People, I hope you are not going too far… Even though most people do not undestand this, even restoration is a necromantic spell! Accept the facts!
As for creating a new school of magic, well, only if you are ready to dit down and do a lot of work. Bu tyou should never have more than a number of schools at the same time, or your campaign will have too many spells!
Originally posted by RaspK_FOG
As for creating a new school of magic, well, only if you are ready to dit down and do a lot of work. Bu tyou should never have more than a number of schools at the same time, or your campaign will have too many spells!
There is not necessarily any requirement to add a single new spell to those contained in the PHB when designing a new school of spells for wizards. You could simply draw up a list of spells with a common theme and call it the Nature School. Such a new categorisation certainly assists players who like to design and play ‘themed’ mages as they can become specialised in a school (and theme) that they could not before. This would not take too much time at all.
You could do this for Force descriptor spells if you wished for sorcerers or wizards who concentrated on “raw” magical energy (though you might want to look at other sources than the PHB to get enough spells). There is no reason why you could not do the same for Nature-oriented spells.
Personally, I think that “Nature” is potentially too broad a category - though I’d wait to see what spells were included before making a judgement. I know John will love to hear me say it, but I would encourage people thinking of designing new schools of magic to take a look at Ars Magica spell techniques and arts.
Kalien sez:
> Personally, I think that “Nature” is too broad a category.
> I know John will love to hear me say it, but I would
> encourage people thinking of designing new schools of magic
> to take a look at Ars Magica spell techniques and arts.
AHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAA! Soon your journey to the Dark Side will be complete!
Uh. I mean:
Ars Magica sure is neat!
“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
It seems you misunderstand the meaning of Schools of Magic… Anyway, there should be something more specific to define this new school you have in mind. Perhaps, Animatis would be a proper name and general meaning… Such arcanists would be able to cast druidic-like spells, as well as some more shamanistic spells; restoration spells, and some lesser healing spells, similar to necromantic ones, but not necromantic, could be appropriate. The spells available would include:
Animal Friendship (instead of familiar, such a mage would be able to have an an. friend)
Liveoak
Restoration
Shillelagh
Shambler
Snare
Or something similar to that. Secondly, a lot of work would be needed to be done, so that new spells would come up… Don’t know if you have the courage, but I guess you should come up with clearer suggestions?
RaspK_FOG wrote:
> It seems you misunderstand the meaning of Schools of
> Magic…
The D&D schools of magic (formerly known as the “schools of philosophy”
are:
A) To my mind, boring
B) Not philosophical
C) Clunky and daft
I`m happy to see the back of them myself.
> Anyway, there should be something more specific to
> define this new school you have in mind. Perhaps, Animatis
> would be a proper name and general meaning… Such arcanists
> would be able to cast druidic-like spells, as well as some
> more shamanistic spells; restoration spells, and some lesser
> healing spells, similar to necromantic ones, but not
> necromantic, could be appropriate. The spells available would include:
Well…
In Ars Magica there are the forms of Animal and the forms of Herbam
which cover most natural phenomenon. It is not a school per se, but
there are lineages in the game that focus on particular uses of these
Arts. I prefer that kind of set-up, which allows for all sorts of
divergent philosophies about the nature of the arts, etc.
“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
Originally posted by RaspK_FOG
It seems you misunderstand the meaning of Schools of Magic…
Umm … was this directed at me? If you are directly replying to someone’s comments it helps if you mention who you are replying to. If it was to me and I was in a less chirpy mood I might take umbrage at comments that question my courage to come up with clearer suggestions.
Originally posted by Trithemius
The D&D schools of magic (formerly known as the “schools of philosophy” are:
A) To my mind, boring
B) Not philosophical
C) Clunky and daft
I don’t think anyone truly regards them as philosophy. I suspect the term philosphy is used in this respect as an alternative or “useful” term to describe the common thread or theme that runs through the D&D arcane spell schools. It’s easier to say that a school has a common or distinctive philosophy rather than saying the spells within a school of arcane magic have a common objective (e.g., protection) or harness magical energies in a certain way (e.g. evocation or conjuration).
Well…
In Ars Magica there are the forms of Animal and the forms of Herbam which cover most natural phenomenon. It is not a school per se, but there are lineages in the game that focus on particular uses of these Arts. I prefer that kind of set-up, which allows for all sorts of divergent philosophies about the nature of the arts, etc.
Well, the 3e designers have stated, in reference to elemental magic, that players and DMs are free to come up with their own Schools of elemental magic - both the “standard” four and alternatives such as force and what might be termed ‘spirit’. Such schools are bound together by a common theme of a single element such as fire rather than by a “philosophy” that categorises spells by how they utilise arcane magical energies. As such there is official recognition of the idea that an arcane spell school can simply reflect a common theme of What type of magic it uses, rather than any idea of How such magic is used.
So I think I stand by my comments that an arcane spell school is simply a grouping of arcane spells linked by a common theme - whether that theme be reflected in how the spell works OR in what it affects or utilises.
Now, as far as a Nature School goes I personally think it is too broad and would be inclined to construct a school that related to animals and another that related to plants. For a little flavour you could call them Animus and Herbum …
Well, I think that one ought to answer te initial question…
The first problem with creating a new school of magic in D&D is that you cannot simply create a new school by assigning to it spells from other schools: it must also have new and/or unique spells that a spellcaster would not be able to cast otherwise!
Secondly, the concept: the existing schools provide a categorisation based on the way the spells affect the world around them, or what they actually do. They have nothing to do with the theme that they are based upon! For example, enchantment is the school of magic through which people can enchant creatures or things. Transmutation, on the other hand, is the school of magic that enables you to change things as you see fit. Now, creating a nature school (or an animal and a plant school, if you prefer that idea) does not follow that pattern, since such a school would only relate around nature, not the effect magic has on the world.
You could get around this problem if your world has a completely different magic system, like “The Wheel of Time”.
Your call. Your choice.
with creating a new school of magic in D&D is that you cannot simply create a new school by assigning to it spells from other schools: it must also have new and/or unique spells that a spellcaster would not be able to cast otherwise!
>
> Secondly, the concept: the existing schools provide a categorisation based on the way the spells affect the world around them, or what they actually do. They have nothing to do with the theme that they are based upon! For example, enchantment is the school of magic through which people can enchant creatures or things. Transmutation, on the other hand, is the school of magic that enables you to change things as you see fit. Now, creating a nature school (or an animal and a plant school, if you prefer that idea) does not follow that pattern, since such a school would only relate around nature, not the effect magic has on the world.
>
> You could get around this problem if your world has a completely different magic system, like “The Wheel of Time”.
>
Semantics.
Youre problem seems to be calling it a school of magic`.
You can call it an alternate spell list or even a racial spell list if
you`d like, and this would keep the spirit of the suggestion alive, I think.
The benefit of making Nature into a school of magic is that certain
effects like Spell Focus and a wizard`s Specialization could be used with
it. I think these are bigger issues than the exclusivity and thaumeturgical
arguments you outline above. Personally, I see no problem with this.
As a side note, strictly as a matter of personal taste, I prefer Spells &
Magic`s descriptions of Schools of Philosophy (the things we usually think
of as schools of magic), Schools of Effect, and Schools of Thaumaturgy. (I
dont like Thaumaturgy, actually... I think thats better handled with feats
and classes. But I like Schools of Effect and Schools of Philosophy.)
-Lord Rahvin
es not need to be a school but it could be an arcane
path followed by elven wizards. You could include the spells you wish to
have in the said school of nature and use it as say a lesson or course list
of spells to learn in the given path of nature that is in accordance with
the culture of the elfs that have followed this path since the beginning.
There is something about this line of thought for spell aquisition in one of
the dragon magazines, can`t remember it, but it had a few kinds of paths or
cycles of magic a wizard could follow, even multiple paths could be studied.
It seems like a good idea for spells that are shared within a circle or
organization of wizards.
But I must say that a school does actually describe the type of effect the
spell has, as nature is a broad term it would more be like a priest sphere
(or whatever they are called in 3E) than it would be a school. Even the
priest spells have schools listed to show what effects they have.
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
I have an idea.
Nature Wizard
You study nature magic.
Prerequisite: Sidhelien, Knowledge (nature) 1 rank, Wizard 1st.
Benefit: You can learn spells from druid spell list as if it were one level higher.
+0200, Mourn wrote:
> Nature Wizard
> You study nature magic.
> Prerequisite: Sidhelien, Knowledge (nature) 1 rank, Wizard 1st.
> Benefit: You can learn spells from druid spell list as if it were one
> level higher.
Given that the feat allows access to spells as if they were one level
higher than the druid level maybe the prereq could be the ability to cast
2nd (or higher) level arcane spells rather than wizard levels alone. That
would allow sorcerers access to the feat also (and many people think that
class is more apt for elves than the wizard class) and would connect up
with the ability granted by the feat a bit better.
Gary
To make clear what has been once again misunderstood:
If you want to give a player the ability to cast spells he shouldn’t have the ability to, you cannot just say “Let’s make up a new school of magic!”, because schools of magic represent the use and application of what is eldritch on the worlds around and beyond us. Now, creating a new “Nature school” would never replicate that effect, since it would simply be a jumble of spells, even if they never quite had a reason to be there!
You cannot create racial spells; it is ill-suited. If you want to give only elves access to arcane “nature magic”, you should create a new class or prestige class.
+0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:
>To make clear what has been once again misunderstood:
>
>1) If you want to give a player the ability to cast spells he shouldn`t
have the ability to, you cannot just say "Let`s make up a new school
>of magic!", because schools of magic represent the use and
>application of what is eldritch on the worlds around and beyond us. Now,
>creating a new “Nature school” would never replicate that
>effect, since it would simply be a jumble of spells, even if they never
>quite had a reason to be there!
I don`t think anyone should feel obliged to lock BR into this rather FR/GH
description of magic. The nature of the arcane schools of magic in BR
could (and probably should) be quite different from that of other campaign
worlds, and needn`t abide by any colour commentary in the core texts
regarding the “science” or logic behind the system. Aside from which,
there`s plenty of opportunity to add new schools of magic if one finds them
interesting. While they haven`t done much for 3.0+ that I recall reading,
schools of magic have been described for things like Numbers, Song, Force,
etc. Even if it were cant one still could add schools if one saw a purpose
to it–and this pretty well qualifies.
>2) You cannot create racial spells; it is ill-suited. If you want to give
>only elves access to arcane “nature magic”, you should create a
>new class or prestige class.
There are plenty of racial spells that come out fairly regularly. When a
particular race is presented or an existing one is described in detail we
often get new spells particular to that race. A recent issue of Dragon had
spells particular to dragons.
Gary
f allowing a heavy emphasis of nature related spells for
elves in Birthright. I have considered including many of the druid and
cleric spells that emulate nature related effects.
As far as the science or logic behind it we could simply base such spells on
the four elemental planes that the elves due to their phsyiology can draw
upon. It could be argued that spells are like technology. They can use
different approaches of execution to reach the same or similar desired
effect or result. Therefore we could simply use the already listed spells
and just put a tag on them like sidhelien in the wizard, sorceror, cleric,
etc. catagory.
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> 1) If you want to give a player the ability to cast spells
> he shouldn`t have the ability to, you cannot just say
“Let`s make up a new school of magic!”, because
> schools of magic represent the use and application of what is
> eldritch on the worlds around and beyond us. Now, creating a
> new “Nature school” would never replicate that
> effect, since it would simply be a jumble of spells, even if
> they never quite had a reason to be there!
Wow. I disagree with you so entirely.
To my mind the “schools” are the framework that certain people use in
order to classify magic. They aren`t -the only way- of explaining
magical phenomenon; they are just general enough to be useful to almost
all people. It makes perfect sense to me that other groups of people
classify the magical arts dfferently.
> 2) You cannot create racial spells; it is ill-suited. If you
> want to give only elves access to arcane "nature
> magic", you should create a new class or prestige class.
In my opinion: nonsense. Prestige classes may be more of an elegant
solution to the problem, but there is no -real- reason to not have
spells that are available to only one society.
–
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
>
> I do like the idea of allowing a heavy emphasis of nature
> related spells for elves in Birthright. I have considered
> including many of the druid and cleric spells that emulate
> nature related effects.
>
> As far as the science or logic behind it we could simply base
> such spells on the four elemental planes that the elves due
> to their phsyiology can draw upon. It could be argued that
> spells are like technology. They can use different
> approaches of execution to reach the same or similar desired
> effect or result. Therefore we could simply use the already
> listed spells and just put a tag on them like sidhelien in
> the wizard, sorceror, cleric, etc. catagory.
I believe it was Kenneth who suggested it to me (and the list?) that
some kind of modified “shugenja” system might represent sidhelien magic
well. It`d need to get its own set of non-oriental terms and names; and
probably some kind of variety of “schools” to represent the training
styles of particular famous sidhe magicians.
–
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
[b]Trithemius wrote:
Wow. I disagree with you so entirely.
To my mind the “schools” are the framework that certain people use in
order to classify magic. They aren`t -the only way- of explaining
magical phenomenon; they are just general enough to be useful to almost
all people. It makes perfect sense to me that other groups of people
classify the magical arts dfferently.[/b]
Certainly not. However, the schools of magic as they are, are a pretty central component to the 3e/3.5 system. Removing or disregarding them is generally a lot more trouble than it’s worth - there’s a lot of little mechanical effects scattered about that would need to be reexamined as well. Of course, a determined house-ruler wouldn’t have problems with that either. It’s just generally easier to create new categorizations for magic through other routes than remapping the school system. Sample ways which are entirely within the system include new spell lists, spells restricted by certain criteria (like being undead, a demon, or a dragon, or having a specific feat), or creating a new descriptor and making a list of the spells to which it applies. Simpler, and hence generally better, ways of creating new subdivisions of spells.
[b]geeman wrote:
I don
t think anyone should feel obliged to lock BR into this rather FR/GH description of magic. The nature of the arcane schools of magic in BR could (and probably should) be quite different from that of other campaign worlds, and neednt abide by any colour commentary in the core texts
regarding the “science” or logic behind the system. Aside from which,
theres plenty of opportunity to add new schools of magic if one finds them interesting. While they havent done much for 3.0+ that I recall reading,
schools of magic have been described for things like Numbers, Song, Force,
etc. Even if it were cant one still could add schools if one saw a purpose
to it–and this pretty well qualifies.[/b]
What exactly is specifically “FR/GH” about the school system? I might imagine a different way of the spells to be divided up, certainly, but that applies for any campaign. Most of the schools contain fairly common archetypes of spells, and I don’t see those archetypes or the similarity of effects by which the schools have been divided change much for BR. Earthdawn had a somewhat similar system - of Wizardry, Illusion, Nethermancy, and Elementalism as the four “schools” - perhaps a more generally flavorful way of distributing the spells, but I could see it applied to most D&D campaigns pretty easily as well - just like the school system. The main difference between 3e and previous versions is that in 3e, the spells aren’t just divided up by school anymore - there’s various subsystems to create a more granular system, one which should ultimately satisfy the players of spellcasters more in terms of the ability to easily customize spellcasters. A couple of the examples you mention - Song and Force - are already present in the system, though not as schools. Song spells can basically be put together from language-dependent and some sonic spells, though generally, song should be a form of casting, and thus a feat or a prestige class (I think there is such a PrC in FR), and not a school. Force are spells with the force descriptor. My question remains the same, though - what exactly is specifically “FR/GH” about the spell description system?
not familiar with Lot5R, shugenja are elementally based
spellcasters.
I suspect that there are two usages of the meaning for "school` at work
here. I believe that advocates of the nature school do not mean to use
school as a mechanical term to mean that Charm Animal would not be an
enchantment, but would be a nature spell. Rather they mean it as a body of
spells organized for convienience, so I can tell of fireball, for instance
is castable by sidhe (and I would not include such a spell). Many classes
and PrC`s have their own spell lists. There is nothing new here.
Kenneth Gauck
>
> Certainly not. However, the schools of magic as they are,
> are a pretty central component to the 3e/3.5 system. Removing
> or disregarding them is generally a lot more trouble than
> its worth - theres a lot of little mechanical effects
> scattered about that would need to be reexamined as well. Of
> course, a determined house-ruler wouldn`t have problems with
that either. It`s just generally easier to create new
> categorizations for magic through other routes than remapping
> the school system. Sample ways which are entirely within the
> system include new spell lists, spells restricted by certain
> criteria (like being undead, a demon, or a dragon, or having
> a specific feat), or creating a new descriptor and making a
> list of the spells to which it applies. Simpler, and hence
> generally better, ways of creating new subdivisions of spells.
Personally, I consider myself to be a determined houseruler. I have
opted for my games though to dink around with Ars Magica instead of d20.
I personally think that if I have to reconsider the terms of a system,
I`d rather reconsider the terms of a system that I rather like 
My ramapant Ars Magica fanboyism aside though, while the schools may be
important at a metagaming level, I am unsure whether they should colour
the way in which we structure our campaign setting. I certainly do not
have “evokers” in my Cerilia. I might have “war magi” though, or "fire
wizards" or whatever.
–
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
Well, Mark Aurel and Kenneth Gauck said most of what I had in mind, but in order to put my two cents worth of thinking into this, and hopefully make you understand this once and for all, consider this situation:
1) About Spells and Schools of Magic: The Shools of Magic do not represent the way that spells are classified in the worlds of fantasy as much as present the way they work! For example, a necromancy spell directly affects the life and death energies, thus a necromantic spell allows you to cast spells that cause fatigue, heal ability damage (restoration), or even kill others! A descriptor, on the other hand, and as Mark Aurel has so well done to remind as of, present what lies beneeth. An Evocation (Force) spell, like magic missile deals damage through force (the Force descriptor) which was evoked (the Evocation school), or it could just create an obstacle with the same force, like the wall of force spell.
2) About Spells and Classes: It seems you did not notice I mentioned a “new class” possibility; some of you at least. You can always create a new variant class with a “only elves or half-elves” restriction. I disagree with such a choice, but it is a lot better than introducing racial spells! Secondly, you could simply create a new prestige class with the fewest possible requirements, such that a 5th level wizard (and/or sorcerer, your call) could easilly reach and allow him to get spells as if he was advancing in his own class, but give him access to these spells as well; an idea would be to let him take spells from the druidic list with their level increased by 1, except for any druidic spell that can also be taken from their earlier class, which they take at the spell level of their earlier class or the druidic +1, whichever is lower. All of this would be nicely presented as a spell-list to the player, of course, and a small guide-line for coming up with new spells.
3) Concerning spells: This can only be acceptable with creatures that have uniquely powerful abilities, such as dragons, deities (not that they are one race, but whatever), celestials, devils, and demons. Even then, the problem is solved with spell lists.