Critique of D&D's schools of magic

Dungeons & Dragons traditionally divides magic into eight "schools." While seemingly well-defined, across editions spells have often changed schools. This reveals that the definitions of the schools are too often unclear and, ultimately, arbitrary.

In 2e, healing spells were considered Necromancy. In 3e, they became Conjuration. In 5e, they vary widely.

3.0e added sub-schools for categories like (healing) and (creation), mostly to Conjuration and Illusion. 3.5e added more, like (teleportation), mostly to Conjuration. Pathfinder added additional descriptors, like [curse] and [emotion].

For example, a number of spells changed schools between 3.0 and 3.5 editions. Power Word spells changed from Conjuration to Enchantment. The (teleportation) spells, and other forms of movement, changed from Transmutation to Conjuration. The future [curse] spells changed from Transmutation to Necromancy. The Symbol spell was split into several spells and changed from Universal to Enchantment or Necromancy. Some spells switched between Conjuration, Evocation and Transmutation, revealing a weaker distinction between the three.

If Wizards of the Coast can't keep spell schools straight, then third-party publishers don't stand a chance. Hence why I prefer more well defined alternatives like the Colours of Magic series or Spheres of Power series, or a syntactic magic system. Eight schools simply isn't enough to encompass the full diversity of magic.

Links

• https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Magic
• http://www.ingmaralbizu.com/understanding-the-different-schools-of-magic/
• http://arcana.wikidot.com/schools-of-magic
• http://pseudoboo.blogspot.com/2016/02/mechanics-syntactic-magic.html
• http://daegames.blogspot.com/2014/12/5-problems-with-magic-in-dungeons.html