Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Toombs79 03-23-08, 08:49 PM	I'm just curious... Why do people regard Conjuration as the "best" school of magic and Evocation as the "Worst" school of magic. I was actually surprised to see Evocation touted as Crappy, with some heavy hitting direct damage spells in the school, and would have figured Necromancy to be considered below it. Tho I agree lowish level spells like Enervation and Magic Jar are incredible. I personally think some of the Illusion spells are ridiculously powerful. What other school provides an instant death effect at level 4 (Phantasmal killer) And can effectively take enemies out of the combat through misdirection or facination. I would just love to hear your thoughts on schools of magic.
abyssalmole 03-23-08, 09:00 PM	I'm not an expert of the topic (or any topic, for that matter), I can get this started with some generalizations about magic. The conjuration school contains the awesome crowd control spells that are so important in doing what someone (was it logicninja?) refers to as being god. Although the first spells to come to mind (summon monster) are woefully bad, other spells, grease, web, the amazing Evard's black tentacles, are exceptionally powerful if used properly. Divination spells aren't that good, but include a few things that you would be quite sad to be bereft of. Evocation spells include some of the heaviest hitting spells out there, which is nice, but a common belief on these forums is that direct damage isn't worth it. In those situations where you do need direct damage, however, there are other options. some spells that deals good damage, penetrates spell resistance, and allows no saving throw are the 4th level orb spells, and they can be found in, that's right, conjuration. As for necromancy, there are some awesome necromancy spells that aren't core. Plus, like you mentioned, you can never go wrong with enervation. hope this helps. (took me a long time to type, I bet I got ninja'd by the time I post it)
Wind of Darkness 03-23-08, 10:27 PM	The conjuration school contains the awesome crowd control spells that are so important in doing what someone (was it logicninja?) refers to as being god. Logicninja calls his sort of Wizard "Batman". "God" was someone else's term (forget who). The two guides do differ in some ways, but they do both agree that battlefield control is important. Conjuration does also have direct damage of its own, which many feel obsoletes evocation as a school. @OP: The trouble with direct damage is that not only can other people do it, but many can do it better and more consistently than a mage can. Not only that, but every DD spell you prepare is another buff, utility, debuff, or battlefield control spell that you did not prepare. It's generally best for a Wizard to focus his attentions on things that only he can do, because if he doesn't, it won't get done.
VulcanStormwrath 03-25-08, 04:14 PM	Evocation is the best, "backup wand of x" school.
RobbyPants 03-25-08, 04:30 PM	In older editions, direct damage was more useful than it is now. In 3.x, direct damage has fallen beind because monster's HP tend to increase much faster than the spell's damage potential. When dealing direct damage, you often have several things to overcome: saving throw spell resistance engergy resistance/immunity Almost all Evocation direct damage spells need to overcome these three things. Some use touch attacks (which are usually easier to succeed at compared to saving throws) but most require Reflex saves. Most are stopped by spell resistance. One of the nice thing about Conjuration direct damage is that most of those spells overcome spell resistance. The Orb and Lesser Orb spells all make attack rolls as well, which makes them fairly potent for their level. All in all, conjuration tends to win out in terms of reliability with direct damage. The only thing it falls behind on consitantly is range. Evocation does have a few good spells, such as Shatter, Contingency, and the force spells. Other than that, there's not a lot to set it appart from other schools. Further more, you can replicate all the above spells with Shadow Evocation and Greater Shadow Evocation, which means you can prohibit Evocation as long as you keep Illusion, and still have access to all the above spells. The two strongest schools by far I would think are Conjuration and Transmutation. Each school can do so many different things. Conjuration can summon monsters, teleport you, has good direct damage, and offers a wide variety of save-or-suck spells against all three save types. Transmutation has unsurpassed buffing powers, including the whole set of rediculously broken Polymorph spells. Between these two schools, you have the best 9th level spells in the game (Gate, Time Stop, and Shapechange). As for the second weakest school, I'd probably say it's Enchantment. Don't get me wrong: I love the school and what it can do. The flavor is awesome. However, if you're making a specialist wizard, and looking for two schools to drop, most of what Enchantment offers is a sieries of Will-save-or-suck spells. This is fairly redundant, and you can accomplish this with other schools. Plus, you have to have a decent Charisma in order to be an effective charmer. Most wizards like to dump Cha, and that alone can make this a deciding factor. Necromancy is one I'd keep unless it was for flavor reasons. If for no other reason, Envervation is very powerful, and works nicely with various metamagic feats (particularly Empower, Maximize, and Split Ray). If you want a really scary BBEG, have him tame Arcane Thesis with Enervation. By the way, that Logic Ninja link from above is: Logic Ninja's Guide to Wizards: Being Batman (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500)
masterjoda999 03-25-08, 08:34 PM	Evocation is seen as the worst because there is nothing it can do that can't be replicated, often surpassed, by the other schools. Enchantment is pretty much down there for the most part as well, i think, because of the plethora of spells within that are mind-affecting, which everything and its grandmother is immune to at higher levels. Sure, there are power word spells, but those are not enough to choose enchantment over better schools. Conjuration and Transmutation are regarded as the best simply because there is almost nothing they can't do. Battlefield Control, Buffing, Debuffing, Direct Damage, Indirect Damage, Utility... those two schools have it all. And it was Treantmonklvl20 who coined the "god" analogy.
navar100 03-25-08, 08:51 PM	Evocation is fine. "Uniqueness" is not a requirement for something to be useful. It doesn't matter that everyone can deal direct damage. What matters is what your character does. Spell resistance and energy resistance/immunity are obstacles to overcome. However, they are not so common unless the DM is a jerk. Your Fireball and Lightning Bolt is useless only as often as the rogue fights undead and constructs, the ranger's favored enemies don't appear, McTrippy fighter faces 4-legged large flying creatures, and so forth. It is wise not to have all your spells be direct damage. That should be obvious. Hit point attrition is part of combat. A lot of battlefield control spells, while absolutely useful and good to use, are save or be screwed. If the bad guy saves, they are not harmed at all. If they save against direct damage, they usually take half-damage so the spell did at least some harm. No one spell is the best to use in all scenarios.
The_Shaman 03-25-08, 08:53 PM	Logicninja calls his sort of Wizard "Batman". "God" was someone else's term (forget who). Treantmonk, iirc.
Wih 03-26-08, 01:50 AM	Conjuration is generally treated as one of the best schools (some people debate if Transmutation is better, but they're both up there) as it tends to have the most spells that can defeat/end/belittle an encounter in one spell (Grease, Glitterdust, Sleet Storm/Stinking Cloud, Tentacles/Solid Fog just for the first 4 levels in Core only). It also has most of the summoning/callign spells and most of the movement spells. 99% of Evocation is ways to deal Direct Damage (with the exception of mostly the Contingency spell), and since almost every other school can do this just as or almost as well, it makes Evocation obselete. Plus, Direct Damage isn't that great - you do more damage by Hasting your party than slinging a Fireball.
ArcTan 03-26-08, 02:39 AM	Evocation is fine. "Uniqueness" is not a requirement for something to be useful. It doesn't matter that everyone can deal direct damage. What matters is what your character does. It matters if you make a focused Evoker who ends up not being able to do anything very well but direct damage at high levels. Sure, Evokers aren't absolutely useless. They're objectively *less useful* than any other specialization you might take, though. Spell resistance and energy resistance/immunity are obstacles to overcome. However, they are not so common unless the DM is a jerk. Your Fireball and Lightning Bolt is useless only as often as the rogue fights undead and constructs, the ranger's favored enemies don't appear, McTrippy fighter faces 4-legged large flying creatures, and so forth. Er, a Rogue who relies entirely on Sneak Attack or a trip-build Fighter *are* both problematic, for that reason. Usually people play casters because casters are better than non-casters at not being sidelined. Playing an Evoker gives up that advantage. It is wise not to have all your spells be direct damage. That should be obvious. Hit point attrition is part of combat. A lot of battlefield control spells, while absolutely useful and good to use, are save or be screwed. If the bad guy saves, they are not harmed at all. If they save against direct damage, they usually take half-damage so the spell did at least some harm. No one spell is the best to use in all scenarios. HP attrition *should* be a bigger part of combat than it is, but as it is doing pissant amounts of damage and finally having the BBEG fail his save and die is functionally equivalent to doing *no* damage and finally having the BBEG fail his save and die.
RobbyPants 03-26-08, 08:54 AM	Evocation is fine. "Uniqueness" is not a requirement for something to be useful. It doesn't matter that everyone can deal direct damage. What matters is what your character does. Well, it's not so much that Evocation is useless, but rather, that it's not required to be useful. You can drop Evocation and lose very little. Sure, it hurts a bit before you get the various Shadow Evocation spells, but after that point, you really lose nothing. So the point isn't that Evocation is bad, but rather that it's not good. It's redundant. Spell resistance and energy resistance/immunity are obstacles to overcome. However, they are not so common unless the DM is a jerk. Your Fireball and Lightning Bolt is useless only as often as the rogue fights undead and constructs, the ranger's favored enemies don't appear, McTrippy fighter faces 4-legged large flying creatures, and so forth. It is wise not to have all your spells be direct damage. That should be obvious. Hit point attrition is part of combat. A lot of battlefield control spells, while absolutely useful and good to use, are save or be screwed. If the bad guy saves, they are not harmed at all. If they save against direct damage, they usually take half-damage so the spell did at least some harm. No one spell is the best to use in all scenarios. This is true to a point. Obviously, touch attack and save-or-suck spells are usually all-or-nothing, while a damage dealing Evocation is all-or-half. However, that's an overly simplistic view. When selecting your touch attack or save-or-suck spells, it's important to choose ones that have little to overcome. If all you have to do is make a ranged touch attack, you'll succeed almost all of the time against all but the fastest or smallest opponents. When choosing a good save-or-suck, pick one that isn't effected by spell resistance. Even better, choose a no-save battlefield control like Solid Fog, Acid Fog, Web, or Grease. While there may be some save involved, the target(s) still are hindered regardless. Long story short, properly chosen spells can either be almost certain to succeed, where-as a typical direct damage Evocation must overcome Spell Resistance, energy resistance or immunity, and a saving throw. Obviously, as smart mage will use a spell that will overcome the energy resistance (so they wouldn't waste a Fireball on a devil or fire elemental ;)), but they still get a save and spell resistance. Once you factor those in, the average damage of the spell become very low. At low levels Spell Resistance won't be an issue, but at higher levels, often half of your opponents have it. As Logic Ninja stated in his guide I linked above, you can often do more damage with a well used buff. A good melee tank should be able to do more damage than a caster (against a single target, of course). Consider a 5th level wizard casting a 3rd level spell. If he cast Fireball, he'd deal on average 17.5 damage on a failed save (8.75 on a successful one). If he instead cast haste on the party fighter, he can make an extra attack. A typical fighter at that level should have at least a Str of 16. If he's using a +1 greatsword and has Weapon Specialization, he should deal an average of 14 damage per swing (2d6 average of 7 + 1 enchantment + 4 Str + 2 WS), and that's not even using Power Attack. Now, that fighter gets an extra attack for five rounds. Of course, the attacks may miss, but still, he'll probably net a lot more damage than that Fireball. Plus, the wizard can haste the party cleric and rogue with that same casting. Now, to be fair Fireball does have its uses. Obviously, if you blast ten goblins for 17.5 damage, you effectively dealt 175 damage with one spell. It is good both for its long range and large AoE. It's just important to realize that unless situation dictates blasting lots of little peons, you can often net more damage with "non damaging" spells.
runestar 03-26-08, 09:06 AM	It is hard to support evocation when you consider that illusion can be used to replicate any evocation spell (yes, even miracle) on the wizard's spell list, and as a gnome shadowcrafter, you can end up with 120% real spells, meaning that the spell is 100% real if the opponent makes his save, or 120% as effective if he fails... Basically, however strong evocation may be, it is entirely subsumed by illusion...:P Summon monster spells can be strong or weak, depending on how much effort you are willing to put into familiarizing yourself with their uses.
Selgard 03-26-08, 09:40 AM	in 2nd edition HP were generally capped for any given level. There was a finite "max value" for any given level, mainly because attributes themselves were capped. Following this is the magic system. in 2nd edition Evocation was still pretty good, even to higher levels. It was that way because rolling 20d6 against something was still fairly fearful. 20d6 was "alot" of damage, especailly in an AOE. 10d6 was also fairly good for it's level. However; when they made the 3.0 change they copied the damage spells nearly directly from one edition to the next, while increasing HP astronomically. Prior to around 10th level evocation is still fairly nice. Most critters don't have stratosphere HP, so d6/level is still a pretty good chunk of HP (unless you are in a higher powered campaign). When you could cast a spell and take off 1/3-1/2 of somethings HP, the spell slot was worth it. You felt you contributed to battle. Now you are doing 10%-20% at best, and it doesn't seem as worth wild. Your spell slots have increased only slightly across the gap, but with damage doing much less "overall damage" (as a percentage), SoD's have become Queen, along with battle field control.
Optimator 03-26-08, 11:08 AM	Best is easy: Transmutation, Conjuration, then Abjuration. Worst is trickier, because none of them are particularly terrible. Evocation is pretty much bottom of the barrel though. The three most-dropped schools for specialist wizards are, it seems, Evocation, Enchantment, and Necromancy. That isn't to say Necromancy and Enchantment are bad, but these three are the least painful to lose. Evocation does have a few good spells, such as Shatter, Contingency, and the force spells. Other than that, there's not a lot to set it appart from other schools. Let's not forget Sonorous Hum!
navar100 03-26-08, 07:11 PM	I also think it's a different DMs different campaigns issue combined with varying mileage player tactics preference. For example, some people think healing during combat is useless, that you're better off casting a spell that will buff a party member or hinder/hopefully kill the enemy to get the combat over with and heal after. Others, like myself, think healing in combat is a viable tactic because it's not necessary for the one doing the healing always to get the final kill and that party members are not expendable resources such that I don't want them to go below 0 hit points because I chose to do something other than healing that injured party member. Likewise, some DMs will always have the bad guys fight to the death. They can have 100 hit points or 1 hit point, they will go all out to keep attacking the party. Other DMs will have the bad guys care about their hit points. When bad guys' hit points are approaching 0, they'll take time to heal themselves, behave more defensively, or even retreat. Getting blasted by a couple of direct damage spells will mean a lot to them. Even if the direct damage spell didn't kill them, the dedicated warrior charging up to them just might do enough damage to finish off the rest of the hit points they have left. Some DMs will mix and match this issue depending upon the type of foe being fought. The types of foes will also vary. Not every DM will use lots of creatures with Spell Resistance. Some may never use them. Others will use them occasionally. Not all foes will be monsters. Many foes will be regular humanoids with class levels of their own.
bluedsteel 03-27-08, 01:05 AM	A couple of comments. @ OP: Phantasmal Killer isn't an instant death effect. And other schools have save-or-die spells at those lvls or lower, or better spells that can trivialize the encounter without requiring death. For RP purposes, it's amazing how many encounters with unfriendly sorts in taverns end with them giving you what you want after they fall on their ass or drop their weapon because of Grease. Contrary to above postings, most DMs will be using creatures with SR and/or monsters, for a simple reason: that's what is most commonly available. If I open the Monster Manuals to find a random encounter @ CR 14 or something, there's a dang good chance I'm gonna pull something out with SR. Better chances @ higher lvls. And most BBEG's will have SR somehow. Same reason an Enchantment specialist is screwed at high levels: pretty much everything available is immune to mind-affecting junk. To the question of what are the most powerful schools: Conjuration @ lower levels, due to the multiplicity of amazing spells @ lvls 1-6. Transmutation @ higher levels since it has the best high lvl spells. Abjuration isn't even in the running... it has three things worth keeping it for: Protection from X, the Dispel series, and the best direct damage spell in the game, which is Maw of Chaos. (Every time I read that spell and realize it's not Evocation, I want to hit the designers in the head with a large, pointy object.) And most of that is done better by a cleric than by anyone to whom schools matter. Evocation doesn't suck... but most of what it can do is redundant and can be duplicated by other schools. Want DD? The Orb line, Maw of Chaos, and any amount of other junk. Hell, Summon an Elemental Monolith. I created a list of DD spells that aren't from Evocation, Enchantment, or Abjuration that was three pages long without using summoning. The only other thing Evocation does is push enemies around, and that can be done better by summoning a monster with Improved Bull Rush. Enchantment has been addressed. Can't ban Divinination, and it's usually better not to anyway. Necromancy is about as bannable as Abjuration, although I love the low-level debuffs so much I usually don't, unless the party lacks a divine caster. Illusion... usually isn't bannable because it has some good spells and the Shadow Evocation series, which is absolutely spectacular... even if you haven't banned Evocation. And one more thing... people seem to be under the mistaken impression that battlefield control spells are save or suck. They aren't. Most of them don't offer saves. They're just straight up, instant, do-not-pass-Go-do-not-collect-$200 SUCK. They ignore SR, offer no save, and can't be bypassed in most cases. If I cast Freezing Fog, you get a save... to avoid falling on your ass. You have movement 5' no matter what. And you can't see and take light damage no matter what. That's the power of battlefield control... it always works, in any situation, against any opponent.:D If you're not convinced by my amazing rhetoric, head over to the CO boards for mathematical analyses that prove my point. Oh... and for anyone who claims that Evocation should be kept for AOE... look up Cloudkill, and consider the feat Sculpt Spell.:cool:
RobbyPants 03-27-08, 08:36 AM	I think navar100 does make some valid points. What tactics are effective will vary based on the DM's style, the rest of the party's style, and the specifics of an encounter. What makes any character (including casters) effective is being able to adapt to the situation. Often times, what tactics are and are not viable will change even within a single combat. Ultimately, the character who can remain useful throughout the entire combat will be the most effective. As for picking creatures with or without spell resistance, I think bluedsteel already said it best. Once you get to the double-diget levels, more and more creatures have SR. Also, if a particular adventure or sieries of adventures follows a certain theme, the adventurers might fight a lot of one particular type of monster. It's very common for me to have a devil or demon heavy part of my campaign once the PCs get at the appropriate level. This has nothing to do with me trying to screw them, and everything to do with the current plot. Still, the end result is a lot of creatures with SR, one energy immunity, three solid energy resistances, and all good saves (which makes Evocation spells next to useless). Perhaps it's just me, but some very common threats to use are evil outsiders and undead. Evocation (at least the direct-damage line) has next to no effect on evil outsiders for reasons listed above, and Enchantment has next to no effect on Undead. I think this has a bit to do with my current point of view. ;)
Toombs79 03-27-08, 11:41 AM	it sounds like, from reading the above posts, that versitility is a spellcasters best friend. With that in mind, and i hate to do it in this post but should start another, doesn't that seriously make Sorcerer's a one trick pony compared to a wizard who can use foresight to prepare anything for the given situation? Also, after reading the arguments, clearly I can see why evocation is found wanting. never thought about the versitility of summons, four legged monsters to bull rush an opponent, and had usually overlooked fog spells. My favorite has been Illusion. I think I'm leaning more toward transumtation now, tho... Ohh if you could only make a multi-class specialist wizard.
HermitIX 03-27-08, 11:52 AM	The answer to this question is highly subjective. I love Divination followed by Illusion and Enchantment. I almost never take fireball or lightning bolt as spells. So I could do with out evocation. I am probably the total reverse of most people though. It really depends on your personal taste, style of play and your DM.
Damned slayer 03-27-08, 12:35 PM	The answer to this question is highly subjective. I love Divination followed by Illusion and Enchantment. I almost never take fireball or lightning bolt as spells. So I could do with out evocation. I am probably the total reverse of most people though. It really depends on your personal taste, style of play and your DM. add to that the setting/ kind of campaign you play for a city campaign dropping enchantment cost much more than evocation
RobbyPants 03-27-08, 01:08 PM	With that in mind, and i hate to do it in this post but should start another, doesn't that seriously make Sorcerer's a one trick pony compared to a wizard who can use foresight to prepare anything for the given situation? That's the general consensus. People often like playing sorcerers either for thematic reasons, or because it is less bookkeeping. Still, they do so at the expence of versitility. Now, this isn't to say that sorcerers are weak, but rather, not as powerful as wizards. With a good spell selection, they can be pretty formidible. Also, after reading the arguments, clearly I can see why evocation is found wanting. never thought about the versitility of summons, four legged monsters to bull rush an opponent, and had usually overlooked fog spells. It can get even better. A popular trick is to summon a monster with spell-like abilities, to even further your spell selection. For example, a druid can summon a unicorn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/unicorn.htm) with Summon Nature's Ally IV. The unicorn can cast Cure Light Wounds three times per day and Cure Moderate Wounds once all at a caster level of 5th. So, for a single forth level slot, you can get a total of 5d8+20 HP healed (average 42.5) compared to a Cure Serious Wounds at 7th level for 3d8+7 (average 20.5). For some other great summoning ideas, check out the summoning handbook (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=883099).
navar100 03-27-08, 11:27 PM	Just because a monster exists in the Monster Manual does not guarantee it will see play in a campaign.
bluedsteel 03-28-08, 12:13 AM	Just because a monster exists in the Monster Manual does not guarantee it will see play in a campaign. No. But when 75% of the monsters of a certain CR have SR, it's perfectly reasonable to say that the players of a game that moves through that level will deal with SR.
navar100 03-28-08, 04:07 AM	No. But when 75% of the monsters of a certain CR have SR, it's perfectly reasonable to say that the players of a game that moves through that level will deal with SR. Of course, so as I mentioned, a wizard who likes to cast Fireball and Lightning Bolt will only find those spells useless as often as the rogue faces undead and constructs, rangers do not face favored enemies, and McTrippy fighter faces large flying 4-legged creatures. It'll suck when it happens but not often enough to worry about. Otherwise your DM is a jerk.
StruckingFuggle 03-28-08, 04:13 AM	I disagree to an extent. If it's abnormal for creatures in a certain range to not have something, it seems like a reasonable expectation that most people should be expected to be able to deal with and expect to encounter such things on a fairly reasonable (the definition thereof depending on their level) basis. If you have a bunch of 15th level commoners, to go to an extreme, it seems a bit weird for them to just keep facing Advanced Pink Fluffy Bunnies, 'cause it's the only thing they can handle, and to throw anything from the MM with a CR of even 12 at them would be the DM being a jerk, 'cause they couldn't handle it. The game is not balanced around every weird group with special needs, the game is balanced around a basis of a set of reasonable assumptions and expectations within archetypical cases. And since we don't know what weird special rules, shortcomings, for longgoings a particular party might have, we generally should, barring specific threads about specific cases, speak from a basis of those general assumptions, not Advanced Pink Fluffy Bunnies.
ArcTan 03-28-08, 04:15 AM	Of course, so as I mentioned, a wizard who likes to cast Fireball and Lightning Bolt will only find those spells useless as often as the rogue faces undead and constructs, rangers do not face favored enemies, and McTrippy fighter faces large flying 4-legged creatures. It'll suck when it happens but not often enough to worry about. Otherwise your DM is a jerk. If, by the time you get to level 15, there are literally almost no enemies in the MM for your CR that your DM could possibly come up with who don't have the specific countermeasure to your character's schtick, then no, it's not down to the DM being a jerk. It's more down to the fact that a Tripmaster build is, in fact, not a very good build. And that a Ranger who takes Favored Enemy: Fey is even dumber than an Evoker, unless the DM actually says "This is going to be a special all-Fey all-the-time campaign where I've made up dozens of custom Fey monsters just so that you can finally play that character you wanted". FWIW, it's still moot. The Conjurer can handle all the situations where the Evoker shines ("Look! For once there's a bunch of low-CR low-Reflex no-SR mooks standing right in a straight line! I've been waiting three sessions for this!"), AND can handle all the situations where the Evoker sucks ass. It's not a case of "Every character gets their chance to shine", it's more "Conjurers shine constantly and brightly like the sun, Evokers only if the DM very carefully sets things up for him ahead of time".
narack 03-28-08, 08:15 AM	Necromancy (i.e: Maximized Empower Ray of Enfeeblement) Illusion (i.e: High level Shadow Spells)
RobbyPants 03-28-08, 09:04 AM	If, by the time you get to level 15, there are literally almost no enemies in the MM for your CR that your DM could possibly come up with who don't have the specific countermeasure to your character's schtick, then no, it's not down to the DM being a jerk. It's more down to the fact that a Tripmaster build is, in fact, not a very good build. And that a Ranger who takes Favored Enemy: Fey is even dumber than an Evoker, unless the DM actually says "This is going to be a special all-Fey all-the-time campaign where I've made up dozens of custom Fey monsters just so that you can finally play that character you wanted". FWIW, it's still moot. The Conjurer can handle all the situations where the Evoker shines ("Look! For once there's a bunch of low-CR low-Reflex no-SR mooks standing right in a straight line! I've been waiting three sessions for this!"), AND can handle all the situations where the Evoker sucks ass. It's not a case of "Every character gets their chance to shine", it's more "Conjurers shine constantly and brightly like the sun, Evokers only if the DM very carefully sets things up for him ahead of time". +1 That's exactly what I was getting at earlier.
LimaBeanMage 03-28-08, 01:10 PM	While I am a true die hard fan of transmutation, mainly for utility role playing value, I think evocation has a very important role to fulfill. This role is something that I see a lot of people make assumptions against, namely that you have a party. A good scenario for a wizard who needs evocation is one who has nobody to rely on. Take the idea that there is no tank, damage dealer, or rogue to take the attention. So, now not are you only responsible for buffing, debuffing, controlling the battlefield, and the artillery. Evocation is really useful here, otherwise you're not going to get much done, except hinder many opponents and directly kill a few. While the other schools do have damage spells, they don't have the variety of damage spells that you really need to ensure that you are superior to your enemies in the damage department. Evocation will still serve a purpose, in my opinion, when you need to be the master of damage while you are alone or in a party who really sucks at offensive maneuvers, buffed or not.
wonlee76 03-28-08, 03:55 PM	In my opinion, Conjuration is considered the "best" school because it has the least weaknesses or shortcomings of other schools of magic. Evocation generally is considered the "worst" because other schools of magic give better "bang for your spell slot" or to a lesser degree do what evocation spells can do with less downsides. Enchantment: Several monster types are immune to some or all of the spells in this school plus there's Mind Blank. Necromancy: Some creatures are immune to some of the spells in this school of magic plus Death Ward can negate a bunch of decent necromancy spells. Illusion: Monsters with special senses or the True Seeing spell could negate the effectiveness of a good batch of spells. Evocation: SR, Energy Resistance and saves have a dramatic effect on how effective these spells are. The few times where evocation might look good is against energy vulnerable creatures but conjuration can cover that angle better than evocation if you're dealing with a single target at least. Divination: Somewhat tricky school to analyze but generally there are ways to protect against scrying and being detected via magic. Abjuration: Very little downside in this school or weaknesses in general other than Dispel Magic and the like but that could be said about other schools of magic. Transmutation: Another solid school with very few downsides if any. SR and saves could be a downside for the offensive spells such as Disintigrate and Baleful polymorph but the school offers so many other spells that you could try other tactics to deal with encounters. Plus, the home of Shapechange/Polymorph, one of the best swiss army knife spells in the PHB. Conjuration: Rarely does SR, saves or energy resistance become an issue with the excetion of Orb spells where energy resistance may be a problem. Its got some single target direct damage spells with no save or SR to worry about. The Summon Monster, Gate, and Planar Binding spells are versatile enough that you can really be prepared for just about anything. Its great for battlefield control with the fog spells and black tentacles. Generally I consider transmutation and conjuration the "best" schools of magic. Evocation, Illusion and Enchantment fall on the lower end of the spectrum in power mostly due to immunitie.
navar100 03-28-08, 07:14 PM	If, by the time you get to level 15, there are literally almost no enemies in the MM for your CR that your DM could possibly come up with who don't have the specific countermeasure to your character's schtick, then no, it's not down to the DM being a jerk. It's more down to the fact that a Tripmaster build is, in fact, not a very good build. And that a Ranger who takes Favored Enemy: Fey is even dumber than an Evoker, unless the DM actually says "This is going to be a special all-Fey all-the-time campaign where I've made up dozens of custom Fey monsters just so that you can finally play that character you wanted". FWIW, it's still moot. The Conjurer can handle all the situations where the Evoker shines ("Look! For once there's a bunch of low-CR low-Reflex no-SR mooks standing right in a straight line! I've been waiting three sessions for this!"), AND can handle all the situations where the Evoker sucks ass. It's not a case of "Every character gets their chance to shine", it's more "Conjurers shine constantly and brightly like the sun, Evokers only if the DM very carefully sets things up for him ahead of time". Protection from Foo and Magic Circles stop your summoned creatures and many Enchantment spells. Globe of Vulnerability stops up to 4th level spells. SR and high saves still protect against offensive transmutation spells, etc. All true the DM will have bad guys who can make life tough for the party. That's why rogues will face undead and constructs, rangers won't face yada, yada, yada ... However, if every single opponent counters what your character can do, the DM is being a jerk. It doesn't matter if as a wizard you like casting Evocation, Conjuration, Enchantment, or whatever. It is the DM's job to make the game fun for his players. It's not coddling when you get to cast Fireballs and Lighting Bolts to your heart's content in many combats without worry. That's the game.
RobbyPants 03-28-08, 11:42 PM	However, if every single opponent counters what your character can do, the DM is being a jerk. It doesn't matter if as a wizard you like casting Evocation, Conjuration, Enchantment, or whatever. It is the DM's job to make the game fun for his players. It's not coddling when you get to cast Fireballs and Lighting Bolts to your heart's content in many combats without worry. That's the game. The DM has to work a lot harder to pick easy foes for an evoker than he does a conjurer. Most any foes that an evoker can defeat can be just as easily beaten by a conjurer. The same cannot be said for the reverse. It's sort of a squares and rectangles thing. I think all ArcTan and I are saying is, if you were to create a random monster chart by challenge rating, and simply roll for a CR-approriate monster (no picking whatsoever), the evoker has a much greater chance of getting screwed than the conjurer.
Razefire 03-29-08, 05:04 PM	Depends on what you mean by powerful I suppose. Most agree, to some point, Conjuration and Transmutation are the best since they are the most versatile. But, a Mage can't go without certain schools for their whole career if you ask me. To me though, I tend to think Abjuration is the most powerful because it alone has the ability to control all magic and magical abilities, period. Plus, Abjuration can provide life sustaining protections as well. Lastly, it is one school of magic no mage can do without whatsoever, and hope to be really effective in the long runm since the ability to cancel magic and magical abilites, reflect them back, and protect you and your allies is irreplaceable.
ArcTan 03-29-08, 07:34 PM	However, if every single opponent counters what your character can do, the DM is being a jerk. It doesn't matter if as a wizard you like casting Evocation, Conjuration, Enchantment, or whatever. It is the DM's job to make the game fun for his players. It's not coddling when you get to cast Fireballs and Lighting Bolts to your heart's content in many combats without worry. That's the game. Having SR is nowhere near as nichey as things like at-will true seeing or Immune to Mind-Affecting. It's basically ubiquitous at high levels. If the DM has to do lots of extra work to *find* a monster that fits your build, then you have a bad build. A DM willing to do lots of work can make any stupid build function, if only by homebrewing monsters. ("Oh, look, it's an unstoppable monster with AC 10 and only 1 HP but infinite damage reduction against anyone who isn't a Gnomish Bard!") But the more work he has to do, the worse the build is. At high levels, Evocation magic is weak sauce, even if he does specifically generate a CR 20 character who happens to not have decent SR or Reflex saves just because.
Razefire 03-29-08, 10:54 PM	Evocation stinks at high levels, even if you happen to be super duper blaster extroidinairre. If you want to do serious damage at high levels, summoning powerful creatures OR morphing into some powerful creature is the way to go. Direct damage is sub-par, considering all the things Mages can do, like stop time, trap, banish, control, summon, morph, etc. Direct damage spells are ugh in comparison. Sire, you can do a maximized/empowered damage spell, who cares when I can summon things with Gate/Elemental Monoliths/Shapechange/Stop Time and do more than any direct damage dealing ding bat wizard can even hope to dream of :D
pigknight 03-30-08, 12:03 AM	It's funny because in my high undead campain the power of the schools (in order of greatest to least) is necromancy, conjuration, evocation, abjuration, transmutation, illusion, and enchantment (divination doesn't get much combat spells so it's neutral). Necromancy owns because high undead. Conjuration helps with offense and defense. Evocation blasts away the hordes of undead. And there are a bunch o' casters which helps Abjuration. Transmutation, illusion and enchantment have trouble (just wait till disintegrate is in the mix, then transumtation will get buffed).
Operation_Shoestring 03-30-08, 03:33 PM	Direct damage is a misuse of a wizard's precious actions. Wizards should be buffing/de-buffing or casting straight save-or-dies. The fighter will do more direct damage than you will, so let him have his shtick. Anything Evocation can do, can be easily replicated by Illusion and Conjuration. It's not a bad school, it's just one that's very easy to do without. Try going without Conjuration or Transmutation, though... It's PAINFUL. Dimension Door is a lifesaver.
Toombs79 03-30-08, 03:39 PM	I'm seeing and agreeing with the concensus, but I have one more question to tack onto it: Is Evocation so blah that it's worth specializing in another school, say Conjuration, and dumping Evoc (and Ench)?
navar100 03-30-08, 03:52 PM	Evocation - the "fighter" of the spell schools. :P
pigknight 03-30-08, 05:42 PM	True it is the fighter, but like the fighter it can be made awesome, but it's hard to do.
VulcanStormwrath 03-30-08, 05:57 PM	True it is the fighter, but like the fighter it can be made awesome, but it's hard to do. And easy to negate Evokers are the Rockstars of Magic. They're not really good singers, their lyrics are ridiculous, but they get all the groupies, make the most money, and you sure as hell can tell when they've been in a hotel room.
Lotus Crane 03-30-08, 06:10 PM	Is Evocation so blah that it's worth specializing in another school, say Conjuration, and dumping Evoc (and Ench)? According to this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=953100&highlight=Specialist), among other opinions, evocation and enchantment are pretty much always your first schools to dump if you're going specialist. Evocation's direct damage output can actually be matched by a lot of new conjuration spells in the more recent books, so it doesn't even have that advantage anymore.
pigknight 03-30-08, 06:27 PM	But core only (more people play this way than you think) Evocation has all of the good DD spells.
Wih 03-30-08, 07:24 PM	But core only (more people play this way than you think) Evocation has all of the good DD spells. Why to HP damage when you can make someone just plain die? I'd rather make a wizard make a Fort save or die, or a Fighter make a Will save or die, than do 3.5 damage/level when your opponents will have 5 or more times that, plus energy resistance. Plus, there are better options that dont have saves - Otto's Irresistable Dance is a sure-fire way to kill almost anything, and Solid Fog and the like will make the outcome of a fight obvious before it's begun. Wether or not Evocation has good DD spells, the fact still remains that doing DD isn't the more efficient way of killing things. Enabling your allies by making them nastier or making the enemy weaker, or just plain making someone roll a dice or die is much more efficient.
pigknight 03-30-08, 07:29 PM	Because killing multiple thngs with 1 spell (or doing a lot of damage) is beeter than maybe killing/incampacitating 1 thing.
Adonis1x23 03-30-08, 07:46 PM	Also, evocation kinda is bad group interaction. Group mechanics seem to work alot better when the wizard is less focused on doing damage, and more focused on making everyone else fight better. Sure, you could use a scorching ray on the BBEG, but then again you could use various buffs on your party and debuffs on the enemy. That way the BSF doesnt get angry that the wizard out pwned him, the rogue can do their sneak attack and they can feel like they won. "You're a God. Let the mortals have their victory."
Wih 03-30-08, 08:13 PM	Because killing multiple thngs with 1 spell (or doing a lot of damage) is beeter than maybe killing/incampacitating 1 thing. If the enemies you're facing are weak enough that they can be killed by one AoE spell, then it's a waste of a spell as your party fighter will be able to mop them up without you wasting a spell slot. 10d6 on a AoE spell for a standard 10th level character will on average not kill a CR 4 creature (which has an average of 45HP, 10 more than your average damage on a failed save). Oh, and it's Reflex will be around +5, which will save against your spell around 1/4th of the time, so you'll need to cast your generic AoE spell (at this level, Cone of Cold) twice to end the fight. And this isn't even including energy resistance. This is using 2 spells to kill a bunch of mooks that are at least 6 points of CR below you. Instead, you can cast one spell to give every party member an extra attack a round (Haste), cast Solid Fog to make it so they can't gang up on you and get picked off one by one, or Tentacles, of which their average grapple will be 10 lower than yours (for both damage, losing their DEX bonus, and stopping them from moving). Summary - if you want to spend a spell slot dealing with something 6 or more points below your CR, you don't need to. If you need to, their are better options.
Nathreet 03-30-08, 08:21 PM	Funny, I came from a group where the wizard considered evocation to be one of the most powerful schools. I think it's just a thing with this forum to hate it. But to like single target save-or-dies instead? Wth? Okay, you cast it, baddy saves. Battlefield control is wonderful, though it's only control not killing. You can tell when people's feelings are involved when they get into long off-topic rants bashing something. I'm gonna say divination is the weakest school. There's a reason why it counts as less for school specialization. You can't actually do anything with it. It's just recon in a game where you're usually going down a set path that you can almost always handle and can usually discover without magic. Though detect magic would be kind of annoying to be without. For the strongest I dunno. Conjuration, abjuration, and evocation all have a lot of good spells. Even the weak ones are good in odd situations. Transmutation and illusion have some essentials, but there are a lot of weak spells in transmutation and for a lot of illusion spells it depends on the situation.
MongooseFamiliar 03-30-08, 08:23 PM	A good scenario for a wizard who needs evocation is one who has nobody to rely on. Take the idea that there is no tank, damage dealer, or rogue to take the attention. So, now not are you only responsible for buffing, debuffing, controlling the battlefield, and the artillery. Evocation is really useful here, otherwise you're not going to get much done, except hinder many opponents and directly kill a few. Conjuration again: Summon yourself a nice rogue or tank-demon to take the attention off you. Illusion: Same as above, but illusory.
Nathreet 03-30-08, 08:30 PM	Didn't someone just point out a few posts back that summons are lousy? The thing with conjuration is that it has some awesome spells and you can do everything with it, but it's so-so at that everything. Just stick to the awesome conjuration spells and get the rest elsewhere if you can.
navar100 03-30-08, 08:43 PM	If the enemies you're facing are weak enough that they can be killed by one AoE spell, then it's a waste of a spell as your party fighter will be able to mop them up without you wasting a spell slot. 10d6 on a AoE spell for a standard 10th level character will on average not kill a CR 4 creature (which has an average of 45HP, 10 more than your average damage on a failed save). Oh, and it's Reflex will be around +5, which will save against your spell around 1/4th of the time, so you'll need to cast your generic AoE spell (at this level, Cone of Cold) twice to end the fight. And this isn't even including energy resistance. This is using 2 spells to kill a bunch of mooks that are at least 6 points of CR below you. Instead, you can cast one spell to give every party member an extra attack a round (Haste), cast Solid Fog to make it so they can't gang up on you and get picked off one by one, or Tentacles, of which their average grapple will be 10 lower than yours (for both damage, losing their DEX bonus, and stopping them from moving). Summary - if you want to spend a spell slot dealing with something 6 or more points below your CR, you don't need to. If you need to, their are better options. The wizard casting a direct damage spell followed by the dedicated warriors attacking, or the reverse, just might be enough to kill them off. It's a tactic. It's not an I Win D&D tactic and not supposed to be. Buffing party members is a tactic. Penalizing bad guys is a tactic. Which is better to use at the moment depends upon combat circumstances and personal preference.
pigknight 03-30-08, 08:49 PM	I ment killing off weakened enemies and doing a large amount of damage to others. And a lot of players prefer DD over SoDs because SoDs are boring. Wizard: I cast Phantasmal Killer. DM: The monster saves nothing happens. Sorcerer: I cast Magic Missile. DM: The monster takes 13 points of damage. Which would you rather do?
Nathreet 03-30-08, 09:02 PM	SoD's don't combine well with direct damage party members either. DM: "Okay, your save-or-die worked this time, and killed the wounded baddy." I also noticed that a lot of buff spells in the wizard guide someone linked to are weaker than direct damage evocations. In general buffs are great before combat, but direct damage does more during. Compared to a buff I mean. You still might be better off with some battlefield control, etc.
VulcanStormwrath 03-30-08, 09:48 PM	The other problem with Evocation is that all the most spectacular spells are really good at killing your friends as well as your enemies.
Razefire 03-30-08, 11:18 PM	Odd, I don't find Divination weak at all, especially regarding that a Mage spends alot of time looking for information, and needs detection for forewarning, etc. It's not combat oriented, so what? Most of the Mages work isn't in combat. DDamage spells can be ok, but I'd rather be protecting/buffing my party, or using my utility abilites in some useful fashion. Your spells define your Mage's group role essentially, so don't pick them carelessly. I've only specialized once before, as an Abjurer, which is my favorite specialist. Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is awesome (but we already know that).
bluedsteel 03-30-08, 11:35 PM	It appears I have returned just in time. :D Funny, I came from a group where the wizard considered evocation to be one of the most powerful schools. I think it's just a thing with this forum to hate it. But to like single target save-or-dies instead? Wth? Okay, you cast it, baddy saves. Battlefield control is wonderful, though it's only control not killing. Just for the record, I only recently joined this forum, and I found that the math and conventional wisdom advocating conjuration and dissing evocation lines up almost perfectly with my preconceived opinion. It IS common on this forum to dislike evocation. That's because there's a good reason - it's BAD. End of story. Didn't someone just point out a few posts back that summons are lousy? The thing with conjuration is that it has some awesome spells and you can do everything with it, but it's so-so at that everything. Just stick to the awesome conjuration spells and get the rest elsewhere if you can. Umm... no. You're making things up. Summons are freaking awesome. Let's see... I walk into the room. I see a horde of CR 18 bad guys. I walk back out and send in my summoned Colossal Fiendish Monstrous Spider, Air Monolith, Iron Golem, Golden Dragon, and a gated... oh, say, Balor. (Who can summon more demons.) I listen to the screaming. :D They're just that good. Conjuration has a ton of awesome spells. And it can do everything... WELL. Name one wizard's task that Conjuration can't do. I can only think of one, and that's dispel magic... which you don't need if your party has a cleric. See this thread for further exposition on the role of the wizard: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500 The wizard casting a direct damage spell followed by the dedicated warriors attacking, or the reverse, just might be enough to kill them off. It's a tactic. It's not an I Win D&D tactic and not supposed to be. Buffing party members is a tactic. Penalizing bad guys is a tactic. Which is better to use at the moment depends upon combat circumstances and personal preference. Actually, a lot of it can be broken down to math. Someone already mentioned that haste averages better damage than fireball. That makes it a better tactic. Period. I ment killing off weakened enemies and doing a large amount of damage to others. And a lot of players prefer DD over SoDs because SoDs are boring. Wizard: I cast Phantasmal Killer. DM: The monster saves nothing happens. Sorcerer: I cast Magic Missile. DM: The monster takes 13 points of damage. Which would you rather do? First, I would never cast Phantasmal Killer, because I hate the spell. Blegh. Second, to be fair, let's make it a first level save-or-suck. An oft-used example is Color Spray, which can regularly take down multiple opponents, but my personal favorite is Grease. So let's revisit the above dialogue. Wizard: I cast Grease. DM: The monster saves, but is considered flat-footed because it has no ranks in Balance. Rogue: Sweet! I Sneak Attack! Fighter: Hey, I can hit it more easily now... I Power Attack! DM: It's dead. Sorcerer: I cast Magic Missile. DM: The monster takes 3 points of damage. (Seriously, 13? Come on. But for argument's sake...)... 13 points of damaage. Rogue: I attack. (If he hits, which is doubtful...)... for 3 damage. Fighter: I attack. (If he hits...)... for 8 damage. DM: The monster bites the rogue for 7 damage. Cleric: I cast Cure Minor Wounds. And so it goes. Have I made my point yet? Support wizards are more powerful and more helpful to the party, making the game more fun for all. But beyond that... it doesn't matter what would be more fun to do. The question was, which is more powerful? And the answer is conjuration and transmutation. (BTW, whoever said transmutation is weak needs to re-read Polymorph.) A few more brief points. 1. For those who say evocation is better for mopping up lots of weak baddies, I have one word for you. Cloudkill. If there's anything left, spit at it. 2. There seems to be a miscomprehension here that Conjuration is a lot of save-or-die spells. It's not. In fact, one reason Conjuration is awesome is because so many of its spells offer no save. See this link for more details. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1005797 Note especially the commentary on whether this is the strongest school... it's quite accurate. 3. VulcanStormwrath makes an excellent point. What, your enemy is almost dead, and a fireball would finish him off? But wait! He's standing over the unconscious body of your party rogue, who was flanking him with the fighter! If you fireball, you kill the rogue! And you have to do something, because your fighter is also on the edge, and if the monster gets another full-round attack, he's gone too! What to do, oh, what to do... Benign Transposition. Obscuring Mist. Grease. Orb of X. Lesser Orb of X. Summon a monster that immediately gets a full attack. (Behind it, for bonus points.) There're more, I just can't think of them right now. Evocation has problems with these situations... it just isn't party friendly. And the truly powerful character is one that can walk into any situation and help the party to triumph. Toombs, the answer to your question is that Evocation is dumpable because other schools do what it does as well or better than it. Hell, Illusion actually HAS Evocation spells, only in a more flexible form... see the Shadow Evocation series. So... yes. Same with Enchantment... lots of cool save-or-dies, but other schools have those, and other schools' versions aren't all mind-affecting... to which most high level monsters possess immunity.
pigknight 03-31-08, 12:11 AM	The other problem with Evocation is that all the most spectacular spells are really good at killing your friends as well as your enemies. That is a good point, but what about AoE save or dies. And a magic missle that is being cast at 7th level is very likely to do 13 points of damage.
Wih 03-31-08, 01:11 AM	That is a good point, but what about AoE save or dies. The two AoE Save or Dies I can think of are Weird and Wail of the Banshee, of which both you can choose who is effected within the range, so you can exclude your allies. And a magic missle that is being cast at 7th level is very likely to do 13 points of damage. For your 1st level spells, I'd personally much rather be using Enlarge Person on an ally, making them deal an extra 5 or so points of damage per hit (+2 STR and larger weapon damage) aswell as them getting more attacks due to increase range (AoOs) and making it easier for them to flank. Or, using Grease to make up to 4 enemies flat-footed, possibly prone (generating attack penalties so your friends don't get hurt, and AoOs for your friends when they stand up). Flat-footed means that your Fighters can PA for larger amounts on every attack they make for multiple rounds. Even if the enemy only has a +1 DEX bonus, with 2 attacks a round that's an extra 28 points of damage per fighter over your 7 rounds of grease not including AoOs and damage saved from the attacking from prone penalty. Or, Ray of Enfeeblement. Instead of doing damage, it'll stop damage - STR penalty of d6+1/2CL, for a range of 4-9 (average being 3.5+3.5, for 7). With a STR penalty of 6, that's -3 to all attacks, and at least -5 to damage, more if the enemy has multiple attacks. It lasts easily the entire battle, saving far more than 13 points of damage, and thus superior. And that's just your first level spells. There are cantrips more useful than Magic Missile, seriously.
ArcTan 03-31-08, 02:03 AM	I ment killing off weakened enemies and doing a large amount of damage to others. And a lot of players prefer DD over SoDs because SoDs are boring. Wizard: I cast Phantasmal Killer. DM: The monster saves nothing happens. Sorcerer: I cast Magic Missile. DM: The monster takes 13 points of damage. Which would you rather do? When you say it like that, both sound pretty boring.
Razefire 03-31-08, 04:09 AM	Best overall, Transmutation, because it has it all virtually, and the most versatility aside from Conjuration. Its got the best spell progresison, level to level, for the most use, all the way to level 9, which are the most broken spells of all time, CORE. I mean, come on, its the master of flexibility, buffs, some good debuffs, awesome save or lose/die, and the godly spells on high levels.
RobbyPants 03-31-08, 10:06 AM	I ment killing off weakened enemies and doing a large amount of damage to others. And a lot of players prefer DD over SoDs because SoDs are boring. Wizard: I cast Phantasmal Killer. DM: The monster saves nothing happens. Sorcerer: I cast Magic Missile. DM: The monster takes 13 points of damage. Which would you rather do? Conjurer: I cast Lesser orb of Fire. DM: The monster takes 18 points of damage. Unless the monster has a really good touch AC or is incoporeal, Conjuration outpeforms here too. Direct damage does have a time and place, but in order for a specific Evocation DD spell to do better, you need an even more specific set of circumstances for it to be advantageous.
StruckingFuggle 03-31-08, 04:14 PM	The DM has to work a lot harder to pick easy foes for an evoker than he does a conjurer. Most any foes that an evoker can defeat can be just as easily beaten by a conjurer. The same cannot be said for the reverse. It's sort of a squares and rectangles thing. "Squares and Rectangles Thing". Did you get that from me, or ha! Am I not the only person who uses that? :)
navar100 03-31-08, 06:51 PM	Unless an Evoker specialist chose Conjuration as his opposition school, he can prepare Conjuration spells just as he can Evocation spells. A generalist mage can do the same thing. It would be stupid for any wizard or the evoker specialist to prepare only Evocation spells. He's no more or less harder for the DM to set foes against than any other wizard.
bluedsteel 03-31-08, 08:03 PM	Unless an Evoker specialist chose Conjuration as his opposition school, he can prepare Conjuration spells just as he can Evocation spells. A generalist mage can do the same thing. It would be stupid for any wizard or the evoker specialist to prepare only Evocation spells. He's no more or less harder for the DM to set foes against than any other wizard. Possibly, or possibly not. I happen to think (as a DM) that a wizard focused on evocation has a harder time with the game than one focused on almost any other school. But that's beside the point. The question was about the power of specific schools, not wizards who use them. Your example isn't really relevant: if he's going to use conjuration spells, than he's going to use conjuration spells, end of story. That doesn't say anything about the strength of the school... except maybe that you're now trying to explain how a wizard can specialize in evocation and still use conjuration spells. And frankly, if it's a question of how hard the wizard is to set foes against for the DM... I wouldn't play in that game. There will always be some easy foes and some that are more difficult, based on how the party works... but if the DM is deliberately choosing fights that are more difficult for the party because they target party weaknesses, that game has a problem.
ArcTan 03-31-08, 08:23 PM	Unless an Evoker specialist chose Conjuration as his opposition school, he can prepare Conjuration spells just as he can Evocation spells. A generalist mage can do the same thing. It would be stupid for any wizard or the evoker specialist to prepare only Evocation spells. He's no more or less harder for the DM to set foes against than any other wizard. He's making it harder for himself by limiting his options for non-Evocation spells and expanding them for Evocation spells, when Evocation spells are the least generally useful spells.
navar100 04-01-08, 01:22 AM	Possibly, or possibly not. I happen to think (as a DM) that a wizard focused on evocation has a harder time with the game than one focused on almost any other school. But that's beside the point. The question was about the power of specific schools, not wizards who use them. Your example isn't really relevant: if he's going to use conjuration spells, than he's going to use conjuration spells, end of story. That doesn't say anything about the strength of the school... except maybe that you're now trying to explain how a wizard can specialize in evocation and still use conjuration spells. And frankly, if it's a question of how hard the wizard is to set foes against for the DM... I wouldn't play in that game. There will always be some easy foes and some that are more difficult, based on how the party works... but if the DM is deliberately choosing fights that are more difficult for the party because they target party weaknesses, that game has a problem. Don't blame me for this. It was others who said DMs have to plan more carefully when a wizard player happens to specialize in Evocation.
navar100 04-01-08, 01:29 AM	He's making it harder for himself by limiting his options for non-Evocation spells and expanding them for Evocation spells, when Evocation spells are the least generally useful spells. That's only a personal mileage issue. Granted, with the exception of Contingency, Evocation spells tend not to be used outside of combat while spells from other schools can and often are. In that sense evocation is "less useful". However, the concept of using an evocation spell in combat is not a pathetic choice as some make it out to be.
RobbyPants 04-01-08, 08:55 AM	"Squares and Rectangles Thing". Did you get that from me, or ha! Am I not the only person who uses that? :) I've been using that one for a while. For anyone who understands the principles, it gets the message across really well.
DungeonOverlord 04-01-08, 01:03 PM	Shadow Evocation? The target gets to make two saves, one to believe it and one to see if it affects them, I'd rather just hit them with a REAL evocation spell. Not to mention true seeing and the like foils most illusion spells. The best part of Evocation is the ability to damage A LOT of enemies with one spell, not only that but if you pick up the archmage PrC (and why wouldn't you?) take mastery of elements and energy resistance is a thing of the past (who has sonic res? and if they do, you'll know). Evocation also has the various Bigby hand spells, Wall of force, force cage and meteor swarm, oh meteor swarm: a ranged touch attack for 105 dmg no save and a possible 84 dmg (or 42 dmg on successful ref save) to all enemies in a 40-ft spread, and with the mastery of shaping ability from the archmage PrC you could cast it while your friends hack away. I'm not saying evocation is the best school, I just think it's definitely not the worst. For me the best school depends on the campaign, type of wizard you're trying to play, and the rest of the characters in your party. In general the best school would be Conjuration (it lets you teleport, some attack, battle control, summon) and the worst school would be Enchantment.
RobbyPants 04-01-08, 01:14 PM	Shadow Evocation? The target gets to make two saves, one to believe it and one to see if it affects them, I'd rather just hit them with a REAL evocation spell. Not to mention true seeing and the like foils most illusion spells. Actually, the more popular uses are for things like Contingency, at which point the saves become irrelivant. Usually, when someone dumps Evocation, what they end up missing is spells like Congingency, Shatter, and various force spells. The Shadow Evocation spells help them make up for this loss. The best part of Evocation is the ability to damage A LOT of enemies with one spell, not only that but if you pick up the archmage PrC (and why wouldn't you?) take mastery of elements and energy resistance is a thing of the past (who has sonic res? and if they do, you'll know). I don't know if I would say best part, but rather best known part. Generally speaking, a wizard can do better things than simple HP damage with his spell slots. Even still, other schools have better damage dealing spells than Evocation. Evocation also has the various Bigby hand spells, Wall of force, force cage and meteor swarm, oh meteor swarm: a ranged touch attack for 105 dmg no save and a possible 84 dmg (or 42 dmg on successful ref save) to all enemies in a 40-ft spread, and with the mastery of shaping ability from the archmage PrC you could cast it while your friends hack away. Metor Swarm <<<< Maw of Chaos. No save. No damage cap. No energy type. Lasts a number of rounds equal to your caster level. I'm not saying evocation is the best school, I just think it's definitely not the worst. Well, again, it's not that Evocation doesn't have good spells, but rather, that other schools can replicate it. Thus, if you're giving something up, why not give up something that you won't really miss? For me the best school depends on the campaign, type of wizard you're trying to play, and the rest of the characters in your party. In general the best school would be Conjuration (it lets you teleport, some attack, battle control, summon) and the worst school would be Enchantment. This is true. If you have a good idea about what types of games your DM likes to run, you can do a lot better job at building a character to meet likely challenges.
navar100 04-01-08, 04:17 PM	Thus, if you're giving something up, why not give up something that you won't really miss? True. That's why if I were to specialize, I know I can easily give up Necromancy. It has some nice spells, but I've never, ever casted them upon playing a wizard and have not been hurt because of it. Since I've never used them, I wouldn't miss them. After Necromancy, I'd give up Illusion. I have played a 2E Illusionist and know the fun of using 2E's Spectral Force (3E Major Image). My imagination got so wild I accidentally tried to have it duplicate the Mislead spell when I didn't even know such a spell existed at the time. For 3E, the only spell I'd really miss would be Invisibility. Mirror Image and Displacement are nice, but there are other defensive spells. I don't like the Shadow Conjuration/Evocation spells. I don't want to give my opponents two saving throws. Instead of Illusion I might give up Conjuration if I'm in the mood. I'd miss Mage Armor something terrible, though. An Orb for a range touch attack from a poor BAB is the same as a reflex save against an evocation spell to me. Odds of success for either depend upon a variety of factors. Even if the Orb spells do mathematically end up slightly better to use, I really don't care too much to worry about it. As for Summoning, I played a cleric with Augment Summoning feat and summoned a lot. At the high level I really liked the Augmented Celestial Elephant. The Augmented Celestial Black Bear was nice too during its prime usage. However, the one round casting time was a big pain. I couldn't cast a summoning spell as often as I wanted because there wasn't time. It was more important to do something to affect the combat on my initiative when it came up, not spend the time casting Summon Monster to have an effect next round. I almost regretted taking Augment Summoning. As a wizard, I wouldn't even bother. The dedicated warriors take care of the melee combat. I'd rather buff them to make them even better.
Eledriel 04-01-08, 05:35 PM	In my personal opinion, Necromancy is the best school for any character that is not good aligned and has no or low morales. And Evocation is close up. I know that these to schools are mostly seen as relatively weak ones, bnut I don't just see it from the "usefulness", but also from the flavour - it is for me most fun playing them, because the one has great and useful effects, the other heavy direct damage, which I like. I once played a specialist Evoker with Spellcasting Prodigy and both Calimshan Elemental Tradition feats, and she did an amazing amount of damage. In lower levels she killed more creatures than our fighter and barbarian ... But I also have to say that most times I play one of these two as specialists, I choose the other one as forbidden school - I just think they fit together well. I also would think it to be funny playing a conjuration centered spellcaster - but I never tried until now.
Nathreet 04-01-08, 10:46 PM	Didn't someone just point out a few posts back that summons are lousy? The thing with conjuration is that it has some awesome spells and you can do everything with it, but it's so-so at that everything. Just stick to the awesome conjuration spells and get the rest elsewhere if you can. Umm... no. You're making things up. Although the first spells to come to mind (summon monster) are woefully bad, other spells, grease, web, the amazing Evard's black tentacles, are exceptionally powerful if used properly. I don't take such things lightly. I'll stop right there and will not trust anything else you say. So you better be prepared to provide some backup; there's no way I'm just gonna take your word for it. And no, that doesn't mean you suddenly get to be uber-skeptical of anything I say, just b/c you're false and yet want to be treated "fairly". You also screwed up the magic missile damage from a wizard that can cast phantasmal killer, and probably a few other things, but w/e. Nearly every in-battle single target buff is worse than direct damage. Just run the numbers. Most mass buffs are worse than direct damage, with some highly notable exceptions. These you cast in the first (maybe second) round, then move on to something else like battlefield control or direct damage. There are a lot of other spells that likewise suck for similar reasons. It's not like this is complicated to see. You check spell descriptions, monster descriptions. Oh hey, this spell doesn't do much unless I'm lucky. This one does. So: Battlefield control > mass buffs ~ direct damage > out-of-combat buffs ~ mass save-or-dies > single target save-or-dies > single target in-combat buffs > crossbow > utility spells (except under rare circumstances). Fact is, direct damage dishes out more hurt than most other options. The standard argument is "other things (actually just battlefield control and some mass buffs) are better than direct damage, therefore direct damage sucks." Um, no, that makes no sense. Being worse than one thing doesn't make something the worst. Direct damage only gets the beat down b/c it is so popular in real games and angsted teens aren't happy with saying "these spells are better". They have the inner need to also say "the spells you use are the worst in the world." A lot of people consider direct damage to be great, it's just that others bash it to no end and pretend that their view is obvious. And when people who like direct damage step in - which are many, especially considering how much opposition they have to put up with - these angst teens get infuriated and have the overwhelming need to crush that opinion out of existence. Geeze, get a life. Ima go play video games now.
bluedsteel 04-02-08, 03:00 AM	First, to the person who commented earlier on how much summoning as a full round action sucks, I totally agree. See this thread for ways to reduce that: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=883099. And, for the person who thinks touch AC is hard to hit on a wizard's BAB, this chart is an average of all encounters in all five Monster Manuals, the Fiend Folio, and most other encounter sources, assembled on the CO boards: http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5527/touchnormalacro0.jpg Now... I don't take such things lightly. I'll stop right there and will not trust anything else you say. So you better be prepared to provide some backup; there's no way I'm just gonna take your word for it. I will start by pointing out that Summon Monster X is considered one of the weakest summoning spells. Try Summon Elemental Monolith, Elemental Swarm, Dragon Ally, Marut, Iron Golem, etc. So for someone to say that the Summon Monster spells are weak has little to do with a character seriously focused on summoning. Note that I'm not telling you to believe me: I'm telling you to go look at the spells. I, personally, still like Summon Monster X - who wouldn't like being able to summon Colossal Fiendish Monstrous Spiders? - but I recognize that it's a weaker summoning spell. My point was that nobody said anything about summoning spells as a whole. And no, that doesn't mean you suddenly get to be uber-skeptical of anything I say, just b/c you're false and yet want to be treated "fairly". You also screwed up the magic missile damage from a wizard that can cast phantasmal killer, and probably a few other things, but w/e. I'm false? Really? And... who's the angsty teen? Oh, wait... back on topic... Ah, yes. My fault, so sorry... I thought we were using a 1st level wizard. Didn't seem fair to compare a fourth level spell to a first level. I will point out that none of my points is any different. Grease continues to be more effective than magic missile, even when magic missile has reached the scaling cap at lvl 11. Make the enemy drop his weapon? Yes, please! Make him fall down or be flat-footed so the rogue can deal an extra 5d6? Yes, please! Deal 5d4+5 damage? Why? What monster at that level is going to seriously care about losing 25 hp max? On the other hand, what monster isn't going to care about things like not being able to hold on to its weapon or remain standing? Note again that I'm not asking you to believe anything... I'm asking you to use your brain. I disagree generally with most of your points regarding the importance of buffing vs. DD, but since I've posted links to numbers supporting my position and you've posted... opinions... I don't feel it necessary to comment. Fact is, direct damage dishes out more hurt than most other options. Multiple problems here. First, DUH. Of course it does. DD's purpose in existence is dishing hurt. Most other options aren't created specifically for the purpose of dishing hurt. To say "This kind of magic is better at doing what it's designed to do than most other kinds of magic are at doing what they aren't designed to do" is kind of... well, stupid. Not to mention it indicates that there are non-DD spells that are better than DD at what DD is designed to do. (I'm looking at you, haste.) Second, the point of those of us who are saying that Evocation is weak is that DD is available in better forms elsewhere. So I'm not sure what your point here is supposed to be. The standard argument is "other things (actually just battlefield control and some mass buffs) are better than direct damage, therefore direct damage sucks." No, the standard argument is that because HP scales by CR much faster than DD by caster level, DD is inefficient at best, and there are better uses for spells. Try reading what we're saying, here. Um, no, that makes no sense. Being worse than one thing doesn't make something the worst. Direct damage only gets the beat down b/c it is so popular in real games and angsted teens aren't happy with saying "these spells are better". They have the inner need to also say "the spells you use are the worst in the world." A lot of people consider direct damage to be great, it's just that others bash it to no end and pretend that their view is obvious. And when people who like direct damage step in - which are many, especially considering how much opposition they have to put up with - these angst teens get infuriated and have the overwhelming need to crush that opinion out of existence. I haven't personally attacked you, in the way that your alleged "angsty teens" do, and I've not done anything except point out some fairly obvious things about how this game works. Yes, a lot of people consider DD to be great. A lot of people are perfectly capable of being wrong. DD is helpful. But it's not optimal, and that was what the OP's question was regarding. I don't know what you went through in high school, where you garnered your vast experience with "angsty teens," but I'm sorry you find it necessary to drag your preconceptions out here, as labels for those with whom you disagree. Oh, and the icing on the cake... Geeze, get a life. Ima go play video games now. For the record, that's going in my sig. :rolleyes:
RobbyPants 04-02-08, 08:54 AM	True. That's why if I were to specialize, I know I can easily give up Necromancy. It has some nice spells, but I've never, ever casted them upon playing a wizard and have not been hurt because of it. Since I've never used them, I wouldn't miss them. Necromancy is often my third choice to drop. So if for flavor reasons I want to keep Enchantment or Evocation, I tend to drop it. Still, it has some awesome ray debuffs like Enervation and Ray of Emfeeblement that I will miss. I don't like the Shadow Conjuration/Evocation spells. I don't want to give my opponents two saving throws. I would never use these spells for direct damage. Instead, I'd use spells from another school for direct damage. The Shadow Evocation spells are great for getting access to things like Contigency, which doesn't matter when it comes to the second save. I'm not saying you can't give up Illusion. I'm just saying that Shadow Evocation is good at some things and bad at others.
navar100 04-02-08, 08:27 PM	If as a specialist you give up evocation and use Shadow Evocation as Contigency, that is a cool trick. Using Shadow Conjuration/Evocation for spells of those schools if you made them opposition is a good trick in general. For attack spells if you're willing to give the double saves, go for it. Personally, I'd rather just use the real spells.
RobbyPants 04-03-08, 08:34 AM	For attack spells if you're willing to give the double saves, go for it. Personally, I'd rather just use the real spells. Agreed 100%. That's a terrible tactic.
Wind of Darkness 04-03-08, 12:50 PM	I ment killing off weakened enemies and doing a large amount of damage to others. And a lot of players prefer DD over SoDs because SoDs are boring. Wizard: I cast Phantasmal Killer. DM: The monster saves nothing happens. Sorcerer: I cast Magic Missile. DM: The monster takes 13 points of damage. Which would you rather do? I would not do either, because neither makes a meaningful contribution to the battle at hand. By contrast, a haste spell, a ray of enfeeblement that connects (not hard, really), or a well placed web or black tentacles, can turn a fight. I only have so many spells per day, so the ones I do use had better have an impact.
Operation_Shoestring 04-03-08, 02:57 PM	Seriously people compare what X level evocation can do compared to other schools. 3rd level evocation is what, Fireball? Yawn. 3rd level Transmutation is HASTE. 3rd level Conjuration is Sleet Storm. 3rd level Abjuration is Dispel Magic. 3rd level Enchantment is Suggestion. 3rd level Illusion is Major Image. 3rd level Necromacy is Vampiric Touch. 3rd level Divination is Clairaudience. Fireball about rivals VT, but is way behind the rest (in the hands of a competent caster, anyway). And that's just in core. Gets worse when you throw in splatbooks for fun stuff like Melf's Unicorn Arrow or (Extended) Heroics.
Rania 04-03-08, 03:24 PM	I know that, if I decide to play a wizard in my next campaign, I'll probably be an abjuration specialist; I've had plenty of practice being the support character, so I might as well do it without sucking.
navar100 04-03-08, 05:32 PM	I would not do either, because neither makes a meaningful contribution to the battle at hand. By contrast, a haste spell, a ray of enfeeblement that connects (not hard, really), or a well placed web or black tentacles, can turn a fight. I only have so many spells per day, so the ones I do use had better have an impact. Wizard casts Magic Missile and deals 13 damage. Fighter fulls attack, deals 25 damage. Bad guy dead. I'd say the wizard affected the combat significantly enough.
RobbyPants 04-04-08, 10:18 AM	Wizard casts Magic Missile and deals 13 damage. Fighter fulls attack, deals 25 damage. Bad guy dead. I'd say the wizard affected the combat significantly enough. It all depends on the circumstances. If you are fairly certain that a direct damage spell will be enough to kill the target that round (factoring in other PC's damage), then it's a good tactic. If said wizard cast Haste instead, each ally gets another attack. Suddenly that fighter full attacks for his usual damage plus about the same as a Fireball from another attack. He (and the other PCs) continue to do this for several rounds. If the spell can end the fight that round, it's probably worth it. If not, then it might not be.
NamelessX 04-04-08, 10:38 AM	I think that the whole argument over which school is better is about personal oppinions really. Some people may like to use head on Evocation attaks (Yay for magic missle) while others may use Illuion speels to slow the opponent down and drain him. Others may use Necromancy to send hoards of zombies to do the dirty work. Personally, my least favorite is Divination, but again, that's just my personal opinion.
StruckingFuggle 04-04-08, 08:15 PM	I think that the whole argument over which school is better is about personal oppinions really. How much the discussion is opinion vs. how much it's fact depends, first, on how you define "better". "More fun" or "more effective", basically. 'Fun' is opinion, but effective is fact - with heavy caveats re: difference between theoretical dnd and how your particular games are run, and re: contexts are important. But for a given game, and a given party, generally it will be a matter of fact, rather than opinion, which school is generally more effective.
bjorsa 04-04-08, 09:24 PM	At least Sorcerer's get Wings of Flurry for their Evocation money. Uncapped D6/lev in a fairly large area without ever hitting your allies, no SR, no energy resistance, and most importantly a reflex save-or-suck (dazed) to go. (My Sorc is dragonblooded with feats Arcane Thesis WoF, Empower, Practical Metamagic Empower, Accelerate Metamagic Empower, Twin Spell, Practical Metamagic Twin Spell, Accelerate Metamagic Twin Spell and Quicken+Rapid Metamagic. At CL 14 that means a free action 17D6x1.5 and then 17D6x1.5x2 as a standard action - and don't forget the foes must save both or the party slaughter them next round. Thats an average of 268 Direct Damage in a flexible AoE save for half. At higher levels, with a Maximized, Twin-spelled, Empowered Arcane Fusion of WoFs, the DD quickly scales to lethal for almost any foe(s).)
NamelessX 04-05-08, 02:55 AM	How much the discussion is opinion vs. how much it's fact depends, first, on how you define "better". "More fun" or "more effective", basically. 'Fun' is opinion, but effective is fact - with heavy caveats re: difference between theoretical dnd and how your particular games are run, and re: contexts are important. But for a given game, and a given party, generally it will be a matter of fact, rather than opinion, which school is generally more effective. But some schools may be more effective in different situations. I mean you're not gonna cast a Divination spell at an orc running towards you, you might need an Evocation spell. But let's say you beat the orc and you need to get some information from him, you may need a Divination spell (or beating him up), not let's say a Magic Missle, or as I'm known for doing, an Acid splash to melt his face, because you're not gonna get much out of him that way...
StruckingFuggle 04-05-08, 04:10 AM	But some schools may be more effective in different situations. I thought I said that. But looking back, I guess I should have elaborated more on what I meant by "context". I mean you're not gonna cast a Divination spell at an orc running towards you, you might need an Evocation spell. This is a good example of it, though. Clearly, Divination wouldn't help, but what spell, or school, would best handle this ... yes, for that situation, some spells are more effective than others.
NamelessX 04-05-08, 04:21 AM	I thought I said that. But looking back, I guess I should have elaborated more on what I meant by "context". This is a good example of it, though. Clearly, Divination wouldn't help, but what spell, or school, would best handle this ... yes, for that situation, some spells are more effective than others. Sorry, I didn't realise what you meant. True, some spells may be more effective then others. But I still stand with my opinion. All Schools have their advantages and disadvantage, but if you can master all or most, the you'll have mostly advantages and few disadvantages as you have less weaknesses. For example, take a barbarian half orc, very strong and could probably kill most things that attack it, but if you give him a challenge that involves working things out, he would probably suck at it. (unless you're lucky like my friend who rolled very good inelegant and wisdom score for a that race and class) The same thing applies with magic, if you only focus on Evocation, then yeah you could kill things, but what about if you have a challenge that doesn't involve that?
Naderion 04-05-08, 07:49 AM	My favourite school of magic is transmutation, since I usually play martially inclined spellcasters which make use of their environment: Jump, Spider Climb, Haste, Telekinesis, Bears Endurance, Bulls Strength, Cats Grace, Shapechange, Barkskin, Entangle, Rusting Grasp... All the cool spells are transmutations. I practicaly never use conjurations.
NamelessX 04-05-08, 09:41 AM	My favourite school of magic is transmutation, since I usually play martially inclined spellcasters which make use of their environment: Jump, Spider Climb, Haste, Telekinesis, Bears Endurance, Bulls Strength, Cats Grace, Shapechange, Barkskin, Entangle, Rusting Grasp... All the cool spells are transmutations. I practicaly never use conjurations. Transmutation and Enchantment spells are have some of the coolest spells, but the low level ones are kinda pointless, IE: Level 0 Magic Hand, but they're still pretty cool. If you have spider hand, and the spell which allows you to shoot webs, you could be Spiderman!
Razefire 04-05-08, 10:04 AM	Oftentimes, I find these kind of threads odd. I mean, honestly, what player, playing a wizard, in any D&D campaign worth anything isn't going to have you cast spells from most, if not all schools of magic? I also find it weird, how most, if not most players think effective spells are ones relevant to combat, thats most def strange. I mean, can't wizards be effective and fun without having to fit the mold of battlefield controller/blaster combat dorks? :rolleyes:
NamelessX 04-05-08, 10:56 AM	Oftentimes, I find these kind of threads odd. I mean, honestly, what player, playing a wizard, in any D&D campaign worth anything isn't going to have you cast spells from most, if not all schools of magic? I also find it weird, how most, if not most players think effective spells are ones relevant to combat, thats most def strange. I mean, can't wizards be effective and fun without having to fit the mold of battlefield controller/blaster combat dorks? :rolleyes: Or if you're a scorcorer! ... They always forget the scororers... *sigh*
pigknight 04-05-08, 01:33 PM	Transmutation and Enchantment spells are have some of the coolest spells, but the low level ones are kinda pointless, IE: Level 0 Magic Hand, but they're still pretty cool. If you have spider hand, and the spell which allows you to shoot webs, you could be Spiderman! How dare you bash mage's hand, that spell is useful quite a bit, ever been in a cage or locked in a cell? See those keys there, oh to bad you don't have mage's hand. All spells are awesome in certain cases but lack in others, evocation only is good in combat for the most part.
NamelessX 04-05-08, 02:19 PM	How dare you bash mage's hand, that spell is useful quite a bit, ever been in a cage or locked in a cell? See those keys there, oh to bad you don't have mage's hand. All spells are awesome in certain cases but lack in others, evocation only is good in combat for the most part. I said it was awesome. :P
pigknight 04-05-08, 04:43 PM	Whoops xP
NamelessX 04-06-08, 02:57 AM	Whoops xP Whoops you shall! Never incinuate anything bad about me again, or I'll release cat people on you! :mad: :P
Toombs79 04-06-08, 10:16 AM	I recently acquired the Spell Compendium and have been studying the 250ish pages of spells and holy cow! I mean, wizards are just broken after what becomes available through that book. However, one thing I noticed is the SC does take a lot away, even more away, from Evocation. There are a lot of nice DD spells in Conjuration and a few neat tricks in other schools which makes Evoc superfluous at best. It also buffs Divination making a Diviner a no-brainer for specialization, since most divination spells could be dead useful at all levels. I was surprised with the person who said they could get rid of Conjuration comfortably. That's kind of like a fighter saying they could comfortably chop off their left hand. Sure they still have their sword arm but it's gonna be tough to hold a shield or dual wield with a stump.
Zavia 04-06-08, 11:05 AM	Im making a wiz who focuses in save or die/lose spells, followed by terrain manipulation. Then some utlity spells here and there. Im alraedy taking the genealist variant from ROTW. So im wondering which school to get spell focus for... (im starting at lv 1, but just wondering anyway)
Lycanthromancer 04-06-08, 11:13 AM	Check color spray obscuring mist, minor image, ray of enfeeblement, and grease. Color spray is an exellent save-or-die even at higher levels, especially if you find yourself in tight spaces a lot. Obscuring mist can blind enemies in a number of situations, which is especially useful against archers and as a cover for a retreat. Minor image can mimic the effects of the terrain spells (ie, wall of stone/iron) in certain situations, if all you're needing is the appearance of a wall; it can be used to set up traps, hide in an emergency, and throw off suspicion and pursuit; an incredibly powerful spell, if used correctly. Ray of enfeeblement can one-shot weaker creatures, and can severely hamper stronger ones, giving your party a much-needed reprieve from that Power-Attacking, raging barbarian. Grease...I can't say enough about grease. It's one of the strongest low-level spells in the entire game.
navar100 04-06-08, 01:57 PM	It all depends on the circumstances. If you are fairly certain that a direct damage spell will be enough to kill the target that round (factoring in other PC's damage), then it's a good tactic. If said wizard cast Haste instead, each ally gets another attack. Suddenly that fighter full attacks for his usual damage plus about the same as a Fireball from another attack. He (and the other PCs) continue to do this for several rounds. If the spell can end the fight that round, it's probably worth it. If not, then it might not be. I bolded the relevant part. That's the whole point.
NamelessX 04-06-08, 02:18 PM	I bolded the relevant part. That's the whole point. That is exactly what I've been trying to say. :D
navar100 04-06-08, 02:20 PM	How much the discussion is opinion vs. how much it's fact depends, first, on how you define "better". "More fun" or "more effective", basically. 'Fun' is opinion, but effective is fact - with heavy caveats re: difference between theoretical dnd and how your particular games are run, and re: contexts are important. But for a given game, and a given party, generally it will be a matter of fact, rather than opinion, which school is generally more effective. That is true. In my group the druid player continuously casts Splinter Bolt. It is a nice spell and has helped the party in battle, partly also because the DM has the bad guys actually care about their hitpoints, but it would be nice if she casted some other spells for a change. She use to cast Mass Snake's Swiftness. Now she doesn't. She also likes Call Lightning. All these direct damage spells are fine, but it would be nice if she'd cast other types of spells. She has done Entangle occasionally to good effect, but otherwise will attack with weapons in melee. She hardly ever wildshapes. It's just not her thing. I can't explain it. I think/hope she'll be wildshaping a little bit more, though. It doesn't have to be anything fancy. Bears would be fine. To be fair there are mitigating circumstances that are campaign specific such that her going into melee with weapons instead of wildshape is not as suboptimal as core druid, but it's still suboptimal in my opinion. However, it's her character. The Cerebremancer is the same way, almost. Though he has been using Buzzing Bee and Brain Lock, it's lots of Energy Missile and other direct damage spells/powers. However, he does know he should try other types of spells and has been using battlefield control spells for good effect lately. In any case, no spellcaster buffs anyone. It'll happen once or twice, but the melee guys are pretty much on their own. The one character who actually does any sort of buffing on a regular basis is my crusader. :D I use Iron Guard's Glare a lot as well as White Raven Tactics.
navar100 04-06-08, 02:25 PM	Transmutation and Enchantment spells are have some of the coolest spells, but the low level ones are kinda pointless, IE: Level 0 Magic Hand, but they're still pretty cool. If you have spider hand, and the spell which allows you to shoot webs, you could be Spiderman! I disagree. Mage Hand, pointless? The ability to move up to a 5lb object from a distance is of great value. You can manipulate something you don't want to touch yourself. You can grab objects you can't reach yourself. Personally I find it to be the strongest of the 0 level spells or at least tied with Prestidigitation.
navar100 04-06-08, 02:32 PM	I recently acquired the Spell Compendium and have been studying the 250ish pages of spells and holy cow! I mean, wizards are just broken after what becomes available through that book. However, one thing I noticed is the SC does take a lot away, even more away, from Evocation. There are a lot of nice DD spells in Conjuration and a few neat tricks in other schools which makes Evoc superfluous at best. It also buffs Divination making a Diviner a no-brainer for specialization, since most divination spells could be dead useful at all levels. I was surprised with the person who said they could get rid of Conjuration comfortably. That's kind of like a fighter saying they could comfortably chop off their left hand. Sure they still have their sword arm but it's gonna be tough to hold a shield or dual wield with a stump. The Orb spells replace the attack roll for a saving throw. Almost the same difference with less overall damage in exchange for perhaps an easier way to get the spell to work. What they do is allow direct damage spells for those who choose Evocation as a barred school. I think they were a mistake on WOTC's part because of niche encroachment.
RobbyPants 04-07-08, 08:08 AM	Oftentimes, I find these kind of threads odd. I mean, honestly, what player, playing a wizard, in any D&D campaign worth anything isn't going to have you cast spells from most, if not all schools of magic? I also find it weird, how most, if not most players think effective spells are ones relevant to combat, thats most def strange. I mean, can't wizards be effective and fun without having to fit the mold of battlefield controller/blaster combat dorks? :rolleyes: Yeah, they're called NPCs :P See, D&D is about going into caves, killing the people who live in them, and taking their stuff! "Battlefield controller/blaster combat dorks" make lots of money doing that! :P The Orb spells replace the attack roll for a saving throw. Almost the same difference with less overall damage in exchange for perhaps an easier way to get the spell to work. What they do is allow direct damage spells for those who choose Evocation as a barred school. I think they were a mistake on WOTC's part because of niche encroachment. I've heard of some DMs houseruling that the orbs are Evocation and that they do allow for Spell Resistance. As printed, they offer some excelent direct damage for their level, against single targets. You do make a point with the "niche encroachment" that you mentioned. I think if WotC kept all the good direct damage spells in Evocation, it would be a harder school for people to drop when specializing. In a core-only game, you lose a bit, but it's not the end of the world. Once you let in the Spell Compendium, you lose next to nothing with Evocation. If I joined a game, and the DM told me he was nerfing the orb spells in the above-mentioned method, I'd totally understand.
NamelessX 04-07-08, 12:06 PM	I disagree. Mage Hand, pointless? The ability to move up to a 5lb object from a distance is of great value. You can manipulate something you don't want to touch yourself. You can grab objects you can't reach yourself. Personally I find it to be the strongest of the 0 level spells or at least tied with Prestidigitation. I wouldn't go that far. The most nifty Level 0 spells, perhaps, strongest? We could argue that point...
bluedsteel 04-07-08, 12:27 PM	I've heard of some DMs houseruling that the orbs are Evocation and that they do allow for Spell Resistance. As printed, they offer some excelent direct damage for their level, against single targets. You do make a point with the "niche encroachment" that you mentioned. I think if WotC kept all the good direct damage spells in Evocation, it would be a harder school for people to drop when specializing. In a core-only game, you lose a bit, but it's not the end of the world. Once you let in the Spell Compendium, you lose next to nothing with Evocation. If I joined a game, and the DM told me he was nerfing the orb spells in the above-mentioned method, I'd totally understand. I'd throw a huge fit. Orb spells might be a bit of niche encroachment if you think Evocation should own DD, but if you think Evocation is about... evoking... then the Orb spells are in the right school. They're an instantaneous creation effect, using magic to create a non-magical ball of elemental splat.:D They should be Conjuration, period. Mind, I don't think it matters that much, since I don't care that much about DD, but for purposes of consistency... WotC did a good job classifying those spells. If the DM wants them to go away, he can ban them and write new spells for Evocation that involve evocation.
nightwyrm 04-07-08, 03:46 PM	Blah, the difference between evoke and conjure are purely arbitrary. One bring you energy while the other brings you "stuff"? Outside of D&D, the two words are almost synonyms. Is there any reason that sword of deception or thunderlance is evo while the orbs are conj? If I was the dm, I'd just make the orbs dual school to keep (almost) everyone happy.
bluedsteel 04-07-08, 08:44 PM	Blah, the difference between evoke and conjure are purely arbitrary. One bring you energy while the other brings you "stuff"? Outside of D&D, the two words are almost synonyms. Is there any reason that sword of deception or thunderlance is evo while the orbs are conj? If I was the dm, I'd just make the orbs dual school to keep (almost) everyone happy. Ehm... no. Read the school descriptions again. I will now quote from the SRD. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation). Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out of nothing. Evocation is the calling forth of magical power, raw and straightforward. Conjuration is the use of magical power to call forth something else. This is why a fireball is evocation while Summon spells are conjuration... a very clear and distinct difference.
nightwyrm 04-07-08, 09:16 PM	Ehm... no. Read the school descriptions again. I will now quote from the SRD. Evocation is the calling forth of magical power, raw and straightforward. Conjuration is the use of magical power to call forth something else. This is why a fireball is evocation while Summon spells are conjuration... a very clear and distinct difference. And why the heck are little balls of fire in conj but big balls of fire in evo. Yes, the school description makes a distinction, but the flavour text behind each individual spell is very very arbitrary. Is there any particular reason that an orb that does 15d6 damage which can be resisted by a resist energy spell a "manifestations of some form of energy" and not a "calling forth of magical power, raw and straightforward".
RobbyPants 04-08-08, 07:40 AM	I'd throw a huge fit. Orb spells might be a bit of niche encroachment if you think Evocation should own DD, but if you think Evocation is about... evoking... then the Orb spells are in the right school. They're an instantaneous creation effect, using magic to create a non-magical ball of elemental splat.:D They should be Conjuration, period. Mind, I don't think it matters that much, since I don't care that much about DD, but for purposes of consistency... WotC did a good job classifying those spells. If the DM wants them to go away, he can ban them and write new spells for Evocation that involve evocation. Perhaps I should clarify a bit: I'm fine with the orbs being Conjuration, although they are certainly no-brainer spells in how good they are. That's how I run them in my games. Still, I feel some of the distinction between Conjuration and Evocation direct damage is purely arbitrary, and I could see why a DM would want to change it. And why the heck are little balls of fire in conj but big balls of fire in evo. Yes, the school description makes a distinction, but the flavour text behind each individual spell is very very arbitrary. Is there any particular reason that an orb that does 15d6 damage which can be resisted by a resist energy spell a "manifestations of some form of energy" and not a "calling forth of magical power, raw and straightforward". That's the same way I feel. All you have to do is say that the magic summons the energy to you and voila! No Spell Resistance!
Zavia 04-09-08, 06:40 AM	Conj: ...or create objects or effects on the spot (creation). Evo: In effect, they create something out of nothing. nightwyrm has a point on the big and small balls of fire.