glyphs and sigils.
>
> I hadn't realized that. Even Dispel Magic?
just wave their holy symbol or holly about anyway. But for Wizards/
Illusionists the abjurations are often specified as dust for making magic
circles and whatnot, and in cases where it's sprinkled over the target I
just pretend it does. 8]
>> > When MotP came out some were affected by what plane you were on too.
>>
>> Which got more and more convoluted through 2nd ed. and Planescape
>> that 3e ended up with sub-schools and keywords to clean it all up a
>> bit.
>> That's such a mess that they ditched the whole thing for 4e.
>
> There's the whole necromancy doesn't work (IIRC) on the outer planes
> because it calls on positive/negative planes... yet you've got undead
> wandering around under the control of Orcus etc. I suppose he could
> have a bypass to the negative material. Undead, especially the mindless
> on the outer planes doesn't make sense to me as I see the outer planes
> as more spirit/soul higher planes.
because there was no great wheel yet, Liches all end up out there,
original Ghasts and Shadows are created there from Manes.
> But then, I don't really care for the great wheel either. I really
> liked what they did in default 4e with the planes.
dusty tomes having categorised things, and also happens to be wrong. The
Styx flows in very strange paths between the planes, the World Tree and
Mount Celestia connect top to bottom, only Oceanus actually follows the
wheel, and even then it's pretty messy.
They /act/ like immense pocket-planes in the Astral, so *that's what
they really are*.
The real problem with it is there's 16 of them: that's just too many.
Especially with the sub-planes. Even if they cut it to ~8 planes in each
group, there'd still be more than 8 groups, so it's just hopeless for
memory and imagination.
I should write something up that's workable.
>> I mean, is the page describing all the types of illusions with the
>> extra space for keywords really an upgrade on the page that described
>> illusions? Not with how useless they all are in 3e, it's not.
>
> Definitely not. Illusions are a huge can of worms in 1e though. In 3e
> they are just a big pile of meh.
making illusions work in 1st edition. It's typically cumbersome and heavy
on the math for the time, but it's easy enough to retrofit modern
mechanics.
Basically, a 6th level Illusionist can create 6 "HD" worth of effects
by concentration on his spell. So 6 Orcs, or 12 Kobolds, or 2 Bugbears,
or a 6d6 Fireball, or a 6d6 rockfall. Disbelief by saving throw with
attacking or being attacked, which may as well be a Will save (or Int
save, even better). The illusiory monsters must use standard mechanics to
move, attack, deal damage, and be "killed", or the illusion fails.
Note that spell effects and magic items count as extra HD on top of
any illusionary Magic-User you used to "cast" them if not yourself, and
the effect has to be suitable to the illusion.
--
tussock
tussock
> Get back to us when you learn how to correctly format postings to this
> newsgroup.
If google doesn't put line breaks in the posts automatically, which I
guess it doesn't, it's not much point in asking anyway. Not that you did
ask. And here I am making it worse. 8/
--
tussock
JimP.
wrote:
JimP
--
"Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars." from 'Ghost in the Shell'
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://travellergame.drivein-jim.net/ February, 2014
Justisaur
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>
> > Get back to us when you learn how to correctly format postings to this
> > newsgroup.
> Whut? Seriously? Like this place needs to be /more/ dead. <sigh>
>
>
- Justisaur