PDA

View Full Version : Banning Evocation



mr.fizzypop
2009-12-31, 12:25 PM
So in my current DnD group, we have a player who decided to become a conjurer. Yet what surprised the others in the group is that he banned evocation. The other players in the group find it outrageous that he would not use spells like fireball or lightning bolt. But he says that any evocation spell can be matched by a spell from another school.

Is he correct? Is evocation as terrible of a school as he says?

Mushroom Ninja
2009-12-31, 12:28 PM
Is he correct? Is evocation as terrible of a school as he says?

Evocation is the ultimate "anything I can do, you can do better" school. Its best spells (wind wall, wall of force, contingency, etc.) can be duplicated by illusion, and conjuration can outblast it.

Signmaker
2009-12-31, 12:29 PM
Evocation gets redundant if you're the blasty kind of evoker. Evocation's not bad, per se, but it's got a lot of redundant spell choices, plenty of which are existent in some other fashion in other spell types. The alternatives are not always as powerful (Read: Shadow Evocation), but they exist. So it's not that hard to ban evocation, because there isn't as much to be missed as compared to other spell schools.

kamikasei
2009-12-31, 12:29 PM
Well, it's not terrible. But it's not great. Direct damage isn't the best strategy for wizards, not by a long shot, and there are plenty of spells in other schools that let you deal it anyway. Conjuration especially is just overall a stronger school.

Signmaker
2009-12-31, 12:31 PM
Well, it's not terrible. But it's not great. Direct damage isn't the best strategy for wizards, not by a long shot, and there are plenty of spells in other schools that let you deal it anyway. Conjuration especially is just overall a stronger school.

I blame the sheer versatility of the conjuration school. I wonder if you can't split the conjuration school in to two school types, and still maintain balance with the other spellcasting schools.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 12:32 PM
So in my current DnD group, we have a player who decided to become a conjurer. Yet what surprised the others in the group is that he banned evocation. The other players in the group find it outrageous that he would not use spells like fireball or lightning bolt. But he says that any evocation spell can be matched by a spell from another school.

Is he correct? Is evocation as terrible of a school as he says?

It isn't my first choice of school to ban(enchantment is), but it's in the traditional top three choices to ban. It's not that it's terrible(it makes a fun specialist school too), it's just that you can afford to lose it.

There are a *lot* of damage spells out there, after all.

Now, if he also opted to ban conjuration, he has problems. Banning both evoc and conj results in some gaping holes for a wizard.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-12-31, 12:34 PM
Now, if he also opted to ban conjuration, he has problems. Banning both evoc and conj results in some gaping holes for a wizard.

Banning conjuration alone is enough to cause gaping holes for a wizard. Lack of teleportation hurts.

Signmaker
2009-12-31, 12:35 PM
Banning conjuration alone is enough to cause gaping holes for a wizard. Lack of teleportation hurts.

Unless you're Gandalf. In which case you ride on your rocket hor...crap. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantomSteed.htm)

aje8
2009-12-31, 12:36 PM
Specalist Conjurer banning Evocation (and Enchantment usually) is pretty much a standard optimized tactic.

Evocation is either the best or the 2nd best choice for schools to ban. IMO it's worse in terms of power level than Enchantment, but it's debateable.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 12:38 PM
Banning conjuration alone is enough to cause gaping holes for a wizard. Lack of teleportation hurts.

It does, yeah. Plotwise, a lot of DMs actually like it, but the lack of an escape button is a big deal.

The evocation replacements also come mostly from conj, so if you ban both, you have a sudden lack of nukes and such as well. Necromancy has a few, but they're rather specific, and AOEs in particular are pretty limited. Shadow evocation is also conjuration if Im not mistaken, correct?

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 12:39 PM
Conjuration has better direct-damage spells than Evocation, and direct-damage is usually a waste of time regardless.

Banning Evocation is what every Conjurer should do by default. You can get Contingency with Illusion (Shadow) spells.

Really, the only reason to not ban Evocation is if you plan on taking Arcane Disciple (Luck) to bust out the Miracles - and Illusion does that better anyway.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 12:40 PM
Ah, right, illusion. Wow, so even if conj is banned, evoc doesn't hurt as much as I'd thought.

I'd still ban enchantment first, though. Everything that matters ends up immune.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 12:42 PM
Ah, right, illusion. Wow, so even if conj is banned, evoc doesn't hurt as much as I'd thought.

I'd still ban enchantment first, though. Everything that matters ends up immune.

Oh, no, if you ban Conjuration you're restricted to Creation and Summoning - no Calling or Teleportation for you!

Mushroom Ninja
2009-12-31, 12:42 PM
Conjuration has better direct-damage spells than Evocation

In a core-only game, this isn't obviously so, but once thou doth addeth thine orbz, conjuration doth pwn evocation most heartily.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 12:47 PM
Oh, no, if you ban Conjuration you're restricted to Creation and Summoning - no Calling or Teleportation for you!

Summon monster line is all conjuration too, right?

Teleportation would suck a bit. I guess you could use wish/limited wish to replicate it, though. Limited wish should normally suffice.

I'd probably miss the creation spells more than most of the school, though.

Draz74
2009-12-31, 12:47 PM
Of course, all this standard "ban evocation!" advice can go out the window depending what books are allowed, what houserules the DM enforces, etc.

For example, just being a Generalist wizard becomes a much better option if the elven substitution levels from Races of the Wild is available. And when I DM, I generally nerf the Shadow Evocation spells so they can't do useful utility effects like Contingency. :smalltongue:

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 12:50 PM
Summon monster line is all conjuration too, right?

Teleportation would suck a bit. I guess you could use wish/limited wish to replicate it, though. Limited wish should normally suffice.

I'd probably miss the creation spells more than most of the school, though.

You can do Summoning and Creation with Illusion, so that's no reason to keep Conjuration.

aje8
2009-12-31, 12:50 PM
Of course, all this standard "ban evocation!" advice can go out the window depending what books are allowed, what houserules the DM enforces, etc.

For example, just being a Generalist wizard becomes a much better option if the elven substitution levels from Races of the Wild is available. And when I DM, I generally nerf the Shadow Evocation spells so they can't do useful utility effects like Contingency.
Disagree........ that generalist option is way worse than say Focused Specasist or Domain Wizard. Also, it doesn't get access to the Immediate Magic ACFs all of which are quite good. Finally, Craft Conitgenct Spell feat.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 01:01 PM
The Elf Generalsit is generally worse than a normal specialist - they get one extra spell slot, while a specialist starts with two and goes from there.

kentma57
2009-12-31, 01:03 PM
Well I usualy play Sorcerers so yeah...
When I play a Wizard I usualy don't ban schools(to represent someone who values all knowledge), when I do ban schools it means I am playing a character who loves/hates one thing. For example I'm playing a necromance, necromancers work with the natural world(if in an unnatural way) so I would never consider summoning something for outside or world(conjuration banned); Or I'm playing a conjurer I create matter, I would never thing of destroying it(evocation banned) and so on...

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-31, 01:12 PM
Conjuration is the only school I know of that even vaguely has the capacity to destroy matter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass)
From the roleplaying angle, I don't tend to view banned schools as intentional choices. My wizards aren't snooty enough to wholly close off options for the sake of power (though I am. :P) They're just natural disabilities.

Draz74
2009-12-31, 01:16 PM
Disagree........ that generalist option is way worse than say Focused Specasist or Domain Wizard. Also, it doesn't get access to the Immediate Magic ACFs all of which are quite good. Finally, Craft Conitgenct Spell feat.

I didn't say Elf Generalist was an optimized build. Just that it's a lot more appealing than other Generalist builds. (And Yuki -- the extra spells it learns for free at each level are also a pretty nice advantage in some campaigns.)

And the Immediate Magic ACFs are pretty crappy except for Abrupt Jaunt (which is too good).

And Craft Contingent Spell is another good example of something I would ban as DM. :smallsmile:

kentma57
2009-12-31, 01:33 PM
Conjuration is the only school I know of that even vaguely has the capacity to destroy matter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass)

Conjuration vs evocation is more of the creation vs destruction than actual destruction of matter, but you get the idea(you are right though, I just messed up).

Eldariel
2009-12-31, 01:34 PM
Frankly, in Core-only, you only need Necromancy or Evocation, not both. And thanks to Illusion replicating most of Evocation's best tricks, the choice tends to be quite easy. Not to mention, Enervation is a pretty good spell as far as offense goes. So yeah, banning Evocation and Enchantment is fine.

Due to this crap (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7550095&postcount=3), most notably the HP increase across the boards, damage spells became much worse from AD&D to 3e, making Fireball, Lightning Bolt and company most-of-the-time-waste-of-time-compared-to-other-actions.


Glitterdust or Web can just plain knock people out of fight while Fireball or Bolt does nothing to their combat efficiency. As such, Wizard is better off making the opponents inefficient in combat, efficiently one-shotting them out of it with lower level spells, than he is dealing damage that won't kill them and thus knock them out of the fight.

Crow
2009-12-31, 01:37 PM
Using Illusion spells to make up for spells like Wind Wall, or Contingency will heavily depend on what your DM is willing to let you get away with. They may rule (and could argue a case for) that whatever effect you are aiming for is only % likely to occur, as inanimate objects such as arrows are immune to illusions (in the case of wind wall), and the wizard "faking" contingency knows his spell is an illusion (disbelief). Consult your DM.

That said, I prefer generalist wizards. The only time that specialization really makes a difference is in the lower levels. By the mid to high levels, your wizard has so many tricks available that one extra spell per level isn't much of an issue anymore. Really, the only specialist wizard I would play would be a Diviner (ban evocation). There is a useful Divination spell at just about every level, and you're not really giving up much to get it.

deuxhero
2009-12-31, 01:38 PM
Uh, isn't Disintegrate transmutation?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 01:44 PM
Using Illusion spells to make up for spells like Wind Wall, or Contingency will heavily depend on what your DM is willing to let you get away with. They may rule (and could argue a case for) that whatever effect you are aiming for is only % likely to occur, as inanimate objects such as arrows are immune to illusions (in the case of wind wall), and the wizard "faking" contingency knows his spell is an illusion (disbelief). Consult your DM.

I bypass this issue by banning enchantment and illusion when I go specialist, frequently. Seriously, true seeing ends up getting pulled out quite often on the big stuff anyhow, and the amount of immune to mind-affecting creatures out there is insane.

So...you lose almost nothing of value at high level.


That said, I prefer generalist wizards. The only time that specialization really makes a difference is in the lower levels. By the mid to high levels, your wizard has so many tricks available that one extra spell per level isn't much of an issue anymore. Really, the only specialist wizard I would play would be a Diviner (ban evocation). There is a useful Divination spell at just about every level, and you're not really giving up much to get it.

It's not so much total spell volume as it is about
A. options
B. more of your highest level spell.

Generally, I tend to routinely burn through my top two levels of spells, so focused specialist or stock specialist means Im casting another top level spell(or two) instead of one a couple levels lower. That's significant.

As for options...having more spells prepared just makes you more versatile.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-31, 01:53 PM
Uh, isn't Disintegrate transmutation?

Yes, yes, it is. It's also pretty bad for damage, considering it's an attack roll (5% chance of failure, minimum) with SR: Yes, and a Fort Save (Good luck!).

Now, what your friend is doing with banning Evocation is simply following some pretty good advice. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19873034/Treantmonks_guide_to_Wizards:_Being_a_God) Nearly anything Evocation can do, Illusion, Conjuration, or something else can do better. See also: without metamagic shenanigans, the damage is also sub-par, and, of course, everyone else can do that, too.

taltamir
2009-12-31, 02:13 PM
first, direct damage is horribly sub par tactic... although it is mitigated if you min max it with meta magic reducers.

for some godawful reason WOTC made all the best blasting spells and best spells that deal energy (fire, ice, lightening, acid, sonic) conjuration.
along with giving them ridiculous things like the orb line...

To add insult to injury, conjuration also gets shadow conjuration... which mimics evocation. and teleport.

what hurts in losing evocation is losing contingency (unless shadow evocation can do it; or your DM stealth / non stealth nerfs it) and losing the wall of force and cage of force... although frankly, a prismatic wall / sphere are far superior and those are abjuration.

I think any conjuration spell that deals energy damage should be evocation... and maybe roll in a teleport just to make it hurt to ban the school. (to keep people from baning enchantment outright. Take the spells that make you immune to enchantment and make then add resistance or have a limit of X spell levels.. instead of just having a level 1 spell make you immune to an entire school)

Crow
2009-12-31, 02:16 PM
Generally, I tend to routinely burn through my top two levels of spells, so focused specialist or stock specialist means Im casting another top level spell(or two) instead of one a couple levels lower. That's significant.

As for options...having more spells prepared just makes you more versatile.

It's a matter of playstyle then. I tend to hold on to those top level spells and use them more sparingly, so that when I do need them, I can really nova.

aje8
2009-12-31, 02:16 PM
That said, I prefer generalist wizards. The only time that specialization really makes a difference is in the lower levels. By the mid to high levels, your wizard has so many tricks available that one extra spell per level isn't much of an issue anymore. Really, the only specialist wizard I would play would be a Diviner (ban evocation). There is a useful Divination spell at just about every level, and you're not really giving up much to get it.
Thing is though, as demonstrated my TreantmonkLv.20 on the Wizards boards, you lose almost no versatility by being a Specalist or Focused Specalist. He did extensive anaysis of the subject here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19864630/Focused_Specialist_is_better_than_you_think).


I bypass this issue by banning enchantment and illusion when I go specialist, frequently. Seriously, true seeing ends up getting pulled out quite often on the big stuff anyhow, and the amount of immune to mind-affecting creatures out there is insane.

Really Because I'd argue that Illusion is the 3rd best school, a never ban. Even if you ignore the extremely powerful Shadow Evocation, it still has plety of spells that are just great. For example, Mirror Image is a staple of Player vs. Player duels. It is simply one of the best defensive spells in DnD. It's greater version is even an immediate action. Yes, many things have True Seeing at the high levels, but even then, the ability to be essentially unkillable by things that don't having it (via Invisibility and it's greater version) is not something you want to lose. Additionally, the school is very strong early in the game when Wizards are weak. The Silent Image line and stuff like Phantasmal Strangler plus the good defensive spells..... yeah. Even if gets weaker when you're like level 15, by that time your world-shatteringly powerful so who cares? I can kinda see banning it if the game starts at a high level, but for a normal from level 1 game, that seems suboptimal.

Crow
2009-12-31, 02:21 PM
Thing is though, as demonstrated my TreantmonkLv.20 on the Wizards boards, you lose almost no versatility by being a Specalist or Focused Specalist. He did extensive anaysis of the subject here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19864630/Focused_Specialist_is_better_than_you_think).

Did you read the first part of my post? A lot of the tricks that people use to get around their banned schools can be dependant upon your DM.

Seriously though, I've never really been hurt by missing that one spell per level. That is what Scribe Scroll is for.

edit: I wil admit, that regular specialization does not seem worth it when compared to the Focused Specialist, which is just awesome.

aje8
2009-12-31, 02:24 PM
How about the trick of not casitng them at all and not getting around it? I don't need a trick to get around them.... I'll simply not cast Evocation and Enchantment (and Abjuration usually as I play a Focused Specalist) and lose very little from doing so. The fact is, you really don't get that much versatility from being able to cast the weaker schools. And 1 slot per level amounts to 9 slots across your career...... it's more significant than you'd think.

Oh and FWI Scribe Scroll definatley doesn't qualify as a solution. It costs exp, the most valuable DnD commoditiy. Also, by using Scribe Scroll, that means you haven't traded it away via Martial Wizard variant for Improved Intiative. So.... you basically have to spend a feat on it.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 02:27 PM
Did you read the first part of my post? A lot of the tricks that people use to get around their banned schools can be dependant upon your DM.

If you play anywhere close to RAW, this isn't the case. UMD and/or limited wish are solid, core ways of getting access to spells from banned schools.

Plus, the best way of getting around banned schools is using similar spells from non-banned schools. There are a few notorious spells for which this is hard. For most though...damage, SoDs, etc, not really a hardship.


Seriously though, I've never really been hurt by missing that one spell per level. That is what Scribe Scroll is for.

Scribe scroll is for keeping around those rarely used lifesaver spells. That thing you'll only ever need once, but *really* need it then. Water breathing, etc.

Using it to supplement your daily spellcasting is a waste of gp, xp, and scribing time(one scroll per day, right? How many spells per day are you replicating with scrolls?).



Yeah, illusion is level specific. If you play say, E6, I'd never ban it. Test of Spite? Not worth preparing the spells from it.

Crow
2009-12-31, 02:31 PM
How about the trick of not casitng them at all and not getting around it? I don't need a trick to get around them.... I'll simply not cast Evocation and Enchantment (and Abjuration usually as I play a Focused Specalist) and lose very little from doing so. The fact is, you really don't get that much versatility from being able to cast the weaker schools.

Hey man, it's a matter of playstyle. A lot will depend on what material is allowed in your game as well. The more material allowed, the less any loss will hurt you. As usual, you need to consult your DM. We usually only play core. I like having spells like Dominate around when I need them, and spells like Wall of Force, or Forcecage. Contingency tied to featherfall is a gem for casting a spell whenever you want. Depending on how your DM rules, you may not have workarounds for those spells.

As I said earlier, Scribe scroll is more than sufficient for me. I rarely ever burn through my high-level spells. The scrolls are there if I need them, but I usually don't. A wizard has so many spells at his call anyways, that those extra slots really don't matter. You could take -1 slots per level and still blow through every encounter. Limited Wish is only a solid option if you have no other options. It is simply too expensive. UMD can be very unreliable without the proper items and stats, especially at lower levels.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 02:39 PM
I've never understood the traditional example of a contingent featherfall. Contingent fly is drastically better, and is also available the instant you get contingency.

Anything you can get a dominate off on generally isn't worth dominating. First off, it isn't a spellcaster. It isn't any of the fun things like undead that are immune. It isn't anything with high will.

So...you got a crappy minion and removed a crappy enemy. That general result can be replicated with other spells.

Crow
2009-12-31, 02:45 PM
I've never understood the traditional example of a contingent featherfall. Contingent fly is drastically better, and is also available the instant you get contingency.

Yes, you don't understand. But then, I don't see it mentioned here a lot, so I can see how what I typed probably didn't make sense. You tie your contingency to the condition "When I cast featherfall." Feather Fall is an immediate action spell, which allows you to interrupt somebody elses' turn. It's a staple in games where material outside core is not allowed, or when Celerity has been banned.


Anything you can get a dominate off on generally isn't worth dominating. First off, it isn't a spellcaster. It isn't any of the fun things like undead that are immune. It isn't anything with high will.

So...you got a crappy minion and removed a crappy enemy. That general result can be replicated with other spells.

There are some beefy creatures out there that are worth having around. Many of which are better than the options available to wizards through the Summon Monster line. A common trope on these boards is the wizard who doesn't need a party because he can use summon monster to finish off his foes. Dominate does the same thing, but lasts as long as you need it. Of course, you could still use Summon Monster to the same effect, but then it just becomes a matter of potato, potatoe.

aje8
2009-12-31, 02:51 PM
Yes, you don't understand. But then, I don't see it mentioned here a lot, so I can see how what I typed probably didn't make sense. You tie your contingency to the condition "When I cast featherfall." Feather Fall is an immediate action spell, which allows you to interrupt somebody elses' turn. It's a staple in games where material outside core is not allowed, or when Celerity has been banned.
But talking is a free rather than an immediate action. So why not not tie it to "When I say Flabbible gips." That way, you can use a swift action AND activate your contigency in the same turn.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 02:51 PM
Yes, you don't understand. But then, I don't see it mentioned here a lot, so I can see how what I typed probably didn't make sense. You tie your contingency to the condition "When I cast featherfall." Feather Fall is an immediate action spell, which allows you to interrupt somebody elses' turn. It's a staple in games where material outside core is not allowed, or when Celerity has been banned.

Then...why waste a spell slot and an immediate action when speaking is a free action? Key it to the word "cherry", and life is great. Unless you get in a conversation about ice cream toppings.


There are some beefy creatures out there that are worth having around. Many of which are better than the options available to wizards through the Summon Monster line. A common trope on these boards is the wizard who doesn't need a party because he can use summon monster to finish off his foes. Dominate does the same thing, but lasts as long as you need it. Of course, you could still use Summon Monster to the same effect, but then it just becomes a matter of potato, potatoe.

That's the entire point. If you can just use a spell from a different school to the same effect, then that spell is replacable. Schools with heavily replacable or unimportant spells are prime ban candidates.

taltamir
2009-12-31, 02:57 PM
Hey man, it's a matter of playstyle. A lot will depend on what material is allowed in your game as well. The more material allowed, the less any loss will hurt you. As usual, you need to consult your DM. We usually only play core. I like having spells like Dominate around when I need them, and spells like Wall of Force, or Forcecage. Contingency tied to featherfall is a gem for casting a spell whenever you want. Depending on how your DM rules, you may not have workarounds for those spells.

feather fall is an immediate interrupt... you can cast it in someone elses turn. as long as you are conscious. A ring of always on featherfall is 2,200 gp, and a slotless item of featherfall is thus 2x that amount at 4,400.
Contingency has much better uses than wasting it on feather fall... for example, teleport me to a temple if i fall unconscious.
even if you fall unconscious and get thrown off a cliff at the same time, you will be instantly teleported to a temple, thus not taking any falling damage.


I've never understood the traditional example of a contingent featherfall. Contingent fly is drastically better, and is also available the instant you get contingency.
Also, featherfall has a duration, so if you fall from too high it will end and you keep on falling... fly, while also has a duration, ends with a featherfall that has a duration of "however long it takes you to land safely"... so fly is a better featherfall if only a really tall cliff... not that you need it, just free fall until you are 100 feet from the ground then activate the feather fall.


Yes, you don't understand. But then, I don't see it mentioned here a lot, so I can see how what I typed probably didn't make sense. You tie your contingency to the condition "When I cast featherfall." Feather Fall is an immediate action spell, which allows you to interrupt somebody elses' turn. It's a staple in games where material outside core is not allowed, or when Celerity has been banned.
aha, so that is what you were getting at... that is not contingent featherfall, that is contingent <spell> to activate when casting featherfall...


Then...why waste a spell slot and an immediate action when speaking is a free action? Key it to the word "cherry", and life is great. Unless you get in a conversation about ice cream toppings.

ninjad... speaking is also an immediate interrupt.

ericgrau
2009-12-31, 02:58 PM
So in my current DnD group, we have a player who decided to become a conjurer. Yet what surprised the others in the group is that he banned evocation. The other players in the group find it outrageous that he would not use spells like fireball or lightning bolt. But he says that any evocation spell can be matched by a spell from another school.

Is he correct? Is evocation as terrible of a school as he says?

Search these forums, this topic is way too common here. Your friend probably got the idea from the internet. Common solution is the cheesy orb of X spells: ranged touch attack, no save no SR damage, any type you want, conjuration school. Wtf? Exactly.

That said it's still easy to play a good caster without ever doing a single point of damage. Let him introduce some interesting spells to your group. Read his spell list ahead of time to disallow the extra cheesy spells, unless your group likes to powergame. And look them up, maybe print or bookmark them, to know the weaknesses of the other spells so he doesn't auto-win encounters just b/c you don't know the rules on how to handle it. Also check the rules on any status effects the spells cause. Blindness/invisibility doesn't take monsters out of a fight, being prone or crawling is bad but acceptable (and often better than standing back up), walls are destructible, etc. That doesn't mean you tailor encounters against him, it means you understand the rules for the natural responses of regular monsters. Because Roy's sword should not go "clink" here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html).

urkthegurk
2009-12-31, 03:00 PM
Of course, all this standard "ban evocation!" advice can go out the window depending what books are allowed, what houserules the DM enforces, etc.

For example, just being a Generalist wizard becomes a much better option if the elven substitution levels from Races of the Wild is available. And when I DM, I generally nerf the Shadow Evocation spells so they can't do useful utility effects like Contingency. :smalltongue:

I nerf them up the ying yang. They've always bothered me; They're stealing! Sure, its illusion, but if a whole school starts to become redundant because of one set of copycat spells, get rid of those spells.

I like the idea of them, but like Draz say's, they shouldn't do contingency. Well, I say they can only do maybe a dozen evocation spells each, unique for each caster.

Contingency should be universal school anyway.

EDIT:


Then...why waste a spell slot and an immediate action when speaking is a free action? Key it to the word "cherry", and life is great. Unless you get in a conversation about ice cream toppings.


Speaking is a free action. Feather fall is immediate. Or 'quick.' I'm not sure what the rules call it.

Crow
2009-12-31, 03:00 PM
That's the entire point. If you can just use a spell from a different school to the same effect, then that spell is replacable. Schools with heavily replacable or unimportant spells are prime ban candidates.

Because spells like Dominate have a duration that is vastly superior. While you can manage the same feats in a tactical fashion using Summon Monster, Dominate allows you to carry it into the strategic realm. Your Dominated beatstick can be used for the rest of the day, or for the next few weeks for the cost of that one slot. At least until he dies. Throw in standard low-level buffs like the Animals line and Heroism, etc, and you have a very durable beatstick.

edit: taltamir, the feather fall is only the trigger.

You can key your contingency to speech if you want, no problem, but a silent spelled feather fall is the ultimate what-if trigger in core.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-31, 03:03 PM
Read his spell list ahead of time to disallow the extra cheesy spells, unless your group likes to powergame.

Cheesy is a meaningless word. Much, much too subjective unless you're talking about dairy products.

taltamir
2009-12-31, 03:03 PM
eh, the REAL good spells from enchatment are things like charm person and the godly feeblemind

there are some nice spells in every school, and it hurts to see yourself lose possibilities... thing is, with so few spell slots you don't have enough slots to even prepare those spells. And scrolls have crap save DC.

So by taking specialist or even focused specialist you get enough spells to almost miss not have a few spells... but still not quite there.
that being said, sure you CAN be a generalist... and heck, I like it a lot more. I don't want to specialize... but I will admit it is a superior tactic.

ericgrau
2009-12-31, 03:04 PM
Read his spell list ahead of time to disallow the extra cheesy spells, unless your group likes to powergame.


Cheesy is a meaningless word. Much, much too subjective unless you're talking about dairy products.

Good thing the 2nd part of that sentence is a subjective qualifier.

robotrobot2
2009-12-31, 03:09 PM
Contingency tied to featherfall doesn't cast featherfall, it activates when you cast featherfall. The point of it is so that whatever spell is activated by the contingency you effectively cast as an immediate action. Word it like this:
Contingency:
Activate whenever I cast the spell "featherfall"
Cast spell: Mirror Image, Blink, or whatever other spell you want to have activate

This is yet another way a wizard can break action economy.

Edit: very ninjaed

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-31, 03:12 PM
Good thing the 2nd part of that sentence is a subjective qualifier.

It's not enough of one. What is a cheesy spell? Nobody can define it. Nobody. Subjective things are fine; "cheesy" is too subjective. The qualifier at the end doesn't help much, since there are many different ways to powergame.

ericgrau
2009-12-31, 03:14 PM
Dood, it's an entirely subjective statement left up to the DM to decide with only 1 thing that might be considered a specific example in another paragraph. Let him decide what's cheesy and stop pretending that you aren't really trying to stop people from ever bringing up the topic.

taltamir
2009-12-31, 03:16 PM
Contingency tied to featherfall doesn't cast featherfall, it activates when you cast featherfall. The point of it is so that whatever spell is activated by the contingency you effectively cast as an immediate action. Word it like this:
Contingency:
Activate whenever I cast the spell "featherfall"
Cast spell: Mirror Image, Blink, or whatever other spell you want to have activate

This is yet another way a wizard can break action economy.

Edit: very ninjaed

an immediate spell interrupts your enemies turn, uses up a spell slot (level 1 in this case), and counts against your limit of 1 swift/immediate action per round.
Saying a word can is a free action, it is also immediate, also can be done on someone elses turn, and it does NOT use up your limit of 1 swift/immediate per round.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 03:18 PM
an immediate spell interrupts your enemies turn, uses up a spell slot (level 1 in this case), and counts against your limit of 1 swift/immediate action per round.
Saying a word can is a free action, it is also immediate, also can be done on someone elses turn, and it does NOT use up your limit of 1 swift/immediate per round.

'zactly. This is just a glorified version of a quickened spell. Not worth wasting your contingency on.

Using it with speech allows you to use it in addition to a quickened spell. Long as you're breaking action economy, you might as well have fun with it.

taltamir
2009-12-31, 03:20 PM
plus for hillarity, you can agree with the DM to intentionally chose a short easy to saw word... and see when it triggers by accident ;)

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 03:41 PM
'zactly. This is just a glorified version of a quickened spell. Not worth wasting your contingency on.

Using it with speech allows you to use it in addition to a quickened spell. Long as you're breaking action economy, you might as well have fun with it.

No, it's better than a quickened spell, because you can cast it when it's not your turn.

deuxhero
2009-12-31, 03:42 PM
Yes, yes, it is. It's also pretty bad for damage, considering it's an attack roll (5% chance of failure, minimum) with SR: Yes, and a Fort Save (Good luck!).

Now, what your friend is doing with banning Evocation is simply following some pretty good advice. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19873034/Treantmonks_guide_to_Wizards:_Being_a_God) Nearly anything Evocation can do, Illusion, Conjuration, or something else can do better. See also: without metamagic shenanigans, the damage is also sub-par, and, of course, everyone else can do that, too.

I was referring to the "only school that can destory matter" bit.

taltamir
2009-12-31, 03:42 PM
No, it's better than a quickened spell, because you can cast it when it's not your turn.

true, it is better than quicken... but it is not as good as keying it off of a free action.

Draz74
2009-12-31, 04:23 PM
Ahem. There's one little fact here that seems to be the source of a lot of confusion between the two sides of this debate.

FREE ACTIONS CAN ONLY BE TAKEN ON YOUR OWN TURN.

So yes, tying Contingency to Feather Fall makes a lot of sense. And now the people who already knew that can see why the people arguing with them made sense (based on a faulty understanding of the rules about free actions).

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 04:25 PM
Ahem. There's one little fact here that seems to be the source of a lot of confusion between the two sides of this debate.

FREE ACTIONS CAN ONLY BE TAKEN ON YOUR OWN TURN.

So yes, tying Contingency to Feather Fall makes a lot of sense. And now the people who already knew that can see why the people arguing with them made sense (based on a faulty understanding of the rules about free actions).

Speaking can explicitly be done out of turn.

Signmaker
2009-12-31, 04:28 PM
Ahem. There's one little fact here that seems to be the source of a lot of confusion between the two sides of this debate.

FREE ACTIONS CAN ONLY BE TAKEN ON YOUR OWN TURN.

So yes, tying Contingency to Feather Fall makes a lot of sense. And now the people who already knew that can see why the people arguing with them made sense (based on a faulty understanding of the rules about free actions).


Speak

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

En Garde, scoundrel! Thrust! Parry!

Pluto
2009-12-31, 04:37 PM
I consider myself pretty well-versed in the 3.5 system, much more than I'd like to be.

But when people say that Conjuration out-blasts Evocation, I'm left scratching my head.

Conjuration has the Orb line. Orbs are definitely powerful and they definitley fill a distinct niche, but they're single-target. The appeal of blasting spells, as far as I've ever seen it, is in ending the fights you've already won. It's in throwing Fireballs and Manyjaws into your Sleet Storm to finish off the baddies instead of just buying them buffing rounds. Orbs are useless in this context and Evocation is actually quite useful.

What Conjuration spells am I missing? Or is it limited to single-target effects?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-31, 04:40 PM
I consider myself pretty well-versed in the 3.5 system, much more than I'd like to be.

But when people say that Conjuration out-blasts Evocation, I'm left scratching my head.

Conjuration has the Orb line. Orbs are definitely powerful and they definitley fill a distinct niche, but they're single-target. The appeal of blasting spells, as far as I've ever seen it, is in ending the fights you've already won. It's in throwing Fireballs and Manyjaws into your Sleet Storm to finish off the baddies instead of just buying them buffing rounds. Orbs are useless in this context and Evocation is actually quite useful.

What Conjuration spells am I missing? Or is it limited to single-target effects?You're missing the Rogue and Barb. Let them kill the mooks that you have trapped. If the enemy is weak enough to die of a Fireball, the group can be wiped out without wasting a slot.

Draz74
2009-12-31, 04:40 PM
Ah. Well.

I've definitely seen situations where speech-triggered Contingency didn't work, and Feather Fall-Contingency was thus valuable. But I guess they must have been based on some sort of house rule. I don't remember the details.

Pluto
2009-12-31, 04:43 PM
You're missing the Rogue and Barb. Let them kill the mooks that you have trapped. If the enemy is weak enough to die of a Fireball, the group can be wiped out without wasting a slot.

So the 3+ posts in this thread saying that Conjuration out-blasts Evocation aren't talking about blasting?

edit:
That sounds more confrontational than I was going for.

aje8
2009-12-31, 04:44 PM
So the 3+ posts in this thread saying that Conjuration out-blasts Evocation aren't talking about blasting?
No they were saying that area of effect blasting, contrary to what some beleieve, is almost never worth it. Glitterdust em and then relax or just relax if they're really weak mooks.

Becuase of battlefield contorl, only single target blasting is worth it.... and even then I'd rather go up a few spell levels and use Flesh to Ice.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 04:52 PM
So the 3+ posts in this thread saying that Conjuration out-blasts Evocation aren't talking about blasting?

edit:
That sounds more confrontational than I was going for.

The Orb spells are better at dealing direct damage than AoE Evocation spells - because they require a touch attack, rather than giving the target a saving throw. They also have secondary, battlefield control effects.

Touch ACs tend to be very low.

Pluto
2009-12-31, 05:00 PM
No they were saying that area of effect blasting, contrary to what some beleieve, is almost never worth it. Glitterdust em and then relax or just relax if they're really weak mooks.

Becuase of battlefield contorl, only single target blasting is worth it.... and even then I'd rather go up a few spell levels and use Flesh to Ice.

I agree with this, but blasting does something for the wizard that not may effects can replicate: it can finish fights with multiple enemies.
(This is usually what the other party members are for, but in some groups there just isn't a Fighter or a Totemist to be found.)

It's almost always more efficient to turn a single opponent into a brick than to throw d6s at it. But until you hit level 9 spells, it's very difficult to kill multiple enemies or turn them into plants or whatever. Blasting can make that happen. It takes some work (metamagic-reducers, tricks to avoid resistances, etc.), but multiple-target blasting is the only kind that I believe actually has a niche in the Wizard's spellbook.

I was hoping there were some new conjurations that would cover that (Rashemi Elementals have grown stale).

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 05:02 PM
I agree with this, but blasting does something for the wizard that not may effects can replicate: it can finish fights with multiple enemies.

Er... Sleep, Resinous Tar, Web... They tend to end fights pretty quickly, often on the first turn.

There are many others. They're just the lowest level ones.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-31, 05:05 PM
I agree with this, but blasting does something for the wizard that not may effects can replicate: it can finish fights with multiple enemies.

It's almost always more efficient to turn a single opponent into a brick than to throw d6s at it. But until you hit level 9 spells, it's very difficult to kill multiple enemies or turn them into plants or whatever. Blasting can make that happen. It takes some work (metamagic-reducers, tricks to avoid resistances, etc.), but multiple-target blasting is the only kind that I believe actually has a niche in the Wizard's spellbook.

I was hoping there were some new conjurations that would cover that (Rashemi Elementals have grown stale).Again, why? At level 10, your Fireball deals 35 damage, 17 if they make their save. Anything that would do more than just annoy, the Barb can 1-shot. Let him have his fun smacking anything that wanders out of the Solid Fog. No need to make the beatsticks more useless.

dyslexicfaser
2009-12-31, 05:28 PM
Banning Evocation is what every Conjurer should do by default. You can get Contingency with Illusion (Shadow) spells.
I've always wondered, how does a 60%-real Contingency work? Does it only work 60% of the time?

I'm actually a big fan of evocation; it has some real gems beyond direct damage; battlefield control, save or dies, cool thematic spells like turning your ship into a submarine...

but even I have to admit conjuration and transmutation trump it. Big time.

Crow
2009-12-31, 05:29 PM
Again, why? At level 10, your Fireball deals 35 damage, 17 if they make their save. Anything that would do more than just annoy, the Barb can 1-shot. Let him have his fun smacking anything that wanders out of the Solid Fog. No need to make the beatsticks more useless.

It is funny how when people discuss the orb spells, they assume metamagic stacking and reducers, but when discussing fireball metamagic doesn't seem to exist. It is always assumed the target will make their reflex save, but when you mention targets making saves vs. any other wizard spells, "Oh well he would pump his INT through the roof, so failing the save wouldn't happen often". If you mention spell resistance "There are plenty of ways to make caster-level checks a non-issue".

Before you guys get into nerd-fits, not saying fireball is a better option. Just saying.

taltamir
2009-12-31, 05:30 PM
Again, why? At level 10, your Fireball deals 35 damage, 17 if they make their save. Anything that would do more than just annoy, the Barb can 1-shot. Let him have his fun smacking anything that wanders out of the Solid Fog. No need to make the beatsticks more useless.

right... at level 10+ your fireball does pitiful damage. an orb spell deals better damage, no save, no SR. if its something you WANT killed, (say, an enemy wizard, sniper, big touch monster TM) you want to single blast it with the spell that ignores SR and has no save...

that being said, it is not JUST the orb line that outblasts evocation.
conjuration has other spells, like acid fog (solid fog, they are trapped inside, and they take 2d6 damage per round): http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidfog.htm

@ level 1:
Evocation has magic missile:
a. 1d4+1 per missile, 1 missile every odd level to a max of 5 at CL9
b. SR: yes
c. Never misses
d. a variety of spells make you specifically immune to it
e. useless at first, you gain extra missiles later on, up to 5 at level 9
conjuration has lesser orb:
a. 1d8 every odd level to a max of 5d8 at CL9
b. SR: no
c. ranged touch attack.
d. Doesn't have a variety of spells that make you immune to it (specifically, none)
e. relatively useless at first, it becomes really useful as time progresses... as your ability to make touch attack improves, its damage improves, and you meet more things with SR or magic missile immunity.

@level 3 evocation has fireball, lightening bolt (1d6/CL, max 10d6, ref for half)

@level 4 conjuration has orbs. (1d6 per CL, max 20d6, no save against damage, save or take a status effect in addition to damage, ranged touch attack, no SR)

@level 5 conjuration has cloudkill (AoO, Kills 3 HD or less; 4-6 HD save or die, 6+ HD take Con damage and fort save for half con damage).
Not energy, but still pretty "blasty".

@level 7 conjuration has acid fog. immobolize and trap opponents. and give them 2d6 acid damage per round while trapped. no saving throw, no save)

if you notice a pattern here, the conjurations that deal damage have no saving throw against the damage, and ignore SR.
While evocations are typically subject to both or either. and its usually a ref save so for a lot of creatures its "save for none, fail for half"

probably the best blasting spell in evocation is scorching ray... which is fire damage (the most common resistance) saving throw none (awesome), and SR: yes (not so good, but overcomeable with things like assay resistance)...
You take scorching ray, make it arcane thesis, and start stacking metamagic + metamagic reducers on it and maybe some energy substitution and you have something really nice... and it is actually evocation.

Of course

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-31, 05:33 PM
It is funny how when people discuss the orb spells, they assume metamagic stacking, but when discussing fireball metamagic doesn't seem to exist.The main reason we don't is because you get Fireball at level 5 and it becomes nerfed at level 11. You get the Orbs at level 7 and they last until level 16. You only have 2 spell levels to work with for Fireball at best, and it's only relevant for a quarter of the game. Orbs you get 4 spell levels and they last nearly half the game. Which would you take Arcane Thesis on?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 05:34 PM
I've always wondered, how does a 60%-real Contingency work? Does it only work 60% of the time?

That'd be my interpretation. Could be a bad thing.

I believe the bennies of the shadow conjuration thing comes from ways of making them 100% real. Or more. Yeah, don't think about how something is more than 100% real, it makes your head hurt.

Crow
2009-12-31, 05:35 PM
The main reason we don't is because you get Fireball at level 5 and it becomes nerfed at level 11. You get the Orbs at level 7 and they last until level 16. You only have 2 spell levels to work with for Fireball at best, and it's only relevant for a quarter of the game. Orbs you get 4 spell levels and they last nearly half the game. Which would you take Arcane Thesis on?

I added more to my rant, but you ninja'd me. =D

I wouldn't take arcane thesis on either. I never even bother to blast as a wizard! =D

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 05:39 PM
That'd be my interpretation. Could be a bad thing.

I believe the bennies of the shadow conjuration thing comes from ways of making them 100% real. Or more. Yeah, don't think about how something is more than 100% real, it makes your head hurt.

With the right PrCs and feats, you can get a Miracle that's 140% real.

I don't know what that would do, either.

Pluto
2009-12-31, 05:42 PM
Er... Sleep, Resinous Tar, Web... They tend to end fights pretty quickly, often on the first turn.

There are many others. They're just the lowest level ones.

Yes, there are many ways to win the fight, but somebody has to go through the dirty work of finishing it. With the exception of Sleep, you're left with temporarily disabled enemies that you need to make disappear somehow.

Sometimes you have party members who can accomplish this with pointed sticks.
Sometimes you don't. You might be in a party of casters or other party members might just have been disabled by the baddies' opening spells.

That's when you need to start flinging your Flesh-to-Salts, Baleful Polymorphs, Dominates, whatever. Or if there are multiple enemies you need to make dead quickly (because of time crunches on the debuffs you've thrown on them, time crunches based on your overall situation, whatever), you might throw some damage at them. Just an Empowered Cone of COld

...

And are you serious, STK? A Wizard who bothers to throw damage dice around probably isn't going to be tossing 17 points at a time. Apply the same tricks here as you would to a caster whose tactics you approved.

It's more efficeint to throw a blasting spell or two against a crowd of blinded monsters than it is to use single-target annihilators agaisnt each of them. And it's much safer than trying to kill them with a weapon as you wait for a rounds-per-level timer to wear down.

And retraining is a wonderful thing.

dyslexicfaser
2009-12-31, 05:43 PM
That would be kinda neat. An illusion that is actually more real than you.

That would make you the illusion, wouldn't it?

Save vs. Existential Crisis.

taltamir
2009-12-31, 05:43 PM
You use material from the Plane of Shadow to shape quasi-real illusions of one or more creatures, objects, or forces. Shadow conjuration can mimic any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 3rd level or lower.

Shadow conjurations are actually one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things, though creatures who believe the shadow conjurations to be real are affected by them at full strength.

Any creature that interacts with the conjured object, force, or creature can make a Will save to recognize its true nature.

Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless the affected creature succeeds on a Will save. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth (20%) damage from the attack. If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is only 20% likely to occur. Regardless of the result of the save to disbelieve, an affected creature is also allowed any save that the spell being simulated allows, but the save DC is set according to shadow conjuration’s level (4th) rather than the spell’s normal level. In addition, any effect created by shadow conjuration allows spell resistance, even if the spell it is simulating does not. Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them.

Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work.

A shadow creature has one-fifth the hit points of a normal creature of its kind (regardless of whether it’s recognized as shadowy). It deals normal damage and has all normal abilities and weaknesses. Against a creature that recognizes it as a shadow creature, however, the shadow creature’s damage is one-fifth (20%) normal, and all special abilities that do not deal lethal damage are only 20% likely to work. (Roll for each use and each affected character separately.) Furthermore, the shadow creature’s AC bonuses are one-fifth as large.

A creature that succeeds on its save sees the shadow conjurations as transparent images superimposed on vague, shadowy forms.

Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell.

it seems pretty explicit to me... if it has an effect (say, contingency), then it either works at full strength if the creature fails their will check (you can willingly fail a check), if they succeed their check, then it has a % chance of working.
if your DM rules that you always success will saves against your own illusions (which is a problem because, don't some illusions disappear for everyone when a person disbelieves them?) then it has a % chance of failure.
that is, if you fail your will save against your own shadow conjuration contingency, then it always work. If you make the save or auto disbelieve it, then it has a 60% chance of working and a 40% chance of failure.

you can also use a 9th level slot for "shades" which is shadow conjuration with an 80% realness.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 05:44 PM
Yes, there are many ways to win the fight, but somebody has to go through the dirty work of finishing it.

That's what the rest of the party is for! The Wizard doesn't need to clean up, he's got a guy with a big sword to do it for him!

taltamir
2009-12-31, 05:45 PM
That would be kinda neat. An illusion that is actually more real than you.

That would make you the illusion, wouldn't it?

Save vs. Existential Crisis.

if you fail, you disappear in a puff of logic.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PuffOfLogic