Nature school for elven wizards

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
41

[b]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 PrCs have their own spell lists. There is nothing new here.[/b]

Yes, I tend to agree. My point is simply not to throw the baby out with the bathwater - it is perfectly possible to twist the existing system into a lot of different flavors without changing the schools themselves around. Alternate spell lists, spells with requirements, prestige classes and even base classes - all are generally easier ways to implement specific forms of flavor without having to do anything about the schools themselves at all.

I guess what I’m really trying to point out is that the way magic is described is pretty specific in 3e - and I get the distinct impression that some of the understanding of what exactly constitutes a “school” of magic stems from a 2e-ish reading of the rules. The point is that schools in 3e are set parameters upon which to vary the rules - a part of the modular system itself, more than it is a real flavor deal. The flavor of the spellcaster is based solely on how you build it - what spells, skills and feats you choose, what class you have, and whether you have a customized version of that or not. Changing the schools around is a bit like adding new ability scores. Generally harder than it looks, if you still want to play D&D reasonably by the book.

[b]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 :wink:

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.[/b]

I agree completely with this too - I think Birthright wizards mostly have strong, unique themes that says something about their character, I like it this way, and I think the rules should reflect it. I like “wind mages” or “swan mages” or whatnot, not “evoker #43” and “the zoophiliac transmuter.” I do not think it is a good reason to change the schools, however. I’m a fan of minimalism in terms of house rules - the less I have to do, and the better it fits in with what already exists, the better. 3e, with its fairly modular design fits me very well for this reason - it is easy to write in new feats, classes, skills, spells, etc to achieve a desired flavor effect. Generally, I think the story is more important than 400 pages of house rules to solve personal quibbles with an imaginary game.

That said, I’m personally a fan of the idea of a nature-oriented slant on Elven spellcasters. I’ve experimented with various slants on this in the past - one example, quickly summarized is roughly as follows:

  • Basically, take a wizard.
  • Make a new spell list, drawing on a combination of wizardly and druidic spells, using the entry in the BoM as an aid to determine what belongs and does not, and if anything changes levels. Overall, less bang and versatility than the regular wizard, more power over nature and natural effects.
  • No bonus feats or familiar.
  • Animal companions as per a druid instead of familiars, possibly.
  • Unlimited spell knowledge as per a wizard. Casting method is by preparing a limited number of spells - however, the spellcaster can pick any spell he has currently prepared to cast, as long as he has slots left, and does not “lose” prepared spells. This essentially allows the caster to know a lot of spells and freely cast, though from a more limited selection. Spells per day should be similar to a generalist wizard, though progression through the spell levels may be slightly slower (as per a sorcerer). Spellcasting stat may be charisma.

By designing a class and spell list along these parameters, or a similar set, you can easily achieve the goal here - to have nature-themed Elven spellcasters without them intruding on any other niche - and without ever doing any work on the “schools” themselves.

You could say I’m primarily making a semantic point about what constitutes a school and not, and I’d guess you’d be correct.

42

[b]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 PrCs have their own spell lists. There is nothing new here.[/b]

Yes, I tend to agree. My point is simply not to throw the baby out with the bathwater - it is perfectly possible to twist the existing system into a lot of different flavors without changing the schools themselves around. Alternate spell lists, spells with requirements, prestige classes and even base classes - all are generally easier ways to implement specific forms of flavor without having to do anything about the schools themselves at all.

I guess what I’m really trying to point out is that the way magic is described is pretty specific in 3e - and I get the distinct impression that some of the understanding of what exactly constitutes a “school” of magic stems from a 2e-ish reading of the rules. The point is that schools in 3e are set parameters upon which to vary the rules - a part of the modular system itself, more than it is a real flavor deal. The flavor of the spellcaster is based solely on how you build it - what spells, skills and feats you choose, what class you have, and whether you have a customized version of that or not. Changing the schools around is a bit like adding new ability scores. Generally harder than it looks, if you still want to play D&D reasonably by the book.

[b]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 :wink:

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.[/b]

I agree completely with this too - I think Birthright wizards mostly have strong, unique themes that says something about their character, I like it this way, and I think the rules should reflect it. I like “wind mages” or “swan mages” or whatnot, not “evoker #43” and “the zoophiliac transmuter.” I do not think it is a good reason to change the schools, however. I’m a fan of minimalism in terms of house rules - the less I have to do, and the better it fits in with what already exists, the better. 3e, with its fairly modular design fits me very well for this reason - it is easy to write in new feats, classes, skills, spells, etc to achieve a desired flavor effect. Generally, I think the story is more important than 400 pages of house rules to solve personal quibbles with an imaginary game.

That said, I’m personally a fan of the idea of a nature-oriented slant on Elven spellcasters. I’ve experimented with various slants on this in the past - one example, quickly summarized is roughly as follows:

  • Basically, take a wizard.
  • Make a new spell list, drawing on a combination of wizardly and druidic spells, using the entry in the BoM as an aid to determine what belongs and does not, and if anything changes levels. Overall, less bang and versatility than the regular wizard, more power over nature and natural effects.
  • No bonus feats or familiar.
  • Animal companions as per a druid instead of familiars, possibly.
  • Unlimited spell knowledge as per a wizard. Casting method is by preparing a limited number of spells - however, the spellcaster can pick any spell he has currently prepared to cast, as long as he has slots left, and does not “lose” prepared spells. This essentially allows the caster to know a lot of spells and freely cast, though from a more limited selection. Spells per day should be similar to a generalist wizard, though progression through the spell levels may be slightly slower (as per a sorcerer). Spellcasting stat may be charisma.

By designing a class and spell list along these parameters, or a similar set, you can easily achieve the goal here - to have nature-themed Elven spellcasters without them intruding on any other niche - and without ever doing any work on the “schools” themselves.

You could say I’m primarily making a semantic point about what constitutes a school and not, and I’d guess you’d be correct.

43

Excuse me, but not all evocation spells are war-oriented. Many do not even deal damage.

44

>
> You could say I`m primarily making a semantic point about

what constitutes a school and not, and Id guess youd be correct.

That`s okay. I like a good quibble as much as the next person. :smiley:

I think I generally agree with your points, Im just skeptical of D&Ds

usefulness.

–

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

45

+0200, you wrote:

>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.

I didn`t say the school system was specifically FR/GH, as in they could

only exist and should only exist in those settings. I said the schools

outlined in the core materials were a “rather FR/GH description of magic”

so we shouldn`t feel obliged to stick to it for the purpose of a different

campaign setting like BR. The core materials are meant for FR/GH. That`s

explicitly stated several times by the guys who wrote 3e. Adding other

schools of magic or going with different interpretations of how magic works

makes sense for other campaign settings; like a nature school for BR

elves. BR has a different set of basic assumptions about magic than those

campaign settings or even the core materials often assume, so the argument

that creating a school of magic to express a BR paradigm because the school

of magic system precludes doing so doesn`t add up.

Gary

46

what the text/page number is for the information on

schools of magic being "the use and application of what is eldritch on the

worlds around and beyond us" (or things to that effect) and apparently

immutable and fixed? In discussing the issue with my group yesterday one

person said he remembered reading something to that affect but not where

(which was odd because he`s usually the one who can quote chapter and

verse) while the remaining three of us didn`t. We spent a while going

through different texts trying to find the source but didn`t turn anything

up and I`d like to check out the full text.

Gary

47

spellcaster. One thing I would do is have a fey

companion instead of an animal companion. This probabaly becomes available

later than starting levels.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

48

-0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I like Mark`s sidhe spellcaster. One thing I would do is have a fey

>companion instead of an animal companion. This probabaly becomes available

>later than starting levels.

Maybe a familiar with a “Fey Companion” feat available later would work?

Gary

49

I didnt say the school system was specifically FR/GH, as in they could only exist and should only exist in those settings. I said the schools outlined in the core materials were a "rather FR/GH description of magic" so we shouldnt feel obliged to stick to it for the purpose of a different
campaign setting like BR. The core materials are meant for FR/GH. Thats explicitly stated several times by the guys who wrote 3e. Adding other schools of magic or going with different interpretations of how magic works makes sense for other campaign settings; like a nature school for BR elves. BR has a different set of basic assumptions about magic than those campaign settings or even the core materials often assume, so the argument that creating a school of magic to express a BR paradigm because the school of magic system precludes doing so doesnt add up.

By ‘school system,’ I meant the ‘schools’ as they are in 3e. That would be abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, and transmutation. I don’t really see anything about that division that’s specifically ‘flavor-related’ - it’s mostly a functional metagame distribution of spells, and it is somewhat ‘hard-coded’ into the system. Change the school system, and you have to look at hundreds of different effects scattered about to readjudicate how they would work without the schools. The school system is primarily part of a system to describe how things interact mechanically - it’s not a flavor element. This is why spells cast by non-specialized spellcasters are categorized in schools too. Descriptors and subschools are a further layer to categorizing spells and their effects, and are excellent mechanical tools.

If you want spellcasters with different flavor - you make a new spell list for that spellcaster. Like a nature list. Or a ‘nethermancy’ list. Or a ‘witch’ list. Or a ‘shaman’ list. Or a ‘dragon magic’ list. Et cetera. Ad infinitum. These are not schools of magic, however - just flavorful spell lists. It tends to make it easy to adjudicate things like ‘Elves get a +2 bonus on saves against enchantment spells’ and similar effects - without regard to whether the spell is ‘nature magic’ or ‘dragon magic’ - elves are still hard to charm.

As far as I know, FR has a lot of different types of magic or flavors of spellcasters - I don’t quite see how the schools as they are pertain especially to that setting, but not BR. For that matter, it is shown pretty clearly that the schools of magic are taught as they appear in the PHB in BR - I personally find that wrong, but that’s what’s in the books, and not my strictly personal interpretation of what is BR and what is ‘not BR.’ I’d much prefer if the schools were left mainly for what they are - a mechanical element, not a flavor element, or at least, more than they are a flavor element.

Again this assertion about core materials and FR/GH - I remember you made this claim before about how 3e was thoroughly infested with FRisms, but you never produced the list of examples you promised. What I’ve seen the designers of the core materials say isn’t that they are specifically FR/GH - but that they use GH to fill in the flavor element examples in the core books, like god lists, or prestige class flavor text, and that FR is supposed to be an easy campaign that uses the core materials as they are as much as possible - not that the rules were tailor made for those settings - rather that FR is tailor made to fit D&D - which is a big difference. Now, of course, the 3rd edition of D&D draws on a variety of sources from previous editions - there is some influence from many different sources. The bard seems much more similar to BR bards than previous edition bards of other campaigns, for instance. BR is a D&D setting, and while you could argue about how you think it could or should have been different, it remains a D&D setting, with D&D assumptions at its core. You could replace the flavor material from the PHB with BR flavor material (like gods or spellcaster names), and the rules’d look pretty much the same.

50

+0200, Mark Aurel wrote:

>Again this assertion about core materials and FR/GH - I remember you made

>this claim before about how 3e was thoroughly infested with FRisms, but

>you never produced the list of examples you promised.

Let me first reiterate that I haven`t said that in this thread. I said the

core rules are meant for FR/GH, which was stated by WotC when they designed

them, but even in that context I`m not saying that the schools of magic are

an exclusive FR/GH influence and only apt for those settings. What I said

(and still stand behind) is that the argument that the schools of magic as

presented in the 3e core texts precludes the introduction of other schools

is “a rather FR/GH description of magic” meaning only that such an

interpretation of magic is more apt for either of those settings rather

than BR which has significant differences in its themes and system of

magic, so it doesn`t work as an argument for not introducing a whole new

Nature school of magic for BR elves.

As for compiling a list of FRisms in the 3e core materials… I don`t think

I ever promised to make a whole list of them. There are far too many for

me to make a list. I said I`d further elucidate my POV on the subject at

some point, which I think I have several times. (I should note that IMO GH

and FR are pretty nearly the same, or at least one is the spawn of the

other.) Fairly regularly someone suggests a FR/GH aspect of 3e that they

think should be included in BR; gnomes and monks being possibly the most

obviously not meant for the setting. I`ve argued that everything from the

power scale (the rate at which PCs gain XP and level up) is a FR

influence. As far as game specific things, prestige classes are probably

the worst offenders as far as FR/GH influences on other campaigns. I`ve

had several discussions with people who want to use prestige classes in

ways that would normally be reserved for awnsheghlien or another other BR

theme. I`d suggest that things right down to the requirements of character

classes and their special abilities are FR/GH influences that D&D has yet

to shake off. The barbarian is very similar to the one first written up by

Gygax for his GH setting. It`s really a sort of Viking/berserker

stereotype not an uncivilized warrior class. The class skills for paladins

are unchanged since GH, clerics are still the original basic interpretation

of the crusading priest rather than a really priestly class, etc.

In fact, it`s fairly common when someone suggests a rule based on a BR

theme that s/he then has to defend it against people who note that it

contradicts many of the FR/GHish aspects of 3e. Off the top of my head

paladins, druids, dragons, spells and spell components, the number and type

of magic items available, the magic system in general and all the races of

BR have at one point or another been compared to the core materials,

particularly those FR aspects of the core materials. Even little things

like the detect evil ability of paladins works fine in my experience in FR

and GH–and was written by Gygax, I believe–but recently there`s been a

discussion of how it mucks about with things in BR and several people have

suggested removing it. IMO that`s a FR/GH aspect of the core rules that

people are suggesting changing for BR.

>What Ive seen the designers of the core materials say isnt that they are

>specifically FR/GH - but that they use GH to fill in the flavor element

>examples in the core books, like god lists, or prestige class flavor text,

>and that FR is supposed to be an easy campaign that uses the core

>materials as they are as much as possible - not that the rules were tailor

>made for those settings - rather that FR is tailor made to fit D&D -

>which is a big difference.

Given the amount of campaign material in the core texts I`d disagree. At

least, I`d suggest that that campaign material has much more of an

influence than you`re suggesting.

Now, of course, the 3rd edition of D&D draws on a variety of sources

from previous editions - there is some influence from many different

sources. The bard seems much more similar to BR bards than previous

edition bards of other campaigns, for instance.

I think thats generally true, but I dont know that it`s a BR influence on

the core rules, really, so much as simply a differently designed character

class that has been incredibly badly done in previous editions. Any change

from those versions of the bard would make it “more BR” since the earlier

versions were so odd.

>BR is a D&D setting, and while you could argue about how you think it

>could or should have been different, it remains a D&D setting, with

>D&D assumptions at its core. You could replace the flavor material

>from the PHB with BR flavor material (like gods or spellcaster names), and

>the rules`d look pretty much the same.

I really wonder what BR would have looked like if it had been originally

written under the D20 rules alone, independent of D&D or even

3e. Personally, I think it would look very different. We would not have

bards, barbarians, clerics, druids, etc. because there would be no need to

stick to those classes. At least, not the standard 3e versions of those

classes. BR versions would differ from them as much as the character

classes in WoT do, including a much more elucidated noble PC class that

would probably contain aspects that interact directly with the domain level

of play. Magic item creation and the whole system of magic would probably

be different. To be frank, thats the kind of direction Id like to see

the setting take.

Gary

51

ge -----

From: “Gary” <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:38 PM

> I really wonder what BR would have looked like if it had been originally

> written under the D20 rules alone, independent of D&D or even

> 3e. Personally, I think it would look very different.

It did look different, but the system they were operating under, 2e was not

very flexible. If BR were created now, the flexibility of D20 would mean

that the setting would have as many special class, race, and other write ups

as we see in other d20 settings. It would not just be D&D in Cerilia.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

52

-0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>If BR were created now, the flexibility of D20 would mean that the setting

>would have as many special class, race, and other write ups as we see in

>other d20 settings. It would not just be D&D in Cerilia.

…and much better for it IMO. The original materials did differ from 2e

quite a bit, though they stuck to the basic outline of the system, but that

system was what they had to work with.

To illustrate the FR/GH influence on D&D 3e it might be best to look at

other D20 campaign settings to see how they vary from 3e. Things changed

in other D20 campaigns might very well be changed in BR plus more than a

few BR specific things.

Arguably the differences between BR and 3e are the kinds of things that

attract new people to the setting. At least, that`s what got me into the

setting (and back into D&D for that matter) back when I first read the

“Seeking Bloodsilver” adventure in Dungeon. I wouldn`t really have any

marketing data on such things, but it just strikes me as being a better

tactic (and more interesting) than making it look like 3e.

Gary

53

ge -----

From: “Gary” <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:45 AM

> Arguably the differences between BR and 3e are the kinds of things that

> attract new people to the setting.

Settings are, in many ways, the coolest of all extras to go out and get. I

have four settings and have WoT on my list. I only play one setting, but I

borrow ideas from the others and use the way that they have been liberated

to go out and create new things as an encouragement to create my own unique

BR campaign in Cerilia. The BR conversion never really interested me

because it was so tepid by comparison to d20 settings already out there.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

54

Mark_Aurel wrote:

> That said, I`m personally a fan of the idea of a nature-oriented

slant on Elven spellcasters. I`ve experimented with various slants on

> this in the past - one example, quickly summarized is roughly as

> follows:

>

> - Basically, take a wizard.

> - Make a new spell list, drawing on a combination of wizardly and

> druidic spells,

Yup. Not a bad plan. Personally, I prefer to start with druid, and then

add some wizard spells (esp. illusion and enchantment/charm), but that`s

not particularly important. Casting from Int or Cha is better than Wis.

On the whole, I don`t care what name is given to the rule change,

but some change is necessary – a version of Cerilia in which elves

are prohibited access to nature magic is no Cerilia at all.

Ryan Caveney

55

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> 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.

Agreed! However, Jan has convinced me that “school” has a legitimate

technical meaning which leads to it being a misleading term here. That

is, the Eight Standard Schools are disjoint sets; each and every spell

is classified into exactly one of them. In addition to these eight, which

are the only lists of spells to which Jan and others want to give the name

“school”, there are a vast number of other lists of spells. These lists,

however, overlap and are not complete: some spells are on many

supplemental lists, and some are on none. As a semantic point, I have no

problem accepting that only The Big Eight should be called “schools”, and

all other lists of spells should be called “spell lists”. I personally do

not want to make a ninth exclusive category (which is what strict

constructionists fear loose usage of “school” implies), I want to make an

additional descriptor (like a clerical domain name) to add to certain

spells (which is what I think most advocates of a “new school” really

mean, using the term loosely); I`m perfectly happy to call this a

“Sidhelien Nature Magic spell list” instead of a “Nature School”, and so I

think will most others be.

I hope we will be able to now move beyond that part of the discussion, and

get to the part I find more interesting: exactly which spells go on it?

What spells are “opposed” to it? That is, many of us agree with Kenneth`s

statement above that Sidhelien shouldn`t be throwing fireballs

willy-nilly; this implies the existence of a corresponding spell list

under some other name (e.g., “Prohibited to Sidhelien”, or “no elves” for

short) which lists (a hopefully equivalent set of) spells which elves

must forfeit in order to balance their access to the nature list.

Ryan Caveney

56

ge -----

From: “Ryan B. Caveney” <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:43 PM

> I hope we will […] get to the part I find more interesting: exactly

which

> spells go on it? What spells are “opposed” to it?

My recommendation would be to start with a firm control of the elements.

The sidhe are described in the color material as being very elemental. In

fact I would only allow specializing as spellcasters in one of the four

elements, possibly with specialization in fire being an advanced study

covered only in a PrC. Then I`d go back and comb through the druid list

looking for obvious spells to include, which either reinforce the elemental

aspect or match the color text. I would then look at the various

enchantments and other spells to see what really belonged on the sidhe spell

list. Depending on how powerful such a caster was at this point, I`d go

thorugh the nature spells again, looking to balance various levels, round

out the list, and fill any gaps.

Both Legend of the Five Rings and Soverigen Stone organize every spell

according to one of the four elements. I would do the same for the sidhe

spell list. In Lot5R, for example, air spells are "subtle, involving

travel, intuition, influence, divination, and illusion." I would not

totally bar opposing elements, just elemental spells after 2nd level. In

Soverign Stone, air spells include charms, mentalism, travel, and illusion.

Thoughts?

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

57

-0400, Ryan Caveney wrote:

>Agreed! However, Jan has convinced me that “school” has a legitimate

>technical meaning which leads to it being a misleading term here. That

>is, the Eight Standard Schools are disjoint sets; each and every spell

>is classified into exactly one of them.

Has anyone found a reference in the 3e materials to this classification as

being so steadfast as it`s been suggested, or is that suggestion an

interpretation based on the way they made each spell a single school in 3e?

Whether it is a suggestion or not, it seems to me that given the way

several spells are still “cross over” between both the broader arcane and

divine categories of spells, and most are still available to both types of

spellcasters (those who cast their spells spontaneously vs those who must

prepare/memorize them) that putting a restriction on the number and

classification of spells by their schools of magic is somewhat counter to

general thinking behind the 3e magic system.

Gary

58

ge -----

From: “Gary” <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 5:16 PM

> Whether it is a suggestion or not, it seems to me that given the way

> several spells are still “cross over” between both the broader arcane and

> divine categories of spells, and most are still available to both types of

> spellcasters

This has nothing to do with the technical meaning of “school” however. The

school is a grouping of spells that have a consistent approach in the rules

and a similar game effect. All spells of a certain school work the same way

according to the same principles. For example, for every abjuration, if the

spell creates a barrier that keps certain creatures at bay, you cannot

advance to use the barrier to force the creatures back. Instead, you feel a

counter pressure if you attempt this, and if you continue to advance, the

spell is broken. This is a consitent part of being an abjuration. Some

schools lack this consistency overall, and employ subschools. Enchantment

employs subschools of charm and compulsion. Divine spellcasters don`t think

in terms of schools, for them it is a metagaming effect on how to interprent

spell effects. Wizards think in terms of schools within the game and their

specialization is organized by school.

Other uses of school generally refer to the standard English usage of the

word as a group of people or practices, especially philosophers, artists, or

thinkers, whose thought, work, or style demonstrates a common origin or

influence or unifying belief. The proposed nature spell list, and the

clerical healing domain both fit this general definition, but not the

technical definition in D&D.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

59

-0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > Whether it is a suggestion or not, it seems to me that given the way

> > several spells are still “cross over” between both the broader arcane and

> > divine categories of spells, and most are still available to both types of

> > spellcasters

>

>This has nothing to do with the technical meaning of “school” however. The

>school is a grouping of spells that have a consistent approach in the rules

>and a similar game effect. All spells of a certain school work the same way

>according to the same principles.

My point is that thats evidence that such an interpretation isnt

necessarily supported by the rest of the system, so it looks to me like

schools of magic are merely categorizations, not meant to determine the

game mechanical things as is being suggested. I understand what you guys

are saying about the schools of magic, but I`m still looking for the

reference that says that is the technical meaning and use of schools of

magic. According to the glossary in the PHB a school of magic is a "group

of related spells that work in similar ways." That`s it. Not quite the

extension of the concept that seems to be assumed here by several posters

who`ve suggested a new school would somehow ruin the continuity of the

system. Unless there is such a description, and some explanatory text to

support it, I think this is just an interpretation of the schools of magic,

and one that doesn`t necessarily work within the context of the rest of the

magic system. From what I can tell the interpretation is based mostly on

the specific change from 2e-3e that made spells members of single schools

rather than the occasional spell that was in two schools, but there`s

nothing else to indicate that schools are meant to have the significance or

singularity that is being described. There`s the addition of subschools,

but most of those seem to have the actual game mechanical effects that are

being attributed to schools themselves.

Gary

60

[b]My point is that thats evidence that such an interpretation isnt
necessarily supported by the rest of the system, so it looks to me like
schools of magic are merely categorizations, not meant to determine the
game mechanical things as is being suggested. I understand what you guys
are saying about the schools of magic, but Im still looking for the reference that says that is the technical meaning and use of schools of magic. According to the glossary in the PHB a school of magic is a "group of related spells that work in similar ways." Thats it. Not quite the
extension of the concept that seems to be assumed here by several posters
whove suggested a new school would somehow ruin the continuity of the system. Unless there is such a description, and some explanatory text to support it, I think this is just an interpretation of the schools of magic, and one that doesnt necessarily work within the context of the rest of the
magic system. From what I can tell the interpretation is based mostly on
the specific change from 2e-3e that made spells members of single schools
rather than the occasional spell that was in two schools, but theres nothing else to indicate that schools are meant to have the significance or singularity that is being described. Theres the addition of subschools,
but most of those seem to have the actual game mechanical effects that are
being attributed to schools themselves.

Gary[/b]

Now you are just being stubborn. Just because something isn’t stated anywhere doesn’t make it not true - I don’t think there’s a a statement anywhere that fighters can’t cast any spell they want to at will, either, although I suppose you could argue that since it’s not stated that he can’t, a fighter really should be able to cast wish at will, at any time. The schools are a way to classify spells and their effects across all spell lists - for instance, the Elven spell list that was the topic here would contain enchantment spells (like charm person or animal), conjuration spells (like wall of thorns or summon nature’s ally), transmutation spells (like polymorph or control weather), and so on. The point is that spells on a school list interacts in specific ways with certain game mechanics (like the Elven save bonus, or the break enchantment spell) - that is the purpose of schools.

For alternate spellcasters, like with the Elven spellcaster we’re currently debating, the advice given is pretty crystal clear in the DMG - p. 26 of the 3e DMG (don’t have the 3.5 one yet, so I don’t know which page it is on there). Nowhere have there been any articles or design guidelines for new schools of magic - like there have been with feats, prestige classes, spell lists, and so on. In 2e, IIRC, the Wizard’s Handbook contained guidelines on designing a new school - no such thing in 3e, because the nature of the schools themselves changed somewhat. Spells are only in one school now, where before there were some that were in multiple schools.

Now, of course, no one is standing around being the rules police and denying you from redefining stuff completely for your own campaign - like adding new schools, redefining which spells belong where, and so on - just like no one is the rules police when it comes to things like “more realistic” hit point systems or whatnot. The point is just that schools have a clearly defined role in 3e - even psionic abilities have schools to define their effects. If you want a different flavor of spellcaster, it’s a simple matter of setting up a new spell list, or possibly adding some descriptors - like “weather.” That’s what the system recommends and supports doing.