Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kith_Adorin 06-13-06, 04:57 PM	Yea, seems like every new book with spells. Conjuration gets more dmg spells, most are equal or better then evocation spells, but seems to rarely get spell resistance. Note, I am not complaining or whining in anyway. I can see the logic why they have no spell resistance. I am just saying there seems to be more.. punch spells, for that school with every new book. Is it just me or are other people seeing this too? :confused:
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-13-06, 06:23 PM	Yeah, the designers pretty much hate evokers.
Ziggaraut 06-13-06, 06:29 PM	*sniff* I like the evoking goodness, why can't Wizards leave us some casting goodness?
AvaronGansdell 06-14-06, 12:14 AM	as far as blaster mages go evokers have droped drasticly sence 2ed right now I would say balster mages go. Wilder Psion warmage sorcerer Conjurer (druid and spirit shaman might be better too.) then evoker. and give thats what evokers are suppsoe to be great at it makes them horrible. infact though its tough justifying any spell beign evocation most spells easily fit into another school. heck fireball and lighting bolt let you summon up balls of fire or bolts of lighting which should be conjuration, even magic misstle could be considered conjuring magical force missles. its a sad sad day in the world direct damage is far worse than ever before and the evoker still isent the best at that poor school of magic.
Kith_Adorin 06-14-06, 02:08 AM	What Pips me is how could they not come up with more interesting evocation spells? Its making and shaping energy... the possibilities are almost endless. Yet there seems to be always so few new evocation spells.
lukelightning 06-14-06, 10:58 AM	I extremely dislike the way conjuration spells can bypass SR; it seems so cheesy. How is "evoked" fire any different from "conjured" fire? I think the problem is really with spell resistance, which I think should be removed from the game. If you want something to be resistant to magic, give it good saves. If you want it to be immune to fireballs, give it fire resistance 25 or something (I'm generally not a big fan of complete immunities). Or make SR like DR; say it takes off 10 points of damage from damaging spells, regardless of school of magic.
Witch 06-14-06, 11:24 AM	Not a lot of Evocation? You guys are joking right? Have you even -checked- spell compendium? It has dozens and dozens of them. Compared to evocation, illusion and enchantment, and possibly necromancy got the shaft. Some spell levels don't even have any new enchantment spells. Evocation, Conjuration and Transmutation are the ones that get lucky.
AvaronGansdell 06-14-06, 11:45 AM	its not new spells its that conjurations new spells are trumping the direct damage role evocation classicly had. orb of force alone is all around a better attack spell than virtualy any evocation spell.
DougErvin 06-14-06, 11:47 AM	Unfortnately, at the higher levels the necromantic spells are the best to use against the BBEG. Avasalate (sp) from the Spell Compendium is a 7th level spell, ranged touch attack with no saving throw for its primary effect which removes half of the target's hit points. Using Ashardaon (dragon from Bastion of Unborn Souls) as an example, all you need to do is roll better than a 1 to hit (touch AC is 2) and you just hurt him for 500 hit points. Overall I agree evocation is no longer the best damaging school. Doug
Tristan 06-14-06, 02:57 PM	isn't the only reason people like evokers is cus of all the damage they do. If that is true, and it is true that now conjurers can do more dmg, then be a conjurer.
Mysticaloctopus 06-14-06, 03:07 PM	Libris Mortis has some nasty damaging Necromancy spells indeed! Avasculate is indeed nasty, Avascular Mass creates a barrier from it as well! Then there are the made-for-BBEG spells from the Necrotic Cyst series. Touch attack and the target grows a Cyst, level 2 spell. Then you can sense, scry, damage, dominate, kill to create a monster, burst to encyst others nearby, permanently (yes, permanently) control, draw power from and permanently eliminate (Resurrection blocker). The Cyst spells. Arcane & Divine necromancy. There isn't a domain for them, But I'd just rule that it gives the Cyst spells, and a free Mother Cyst feat which is required for access to the Cyst spells. That's more than just damage, though. Hostage situations, control, the whole BBEG works. Just touch the King once and you have control! I'm now reading through the Mongoose publishing Ultimate Arcane Spellbook which I picked up for twenty quid today. There seem to be a lot of spells (241 pages of them). Some of the coolest are three Necromancy spells - Raise an ancient ruin's inhabitants as undead, raise a ghost ship and raise a whole damn Fleet of the things! There's no useful list of spells by level or type, just an alphabetical index, so it may take a while. I'll get back on the Evocation / Conjuration status later.
Rowan_Whispercloak 06-14-06, 03:17 PM	As far as I have noticed the conjurer is becoming the best single target damage spells, but at the same time evoker are better at multi-target damage, however the alot of people tend to DM single enemies/encounter as it is easier to deal with.
Kith_Adorin 06-14-06, 03:50 PM	isn't the only reason people like evokers is cause of all the damage they do. If that is true, and it is true that now conjurers can do more dmg, then be a conjurer. Shouldn't have to switch specializations to get better direct damaging spells from a school that focus's in summoning. I just want to see evocation beefed a little. With a school that you can make, bend, and create energy. There should be more interesting spells.
Vaelan 06-14-06, 06:38 PM	How is "evoked" fire any different from "conjured" fire? Evoked fire is magical energy. Conjured fire is real fire. I don't see the problem with damage dealing Conjurations. All of them that I've seen are worse than Evocations of the same level or equal to Evocations of a lower level in regards to either area of effect or damage. They deal less damage or damage over a smaller area in return for SR being inapplicable. As far as I have noticed the conjurer is becoming the best single target damage spell I disagree. Single-target Evocations often break the damage caps listed in the DMG, whereas Conjurations abide by them rather well. Using metamagic to scale Evocation spells shows that they are better than the equivalent single target Conjurations.
Kith_Adorin 06-14-06, 07:51 PM	Its just conjurer's are suppose to be big on summoning and having minions to fight for them. It feels just a tad off concept for them to have so many direct damaging spells. What the Dev's could do to make it feel OK to me. Is give the ability for evocation to have a higher Caster lvl check against SR. Also, some more interesting evo spells would be nice. Not so much as damaging ones, just creation or manipulating ones. Examples being evards black tentacles, or the one where you create a hut or cottage. *forgot its name*
AvaronGansdell 06-14-06, 10:16 PM	evocation dose have many large area direct damage spells which are difficult to use properly in many situations. most of the better targeted damage spells are necromancy or conjuration at higher levels. then again conjuring things is such a opened term that virtualy every effect from evocation could instead be classified as a conjuration effect.
smrtgmp 06-15-06, 08:34 AM	orb of force alone is all around a better attack spell than virtualy any evocation spell.Umm...no. It does 10d6 to a single target. BFD. Thats an average of 35 points of damage. Who cares if its irresistable (assuming you hit, which is hardly a given, despite what many seem to think). The SC gave us some amazing evocations. I'm particularly fond of great thunderclap and sword of deception.
AvaronGansdell 06-15-06, 08:46 AM	orb of forces damage isent its impressive point its great because there will allways be a use for it. 10D6 force damage which ignores incoporial and ethereal, no save no SR it works the same against everyone no fear of resitances or immunitys no one saying "ohh I have evasion that dose nothing"
Ut-Napishtim 06-15-06, 09:35 AM	I have to agree. As a fan of the classic summoning Conjurer I'm really dissapointed with all the damage spells they've been putting out for them. Yeah, Melf's Acid Arrow was not as good as Magic Missile most of the time, but was good to have back in the day - especially if you elected to drop Evocation. Now a Conjurer can drop Evocation without batting an eye, handing them specialization in what was already one of the best schools and only effectively giving up one school. It's cheesey and it rubs me the wrong way too. I prefer a classic Lovecraftian Conjurer to today's McEvoker with Fries that it has become. :twocents:
lukelightning 06-15-06, 10:02 AM	Evoked fire is magical energy. Conjured fire is real fire. Then there should be substantial caps on how hot/damaging this conjured fire is. It's plain old normal fire; shouldn't things be more resistant to that than magical fire?
AvaronGansdell 06-15-06, 03:09 PM	ok so evoked fire is a magical energy that looks like fire thats why spell resitance works against it but conjured fire is just normal fire so it ignore spell resistance if thats true than evoker fire should ignore fire resitance as its not actualy fire just buring magical energy. for low and mid levels a wizard is a poor choice for class and a evoker is a poor choice for speciality and once you introduce the new spells conjuration becomes a amazeing specialty. worse yet as if people didnt already want to choose conjuration the conjuration substituion from PHB2 is much better than the evoker one. the conjurer power dosent realy as heavily on your wizard level thus allowing you to grab prestige classes without too much loss and the conjuers short range immediate teleport is usable when you feel like not when attacked by somone within 60 feet useing a ranged weapon. heck because its a immediate action a conjuerer could in theory use there teleport to avoid getting hit by a attack at the last second by moveing 10 feet away from the enemy after they had declared the attack.
smrtgmp 06-16-06, 08:09 AM	orb of forces damage isent its impressive point its great because there will allways be a use for it.If you're facing more than a single foe, none of whom have SR, chances are there is a better use for your spell slot.10D6 force damage which ignores incoporial and ethereal, no save no SR it works the same against everyone no fear of resitances or immunitys no one saying "ohh I have evasion that dose nothing"It doesnt work the same on everyone. First of all, those with evasion also tend to have high touch AC, which can make hitting them difficult for a low BAB caster, especially when you factor in the soft cover bonus to AC provided by your allies and teh -4 penalty for firing into melee. Its also fairly weak against arcane casters, who have a myriad of ways to protect themselves against touch attacks. Mirror Image alone will make things rather difficult. Throw in blur or displacement and you're looking at one hell of a miss chance. And then there's ray deflection, which will stop it outright. Its a good spell, but hardly the be-all end-all that many make it out to be.
camble 06-16-06, 12:55 PM	I don't believe the force orb is the be all end all spell but it should not be a conjuration spell. It is FORCE ie energy the whole focus of evocation. Where is the spell conjuring the force from, some poor envoker that is trying to cast a spell at a bbeg :gah: Envoker :confused: bbeg :evillaugh I mean maybe there should be some envoker summonings :OMG! Maybe the spell could create matter out of energy to keep it themiticly correct even if it is tenuous at best but that hasn't stopped WOTC in the past just look at necromancy :D
TheSkinnySkeleton 06-16-06, 02:25 PM	Hmmm.... Magic Missile allows no save, and that's Evocation. And then there's the Spell Compendium, which offers a few higher versions of the Magic Missile. Very powerful. A month or so back, I had the rare pleasure of playing a PC in a one-shot game in my own campaign. (I normally DM, but had a sore throat this one time, so my buddy subbed in for me.) I rolled up a 9th level Battle Sorcerer (from UA) and selected almost 100% Evocation spells for my spell list. I used a lot of spells from the Spell Compendium. Now, this sorcerer of mine dealt more damage on average than ALL the other characters, and it was a big party. I was dishing out an average of 20 damage every battle round. On average. And this was every single round. None of this "roll to hit" crap. Even the fighter and the centaur cleric had a hard time topping this. Oh yeah, did I mention my sorcerer was actually an awakened monkey? Sized tiny, complete with the red fez hat. Killing everything in sight. :P Anyways, on the topic of conjuration.... When a school of magic has many different subschools in it, I think specialist wizards should have to choose one subschool to specialize in, not the entire spectrum offered by the school. Perhaps two or three subschools at most. Conjuration actually has FIVE subschools!!! That's a lot of spells to be able to specialize in. Or perhaps summoning should be made a school all of its own. (I haven't utilized this variant rule at all yet, and probably won't. Still, it makes a certain sort of sense.)
Vaelan 06-16-06, 04:05 PM	Then there should be substantial caps on how hot/damaging this conjured fire is. It's plain old normal fire; shouldn't things be more resistant to that than magical fire? Indeed. I don't think that any of the current spells bypass that cap though. Lava can do 20d6 fire damage and it is certainly not magical. When a school of magic has many different subschools in it, I think specialist wizards should have to choose one subschool to specialize in, not the entire spectrum offered by the school. Perhaps if the school had a substantially higher number of spells than other schools, but I believe that distinction belongs to Transmutation.
NineInchNall 06-16-06, 04:21 PM	Now, this sorcerer of mine dealt more damage on average than ALL the other characters, and it was a big party. I was dishing out an average of 20 damage every battle round. *snigger* Your martial party members couldn't top 20 damage per round? That's ... That's truly sad. :weep:
TheSkinnySkeleton 06-16-06, 05:04 PM	*snigger* Your martial party members couldn't top 20 damage per round? That's ... That's truly sad. Oh, they could, and did. But they still couldn't beat the damage I was doing with my Evocation spells ON AVERAGE. I was doing consistent damage every single round and had lucky damage rolls, and the others were hitting maybe half the time with their swords and axes. It was also an undead adventure, and many of the other PCs were roguish types, which means no sneak attacks, no crits, etc... When we were surrounded by Shadows, I was one of the only ones who could hit the bloody things. Evocation still has its punch. Who cares if there isn't a huge selection of spells to choose from? The ones we have are GOLD.
smrtgmp 06-16-06, 06:02 PM	I don't believe the force orb is the be all end all spell but it should not be a conjuration spell.This I agree with. The flavor is god-awful, but that doesnt make the spell broken. I houseruled a vast majority of [force] spells back to evocation IMC.
camble 06-16-06, 07:29 PM	It makes me laugh that they brought back duel school spells from 2nd edition in the PHB2. With all the new spells that run rampant over the school classifications they needed it.
AvaronGansdell 06-16-06, 10:46 PM	hmm lets see lv9 1/2 orc barbarian/fighter 22 strenght two handed weapon rages full power attack. +13 attack 2d6+24 damage full attack +13/+8 same damage. thats with no magic items and just useing the PHB. with moderate magic items a +1 shocking lets say two handed sword and bracers for +4 strenght this goes up to. +16/+11 attack 2d6+1d6+28 damage spellcasters doing damage is the way of the past back before fighters did huge damage.
AvaronGansdell 06-16-06, 10:49 PM	note that even with no magic items if you hit both attacks thats an avarage of 60 damage useing up no resorces or an avarage of 74 damage with magic items.
TheSkinnySkeleton 06-17-06, 12:18 AM	hmm lets see lv9 1/2 orc barbarian/fighter 22 strenght two handed weapon rages full power attack. +13 attack 2d6+24 damage Et cetera. All of that's assuming the fighter DOES hit, however. Also, it's assuming that the fighter is OPTIMISED. And that the enemy is within melee range and not ethereal. With most Evocation spells, the spellcaster need not have spectacular ability scores, he need only be capable of casting the spell in question and he can still damage flying ethereal enemies every battle round. For the same barbarian in question to be this effective, he'd have to have a compound longbow made for his rage strength and a healthy stock of true strike ghost-touch arrows. Dunno about you, but I'd rather rely on minimal supplies than magic items. Another bonus of most Evocation spells is that they're easily usable by newcomers to the game. The rules are almost always very straightforward for these spells, even more straightforward than melee combat. Plus, most Evocation spells have minimal/no material components. Anyways, this thread isn't supposed to be about Evokers VS fighters. My particular example used one adventure in one party, and I already said I had better luck than the other PCs. This thread is supposed to be about Evokers VS Conjurers. Who is stronger between the two specialist types in terms of pure damage done? One thing Conjurers have going for them is their summoning spells IN ADDITION to their damage spells. This is pretty powerful.
AvaronGansdell 06-17-06, 12:42 AM	I just have to note that only force spells ignore etherial all other spells are painfully effected. Evokers are better at AOE damage usualy but conjuerers are better at targeted spells it seems..unfortunatly AOE can be tough if you dont roll 20;s for inititve much as by time a few people have gone there is usualy atleast a few allies in combat witht he guys you want to blast. sadly after your friends get to move its usualy very hard to cast ranged touch spells. at this point blaster wizards should start off as humans with point blank shot and precise shot and then at 3ed grab cordinated shot from heros of battle. the seeker ray spell from PHB2 was a nice step in the right direction lets hope that new mage book follows the trend and makes direct damage wizards a viable option again.
TheSkinnySkeleton 06-17-06, 12:58 AM	I just have to note that only force spells ignore etherial all other spells are painfully effected. Bingo. And Evokers specialize in force spells. Blaster wizards should start off as humans with point blank shot and precise shot and then at 3rd grab cordinated shot from heros of battle. If a wizard wants to specialize in combat, yes, combat feats would be the best option for him. Metamagic feats can not outweigh this. On the other hand, force spells need no feats or attack rolls to be effective. Perhaps I should stop rooting for Evokers and start preaching the strength of the Force Mage, being a kind of subschool of Evocation.
Vaelan 06-17-06, 07:59 AM	Evokers are better at AOE damage usualy but conjuerers are better at targeted spells it seems.. First of all, they aren't targetted spells. Targetted spells have "Target: one creature" or a similar entry in their descriptions. The spells in question are invariably Effect spells. Second, Evocation is still better at damaging single creatures due to cap-breaking spells like Scorching Ray, Moonbow, and Meteor Swarm. Evocations, when scaled properly through metamagic are strictly superior to Conjurations except for the fact that Spell Resistance applies.
smrtgmp 06-17-06, 09:32 AM	It makes me laugh that they brought back duel school spells from 2nd edition in the PHB2. With all the new spells that run rampant over the school classifications they needed it.I was glad to see they made a comeback. Even the PHB is full of spells that dont neatly fit into one school, and I see no reason to limit spells in such a manner.
camble 06-17-06, 01:56 PM	Just to expand on what I was saying before I would agree that every thing doesn't always fit into nice and neat catagories and that you can easily take different paths to accomplish the same goal. Looking at the healing subschool in conjuration as an example. You could just as easily create and manipulate positive energy through evocation to heal or directly staunch bleeding and repair wounds through necromancy and or transmutation. You wouldn't necessarily get equal benefit from the different paths and some paths should be so hard as to basicly be Impossible and that is how it should be since some things should be left a nitch or three. Something the new conjurations spells seem to ignore. It took me awhile to become accustomed to and accept the new classifications that WOTC decided on and now it seems they are bringing some things back like duel schools. This could work as a possible solution to what I see as a growing trend with the new conjuration spells (making them Conj/Evoc) but Its probably going to die a horrible painful death. Since I doubt WOTC going to revamp through errata the spells already out and new books that come out aren't going to pay any attention to it.
smrtgmp 06-17-06, 05:26 PM	I agree with you all around. and dont even get me started on conjuration (healing)... :nonono:
camble 06-17-06, 05:36 PM	Yea that decision made me go :twitch:
IV 06-17-06, 05:48 PM	I believe that Evocation should become a sub-school of Conjuration. Why you ask? Well you see, Conjuration is the summoning of some sort of source, energy, etc and using it for your own personal needs. Am I correct? Well evocation is shaping pure energy into a damaging form. So isn't the act of getting this energy in itself conjuring? So couldn't evocation be justified as sub-school of conjuration?
camble 06-17-06, 06:01 PM	If you do that you might as well do the same to necromancy make it a sub school of transformation and illusion a sub school of enchantments. There is a important distinction between evocation and conjuration as well. one creates the energy the other brings it in from somewhere else. A envoker would twist the power of magic to generate fire A conjurer would basicly pull a piece from the elemental planes to get his fire
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-17-06, 06:17 PM	There is a important distinction between evocation and conjuration as well. one creates the energy the other brings it in from somewhere else. A envoker would twist the power of magic to generate fire A conjurer would basicly pull a piece from the elemental planes to get his fire Honestly that kind of crap is bad for the game. I think all effects should generally be lumped into a single school. If you want to create an illusion, you should have to use the illusion school, not some crazy explanation about how you're really using evocation to warp light and create sound to create something resembling an illusion. The conjuration attack spells are bothersome in my opinion. Conjuration was never meant to be a directly offensive school, it should be more about summoning monsters to attack or creating walls to block off the battlefield.
camble 06-17-06, 07:01 PM	Its not crap It is how the magic system works. Why is it so hard to believe there are different ways to approuch a problem and still come up with nearly the same solution. There of coarse should be limits to this type of thing but to say there should be none. Is ignoring the fact that it already happens and has happened since the beginning of the game.
Kith_Adorin 06-17-06, 07:29 PM	I believe that Evocation should become a sub-school of Conjuration. Why you ask? Well you see, Conjuration is the summoning of some sort of source, energy, etc and using it for your own personal needs. Am I correct? Well evocation is shaping pure energy into a damaging form. So isn't the act of getting this energy in itself conjuring? So couldn't evocation be justified as sub-school of conjuration? I personally think it should be the other way. Conjuration a subschool of evocation. Why? Because Evo is Manipulating and creating energy. DnD could have had it as evocation that creates or manipulate the energy to bring forth a "insert whatever creature* to your plane of existence. Really if you want to go hardcore with it, every school of magic could be a subschool of Evocation. Reason being, no magic so whatever from any school does not use energy to create their affects. *Create an illusion, meld stone to mud by manipulating the energy in it* But of course, it could probably go anyway with all the schools being subschools of each other. :D
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-17-06, 11:39 PM	Its not crap It is how the magic system works. Why is it so hard to believe there are different ways to approuch a problem and still come up with nearly the same solution. There of coarse should be limits to this type of thing but to say there should be none. Is ignoring the fact that it already happens and has happened since the beginning of the game. Because it's a game and the magic schools are supposed to represent certain mechanical effects. Now it's ok to overlap effects a little sometimes if one school does an effect more inefficient than another (for instance shadow evocation for illusion is ok), but it's not a good thing to do blatant school archetype theft such as the orb of force, orb of fire, etc. Evocation is the direct damage blasting school, no school should do it better, or even as good. Keeping school paradigms intact helps balance out the specialist wizard who is supposed to be giving something up by not taking a given school. If you don't do that, being a specialist wizard is meaningless since you can just invent all kinds of crap to circumvent the spell system.
Marshall 06-18-06, 12:30 AM	Because it's a game and the magic schools are supposed to represent certain mechanical effects. Now it's ok to overlap effects a little sometimes if one school does an effect more inefficient than another (for instance shadow evocation for illusion is ok), but it's not a good thing to do blatant school archetype theft such as the orb of force, orb of fire, etc. Rock on, brother! Evocation is the direct damage blasting school, no school should do it better, or even as good. Thats way to narrow a definition of Evoc. Evoc is the manipulation of energy, usually elemental energy and Force. Conj is the manipulation of MATTER. Which includes the semi-material "Acid Energy". OTOH, I really cant see an Evoc(Healing) subschool for manipulation of Pos/Neg energy so give that to the school that already specializes in manipulation of that axis, Necromancy. Keeping school paradigms intact helps balance out the specialist wizard who is supposed to be giving something up by not taking a given school. If you don't do that, being a specialist wizard is meaningless since you can just invent all kinds of crap to circumvent the spell system. Hear! Hear!
camble 06-18-06, 12:38 AM	Because it's a game and the magic schools are supposed to represent certain mechanical effects. Now it's ok to overlap effects a little sometimes if one school does an effect more inefficient than another (for instance shadow evocation for illusion is ok), but it's not a good thing to do blatant school archetype theft such as the orb of force, orb of fire, etc. Evocation is the direct damage blasting school, no school should do it better, or even as good. Keeping school paradigms intact helps balance out the specialist wizard who is supposed to be giving something up by not taking a given school. If you don't do that, being a specialist wizard is meaningless since you can just invent all kinds of crap to circumvent the spell system. Then I guess we agree. I don't think that force orb should be conjuration as for the others they should be higher level do less damage or lose the ability to ignore sr. The last seems to go against the whole point of the spell so it should be the last possible option considered. Considering acid arrow is the only direct damage conjuration spell of that level originally incorporated into the PHB It would stand to reason it should be used as a guideline.
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-18-06, 01:30 AM	Thats way to narrow a definition of Evoc. Evoc is the manipulation of energy, usually elemental energy and Force. Conj is the manipulation of MATTER. Which includes the semi-material "Acid Energy". OTOH, I really cant see an Evoc(Healing) subschool for manipulation of Pos/Neg energy so give that to the school that already specializes in manipulation of that axis, Necromancy. Yeah, I've always thought conjuration should have all the acid spells, since acid is more a substance than a form of energy, though acid spells damage wise should remain inferior to evocations, in the same way scorching ray beats out acid arrow by a pretty wide margin. As for necromancy, necro is a rather difficult school to deal with. The problem is that most of its effects tend to be copies of other schools. Creating undead for instance, seems to infringe on conjuration spells. Curses like blindness or ray of enfeeblement could also be transmutation, etc. Really, necromancy has only a few true iconic effects (moving souls for instance), which could really be placed into other schools anyway if wanted to. Personally I would like to get rid of necromancy as a school and instead turn it into a descriptor. So enervation could be Evocation [Negative Energy] [Necromancy]. And create undead could be Conjuration (Calling) [Necromancy]. And that way we'd still have a way to talk about Necromancy if we ever wanted to make a necromancer PrC who was especially good at it, or what not, but we wouldn't have it screwing with the school archetypes.
camble 06-18-06, 02:45 AM	Personally I would like to get rid of necromancy as a school and instead turn it into a descriptor. So enervation could be Evocation [Negative Energy] [Necromancy]. And create undead could be Conjuration (Calling) [Necromancy]. And that way we'd still have a way to talk about Necromancy if we ever wanted to make a necromancer PrC who was especially good at it, or what not, but we wouldn't have it screwing with the school archetypes. Now that is a really good Idea. I never really thought necromancy made a good school as a whole but necromancers are such a arch type that It seemed impossible to lose it. Making it a descriptor could make that a possibility.
Kith_Adorin 06-18-06, 07:06 PM	Personally I would like to get rid of necromancy as a school and instead turn it into a descriptor. So enervation could be Evocation [Negative Energy] [Necromancy]. And create undead could be Conjuration (Calling) [Necromancy]. And that way we'd still have a way to talk about Necromancy if we ever wanted to make a necromancer PrC who was especially good at it, or what not, but we wouldn't have it screwing with the school archetypes. That is a very nice idea.
IV 06-18-06, 09:46 PM	If you do that you might as well do the same to necromancy make it a sub school of transformation and illusion a sub school of enchantments. There is a important distinction between evocation and conjuration as well. one creates the energy the other brings it in from somewhere else. A envoker would twist the power of magic to generate fire A conjurer would basicly pull a piece from the elemental planes to get his fire An evoker is still gaining his power from another source so it's still conjuring. That's my thoughts atleast. Your just not getting it from the Elemental Plane of Fire, instead you are getting it from another source. Either way your still getting the power from another source.
AvaronGansdell 06-18-06, 10:03 PM	long ago in the before time the school was Invocation/Evocation it was all about calling upon the power of other beings and or summoning up magical energys yourself it granted the wizard devestating magical attacks. but that was all before now it grants wizards contigency spell and a few joke effects that can easily be lost.
Wonton2006 06-18-06, 11:18 PM	I agree with you all around. and dont even get me started on conjuration (healing)... :nonono: Conjuration (Teleportation) is almost as bad. You're creating motion, perhaps? Please explain to me why that shouldn't be Transmutation, Evocation, or even freaking Necromancy? And why, if Shadow matter partially real (20-80%, depending on the spell), is it Illusion (Shadow)??? :rolleyes:
AvaronGansdell 06-18-06, 11:52 PM	when 3ed eddition came out we got the fantastic new game system, new skill, new combat manuvers and these cool new feat things but we still got stuck with the same magic system that has been used sence the earliest days of this game. and infact most of the iconic spells barely changed when they went from one eddition to the next. you have to go back a very long way to find a time when magic misstle didnt do 1d4+1/2 levels and I cant remember a time when fireball didnt do 1d6/mages level with a save for 1/2 the game has changed so much...mostly for the better why isent the magic changeing with it.
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-19-06, 12:33 AM	Conjuration (Teleportation) is almost as bad. You're creating motion, perhaps? Please explain to me why that shouldn't be Transmutation, Evocation, or even freaking Necromancy? And why, if Shadow matter partially real (20-80%, depending on the spell), is it Illusion (Shadow)??? :rolleyes: Well, the act of Conjuring a creature (pulling it from some place else and bringing it here) is a form of teleportation. I think teleport kind of fits best in Conjuration, since it's very similar to a summoning or calling spell, but in this case instead of moving a balor from the Abyss to your position, you're moving yourself somewhere. Shadow is kinda odd, but I think it's because the high level illusionist needed something, illusions that could really hurt people. Considering that by 3rd level you can basically do all you need to with the classic illusion type spells.