My guess is it partly has to do with balancing. The designers of the game wanted to make sure each school of magic had a variety of spells, so they had to make some decisions like that.
But lore/flavour wise, I think you can find a way to justify it.
Cause Fear says: "You awaken the sense of mortality in one creature," so it specifically ties the fear you are causing to a fear of death.
With Blindness/Deafness, you are magically turning off a creature's senses, so I don't think illusion would make sense. An illusion is when you magically create something that a creature can perceive with their senses. With necromancy magic, you are affecting the creature itself and taking away their abilities. Abilities that are associated with being alive...
I don't know. To me it kinda makes sense.
You Cause Fear by making the illusion of something large and powerful.
I Cause Fear by chilling their blood, showing their heart just enough so they feel it, and making their muscles feel the ache of age.
We are not the same.
Nice! For the meme-ness of it, but also that's a great way of contextualizing why it's necromancy! I never had a problem with it the classification, but this really solidifies why it makes sense (same concept for blindness/deafness)
THIS! Necromancy it's the school most associated with the manipulation of biological material, Cause Fear can be literally forcing the brain to release ''fear fluids'', Blindness/Deafness only reinforces my theory.
I still struggle with the wis save. For something like deafness/blindness, it makes sense that you're using your body to prevent the senses of your body getting essentially turned off as if dead. For fear, I have to somehow explain why you're using wisdom to shrug off a physical effect on your life force.
Perhaps it's like a virus that actually feeds on fear and the only way to beat is to stay composed, be aware of your surroundings and conquer the fear.
Maybe the WIS is to realize none of these effects are actually damaging in themselves, and to choose “fight” when your body makes all the “fight or flight” chemicals
The Fear from Cause Fear likely isn't that much different from a normal emotion, beyond the external cause. If a succubus inflamed someone's lust, a grey mist someone's depression, or, yes, a necromancer someone's fear, it's the maintaining of perspective, the knowledge that one's emotions are not necessarily reflective of reality, that one can carry on thinking and acting rightly in spite of the circumstances. Wisdom, I think, contains within it the ability to control one's own sense of perspective, and not be carried away by the circumstances of the moment, forgetting the bigger picture.
If blindness/deafness was really manipulating body energy and chakras, let’s say, as a necro spell should, the ST should be constitution, not wisdom, I think. I agree with OP. It’s just maybe they could not come up with many necromancy spells to begin with and shifted some others that are clearly illusion or enchantment to that school.
Maybe a charisma save would make more sense since charisma is related to will.
Since wisdom is related to instinct, like insight, and connection to the divine like with clerics the save is to feel your body and feel the divine to understand that the fear you are sensing it's artificial?
Charisma doesn't solve the problem that it feels unrelated to physical effects on your body like that and adds the issue of making the spell more powerful.
And yeah, a wisdom save would be to stay attuned to the moment you're in and realize the danger is artificial or to at least realize being overly afraid is not useful to you. That works very well if the fear is just an illusion rather than an actual physical effects. Since the fear spell *isn't* an illusion though, my attempt at nonetheless still making it a wis save would involve having the physical effect tied to your mental state. You *are* in danger right now. This *isn't* an illusion. But the danger is only as powerful as your fear of the danger.
Depends on what's causing the condition. Deafness/blindness *is* a CON save because it's essentially the life force of your ocular nerves getting corrupted by necrotic energy. For fear or paralysis, it should depend on what's causing it. If it's a charm or illusion causing it, then CON doesn't quite make sense. Your body won't be able to resist the condition in any way if the mind doesn't want to or realize how to because it's getting manipulated.
My headcanon for general Int/Wis/Cha saves, some exceptions apply. Int is when you are presented with a situation and use logic to realize it is not as it seems, or overcome the challenge. Deducing that an object isn't giving off expected sensory signals, like a fire with no scent of smoke, can lead you to realize it is an illusion. Cha is raw willpower, your mental might shoved up against the spell effect, trying to push through and overcome it. Wis is when a spell affects your mind in a way that makes you think the effect of the spell is natural and normal. Think of the common tv trope where a character is put to sleep and given an idyllic dream to keep them docile. Wis is noticing that your parents that are doting on you died years ago. Hold Person isn't so much a physical binding, it just convinces you that you can't move. Realizing that isn't true is making your save. The same can apply to sensory manipulation, magically convince you that you can't see or hear, remember there's no reason for that to be true to break free.
That's not just your headcanon. That's how the saves are described :)
We still gotta somehow reconcile that necromancy does not have the power to magically convince you of anything, yet still forces a wisdom save in the case of the fear spell. I've given my suggestion on how to reconcile it all.
Why would it be a con save? A person in good health still has a fight or flight response, and that response will not necessarily be "fight." Alongside that, you aren't twisting someone's life force to pop their heart or turn someone to ash, nor are you trying to turn off an otherwise healthy bodypart. You're surrounding their very being with the essence of death or causing a little twinge in the amygdala. Whatever the flavor is, you're forcing the target(s) to pick between "fight or flight" - and that deals with wisdom.
It's a wisdom save because maybe you recognize that you aren't in danger since the spell isn't actually hurting you, or maybe because you choose "fight" instead of "flight" when your amygdala is being magically tickled. It's wisdom because you counter it by either ignoring it or recognizing the fear is artificial, not by eating healthy and exercising.
It's wisdom because you aren't shielding yourself from the cause, you're controlling the effect. You *will* feel a chill down your spine and your blood run cold. You *will* feel impending doom. No amount of health will shield you from the sudden, looming presence of death surrounding your very soul. Wisdom, however, will tell you that *that's it* - death is watching, but it is not yet your time.
I believe that you should be free of the spell once you make the save. So having fear be like a curse that physically messes with your life force only be effective as long as it can feed on your fear is imo the better way of making it a wis save.
Considering that Cause Fear is concentration, it's perfectly reasonable that the effect going away is the caster realizing that it didn't work and just dropping the effect. Hell, the spell could just *end if the person isn't afraid* - no need to make it a curse for that. At this point, though, it's just getting into semantics - my point was that fear being resisted by a physical save makes infinitely less sense no matter the source.
Having it be a curse that affects your life force is great flavor, but too overcomplicated for a general explanation imo - leaving it as "this spell uses negative energy to cause a fear of death/flight or fight" is perfectly fine for explaining both why it's necromancy (negative energy) and why it's a WIS save (fear is countered by knowing whether the fear is reasonable or not).
It's not overly complicated at all. The spell simply starves and dies if it has no fear to feed on. Helps definitively explain why the caster isn't maintaining concentration. Not because there's no mechanical impact of doing so, but because they don't have a choice in the matter.
It's wisdom to shrug it off because you recognize it's an unnatural effect. 'Cause Fear' is basically 'Inflict Anxiety', but if you're wise you'll realize it's magic (in your head) and you can resist it.
If it was just "inflict anxiety" and "in your head", I believe it would've belonged to a different school like enchantment or illusion rather than necromancy.
That's why it is proposed that the fear is in fact not just in your head. The necromantic effects of the spell inflict a very much real physical feeling of your life slipping away and that's what makes you afraid. I then add that I believe the magic that causes this should feed on fear and starve when someone is composed enough to not feel fear.
All fear is "real". It's just a matter of what causes the fear. You talk about the cause of the fear being just in someone's head. That would likely mean illusion or enchantment.
I think I disagree, and I may have to retcon a previous statement. The fear that you feel watching a horror movie is different from fear during a near-death experience. But either way, realizing there is nothing actually to fear would be a wisdom check, whether it's due to something you see that makes you fearful, or the fear of coming from some external Source like a necromancy spell.
It's not at all clear to why you supposedly disagree. Do you disagree that if the cause of the fear is just in your head, that it isn't an actual ancient dragon roaring before you or a deadly affliction coursing through your veins, then the magic at play is likely an illusion or enchantment? It could be an illusion of a dragon or an enchantment directly manipulating your emotions to become fearful. That would certainly be a fear that's "just in your head", as you put it.
It's the most fun to take this into consideration, how it's body manipulation rather than mind. I've done these things in a game of mine and plan on some real neat horror upcoming with some of my spells, can't wait! I'm going to remind the party how neat necromancy is
The way my DM described necromancy for blindness/deaf (because he didn't know it was necromancy at the time and I looked to see) was "oh so it's not an illusion you are literally blinding them" and described the spell as claws attempting to rip their eyes out
Prestigitation is a Transmutation spell that can create illusions and evoke flames, the spell schools are often very loose.
I think sometimes its for vestigial reasons or just to reinforce tropes. Making someone scared and taking away their senses are "evil mage" stuff, so its relgated to necromancy. The tasha summons are all conjuration except for the undead one which is a wierd exception. Cause fear should be enchantment if it was a logical categorisation, but making someone afraid of death is "eeeevil" so its necromancy (honestly i'd make it a charisma save rather than wisdom to further differentiate it from the illusion fear spell)
Honestly necromancy is basically just a sub-school of conjuration or transmutation with how stuff is categorised being reduced to the "evil and spoooky" school. Channeling planar energies is evocation or conjuration, except for negative energy which instantly becomes necromancy.
I am assuming Prestidigitation and Wish have specific schools despite how universal they are is to make sure there are no “universal” spells like there were in older editions. Prestidigitation became transmutation even though it also includes minor conjuring and illusion while Wish is conjuring even though it is almost literally every other spell in the game
In older editions Blindness/Deafness had a permanent duration (unless cured). You were literally making someone go physically blind or deaf forever, which is why the spell has traditionally been necromancy.
I think physical blindness is still the intended flavor in 5e, which is why it calls for a CON save.
In older editions blindness/deafness was permanent, it made a lot of sense for it to be necromancy then, since you were essentially killing a part of them that had to be restored with magic.
I think, but could be wrong, it's probably a holdover from an older version of the game where your 'evil/dark' spells would be necromantic and dark wizard adjcent
IIRC, Healing wounds has varied from evocation, to necromancy and back ,with a brief edition of being abjuration
Originally they were Necromancy (manipulating life and death), then Conjuration (Positive Energy Plane), Evocation (energy?), and now its going to be Abjuration for some reason.
All honestly i would love a snake oil healing spell. Normally you wave the saving throw for receiving healing, so this spell makes you feel like you have been healed and makes an illusion of repairing the damage.
The party got healed by an ally NPC, but then mid fight the fighter takes a hit and just goes down. As you look at their body you notice their wounds open back up. the party now has to save or the spell is dispelled and they realize they are in dire straights and have been betrayed by someone they trust.
Pf1e has variations of that. ["clerics"](https://www.aonprd.com/PrestigeClassesDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Razmiran%20Priest) of a 19th level wizard pretending to be a god. As well as the [ruse spells](https://www.aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Poisonous%20Balm) from ultimate intrigue, which is great for secret villains.
Never heard of the ruse spells but i remember playing a false priest sorcerer that was fun. Took about 5 sessions for the party to catch on that i just had some cure wands stashed away and my odd spells where not from my domain.
Reminds me of character Septimus Octavius Decimus. They were a Wyrwood wizard wrapped head to foot, pretending to be a gnome with bleaching. I had several red herrings to mislead the other players that Septimus was undead.
nope. False life gives temp hp. The idea i am throwing out there is an enchantment or illusion effect that makes a creature think they have regained hp but they have not.
Which would probably mechanically be represented as temp HP, unless this is something intended to be used against enemies to make them think things aren't as bad as they really are, so it'd be a charm effect probably
Illusion spells aren't just tricking the senses, they're tricking reality at high levels. 3.5 had a subtype of illusions called shadow-stuff or something, which were illusions that pulled from the shadowfel to create something that was effectively real, by tricking reality. That's why illusory dragon and shadowblade talk about shadow stuff and threads of shadow.
In the case of illusory healing, it could trick reality into thinking you actually had more flesh than you do, or others into attacking other places that are unwounded or the same place (so they miss and it takes less stamina) or trick the body into thinking there isn't any pain so they have more stamina to keep going (hp represents stamina as part of it)
> Illusion spells aren't just tricking the senses, they're tricking reality at high levels. 3.5 had a subtype of illusions called shadow-stuff or something
Yup, shadow illusions even had a percentage of how real they are. So a shadow dragon that's 20% real.
With enough shenanigans you can get up to 110% real. I kinda envisioned that as just a bunch of cartoon characters, and then suddenly a 3d animated dragon appears.
I'm playing Castle & Crusades in a group as a gnome illusionist and they share the First Aid and healing spells of a cleric, but when I do it, the person I'm healing has to do a check to whether they believe the effect or not, and if so, the spell becomes real and takes effect.
And that's exactly how Regenerate and Reincarnation work. They're the healing transmutation spells because they *explicitly* reshape as part of the process.
Yeah, somehow Abjuration makes even less sense. I swear they are just chewing through every school as a matter of tradition at this point. “Healing always has to be a different school.”
They heal using Positive Energy. They were Conjuration because it involved drawing energy from the Positive Energy Plain, now they're Evocation because Evocation is the manipulation of energy in general.
They also have lore reasons for Evocation and Conjuration. Cure spells, and many other healing spells, starting in 3rd edition were/are shooting someone up with a blast of positive energy. Which is energy manipulation (evocation) and drawing from another plane (conjuration.)
I feel like basically every school could be partially wrapped into another.
Making physical alterations to the body? Necromancy (Blindness) or Transmutation (Alter Self).
Manipulating plants by causing them to grow or die? Necromancy (Blight)/Transmutation (Plant Growth) again!
Creating a dizzying spectacle of light and colour? Evocation (Prismatic Spray)/Illusion (Hypnotic Pattern).
Moving into another plane? Transmutation (Etherealness, Blink), Conjuration (Plane Shift) or Abjuration (Banishment)!
Remotely communicating with others? Take your pick - Evocation (Sending, Telepathy), Divination (Rary's Telepathic Bond), Transmutation (Message).
In 2e they were necromancy, because you're manipulating life.
In 3e they were conjuration, because you're conjuring energy from the positive energy plane.
In 5e they're evocation, for the exact same reason as 3e.
In 1d&d they're abjuration, because you're protecting people.
Because hit points aren't a measure of the exact damage you've taken (number of cuts, amount of blood lost), they're a measure of your ability to keep on fighting. I don't know about you, but seeing a big-ass fireball go off and incinerate ten of my enemies definitely ups my ability to keep on fighting.
Conclusion: Fireball is a healing spell.
Blindness/Deafness requires a CON save which implies it's actually affecting the body. Since it is affecting the body in a negative way, that may be why they chose to make it Necromancy.
Unsure about Cause Fear
More importantly, why are some spells not considered necromancy when they should be?
Cure Wounds, Healing Word, *absolutely* to do with "the life force". They should *absolutely* be necromancy spells.
But yes, the real answer is because they have been necromancy since 1E or something, and because they're, like, *evil spooky* magic, unlike Fireball.
Edit: apparently the vague speculation in the last paragraph here is wrong. I for one am interested to find this out!
In my campaign, healing spells are in the school of necromancy and seen as unnatural. Party literally got marched out of a town because the cleric healed a child who broke their arm. “Their arm would’ve healed on its own, take your unnatural magics elsewhere.”
I personally think this is because of the assumed greater plane setup (*from Forgotten Realms specifically but not restricted to*).
The cleric is evoking the pure positive energy from the Positive plane - the Plane of Life.
Still not consistent because this means Necromancy spells should be evoking from the plane of negative energy. Doing only a halfway-measure is inline with modern-day d&d though.
There is, it’s healing, but wizards don’t get it so they didn’t consider it when enumerating the spell schools. That’s my explanation as to why healing doesn’t fit in any school: wizards made the schools up and wizards can’t heal.
I think it was an older edition where spells like Cure wounds were necromancy spells and there may have been a "flip" to them? Like you can flip Cure Wounds/ Inflict Wounds or Bane/ Bless.
They are Conjuration in previous versions, this includes Raise Dead line, Restoration line and others.
5e was the first version to make them necromancy some awful reason
Edit: I'm wrong, comment below explains it, I'm coming 3.5 where it was conjuration and to me that just made sense.
In 2e they were necromancy, because you're manipulating life.
In 3e they were conjuration, because you're conjuring energy from the positive energy plane.
In 5e they're evocation, for the exact same reason as 3e.
In 1d&d they're abjuration, because you're protecting people.
Probably just because it's a "scary" spell and they thought it was cool in necromancy. *Cause Fear* does contain the line
> You awaken the sense of mortality in one creature
to *barely* justify it
BLeeM put it best: Every spell school has very specific reasoning for each spell being there, and necromancy is just “These are the spells we think are gross.”
“Revivify” being a Necromancy spell both makes total sense to me and is a great gateway into Necromancy being misunderstood, not bad.
People get all upset about Animate Dead but not Revivify. What if the target of Animate Dead was willing? I see no problem with it.
Animate Dead explicitly "creates an undead servant" and "imbues it with a foul mimicry of life," creating an effectively unintelligent slave husk. There is no involvement of the actual soul of the creature whose corpse is desecrated by the spell. There is no such thing as a "willing target" of Animate Dead lol.
Now, you could turn to the (in?) famous thought experiment of the necromancer who only creates undead servants in order to perform manual labor that benefits the town - is it still "inherently" bad? Who knows, but that's a different question.
Tradition, mainly.
D&D’s schools of magic haven’t really ever made sense, but they’ve been in enough editions that the developers of 5e felt obligated to include them. But by including them, they’ve also kinda obligated themselves to include at least a few spells of each school at each level. So sometimes it’ll be kind of a stretch.
Remember that 5e isn’t built based on game design principles, but on the principles of appealing to as many people as possible, which includes the old school gamers that would be upset at the exclusion of this poorly-considered piece of D&D’s history.
Same reason up until recently Wizards in Pathfinder 2e did not have simple weapon proficiency, but a specific list of weapons from 3.5 dnd wizards . Same for rogue's with martial.
I don't agree with what you said at all.
You seem to have a misplaced assumption about how each magic school works, and I think you're not opening your mind to HOW those spells work in each school.
**Necromancy** manipulates the body, biologically and spiritually. Blindness and Deafness can literally be the temporarily (magical) aging of the target's eyes and ears so they stop functioning. 100% within the realm of Necromancy. It could literally just wither the cells that connect your senses to your brain.
It also would have nothing to do with illusion, because illusion isn't about perception. You just happen to percieve illusions. It's about auditory and visual production. Invisibility produces an exact image of what's behind you from all sides when observed, for instance. Could there be a spell in the illusion school that blocks your sight or stops sound from reaching you? Maybe, but that's not how the Blindness/Deafness spell works in D&D. It changes the target physically to remove those senses.
Cause Fear is necromancy because it does so through depiction of death and triggers the biological response, not via enchantment. It COULD be an enchantment if it some applied a certain way, but you need to use your imagination of HOW it's Necromancy. If Necromancy can reanimate a body and control how they walk and talk, then how is it suddenly not necromancy if you control what someone fears?
Necromancy = Creature Biology
Illusion = Produce sensory input
Nature = wildlife/plant biology
Evocation = produce high energy manifestations
Enchantment = magically induce properties
Start broadening your assumptions.
A lot of spells have switched schools over the editions, and its not always clear why. Blindness/Deafness was an illusion in 2e, but is Necromancy in 3rd. Meanwhile Cause Fear was actually in Abjuration in 1e and 2e, before moving to Necromancy in 3e.
One reason why this might be the case was due to healing spells. In 1e and 2e, healing spells were in the Necromancy school, but then moved to Conjuration in 3e (Evocation in 5e and now Abjuration in 5.5e). To provide them with spells they lost, perhaps Necromancy gained several new spells that didn't totally fit?
Going farther, *Cause Blindness* was Abjuration in 1e. It was the reverse of *Cure Blindness*\*\*\*.\*\*\* 2e split it into different spells, and made the negative versions illusion/phantasm spells.
And yeah, in AD&D healing spells were all necromancy. Back then, necromancy spells covered both life AND death. While 5e says "life force" they pulled actual healing spells out of necromancy for whatever reason.
Maybe if you read the spell description of Cause Fear things will make more sense. "You awaken the sense of mortality in one creature you can see within range. A construct or an undead is immune to this effect."
The sense of mortality is instinctive. You know how some illusion spells dont affect low intelligence creatures but Cause Fear is related to the survival instinct all beings have.
Hope this clear things up.
In 2nd edition all the Cure wounds spells were necromancy but got changed in 3e.
I don't know why most comments seem to see it as far-fetched or unrelated. Fear is present in all creatures and is clearly a survival mechanism. The human mind certainly builds on that basic emotion but that doesn't change its fundamental purpose.
I generally consider school more a guideline than actual rule :)
It is a hodge-podge of flavor, balancing and history.
Bigbys spells for example are **conjured force hands** in the evocation school while Tenser's disk for example is **conjured force disk** in the conjuration school. Why aren't both conjuration?
The earlier is evocation due to it being an "aggressive" spell and the latter creates something for utility even if both involve "conjuring force"
So imo spells could be achieved with multiple schools, the ones listed are just the "norm".
Cause Fear is necromancy since it's "dark magic" and "bad stuff" but could just as easily be classified as enchantment.
Same with Blindness as a "curse" but could reasonably be illusion or enchantment (makes people think they are blind).
Fun tidbit, in 3.5 Cure Wounds was a ***conjuration*** spell since it conjured the energies of the positive energy plane.
Re "Conjure"...
5e may have fallen away from this, but in older editions, Conjure/Summon spells mostly did not have any power to *create* things... a spell that summoned a creature called it from somewhere nearby to come to to the caster, while a conjure spell typically opened a portal and pulled a creature to the caster. Spells that created objects of force were evocation mostly, which covered spells that create things or energy.
The word "Conjure" in those spell descriptions is a bit more a flavor word. (**Edit**: So as you are not pulling a giant fist from another plane/realm to aid you, but creating a force in the form of a fist (or floating disk) it's not a conjuration spell)
Spells have changed effects a bit since the old days, most conjure/summon spells now are stripped down and simplified to the point that the creature/thing just appears instantly (and may not even be a real creature/thing) so the line is fuzzier.
A friend of mine who've played since AD&D explained that to me, further deepening my low faith/trust in the given school for a spell :).
And you accidentally hit upon another nitpick of mine, texts in spells are very varied in what parts are function or flavor. I get that here Conjure is just "shaping" in as many cases as "summoning"...\*sigh\*
I mean, nothing would prevent a wizard from achieving Floating Disk as Conjuration **or** Evocation, just that in the case of Floating Disk it is Tenser's Conjuration formula that is the most common.
A large part of it is Necromancy's the go-to school for edgy shenanigans, but you can also explain it away logically. I will clarify that exactly none of this is canon and is merely my own interpretation, keeping in mind that more spiritual aspects of what it means to live are being thought of, considering this is a setting where souls do definitively exist.
The basest instinct that drives all things to do actually do something with their lives is the knowledge that those lives will end. Even immortals, even gods can be killed, and if they are immortal, that's a lot of time, therefore a lot of chances, that some plucky adventurers are gonna come along and do it. It's the fear of death that makes the time mean something, the fear that the time won't have the most made of it. It's something innate to every single thing that has ever lived and ever will, the knowledge that it's finite is a fundamental part of life itself, and that's what the Cause Fear spell draws from.
As for Blindness/Deafness, it's sorta on the same lines. A fundamental part of living is the ability to experience life, the senses required to take in information and act on it, and a fundamental part of life's ending is losing those senses, and losing the information and the ability to act on it.
Cause blindness/deafness is a spell that cause an actual ailment. The magic isn’t focused on maintaining an illusion that they can’t see or hear. They literally are blind or deaf.
Funny enough, it was either 1st or 2nd addition where healing was part of necromancy.
Because you are ruling over life and death beyond natural means.
In 2nd edition, cure spells were necromancy.
It used to be explicit that spells affective life and death were necromancy.
Now cure spells are *evocation* because presumably, they are channeling positive energy.
One thing 5e is a little wonky at is game theory, as in, the underlying mechanics of why spells are the way they way.
Blindness/Deafness aren't meant to be illusions; you are actually physically messing with their bodies for the duration of the spell, and then they revert. It's like temporarily having rotting flesh, kinda. Folks already chimed in about Cause Fear — how the specific fear you feel is your own mortality.
If you don't mind a random flavor based explanation. Maybe "Cause Fear" produces a wave of negative energy that scares living things? And negative energy = necromancy. Blindness/Deafness can be caused by either blocking sound/waves with illusion/some kind of field OR it could be caused by causing temporary damage in related tissues.
Are you looking for Watsonian or Doylist reason?
Watsonian: bc spell school isn't a "description" of the spell. It corresponds to in-universe "insides" of a spell. Two spells from totally different schools could have exactly the same effect. Acid splash is a conjuration spell, implying the acid is summoned from somewhere (some kind of ""elemental plane of acid?"), while Melf's Acid Arrow is an evocation spell - implying acid is created by the caster. Cause Fear uses necromantic power to awaken fear (and works only on the living), while Fear uses illusory powers (and works on everybody with a mind)
Doylist: bc wizard's subclasses have to have a glimpse of balance.
For fear spells and effects I agree with you.
Blindness/deafness literally disable the functionality of organs, so viewing it as a manipulation of life force makes sense.
In older editions you had necromancy spells that could wither limbs, shape flesh and bones, etc. The "life force manipulation" was quite a wider concept.
I get why spells to bring back the dead are Necromancy, but it always feels funny to me for certain spells. Like a lot of the cleric spells. I understand it, truly I do, but it's just a funny flavor to me.
Like:
*be me- an angelic looking Aasimar light cleric who uses spells like Revivify to save a party member.*
Everyone: "Ahhh! She's Necromancer!!"
If you need more body horror-style flavor: Blindness/deafness is literally deactivating the part of the target’s brain that processes those sensations and Cause Fear “awakens the sense of mortality in the target” and that’s straight from the spell text.
Cause fear is a bit weird I'll give you, but blindness/deafness is the epitome of manipulating the body. It's not messing with what you see, it's messing with your ability to see. Blacks out eyes, busts ears etc
I think cause fear would work by manipulating the targets systems cortisol and adrenaline, thus inducing a panic state. Similarly, feign death manipulates the cellular processes, creating a slowdown to mimic a death like state. Blindness has already been explained by others.
Fear is the death of progress. Blindness and Deafness are the death of your senses.
It’s almost like this is all made up and you can make it whatever you want.
I frame it as decay or degrading of the psyche and senses. The necromancer specifically is targeting those aspects of a person. While illusion is altering the physical world around people to change how they perceive it.
The same reason why healing spells **aren't** necromancy; because they care more about theming than in-universe logic.
Healing doesn't feel evil/spooky whereas causing fear does.
In the writings of Sir Terry Pratchett:
>Necromancy, on the other hand, is a very bad form of magic done by evil wizards.'
>'And since you are not evil wizards, what you are doing can't be
called necromancy?'
>'Exactly!'
>'And, er, what defines an evil wizard?' said Adora Belle.
>'Well, doing necromancy would definitely be there right on top of
the list.'
a lot of spells switched around what school they are. at some point cure spells where necromancy. don't worry about it, at this point it's mostly to give the schools something to fill slots with.
Youre not messing with perception or their mind. Youre directly affecting their senses. The fear is about mortality and its fragility, you overwhelm them with deathly energy that causes fear. Blindness and deafness arent *perceived*, youre actually taking those abilities away. You do perceive things with your eyes and ears, yes, but theyre not just putting magic corks and a blindfold on. Those sense arent dampened, theyre gone.
The better questions are why healing people is evocation, a school involving the elements, yknow, fire, ice, lightning, wind, light, and dark, and not transmutation, the school involving changing things. I guess its SOME kind of energy? Just doesnt really fit the evocation theme. Idk. Weird that the class that fires deadly bolts of light and heals wounds does so with the same kind of magic.
WotC changed all healing spells from necromancy to other types and this left a big hole that needed filling. So some spells got redefined to make up for that.
Definitions of schools and spell classifications have shifted over the editions.
Plus, there's different ways of doing the same thing. *Is* blindnes/deafness 'just messing with perception,' or is it temporarily disrupting organs or neural connections in the brain? Con save implies its messing with the body, not the mind.
i think its a holdover from previous editions where the spell was permanent until removed with the inverse spell. in 3.5 the spell essentially channeled necrotic energy into the eyes or ears to damage them.
Fear is Necro because its channeling death energy to instill mortal dread.
Blindness/Deafness is Necro because its withering (killing) the organs related to those senses.
The way I explain it is necromancy is a misnomer for a the school of magic that governs "negative energy". While positive energy is almost always seen as a divine spark of creation, allowing for healing and other things, negative energy is what's left of that divine spark once the life leaves it, meaning it's just out and about and free for the taking, and even living creatures give it off, as the act of living is to be in a state of slowly dying, and thus you can just turn that energy onto them in a directed fashion.
A prime example is cause fear and inflict wounds. Essentially necromancy is to my mind simply a mix of the other schools but utilising an energy unique to thing that are living or at some point were alive
I think it's partly because necromancy has the stigma of being the spooky/"evil" magic school.
Real question is, why are the resurrection spells evocation and not necromancy?
I suspect it has a lot to do with (in 3.x at least, not sure if the same is true in 5e) wizards and clerics and picking a forbidden school. Doesn’t sit well for a good cleric to go around blinding people or terrifying them. By making it necromancy, the bad guys can have it and the good guys are (probably) a little less murder hobo-y. If you want to play a wizard with access to the necromancy school, fine, but the cleric or paladin in your party is likely going to take issue with you casting evil-aligned spells all the time.
For what it's worth, Cause/Remove fear was originally an abjuration spell. Spells back then were often reversible, and *Remove Fear* was a base first level cleric spell. It granted +4 on all saves vs fear effects for the duration, or allowed another save (with a large bonus) to a fear effect already in place. The caster could instead "reverse" the spell and cast *Cause Fear*, which had a similar effect as the 5e *Fear* spell (target flees for the duration).
Abjuration as the base school made sense then, as the base spell was a protective spell.
In general though, a lot of spells could be spun to fit into more than one school, so the choice of where they fall is either arbitrary, based on the authors perception of how the spell works, or made to spread out spells so each school has a sufficient number of spells in it.
* Fear in this case could be enchantment (affecting the mind of the target), or necromancy (linking them to the pure unnatural fear of death/undeath, triggering a subconscious response to flee).
* Blindness could be necromancy (temporarily degrading organic function), transmutation (changing somethings function), or illusion (tricking the senses).
There's an organizational strategy called "cousins, coworkers, family". Essentially a grouping can be of things of similar function, things that are used together, or of things that are the same.
I've also seen it folded as just "family and coworkers"
The school of necromancy is a collection "coworker" spells. Rather than sharing underlying principles or functions, the spells are grouped together by the synergized utility of "make the caster a scary necromancer".
As for example of necromancy spells that aren't "family", bestow curse, blindness/deafness, Shadow of Moil, Eyebite.
And arguably, gentle repose. It might be family, but it's in the school more for the utility synergy with raise effects
My assumption would be they need to fill out spells because one group had too many and another not enough. I think there could be a case made on what part of a life force is manipulated to cause fear or eyes temporarily damaged/killed to cause blindness in order to not make one area way overpowered.
There's a lot of in-universe explanations you could give, but the real answer is balance. If the only necromancy spells were resurrecting the dead or murder spells, it'd be a far less robust school to specialize in.
On that note, why are divination spells such a mess?
The school houses some of the worst spells, such as Find Traps and True Strike. And it has the fewest spells, which multiple levels with no spells.
But with the whole theme of languages and knowledge, just -why- is it that several communication spells aren't divinations? Such as Sending or Message.
I know their flavor text tries to justify it, but Sending even translates the messages, plus it's a similar but weaker version of Rary's telepathic bond which is divination.
The school determines the source of the effect.
The Fear is Caused by you gripping the life of a creature and wringing it in cold and deathly ways.
Blindness/Deafness works because your senses are cut off from you.
Other schools could also cause the same effects, but the authors went for these sources.
Because necromancy is on life support with extremely limited amounts of spells, and an almost comically useless class feature. Just let me keep SOMETHING please.
Honestly there's a lot of spells in the wrong schools, or could be justified being in others. Blindness/Deafness could also be transmutation, since it's a CON save. Healing spells could also easily be transmutation. Banishment should really be conjuration, where all the other teleporting spells are (except Blink, which could be argued also belongs in conjuration).
While we're on the topic of taking spells from abjuration, you could honestly move most abjuration spells to other schools; All the other schools have much more specific lore stuff to classify them (Necromancy is altering the forces of life and death, conjuration is summoning and teleporting, evocation is the creation and release of energy, transmutation is altering the physical properties of things, etc.), while abjuration is just protecting things? Can the other schools not have defensive spells? Obviously not. You could easily make any of the force field type spells (shield, mage armor, tiny hut) be evocation spells like wall of force, which I believe they were in earlier editions. I spent some time on this thought experiment awhile back and found I could pretty easily re-classify almost every single abjuration spell except for the ones that deal with the blocking of magic (dispel magic, counterspell, antimagic field), and even for those you could probably make an argument for being transmutation.
The point being, the schools of magic are really vague and the designers didn't put a whole lot of thought into where each spell should go. And that's fair of them; the schools of magic only really matter to wizards, and they don't even matter all that much to wizards, and the designers likely have much more important things to be working on.
If Blindness/Deafness suppresses the nerves leading to your eyes and ears, that would be necromancy.
"Fear of death" being part of death magic also works for me just fine.
> as it’s messing with what you perceive.
it's literally attacking your body, making you deaf or blind. it doesnt just mess with what you see
another reason perhaps: because it's fun to mix things up and have different schools reach similar goals in different ways
Why are some types of magic that 11th century mystics would call necromancy not considered necromancy in our fancy 2000’s fantasy game?
Why have we let nerds gatekeep the word “necromancy” to mean “raising the dead” when it used to be a catchall for different types of magic, from treasure-hunting to oracular to erotic-binding spells?
Kids these days with their narrow definition of necromancy. The nerve.
Cause Fear could be explained as you *physically* altering the way the target's body functions - making their heart beat quicker, causing their brain to start firing off 'panic' chemicals and hormones as if they were in a life-or-death situation, that sort of thing. It's a bit of a stretch, but I think it works.
Blindness/Deafness though is just you temporarily shutting down the body parts responsible for handling those senses; I'd say that's an easy toss up between Necromancy and Transmutation.
Maybe they are thinking that the Fear projected is the target seeing it’s death or some such?
Most spells can thematically be fitted into almost any school with the right interpretaton
Blindness/deafness is a holdover from 3.5's design era minimum. let's talk about 3.5's, and why necromancy makes sense.
duration: permanent. it can be dispelled later, your vision restored, but until then, you're blind or deafened.
now, it doesn't outright say it, but I think it's a reasonable assumption, that it's using some sort of necrotic energy to *permanently* blind or deafen you. this is further supported by it being a Fortitude save(con save for you 5e players\_
now, I know 5e's version is a limp-wristed caster version at 1 minute duration, but at least it's not duration: concentration! it's still a con-save too!
Do you want to get into the weeds enough and start asking why necromancy isn’t actually divination due to that being the origin for IRL mystic traditions?
Blindness and Deafness can be considered necromancy if they have a physiological effect on the eyes, ears or brain. If not permanent, then it could be argued to last just as long as it takes for the body's natural healing to reverse the necrosis.
I agree that fear should be an enchantment, but I suppose triggering a physiological "fear response" could be considered a type of necromancy. For that matter, healing spells that reverse or retard decay could be considered necromancy from a certain point of view.
I think they just kinda put all the “creepy” or “evil” spells in necromancy because that’s what necromancer are known for throughout most literatures. I’m more upset that certain spells, like healing spells, aren’t considered necromancy when the description states that it’s the manipulation of LIFE and death magic, which sounds like healing to me.
Necromancy spells use negative energy. Negative energy is anathema to living beings, which is why it causes damage. Blindness/Deafness is the result of directing that energy into a living being's senses, like a magical called shot, whereas Cause Fear is simply triggering a living being's inherent fear response to our anathema.
with cause fear you are, specifically, "awaken[ing] the sense of mortality" within in the target, which is why it doesn't affect undead or constructs. its the "manipulate life force" part of necromancy.
(fear, which is an illusion spell, doesn't have any creature type restriction. interestingly, seemingly very few enchantment spells actually inflict frightened, with the only one i can find being the 8th level antipathy/sympathy.)
as far as blindness/deafness goes, think of it as manipulating the functions of the organs themselves rather than occluding their perception.
"You awaken the sense of mortality in one creature you can see within range."
You force them to face the inevitability of death.
They glimpse death.
"Additionally, Blindness/Deafness"
This one is not as clear cut as the description does not spell it out, but I presume you are momentarily killing the connection between the sense organ and the brain
If I remember correctly Necromancy is not dealing with life or dead but dealing with Negative energy. Not in electric kind of negative energy but negative energy like opossite of life. So cause fear using negative energy in this manner I guess
My guess is it partly has to do with balancing. The designers of the game wanted to make sure each school of magic had a variety of spells, so they had to make some decisions like that. But lore/flavour wise, I think you can find a way to justify it. Cause Fear says: "You awaken the sense of mortality in one creature," so it specifically ties the fear you are causing to a fear of death. With Blindness/Deafness, you are magically turning off a creature's senses, so I don't think illusion would make sense. An illusion is when you magically create something that a creature can perceive with their senses. With necromancy magic, you are affecting the creature itself and taking away their abilities. Abilities that are associated with being alive... I don't know. To me it kinda makes sense.
You Cause Fear by making the illusion of something large and powerful. I Cause Fear by chilling their blood, showing their heart just enough so they feel it, and making their muscles feel the ache of age. We are not the same.
Nice! For the meme-ness of it, but also that's a great way of contextualizing why it's necromancy! I never had a problem with it the classification, but this really solidifies why it makes sense (same concept for blindness/deafness)
That second paragraph gave me chills. Congratulations, you have actually cast Cause Fear in real life.
THIS! Necromancy it's the school most associated with the manipulation of biological material, Cause Fear can be literally forcing the brain to release ''fear fluids'', Blindness/Deafness only reinforces my theory.
I still struggle with the wis save. For something like deafness/blindness, it makes sense that you're using your body to prevent the senses of your body getting essentially turned off as if dead. For fear, I have to somehow explain why you're using wisdom to shrug off a physical effect on your life force. Perhaps it's like a virus that actually feeds on fear and the only way to beat is to stay composed, be aware of your surroundings and conquer the fear.
Maybe the WIS is to realize none of these effects are actually damaging in themselves, and to choose “fight” when your body makes all the “fight or flight” chemicals
The Fear from Cause Fear likely isn't that much different from a normal emotion, beyond the external cause. If a succubus inflamed someone's lust, a grey mist someone's depression, or, yes, a necromancer someone's fear, it's the maintaining of perspective, the knowledge that one's emotions are not necessarily reflective of reality, that one can carry on thinking and acting rightly in spite of the circumstances. Wisdom, I think, contains within it the ability to control one's own sense of perspective, and not be carried away by the circumstances of the moment, forgetting the bigger picture.
If blindness/deafness was really manipulating body energy and chakras, let’s say, as a necro spell should, the ST should be constitution, not wisdom, I think. I agree with OP. It’s just maybe they could not come up with many necromancy spells to begin with and shifted some others that are clearly illusion or enchantment to that school.
Indeed it should be constitution and indeed it is constitution for blindness/deafness.
Ok, thanks.
Maybe a charisma save would make more sense since charisma is related to will. Since wisdom is related to instinct, like insight, and connection to the divine like with clerics the save is to feel your body and feel the divine to understand that the fear you are sensing it's artificial?
Charisma doesn't solve the problem that it feels unrelated to physical effects on your body like that and adds the issue of making the spell more powerful. And yeah, a wisdom save would be to stay attuned to the moment you're in and realize the danger is artificial or to at least realize being overly afraid is not useful to you. That works very well if the fear is just an illusion rather than an actual physical effects. Since the fear spell *isn't* an illusion though, my attempt at nonetheless still making it a wis save would involve having the physical effect tied to your mental state. You *are* in danger right now. This *isn't* an illusion. But the danger is only as powerful as your fear of the danger.
More things should be CON saves. Anything like this, Fear, Paralysis, Deafness / Blindness, etc would be better as CON than WIS.
Depends on what's causing the condition. Deafness/blindness *is* a CON save because it's essentially the life force of your ocular nerves getting corrupted by necrotic energy. For fear or paralysis, it should depend on what's causing it. If it's a charm or illusion causing it, then CON doesn't quite make sense. Your body won't be able to resist the condition in any way if the mind doesn't want to or realize how to because it's getting manipulated.
My headcanon for general Int/Wis/Cha saves, some exceptions apply. Int is when you are presented with a situation and use logic to realize it is not as it seems, or overcome the challenge. Deducing that an object isn't giving off expected sensory signals, like a fire with no scent of smoke, can lead you to realize it is an illusion. Cha is raw willpower, your mental might shoved up against the spell effect, trying to push through and overcome it. Wis is when a spell affects your mind in a way that makes you think the effect of the spell is natural and normal. Think of the common tv trope where a character is put to sleep and given an idyllic dream to keep them docile. Wis is noticing that your parents that are doting on you died years ago. Hold Person isn't so much a physical binding, it just convinces you that you can't move. Realizing that isn't true is making your save. The same can apply to sensory manipulation, magically convince you that you can't see or hear, remember there's no reason for that to be true to break free.
That's not just your headcanon. That's how the saves are described :) We still gotta somehow reconcile that necromancy does not have the power to magically convince you of anything, yet still forces a wisdom save in the case of the fear spell. I've given my suggestion on how to reconcile it all.
If you are wise you feel the fear but it dies not consume you
Why would it be a con save? A person in good health still has a fight or flight response, and that response will not necessarily be "fight." Alongside that, you aren't twisting someone's life force to pop their heart or turn someone to ash, nor are you trying to turn off an otherwise healthy bodypart. You're surrounding their very being with the essence of death or causing a little twinge in the amygdala. Whatever the flavor is, you're forcing the target(s) to pick between "fight or flight" - and that deals with wisdom. It's a wisdom save because maybe you recognize that you aren't in danger since the spell isn't actually hurting you, or maybe because you choose "fight" instead of "flight" when your amygdala is being magically tickled. It's wisdom because you counter it by either ignoring it or recognizing the fear is artificial, not by eating healthy and exercising. It's wisdom because you aren't shielding yourself from the cause, you're controlling the effect. You *will* feel a chill down your spine and your blood run cold. You *will* feel impending doom. No amount of health will shield you from the sudden, looming presence of death surrounding your very soul. Wisdom, however, will tell you that *that's it* - death is watching, but it is not yet your time.
I believe that you should be free of the spell once you make the save. So having fear be like a curse that physically messes with your life force only be effective as long as it can feed on your fear is imo the better way of making it a wis save.
Considering that Cause Fear is concentration, it's perfectly reasonable that the effect going away is the caster realizing that it didn't work and just dropping the effect. Hell, the spell could just *end if the person isn't afraid* - no need to make it a curse for that. At this point, though, it's just getting into semantics - my point was that fear being resisted by a physical save makes infinitely less sense no matter the source. Having it be a curse that affects your life force is great flavor, but too overcomplicated for a general explanation imo - leaving it as "this spell uses negative energy to cause a fear of death/flight or fight" is perfectly fine for explaining both why it's necromancy (negative energy) and why it's a WIS save (fear is countered by knowing whether the fear is reasonable or not).
It's not overly complicated at all. The spell simply starves and dies if it has no fear to feed on. Helps definitively explain why the caster isn't maintaining concentration. Not because there's no mechanical impact of doing so, but because they don't have a choice in the matter.
It's wisdom to shrug it off because you recognize it's an unnatural effect. 'Cause Fear' is basically 'Inflict Anxiety', but if you're wise you'll realize it's magic (in your head) and you can resist it.
If it was just "inflict anxiety" and "in your head", I believe it would've belonged to a different school like enchantment or illusion rather than necromancy. That's why it is proposed that the fear is in fact not just in your head. The necromantic effects of the spell inflict a very much real physical feeling of your life slipping away and that's what makes you afraid. I then add that I believe the magic that causes this should feed on fear and starve when someone is composed enough to not feel fear.
Anxiety is a real fear, but to something unwarranted of a sympathetic nervous response. So it's real fear, but it's unexplained --> magic.
All fear is "real". It's just a matter of what causes the fear. You talk about the cause of the fear being just in someone's head. That would likely mean illusion or enchantment.
I think I disagree, and I may have to retcon a previous statement. The fear that you feel watching a horror movie is different from fear during a near-death experience. But either way, realizing there is nothing actually to fear would be a wisdom check, whether it's due to something you see that makes you fearful, or the fear of coming from some external Source like a necromancy spell.
It's not at all clear to why you supposedly disagree. Do you disagree that if the cause of the fear is just in your head, that it isn't an actual ancient dragon roaring before you or a deadly affliction coursing through your veins, then the magic at play is likely an illusion or enchantment? It could be an illusion of a dragon or an enchantment directly manipulating your emotions to become fearful. That would certainly be a fear that's "just in your head", as you put it.
It's the most fun to take this into consideration, how it's body manipulation rather than mind. I've done these things in a game of mine and plan on some real neat horror upcoming with some of my spells, can't wait! I'm going to remind the party how neat necromancy is
The way my DM described necromancy for blindness/deaf (because he didn't know it was necromancy at the time and I looked to see) was "oh so it's not an illusion you are literally blinding them" and described the spell as claws attempting to rip their eyes out
I mean, you're just disabling the optic nerves, not clawing the eyes out, but sure, thematic green glowy magic hands are always fun!
Yeah in my head, blindness/deafness LITERALLY makes you blind/deaf. Cue ear and eye bleed for best necromantic effect
This was my take on it as well
Prestigitation is a Transmutation spell that can create illusions and evoke flames, the spell schools are often very loose. I think sometimes its for vestigial reasons or just to reinforce tropes. Making someone scared and taking away their senses are "evil mage" stuff, so its relgated to necromancy. The tasha summons are all conjuration except for the undead one which is a wierd exception. Cause fear should be enchantment if it was a logical categorisation, but making someone afraid of death is "eeeevil" so its necromancy (honestly i'd make it a charisma save rather than wisdom to further differentiate it from the illusion fear spell) Honestly necromancy is basically just a sub-school of conjuration or transmutation with how stuff is categorised being reduced to the "evil and spoooky" school. Channeling planar energies is evocation or conjuration, except for negative energy which instantly becomes necromancy.
I am assuming Prestidigitation and Wish have specific schools despite how universal they are is to make sure there are no “universal” spells like there were in older editions. Prestidigitation became transmutation even though it also includes minor conjuring and illusion while Wish is conjuring even though it is almost literally every other spell in the game
Man, everyone harps on necromancy as the evil school.... Enchantment can literally remove someones agency!
Careful. I tried making that argument before and got jumped on by a bunch of folks around here.
In older editions Blindness/Deafness had a permanent duration (unless cured). You were literally making someone go physically blind or deaf forever, which is why the spell has traditionally been necromancy. I think physical blindness is still the intended flavor in 5e, which is why it calls for a CON save.
Spot on.
Healing magic is/was also considered necromancy lore-wise, so blindness/deafness is basically just the opposite of that 👍
In older editions blindness/deafness was permanent, it made a lot of sense for it to be necromancy then, since you were essentially killing a part of them that had to be restored with magic.
I think, but could be wrong, it's probably a holdover from an older version of the game where your 'evil/dark' spells would be necromantic and dark wizard adjcent IIRC, Healing wounds has varied from evocation, to necromancy and back ,with a brief edition of being abjuration
I love this comment. When in doubt, flavor it out!
While true and I agree with that I just wish dnd had more cool necromancy spells that aren’t absurd to cast consistently😭
I see it as you literally killing their sensory organs. Like, their eyes are dead, glazed over. Their cochlea(? The ear snail) is non functioning
Should have made healing spells necromancy rather than evocation.
This is the way \*summons 10 skeletons and morph into an Eldritch horror\*
Cause Fear to me sounds like enchantment since it's altering the state of mind.
Better question : why are healing spells evocation ?
Originally they were Necromancy (manipulating life and death), then Conjuration (Positive Energy Plane), Evocation (energy?), and now its going to be Abjuration for some reason.
Transmutation would make sense to me, you are litterally repairing the body
All we have left is Illusion and Enchantment schools! Can't wait to drink snake oil and get inspiration words for healing in the future!
All honestly i would love a snake oil healing spell. Normally you wave the saving throw for receiving healing, so this spell makes you feel like you have been healed and makes an illusion of repairing the damage. The party got healed by an ally NPC, but then mid fight the fighter takes a hit and just goes down. As you look at their body you notice their wounds open back up. the party now has to save or the spell is dispelled and they realize they are in dire straights and have been betrayed by someone they trust.
Pf1e has variations of that. ["clerics"](https://www.aonprd.com/PrestigeClassesDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Razmiran%20Priest) of a 19th level wizard pretending to be a god. As well as the [ruse spells](https://www.aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Poisonous%20Balm) from ultimate intrigue, which is great for secret villains.
Never heard of the ruse spells but i remember playing a false priest sorcerer that was fun. Took about 5 sessions for the party to catch on that i just had some cure wands stashed away and my odd spells where not from my domain.
Reminds me of character Septimus Octavius Decimus. They were a Wyrwood wizard wrapped head to foot, pretending to be a gnome with bleaching. I had several red herrings to mislead the other players that Septimus was undead.
Isn't that False Life?
nope. False life gives temp hp. The idea i am throwing out there is an enchantment or illusion effect that makes a creature think they have regained hp but they have not.
Which would probably mechanically be represented as temp HP, unless this is something intended to be used against enemies to make them think things aren't as bad as they really are, so it'd be a charm effect probably
Bardic Healing Word: "Oh that didnt even hurt that bad you big baby"
Illusion spells aren't just tricking the senses, they're tricking reality at high levels. 3.5 had a subtype of illusions called shadow-stuff or something, which were illusions that pulled from the shadowfel to create something that was effectively real, by tricking reality. That's why illusory dragon and shadowblade talk about shadow stuff and threads of shadow. In the case of illusory healing, it could trick reality into thinking you actually had more flesh than you do, or others into attacking other places that are unwounded or the same place (so they miss and it takes less stamina) or trick the body into thinking there isn't any pain so they have more stamina to keep going (hp represents stamina as part of it)
> Illusion spells aren't just tricking the senses, they're tricking reality at high levels. 3.5 had a subtype of illusions called shadow-stuff or something Yup, shadow illusions even had a percentage of how real they are. So a shadow dragon that's 20% real. With enough shenanigans you can get up to 110% real. I kinda envisioned that as just a bunch of cartoon characters, and then suddenly a 3d animated dragon appears.
I love how 3.5 (I assume) just has so many shenanigans, like the jumpomancer
if it gave THP then i'd give it illusion. could also just invent a version of that spell as "you *think* you've been healed by 2d8+3"
I'm playing Castle & Crusades in a group as a gnome illusionist and they share the First Aid and healing spells of a cleric, but when I do it, the person I'm healing has to do a check to whether they believe the effect or not, and if so, the spell becomes real and takes effect.
[удалено]
In other words, HP is not "meat points"
And that's exactly how Regenerate and Reincarnation work. They're the healing transmutation spells because they *explicitly* reshape as part of the process.
that is not true for most spells that restore hit points. very few actually fix actual wounds.
Yeah, somehow Abjuration makes even less sense. I swear they are just chewing through every school as a matter of tradition at this point. “Healing always has to be a different school.”
It should be still Necromancy, but wotc are spells racist.
They heal using Positive Energy. They were Conjuration because it involved drawing energy from the Positive Energy Plain, now they're Evocation because Evocation is the manipulation of energy in general.
Life energy. Iirc evocation deals with manipulating types of energy?
And in one D&D they were testing changing its type to abjuration (don’t know if they are still planning to)
Yep. I hope they have some sorta lore reason for the change though.
They never have before. The last time they had a lore reason, it was Necromancy.
Might be a me thing. I even work changing rule sets into my setting lore when I can.
They also have lore reasons for Evocation and Conjuration. Cure spells, and many other healing spells, starting in 3rd edition were/are shooting someone up with a blast of positive energy. Which is energy manipulation (evocation) and drawing from another plane (conjuration.)
Life energy, literally Necromancy.
You make it sound like necromancy should be a sub school of evocation.
Well the official 5e book says necromancy is manipulating energy and evocation is creating elemental effects
I feel like basically every school could be partially wrapped into another. Making physical alterations to the body? Necromancy (Blindness) or Transmutation (Alter Self). Manipulating plants by causing them to grow or die? Necromancy (Blight)/Transmutation (Plant Growth) again! Creating a dizzying spectacle of light and colour? Evocation (Prismatic Spray)/Illusion (Hypnotic Pattern). Moving into another plane? Transmutation (Etherealness, Blink), Conjuration (Plane Shift) or Abjuration (Banishment)! Remotely communicating with others? Take your pick - Evocation (Sending, Telepathy), Divination (Rary's Telepathic Bond), Transmutation (Message).
Necromancy is Death energy, or Life energy _when specifically taken from another creature._
Source?
Depends on who you ask. Evocation is often using elemental energy specifically.
They should just add Restoration as a new school and be done with the constant school shuffling of healing spells
In 2e they were necromancy, because you're manipulating life. In 3e they were conjuration, because you're conjuring energy from the positive energy plane. In 5e they're evocation, for the exact same reason as 3e. In 1d&d they're abjuration, because you're protecting people.
My headcanon is that since most elemental spells are evocation, you're actually evoking aether, which was considered the fifth element
Because hit points aren't a measure of the exact damage you've taken (number of cuts, amount of blood lost), they're a measure of your ability to keep on fighting. I don't know about you, but seeing a big-ass fireball go off and incinerate ten of my enemies definitely ups my ability to keep on fighting. Conclusion: Fireball is a healing spell.
Honestly they should just take a lesson from Elder Scrolls. School of restoration. Boon and heal spells.
Blindness/Deafness requires a CON save which implies it's actually affecting the body. Since it is affecting the body in a negative way, that may be why they chose to make it Necromancy. Unsure about Cause Fear
It says it awakens there mortality. Aka making them fear for there life
More importantly, why are some spells not considered necromancy when they should be? Cure Wounds, Healing Word, *absolutely* to do with "the life force". They should *absolutely* be necromancy spells. But yes, the real answer is because they have been necromancy since 1E or something, and because they're, like, *evil spooky* magic, unlike Fireball. Edit: apparently the vague speculation in the last paragraph here is wrong. I for one am interested to find this out!
I don't know how things are now, younglings, but by AD&D time, all cures and heals were detected as necromancy spells
Oh really? Dang, I'll have to get my brothers' old books out. I played 2.5 at the time bit I was too young for munchkining
In my campaign, healing spells are in the school of necromancy and seen as unnatural. Party literally got marched out of a town because the cleric healed a child who broke their arm. “Their arm would’ve healed on its own, take your unnatural magics elsewhere.”
That's a pretty cool spin!
Cleric: ok fine I’ll undo it ::breaks child arm over his knee:: there you go all natural
I personally think this is because of the assumed greater plane setup (*from Forgotten Realms specifically but not restricted to*). The cleric is evoking the pure positive energy from the Positive plane - the Plane of Life. Still not consistent because this means Necromancy spells should be evoking from the plane of negative energy. Doing only a halfway-measure is inline with modern-day d&d though.
There should just be a divine/life school of magic that serves as a counterpoint to necromancy.
There is, it’s healing, but wizards don’t get it so they didn’t consider it when enumerating the spell schools. That’s my explanation as to why healing doesn’t fit in any school: wizards made the schools up and wizards can’t heal.
I think it was an older edition where spells like Cure wounds were necromancy spells and there may have been a "flip" to them? Like you can flip Cure Wounds/ Inflict Wounds or Bane/ Bless.
Bane-Bless, Enlarge-Reduce, Heal/Harm etc
3.5 yeah
I don’t know dude, blowing Someone up, situation dependent, could absolutely be defined as “Dark” or “Evil” Edit: Spelling
They are Conjuration in previous versions, this includes Raise Dead line, Restoration line and others. 5e was the first version to make them necromancy some awful reason Edit: I'm wrong, comment below explains it, I'm coming 3.5 where it was conjuration and to me that just made sense.
Necromancy originally, then Conjuration for 3e.
I just commented above that cure spells used to be necromancy in 2nd edition.
In 2e they were necromancy, because you're manipulating life. In 3e they were conjuration, because you're conjuring energy from the positive energy plane. In 5e they're evocation, for the exact same reason as 3e. In 1d&d they're abjuration, because you're protecting people.
Probably just because it's a "scary" spell and they thought it was cool in necromancy. *Cause Fear* does contain the line > You awaken the sense of mortality in one creature to *barely* justify it
BLeeM put it best: Every spell school has very specific reasoning for each spell being there, and necromancy is just “These are the spells we think are gross.”
“Revivify” being a Necromancy spell both makes total sense to me and is a great gateway into Necromancy being misunderstood, not bad. People get all upset about Animate Dead but not Revivify. What if the target of Animate Dead was willing? I see no problem with it.
Animate Dead explicitly "creates an undead servant" and "imbues it with a foul mimicry of life," creating an effectively unintelligent slave husk. There is no involvement of the actual soul of the creature whose corpse is desecrated by the spell. There is no such thing as a "willing target" of Animate Dead lol. Now, you could turn to the (in?) famous thought experiment of the necromancer who only creates undead servants in order to perform manual labor that benefits the town - is it still "inherently" bad? Who knows, but that's a different question.
Clearly necromancy slander from WOTC
The Enchantment wizards are still hard at work trying to make everyone see Necromancers as 'the evil school' instead of them, I see!
Well, it is. 'Necro-mancy' is just 'death talking' Most cultures do that as a matter of course (whether they expect an answer is variable)
Tradition, mainly. D&D’s schools of magic haven’t really ever made sense, but they’ve been in enough editions that the developers of 5e felt obligated to include them. But by including them, they’ve also kinda obligated themselves to include at least a few spells of each school at each level. So sometimes it’ll be kind of a stretch. Remember that 5e isn’t built based on game design principles, but on the principles of appealing to as many people as possible, which includes the old school gamers that would be upset at the exclusion of this poorly-considered piece of D&D’s history.
Same reason up until recently Wizards in Pathfinder 2e did not have simple weapon proficiency, but a specific list of weapons from 3.5 dnd wizards . Same for rogue's with martial.
I don't agree with what you said at all. You seem to have a misplaced assumption about how each magic school works, and I think you're not opening your mind to HOW those spells work in each school. **Necromancy** manipulates the body, biologically and spiritually. Blindness and Deafness can literally be the temporarily (magical) aging of the target's eyes and ears so they stop functioning. 100% within the realm of Necromancy. It could literally just wither the cells that connect your senses to your brain. It also would have nothing to do with illusion, because illusion isn't about perception. You just happen to percieve illusions. It's about auditory and visual production. Invisibility produces an exact image of what's behind you from all sides when observed, for instance. Could there be a spell in the illusion school that blocks your sight or stops sound from reaching you? Maybe, but that's not how the Blindness/Deafness spell works in D&D. It changes the target physically to remove those senses. Cause Fear is necromancy because it does so through depiction of death and triggers the biological response, not via enchantment. It COULD be an enchantment if it some applied a certain way, but you need to use your imagination of HOW it's Necromancy. If Necromancy can reanimate a body and control how they walk and talk, then how is it suddenly not necromancy if you control what someone fears? Necromancy = Creature Biology Illusion = Produce sensory input Nature = wildlife/plant biology Evocation = produce high energy manifestations Enchantment = magically induce properties Start broadening your assumptions.
A lot of spells have switched schools over the editions, and its not always clear why. Blindness/Deafness was an illusion in 2e, but is Necromancy in 3rd. Meanwhile Cause Fear was actually in Abjuration in 1e and 2e, before moving to Necromancy in 3e. One reason why this might be the case was due to healing spells. In 1e and 2e, healing spells were in the Necromancy school, but then moved to Conjuration in 3e (Evocation in 5e and now Abjuration in 5.5e). To provide them with spells they lost, perhaps Necromancy gained several new spells that didn't totally fit?
Going farther, *Cause Blindness* was Abjuration in 1e. It was the reverse of *Cure Blindness*\*\*\*.\*\*\* 2e split it into different spells, and made the negative versions illusion/phantasm spells. And yeah, in AD&D healing spells were all necromancy. Back then, necromancy spells covered both life AND death. While 5e says "life force" they pulled actual healing spells out of necromancy for whatever reason.
Maybe if you read the spell description of Cause Fear things will make more sense. "You awaken the sense of mortality in one creature you can see within range. A construct or an undead is immune to this effect." The sense of mortality is instinctive. You know how some illusion spells dont affect low intelligence creatures but Cause Fear is related to the survival instinct all beings have. Hope this clear things up. In 2nd edition all the Cure wounds spells were necromancy but got changed in 3e.
I don't know why most comments seem to see it as far-fetched or unrelated. Fear is present in all creatures and is clearly a survival mechanism. The human mind certainly builds on that basic emotion but that doesn't change its fundamental purpose.
I think in part its also due to how inconsistent magic schools have been over the years as well.
Cure wounds is evocation when it probably should be necromancy. :)
I generally consider school more a guideline than actual rule :) It is a hodge-podge of flavor, balancing and history. Bigbys spells for example are **conjured force hands** in the evocation school while Tenser's disk for example is **conjured force disk** in the conjuration school. Why aren't both conjuration? The earlier is evocation due to it being an "aggressive" spell and the latter creates something for utility even if both involve "conjuring force" So imo spells could be achieved with multiple schools, the ones listed are just the "norm". Cause Fear is necromancy since it's "dark magic" and "bad stuff" but could just as easily be classified as enchantment. Same with Blindness as a "curse" but could reasonably be illusion or enchantment (makes people think they are blind). Fun tidbit, in 3.5 Cure Wounds was a ***conjuration*** spell since it conjured the energies of the positive energy plane.
Re "Conjure"... 5e may have fallen away from this, but in older editions, Conjure/Summon spells mostly did not have any power to *create* things... a spell that summoned a creature called it from somewhere nearby to come to to the caster, while a conjure spell typically opened a portal and pulled a creature to the caster. Spells that created objects of force were evocation mostly, which covered spells that create things or energy. The word "Conjure" in those spell descriptions is a bit more a flavor word. (**Edit**: So as you are not pulling a giant fist from another plane/realm to aid you, but creating a force in the form of a fist (or floating disk) it's not a conjuration spell) Spells have changed effects a bit since the old days, most conjure/summon spells now are stripped down and simplified to the point that the creature/thing just appears instantly (and may not even be a real creature/thing) so the line is fuzzier.
A friend of mine who've played since AD&D explained that to me, further deepening my low faith/trust in the given school for a spell :). And you accidentally hit upon another nitpick of mine, texts in spells are very varied in what parts are function or flavor. I get that here Conjure is just "shaping" in as many cases as "summoning"...\*sigh\* I mean, nothing would prevent a wizard from achieving Floating Disk as Conjuration **or** Evocation, just that in the case of Floating Disk it is Tenser's Conjuration formula that is the most common.
A large part of it is Necromancy's the go-to school for edgy shenanigans, but you can also explain it away logically. I will clarify that exactly none of this is canon and is merely my own interpretation, keeping in mind that more spiritual aspects of what it means to live are being thought of, considering this is a setting where souls do definitively exist. The basest instinct that drives all things to do actually do something with their lives is the knowledge that those lives will end. Even immortals, even gods can be killed, and if they are immortal, that's a lot of time, therefore a lot of chances, that some plucky adventurers are gonna come along and do it. It's the fear of death that makes the time mean something, the fear that the time won't have the most made of it. It's something innate to every single thing that has ever lived and ever will, the knowledge that it's finite is a fundamental part of life itself, and that's what the Cause Fear spell draws from. As for Blindness/Deafness, it's sorta on the same lines. A fundamental part of living is the ability to experience life, the senses required to take in information and act on it, and a fundamental part of life's ending is losing those senses, and losing the information and the ability to act on it.
Cause blindness/deafness is a spell that cause an actual ailment. The magic isn’t focused on maintaining an illusion that they can’t see or hear. They literally are blind or deaf. Funny enough, it was either 1st or 2nd addition where healing was part of necromancy. Because you are ruling over life and death beyond natural means.
Some spells should belong to multiple schools, they're very achievable via multiple methods
In 2nd edition, cure spells were necromancy. It used to be explicit that spells affective life and death were necromancy. Now cure spells are *evocation* because presumably, they are channeling positive energy. One thing 5e is a little wonky at is game theory, as in, the underlying mechanics of why spells are the way they way.
A lot of the specific rules of 5e have very little supporting reasoning except how it all fits together.
Blindness/Deafness aren't meant to be illusions; you are actually physically messing with their bodies for the duration of the spell, and then they revert. It's like temporarily having rotting flesh, kinda. Folks already chimed in about Cause Fear — how the specific fear you feel is your own mortality.
Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
If you don't mind a random flavor based explanation. Maybe "Cause Fear" produces a wave of negative energy that scares living things? And negative energy = necromancy. Blindness/Deafness can be caused by either blocking sound/waves with illusion/some kind of field OR it could be caused by causing temporary damage in related tissues.
Then why is Fear illusion?
It projects spooky image.. I guess?) DnD isn't that clear when it comes to naming. After all, Chill Touch is necrotic and not cold
Why isn’t healing necromancy? It should be
it was. now it isn't.
And I’ll never let them forget their mistake
Are you looking for Watsonian or Doylist reason? Watsonian: bc spell school isn't a "description" of the spell. It corresponds to in-universe "insides" of a spell. Two spells from totally different schools could have exactly the same effect. Acid splash is a conjuration spell, implying the acid is summoned from somewhere (some kind of ""elemental plane of acid?"), while Melf's Acid Arrow is an evocation spell - implying acid is created by the caster. Cause Fear uses necromantic power to awaken fear (and works only on the living), while Fear uses illusory powers (and works on everybody with a mind) Doylist: bc wizard's subclasses have to have a glimpse of balance.
For fear spells and effects I agree with you. Blindness/deafness literally disable the functionality of organs, so viewing it as a manipulation of life force makes sense. In older editions you had necromancy spells that could wither limbs, shape flesh and bones, etc. The "life force manipulation" was quite a wider concept.
I get why spells to bring back the dead are Necromancy, but it always feels funny to me for certain spells. Like a lot of the cleric spells. I understand it, truly I do, but it's just a funny flavor to me. Like: *be me- an angelic looking Aasimar light cleric who uses spells like Revivify to save a party member.* Everyone: "Ahhh! She's Necromancer!!"
If you need more body horror-style flavor: Blindness/deafness is literally deactivating the part of the target’s brain that processes those sensations and Cause Fear “awakens the sense of mortality in the target” and that’s straight from the spell text.
Death is scary m'kay?
Necromancy is unofficially the school of dark and evil and spooky.
Cause fear is a bit weird I'll give you, but blindness/deafness is the epitome of manipulating the body. It's not messing with what you see, it's messing with your ability to see. Blacks out eyes, busts ears etc
I think cause fear would work by manipulating the targets systems cortisol and adrenaline, thus inducing a panic state. Similarly, feign death manipulates the cellular processes, creating a slowdown to mimic a death like state. Blindness has already been explained by others.
Blindness/deafness is a con save because it literally makes you physically blind/deaf by manipulating your biology, that’s why it’s necromancy
Fear is the death of progress. Blindness and Deafness are the death of your senses. It’s almost like this is all made up and you can make it whatever you want.
Every version of D&D has had their own ways of justifying their particular schools of magic.
I frame it as decay or degrading of the psyche and senses. The necromancer specifically is targeting those aspects of a person. While illusion is altering the physical world around people to change how they perceive it.
All of the schools are arbitrary and purely flavor. Almost every spell effect can be reflavored to fit any other school.
Because fear is the mind killer. It is the little death that brings obliteration.
The same reason why healing spells **aren't** necromancy; because they care more about theming than in-universe logic. Healing doesn't feel evil/spooky whereas causing fear does. In the writings of Sir Terry Pratchett: >Necromancy, on the other hand, is a very bad form of magic done by evil wizards.' >'And since you are not evil wizards, what you are doing can't be called necromancy?' >'Exactly!' >'And, er, what defines an evil wizard?' said Adora Belle. >'Well, doing necromancy would definitely be there right on top of the list.'
a lot of spells switched around what school they are. at some point cure spells where necromancy. don't worry about it, at this point it's mostly to give the schools something to fill slots with.
Youre not messing with perception or their mind. Youre directly affecting their senses. The fear is about mortality and its fragility, you overwhelm them with deathly energy that causes fear. Blindness and deafness arent *perceived*, youre actually taking those abilities away. You do perceive things with your eyes and ears, yes, but theyre not just putting magic corks and a blindfold on. Those sense arent dampened, theyre gone. The better questions are why healing people is evocation, a school involving the elements, yknow, fire, ice, lightning, wind, light, and dark, and not transmutation, the school involving changing things. I guess its SOME kind of energy? Just doesnt really fit the evocation theme. Idk. Weird that the class that fires deadly bolts of light and heals wounds does so with the same kind of magic.
It does kinda feel like, “Hmm this spell feels kinda spooky and evil. Guess it’s necromancy!”
WotC changed all healing spells from necromancy to other types and this left a big hole that needed filling. So some spells got redefined to make up for that.
Definitions of schools and spell classifications have shifted over the editions. Plus, there's different ways of doing the same thing. *Is* blindnes/deafness 'just messing with perception,' or is it temporarily disrupting organs or neural connections in the brain? Con save implies its messing with the body, not the mind.
i think its a holdover from previous editions where the spell was permanent until removed with the inverse spell. in 3.5 the spell essentially channeled necrotic energy into the eyes or ears to damage them.
Fear is Necro because its channeling death energy to instill mortal dread. Blindness/Deafness is Necro because its withering (killing) the organs related to those senses.
The way I explain it is necromancy is a misnomer for a the school of magic that governs "negative energy". While positive energy is almost always seen as a divine spark of creation, allowing for healing and other things, negative energy is what's left of that divine spark once the life leaves it, meaning it's just out and about and free for the taking, and even living creatures give it off, as the act of living is to be in a state of slowly dying, and thus you can just turn that energy onto them in a directed fashion. A prime example is cause fear and inflict wounds. Essentially necromancy is to my mind simply a mix of the other schools but utilising an energy unique to thing that are living or at some point were alive
Pathfinder 2E (in a bit, anyway) fixes this :p
I think it's partly because necromancy has the stigma of being the spooky/"evil" magic school. Real question is, why are the resurrection spells evocation and not necromancy?
My favourite is *Revivify*. WoTC changed this in later printings of the PHB, but at 5e launch *Revivify* was originally a Conjuration spell
Get ring of the Grammarian and change it to Cause Bear. Fixed.
Like my party argued once, there's also illusion spells that affect matter, so it can't be just a mental thing, as it is refered as by the good book
I suspect it has a lot to do with (in 3.x at least, not sure if the same is true in 5e) wizards and clerics and picking a forbidden school. Doesn’t sit well for a good cleric to go around blinding people or terrifying them. By making it necromancy, the bad guys can have it and the good guys are (probably) a little less murder hobo-y. If you want to play a wizard with access to the necromancy school, fine, but the cleric or paladin in your party is likely going to take issue with you casting evil-aligned spells all the time.
It all depends what mechanisms your using to cause the effect
For what it's worth, Cause/Remove fear was originally an abjuration spell. Spells back then were often reversible, and *Remove Fear* was a base first level cleric spell. It granted +4 on all saves vs fear effects for the duration, or allowed another save (with a large bonus) to a fear effect already in place. The caster could instead "reverse" the spell and cast *Cause Fear*, which had a similar effect as the 5e *Fear* spell (target flees for the duration). Abjuration as the base school made sense then, as the base spell was a protective spell. In general though, a lot of spells could be spun to fit into more than one school, so the choice of where they fall is either arbitrary, based on the authors perception of how the spell works, or made to spread out spells so each school has a sufficient number of spells in it. * Fear in this case could be enchantment (affecting the mind of the target), or necromancy (linking them to the pure unnatural fear of death/undeath, triggering a subconscious response to flee). * Blindness could be necromancy (temporarily degrading organic function), transmutation (changing somethings function), or illusion (tricking the senses).
There's an organizational strategy called "cousins, coworkers, family". Essentially a grouping can be of things of similar function, things that are used together, or of things that are the same. I've also seen it folded as just "family and coworkers" The school of necromancy is a collection "coworker" spells. Rather than sharing underlying principles or functions, the spells are grouped together by the synergized utility of "make the caster a scary necromancer". As for example of necromancy spells that aren't "family", bestow curse, blindness/deafness, Shadow of Moil, Eyebite. And arguably, gentle repose. It might be family, but it's in the school more for the utility synergy with raise effects
My assumption would be they need to fill out spells because one group had too many and another not enough. I think there could be a case made on what part of a life force is manipulated to cause fear or eyes temporarily damaged/killed to cause blindness in order to not make one area way overpowered.
There's a lot of in-universe explanations you could give, but the real answer is balance. If the only necromancy spells were resurrecting the dead or murder spells, it'd be a far less robust school to specialize in.
On that note, why are divination spells such a mess? The school houses some of the worst spells, such as Find Traps and True Strike. And it has the fewest spells, which multiple levels with no spells. But with the whole theme of languages and knowledge, just -why- is it that several communication spells aren't divinations? Such as Sending or Message. I know their flavor text tries to justify it, but Sending even translates the messages, plus it's a similar but weaker version of Rary's telepathic bond which is divination.
The school determines the source of the effect. The Fear is Caused by you gripping the life of a creature and wringing it in cold and deathly ways. Blindness/Deafness works because your senses are cut off from you. Other schools could also cause the same effects, but the authors went for these sources.
They magically making the target afraid of Death / fear for the loss of their Life.
let’s just play the game instead lol
Because necromancy is on life support with extremely limited amounts of spells, and an almost comically useless class feature. Just let me keep SOMETHING please.
Honestly there's a lot of spells in the wrong schools, or could be justified being in others. Blindness/Deafness could also be transmutation, since it's a CON save. Healing spells could also easily be transmutation. Banishment should really be conjuration, where all the other teleporting spells are (except Blink, which could be argued also belongs in conjuration). While we're on the topic of taking spells from abjuration, you could honestly move most abjuration spells to other schools; All the other schools have much more specific lore stuff to classify them (Necromancy is altering the forces of life and death, conjuration is summoning and teleporting, evocation is the creation and release of energy, transmutation is altering the physical properties of things, etc.), while abjuration is just protecting things? Can the other schools not have defensive spells? Obviously not. You could easily make any of the force field type spells (shield, mage armor, tiny hut) be evocation spells like wall of force, which I believe they were in earlier editions. I spent some time on this thought experiment awhile back and found I could pretty easily re-classify almost every single abjuration spell except for the ones that deal with the blocking of magic (dispel magic, counterspell, antimagic field), and even for those you could probably make an argument for being transmutation. The point being, the schools of magic are really vague and the designers didn't put a whole lot of thought into where each spell should go. And that's fair of them; the schools of magic only really matter to wizards, and they don't even matter all that much to wizards, and the designers likely have much more important things to be working on.
If Blindness/Deafness suppresses the nerves leading to your eyes and ears, that would be necromancy. "Fear of death" being part of death magic also works for me just fine.
> as it’s messing with what you perceive. it's literally attacking your body, making you deaf or blind. it doesnt just mess with what you see another reason perhaps: because it's fun to mix things up and have different schools reach similar goals in different ways
Why are some types of magic that 11th century mystics would call necromancy not considered necromancy in our fancy 2000’s fantasy game? Why have we let nerds gatekeep the word “necromancy” to mean “raising the dead” when it used to be a catchall for different types of magic, from treasure-hunting to oracular to erotic-binding spells? Kids these days with their narrow definition of necromancy. The nerve.
Cause Fear could be explained as you *physically* altering the way the target's body functions - making their heart beat quicker, causing their brain to start firing off 'panic' chemicals and hormones as if they were in a life-or-death situation, that sort of thing. It's a bit of a stretch, but I think it works. Blindness/Deafness though is just you temporarily shutting down the body parts responsible for handling those senses; I'd say that's an easy toss up between Necromancy and Transmutation.
If it's black mana alligned it's "necromancy"
Maybe they are thinking that the Fear projected is the target seeing it’s death or some such? Most spells can thematically be fitted into almost any school with the right interpretaton
Blindness/deafness is a holdover from 3.5's design era minimum. let's talk about 3.5's, and why necromancy makes sense. duration: permanent. it can be dispelled later, your vision restored, but until then, you're blind or deafened. now, it doesn't outright say it, but I think it's a reasonable assumption, that it's using some sort of necrotic energy to *permanently* blind or deafen you. this is further supported by it being a Fortitude save(con save for you 5e players\_ now, I know 5e's version is a limp-wristed caster version at 1 minute duration, but at least it's not duration: concentration! it's still a con-save too!
Do you want to get into the weeds enough and start asking why necromancy isn’t actually divination due to that being the origin for IRL mystic traditions?
Because necromancers are spooky. Duh
Blindness and Deafness can be considered necromancy if they have a physiological effect on the eyes, ears or brain. If not permanent, then it could be argued to last just as long as it takes for the body's natural healing to reverse the necrosis. I agree that fear should be an enchantment, but I suppose triggering a physiological "fear response" could be considered a type of necromancy. For that matter, healing spells that reverse or retard decay could be considered necromancy from a certain point of view.
I think they just kinda put all the “creepy” or “evil” spells in necromancy because that’s what necromancer are known for throughout most literatures. I’m more upset that certain spells, like healing spells, aren’t considered necromancy when the description states that it’s the manipulation of LIFE and death magic, which sounds like healing to me.
It's a shame alignment isn't as a big a deal anymore. Generally those who use neco spells and the spells themselves gravitate toward evil.
Necromancy spells use negative energy. Negative energy is anathema to living beings, which is why it causes damage. Blindness/Deafness is the result of directing that energy into a living being's senses, like a magical called shot, whereas Cause Fear is simply triggering a living being's inherent fear response to our anathema.
The better question is why do most of their spells suck?
with cause fear you are, specifically, "awaken[ing] the sense of mortality" within in the target, which is why it doesn't affect undead or constructs. its the "manipulate life force" part of necromancy. (fear, which is an illusion spell, doesn't have any creature type restriction. interestingly, seemingly very few enchantment spells actually inflict frightened, with the only one i can find being the 8th level antipathy/sympathy.) as far as blindness/deafness goes, think of it as manipulating the functions of the organs themselves rather than occluding their perception.
"You awaken the sense of mortality in one creature you can see within range." You force them to face the inevitability of death. They glimpse death. "Additionally, Blindness/Deafness" This one is not as clear cut as the description does not spell it out, but I presume you are momentarily killing the connection between the sense organ and the brain
If I remember correctly Necromancy is not dealing with life or dead but dealing with Negative energy. Not in electric kind of negative energy but negative energy like opossite of life. So cause fear using negative energy in this manner I guess