funny reaction to Orb spells.

[lunar2]

when a caster throws an orb, such as orb of force, have the target pick it up and throw it back. by raw, it's an instantaneous conjuration, so once the Orb is made, it's a mundane object that's actually there, so it should be reusable. a wizard would think twice about hurling them around, when they can be thrown back for the same damage.

[Gavinfoxx]

That's not how the spells work...They just do damage, that's it, then dissipate on impact.

[Tvtyrant]

when a caster throws an orb, such as orb of force, have the target pick it up and throw it back. by raw, it's an instantaneous conjuration, so once the Orb is made, it's a mundane object that's actually there, so it should be reusable. a wizard would think twice about hurling them around, when they can be thrown back for the same damage.

If there is anything left to throw the orb back, then it wasn't really an orb to begin with.

[AmberVael]

Assuming it did stick around, how exactly are you supposed to pick up a ball of lightning, sound, acid, or fire anyway? Let alone throw it back.

[Tvtyrant]

Assuming it did stick around, how exactly are you supposed to pick up a ball of lightning, sound, acid, or fire anyway? Let alone throw it back.

Telekinesis. Mage Hand. Other invincible forms of throwing things.

[Vemynal]

Telekinesis? Mage Hand? Unseen Servant?

[Ziegander]

This is why conjuration shouldn't have blasting.

[Urpriest]

If you can catch a ball of elemental flame (or other stuff) and throw it back then you're good enough at catching magical stuff that you have Exceptional Deflection and can do it by RAW anyway.

[lunar2]

Assuming it did stick around, how exactly are you supposed to pick up a ball of lightning, sound, acid, or fire anyway? Let alone throw it back.

it was meant as a comedic thing, anyway. and i was specifically thinking about force when i posted it, which i see as a solid ball of force that hits really hard when thrown.

[jiriku]

This is why conjuration shouldn't have blasting.

Werd. A ball of magical force makes no sense as a nonmagical object.

[Urpriest]

Werd. A ball of magical force makes no sense as a nonmagical object.

Neither does a Dragon. Or a Golem.

[Safety Sword]

Werd. A ball of magical force makes no sense as a nonmagical object.

Orb of Force = Summon Mini-neutron star?

:smallwink:

Before you reply: Think of the cat-girls, please.

[Ashram]

It annoys me that the only reason this is considered conjuration is because of just generically blasting someone with fire or force like a standard evocation spell, you conjure it into a little ball and then throw it.

[Claudius Maximus]

There is a place for those spells, to get some damage with no SR. Like Melf's Acid Arrow. I bet Orb of Acid was conceived as a better Melf's, or sort of like a Vitriolic Sphere, but then at some point people decided that it would be neat to have other elements. And this continued until we got an non-magical orb of magical force.

[Gullintanni]

It annoys me that the only reason this is considered conjuration is because of just generically blasting someone with fire or force like a standard evocation spell, you conjure it into a little ball and then throw it.

I believe the typical justification is that Evocation blasting forms magic into fire, and so what you have is a ball of magic that happens to deal fire damage.

Conjuration, on the other hand, uses magic to manipulate nature into creating real fire...the kind you'd get from a flint and steel, and then said conjuration spell flings that real fire at the target.

In the first cast, the fire is magical, in the second, the things that created the fire are magical, but the fire itself is mundane. It even makes sense until you start talking about Orbs of Force...at which point...well...it's D&D.

[jaybird]

Either way, though, Conjuration shouldn't have blasts...

[Tvtyrant]

I believe the typical justification is that Evocation blasting forms magic into fire, and so what you have is a ball of magic that happens to deal fire damage.

Conjuration, on the other hand, uses magic to manipulate nature into creating real fire...the kind you'd get from a flint and steel, and then said conjuration spell flings that real fire at the target.

In the first cast, the fire is magical, in the second, the things that created the fire are magical, but the fire itself is mundane. It even makes sense until you start talking about Orbs of Force...at which point...well...it's D&D.

And that you can apply metamagic to orbs, and that mundane fire doesn't do nearly that much damage. 3.5 was not meant to be scrutinized.

[Treblain]

If a Lesser Orb of Fire is conjuring a small ball of mundane fire that strikes its target and vanishes, it should not one-hit the average human (a commoner). If there is some magical element that makes it do more damage, then it should be subject to SR. And if creatures with SR live in a world where mages can circumvent it using instantaneous conjurations, then some magi-genetic engineer or god would develop a more proactive version of SR that prevents them from forming.

[twas_Brillig]

If a Lesser Orb of Fire is conjuring a small ball of mundane fire that strikes its target and vanishes, it should not one-hit the average human (a commoner). If there is some magical element that makes it do more damage, then it should be subject to SR. And if creatures with SR live in a world where mages can circumvent it using instantaneous conjurations, then some magi-genetic engineer or god would develop a more proactive version of SR that prevents them from forming.

To be fair, it could be quite a lot of very hot fire packed into that small ball.

[Gavinfoxx]

It's a REALLY HOT amount of fire -- no wait, PLASMA, going REALLY FAST...

[Gullintanni]

And that you can apply metamagic to orbs, and that mundane fire doesn't do nearly that much damage. 3.5 was not meant to be scrutinized.

Eh...fire from a thermite reaction burns much hotter than fire from just burning wood, and both are technically just mundane fire. Arguably, the fire conjured in an Orb spell just burns that much hotter.

Still in general, I agree. Scrutiny and D&D go badly together. You can probably explain away most of the inconsistencies such scrutiny bears out, but you end up with some pretty ugly contortions of logic. :smallamused:

[Yuki Akuma]

Either way, though, Conjuration shouldn't have blasts...

Conjuration has had blasts since the PHB.

Why does everyone always forget Melf's Acid Arrow? Seriously.

[HunterOfJello]

Conjuration has had blasts since the PHB.

Why does everyone always forget Melf's Acid Arrow? Seriously.

Yup. Conjuration actually created orbs in the PHB too. Acid Splash is an orb of acid conjured and then thrown at an enemy. People just started complaining once the conjuration orbs got a bit more powerful. Acid Splash is merely a Least Orb of Acid.

[Yora]

It annoys me that the only reason this is considered conjuration is because of just generically blasting someone with fire or force like a standard evocation spell, you conjure it into a little ball and then throw it.
It's conjuration so that you can blast while having banned evocation!

Isn't that great game design?! :smallbiggrin:

Acid has always been a special case. All acid spells in 3rd Edition are conjuration spells, regardless of what you do with the acid. Acid is a substance, while fire, cold, electricity, and force are not.

[Yuki Akuma]

Electricity and fire are substances - one is just a mass of electrons and the other is glowing hot gas, and sometimes plasma. Both are made of matter. :smallwink:

Cold, meanwhile, isn't a thing at all, and force is... absurd.

[Shpadoinkle]

Neither does a Dragon. Or a Golem.

Since when, exactly, are dragons and/or golems nonmagical?

[Cespenar]

"Force" is obviously nanites. It only makes sense.

[Chained Birds]

Since when, exactly, are dragons and/or golems nonmagical?

I saw a few at a mall yesterday next to the game store. They seemed quite mundane and stationary.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Electricity and fire are substances - one is just a mass of electrons and the other is glowing hot gas, and sometimes plasma. Both are made of matter. :smallwink:

Cold, meanwhile, isn't a thing at all, and force is... absurd.

I'd like to nitpickt that "fire" is not hot gas or plasma. Electricity is closer to plasma but thats mostly because the discharge of electrons creates such intense, instaneous heat that it creates plasma of gaseous molecules but thats niether here nor there. Fire is a combination of thermal and visible light radiation. And since radiation is really waves which act like particles sometimes, it is still "matter." Then something about an equation "created" by a patent office clerk in the mid 1900s. And by "created I mean stolen of course! :P

[Yuki Akuma]

My apologies. I meant that the visible flame is generally superheated gas, and can in fact become hot enough to ionise into plasma. The flame is what most people think about when they hear 'fire'. :smalltongue:

(Meanwhile, thermal radiation is not matter, and is in fact electromagnetic energy.)

(Of course, energy and matter are both interchangeable and more or less the same thing in different forms, so.)

[MesiDoomstalker]

My apologies. I meant that the visible flame is generally superheated gas, and can in fact become hot enough to ionise into plasma. The flame is what most people think about when they hear 'fire'. :smalltongue:

I'd love to see a spell that actually creates plasma, either through the spells effect (making it a Conjuration) or be creating enough heat to make anything plasmamize (making it an Evocation). Is plasmamize even a word? :smallconfused: I should patent it! Too bad the patent office is full of thieving clerks! :smallannoyed: :smalltongue:

[Killer Angel]

when a caster throws an orb, such as orb of force, have the target pick it up and throw it back. by raw, it's an instantaneous conjuration, so once the Orb is made, it's a mundane object that's actually there, so it should be reusable. a wizard would think twice about hurling them around, when they can be thrown back for the same damage.

While I agree with your sentiment, deflect arrows and the following feats, explicitly tells that ranged attacks generated by spell effects can’t be deflected.
(it actually could be a nice house rule, though)

[Yuki Akuma]

I'd love to see a spell that actually creates plasma, either through the spells effect (making it a Conjuration) or be creating enough heat to make anything plasmamize (making it an Evocation). Is plasmamize even a word? :smallconfused: I should patent it! Too bad the patent office is full of thieving clerks! :smallannoyed: :smalltongue:

Ionise. When a gas becomes a plasma it ionises.

[Urpriest]

Since when, exactly, are dragons and/or golems nonmagical?

Ability to survive in an Antimagic Field seems the relevant definition, since that's the one being applied to the Force Orb.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Ionise. When a gas becomes a plasma it ionises.

Plasmamize sounds cooler. :smalltongue: But ionize would be the correct term.

[dextercorvia]

This is why conjuration shouldn't have blasting.

Why does no one every try applying this argument to Necromancy, Transmutation, Illusion, or Abjuration?

Damage is an abstract construction. You use magic to do stuff that hurts people. When people get hurt, we often describe that as damage, and spells of that type as Blast spells. The notion of exactly how it happens is what determines the school that the spell comes from.

[Hoddypeak]

I'd say I agree with the original sentiment. Treat orbs like all other ammunition. It should be destroyed on a hit, and have a 50% chance of survival on a miss. If it survives, and you have a way to pick it up without hurting yourself, then you should be able to throw it back.

By RAW, a sorcerer should be able to make a decent living selling flasks of acid by casting a large number of acid splashes into flasks.

Acid splash is an instantaneous conjuration(creation) spell, which means it lasts forever once cast. It does 1d3 damage, while a flask does 1d6. The question is how do you catch it? RAW it's destroyed if it hits its target, so you'd have to find a way to catch the misses. I'd say every 3 acid splashes is equivalent to 1 flask of acid.

I suppose you could theoretically bottle fire orbs as potent alchemist fire.

[Cespenar]

But ionize would be the correct term.

You know there exists (hard to believe, I know) another country whose language is English, right? And sometimes, some words can be written differently in that language, right? :smalltongue:

[Ziegander]

Necromancy hurts people through negative energy or through energy drain. Transmutation hurts people by making temporary or permanent, harmful, changes to their bodies. Illusion hurts people by making them think they are hurt (dubious). Abjuration magic doesn't hurt people (except for stupid stuff that people do complain about like Maw of Chaos); people hurt themselves by bashing their heads against abjuration magic.

But then there's Conjuration, which creates matter to hurt people with. Acid Splash and Acid Arrow make some sense (you hit someone with acid, and that acid quickly loses its potency), but then you run into the point Hobby just made. Hail of Stones makes a good bit of sense, except that it should very likely turn the area its cast in into difficult terrain. The rocks are still there after all. Orb of Fire, however, doesn't make any sense at all. D&D Fire is not matter, and even if it were, hitting someone with real fire should have more consequences than merely damaging the target. After the Orb hits its target, because were talking about creating matter here, the Fire should still be there. Where's the Fire? Orb of Lava would make sense if it existed, but then, it would be a more powerful spell, catching things on fire and dealing additional damage over time.

When I talk about blasting, I'm not talking about simply any effect that deals damage. I'm talking about blasting someone with magic. Conjuration shouldn't do that. What Conjuration can, and should, but doesn't do very well at all, is have spells that create objects whose primary purpose is to cause damage. For example, if Flaming Sphere were renamed Molten Boulder, it would actually be much more suited to Conjuration than Evocation. An Ice Orb spell that dealt some bludgeoning damage and exploded dealing AoE cold damage and possibly freezing the target (like a really mean snowball), would work well in Conjuration. Cone of Force is not a Conjuration spell and nothing like it ever should be.

[MesiDoomstalker]

You know there exists (hard to believe, I know) another country whose language is English, right? And sometimes, some words can be written differently in that language, right? :smalltongue:

Yes. In fact I prefer british spellings of various words like colour. I was simply unaware that ionize/ionise was one of them. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. :smallbiggrin:

[Treblain]

You aren't allowed to conjure summoned monsters in midair to apply the force of gravity to crush your enemies with them. So why are you allowed to conjure orbs of stuff and apply a directional force to them to hit your enemies (especially since several of them aren't made of matter)? Why has no wizard ever invented a spell that shoots summoned killer whales at your enemies?

OH GOD THE CATGIRLS! WHAT HAVE I DONE?

[dextercorvia]

Necromancy hurts people through negative energy or through energy drain. Transmutation hurts people by making temporary or permanent, harmful, changes to their bodies. Illusion hurts people by making them think they are hurt (dubious). Abjuration magic doesn't hurt people (except for stupid stuff that people do complain about like Maw of Chaos); people hurt themselves by bashing their heads against abjuration magic.

But then there's Conjuration, which creates matter to hurt people with. Acid Splash and Acid Arrow make some sense (you hit someone with acid, and that acid quickly loses its potency), but then you run into the point Hobby just made. Hail of Stones makes a good bit of sense, except that it should very likely turn the area its cast in into difficult terrain. The rocks are still there after all. Orb of Fire, however, doesn't make any sense at all. D&D Fire is not matter, and even if it were, hitting someone with real fire should have more consequences than merely damaging the target. After the Orb hits its target, because were talking about creating matter here, the Fire should still be there. Where's the Fire? Orb of Lava would make sense if it existed, but then, it would be a more powerful spell, catching things on fire and dealing additional damage over time.

When I talk about blasting, I'm not talking about simply any effect that deals damage. I'm talking about blasting someone with magic. Conjuration shouldn't do that. What Conjuration can, and should, but doesn't do very well at all, is have spells that create objects whose primary purpose is to cause damage. For example, if Flaming Sphere were renamed Molten Boulder, it would actually be much more suited to Conjuration than Evocation. An Ice Orb spell that dealt some bludgeoning damage and exploded dealing AoE cold damage and possibly freezing the target (like a really mean snowball), would work well in Conjuration. Cone of Force is not a Conjuration spell and nothing like it ever should be.

What makes negative energy damage necromancy while positive energy damage would be evocation? Also, explain Horrid Wilting.

Disintegration, isn't exactly temporary. Belkar claws, where you transmute your hands to damaging smoky claws, that allow you to make a touch attack for absurd damage, is one of the better 2nd level blast spells.

Illusion make semi-real fireballs out of material from the plane of shadow.

Abjuration doesn't just get Maw of Chaos, although that is the goto example. Ray of Deanmiation and Reciprocal Gyre are both blasting Abjurations.

[Yuki Akuma]

Positive energy is actually usually Conjuration.

[dextercorvia]

You aren't allowed to conjure summoned monsters in midair to apply the force of gravity to crush your enemies with them. So why are you allowed to conjure orbs of stuff and apply a directional force to them to hit your enemies (especially since several of them aren't made of matter)? Why has no wizard ever invented a spell that shoots summoned killer whales at your enemies?

OH GOD THE CATGIRLS! WHAT HAVE I DONE?

They are all made of acid -- which is matter, and they appear in your palm.

[Ziegander]

You aren't allowed to conjure summoned monsters in midair to apply the force of gravity to crush your enemies with them. So why are you allowed to conjure orbs of stuff and apply a directional force to them to hit your enemies (especially since several of them aren't made of matter)?

Good point, and actually I meant to address that as well. By the logic of D&D Conjuration magic, as outlined in the SRD, you're not allowed to do that.


A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

Emphasis mine. When the blasting spells for Conjuration break one of the basic rules of conjuration as set forth by the game itself, I think we have a strong argument against the existence of those spells. Acid Splash, Acid Arrow, Hail of Stones, literally none of these are supposed to work. Specific trumps general and all that, I know, but it's still stupid.

[dextercorvia]

Positive energy is actually usually Conjuration.

Only when it is predominantly a healing spell.

Bolt of Glory is Evocation (because it invokes raw positive energy), and Life Bolt is Necromancy (because it derives its energy from your own life force)

[nedz]

Why does no one every try applying this argument to Necromancy, Transmutation, Illusion, or Abjuration?
...
FTFY by the power of Shadow Conjuration

[Yuki Akuma]

FTFY by the power of Shadow Conjuration

What?

He was asking why people say "Conjuration shouldn't be able to blast", and yet don't argue that those four schools shouldn't be able to blast either, because that's not the focus of those schools.

Shadow Conjuration is, in fact, one of those spells that allows Illusion to blast.

[JaronK]

Why does no one every try applying this argument to Necromancy, Transmutation, Illusion, or Abjuration?

The obvious answer for me would be "because Conjuration is too powerful of a school already, and needs to have less flexibility." This is true of Transmutation as well. Not so much the others.

Balance reasons, not fluff.

JaronK

[Venger]

Werd. A ball of magical force makes no sense as a nonmagical object.

it's a nonmagical magical ball of force, just a mundane one, like the ones they sell in blister packs of 6 at walmart. they're nothing special. :smalltongue:


You aren't allowed to conjure summoned monsters in midair to apply the force of gravity to crush your enemies with them. So why are you allowed to conjure orbs of stuff and apply a directional force to them to hit your enemies (especially since several of them aren't made of matter)? Why has no wizard ever invented a spell that shoots summoned killer whales at your enemies?

OH GOD THE CATGIRLS! WHAT HAVE I DONE?

what the heck kind of games are you playing in that you can't summon monsters in the air? they're expendable anyway. just have them deal damage equal to the falling damage that they take (newton's 3rd law, if somewhat pared down) to the enemy and that'll be fine. it's simple enough, take the horizontal distance to the enemy, set it equal to D. take the maximum range that you can cast summon monster at, depending on your caster level (close: 25ft + 5ft/2 lvls) set it equal to R. height will be H


triangles dictate that A^2 + B^2 = C^2 with A and B equal to the height with
width, and C equaling to the hypotenuse, in this case, it's D^2 + H^2 = R^2

in order to solve for maximum height, all you need to do solve or H.

H^2=R^2-D^2 (R2D2 joke unintentional)

H = (square root of) (R^2 -D^2)

let's say you cast this spell at lvl 2 for an R of 30 ft and that your enemy is making things easy for you and is 10 feet away.

R=30, D=10, solve for H

H = (square root of) (30^2 - 10^2)
H = (square root of (800)
H = 28.2842712 feet (round up to nearest 5 foot increment for 30ft)

this would deal 3d6 points of damage to whatever crappy monster you could summon with SMI and 3d6 points of damage to your enemy. it might very well kill your summon and the damage doesn't exactly scale incredibly well as you level up.

if the player wanted to do all this work for a few extra d6s and damage his monster (go! seviper! use double edge!) I wouldn't see much problem in stopping him, it wouldn't imbalance the game much.

what you're talking about is presumably using the monster's weight (which is not given 99% of the time and when it is it's grossly off, check out the weights given for the nonmagical version of the animals in this game) which would make things get pretty stupid pretty fast. if you agree not to give extra (or less) damage based on weight, this problem disappears. stuff falls at the same rate as galileo said, so just handwave it that way (I know f=ma, but players won't mind if you reward their ingenuity at least a little)


Assuming it did stick around, how exactly are you supposed to pick up a ball of lightning, sound, acid, or fire anyway? Let alone throw it back.
Hulking hurler's "catch weapon" lets you catch a weapon your size or smaller (orbs of whatever are always smaller than a large creature) and throw them back as an immediate action

"really throw anything" lets you throw anything you can lift as a light load. a sphere of energy (non matter, so no mass) 2 inches across definitely qualifies for a large creature. it lets you throw anything you can lift, you can lift something that weights nothing, so you can throw it. you can even do so before it hits you and really surprise that wizard.

[Treblain]

what the heck kind of games are you playing in that you can't summon monsters in the air?

D&D 3.5. So sayeth the mighty rules.



A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

[Coidzor]

Conjuration has had blasts since the PHB.

Why does everyone always forget Melf's Acid Arrow? Seriously.

Conceptually, building up Evocation by tearing every stronger school down is easier than making it able to stand on its own two feet. Also involves less homebrew, since you're just houseruling out everything above a certain point.

[dextercorvia]

it's a nonmagical magical ball of forceacid, just a mundane one, like the ones they sell in blister packs of 6 at walmart. they're nothing special. :smalltongue:


FTFY. Yes, it is a ball of acid that deals Force damage.

[dextercorvia]

The obvious answer for me would be "because Conjuration is too powerful of a school already, and needs to have less flexibility." This is true of Transmutation as well. Not so much the others.

Balance reasons, not fluff.

JaronK

I'll agree that that is normally the reason that Conjuration takes the brunt of this argument. In this case, he was referring to the OP's notion that an instantaneously conjured orb should be able to be picked up and returned to sender. That is more fluff than balance.

[Venger]

D&D 3.5. So sayeth the mighty rules.

oh, I didn't know that, my bad. does that even apply to monsters that fly? because you get a fair amount of those at mid levels

[nedz]

What?

He was asking why people say "Conjuration shouldn't be able to blast", and yet don't argue that those four schools shouldn't be able to blast either, because that's not the focus of those schools.

Shadow Conjuration is, in fact, one of those spells that allows Illusion to blast.

I took his post to mean that these schools: Necromancy, Transmutation, Illusion, or Abjuration; can't blast.

[Treblain]

It's not a matter of "blasting" as in doing damage to enemies. I see no reason why any school should be unable to have any damage dealing spells. It's the issue of "blasting" as shooting energy at your enemies. If Conjuration can cover some of that, then Evocation is way too narrow a school to function with the others.

[dextercorvia]

I took his post to mean that these schools: Necromancy, Transmutation, Illusion, or Abjuration; can't blast.

Yuki correctly parsed my post.


It's not a matter of "blasting" as in doing damage to enemies. I see no reason why any school should be unable to have any damage dealing spells. It's the issue of "blasting" as shooting energy at your enemies. If Conjuration can cover some of that, then Evocation is way too narrow a school to function with the others.

The point of my post is that those other schools do have blast options, too. Sure Conjuration is already strong, and gets some of the best blasting options. But Disintegrate, Maw of Chaos, etc. are just as much its bread and butter. Evocation is too narrow a school. I whole heartedly support combining it with Abjuration, as they have a surprising amount of fluff overlap. It wouldn't hurt for Evocation to have some more status effects, although, it already has my favorite 2nd level save vs. daze. More like that would help its viability.

[Coidzor]

It's not a matter of "blasting" as in doing damage to enemies. I see no reason why any school should be unable to have any damage dealing spells. It's the issue of "blasting" as shooting energy at your enemies. If Conjuration can cover some of that, then Evocation is way too narrow a school to function with the others.

Well, I'll agree with you about Evocation being too narrow to function with the others, but I find that it's more intrinsic to Evocation than that Conjuration can be used for direct-damage.

[jaybird]

Well, I'll agree with you about Evocation being too narrow to function with the others, but I find that it's more intrinsic to Evocation than that Conjuration can be used for direct-damage.

The thing is, of course, that Evocation COULD be a lot better. "Shaping raw magic into stuff" is a pretty great school in concept, and spells like Mage Armour (Transmutation IIRC) really should be Evocation spells. Wouldn't say no to Evocation blasts doing d8 instead of d6 damage, and later d10 damage.

[Ziegander]

The point of my post is that those other schools do have blast options, too. Sure Conjuration is already strong, and gets some of the best blasting options. But Disintegrate, Maw of Chaos, etc. are just as much its bread and butter. Evocation is too narrow a school. I whole heartedly support combining it with Abjuration, as they have a surprising amount of fluff overlap. It wouldn't hurt for Evocation to have some more status effects, although, it already has my favorite 2nd level save vs. daze. More like that would help its viability.

And my point is not that Conjuration shouldn't have blast damage dealing spells, but that the ones that it does have make no sense. It shouldn't have them because the designers demonstrated time and again their own lack of understanding of core rules.

I do like Evocation being combined with Abjuration thought. And Necromancy could be Life and Death, gaining Cures and resurrect spells. Name it something else though... "death magic" doesn't leave much to the imagination.

[Coidzor]

The thing is, of course, that Evocation COULD be a lot better. "Shaping raw magic into stuff" is a pretty great school in concept, and spells like Mage Armour (Transmutation IIRC) really should be Evocation spells.

Indeed, unfortunately there's a horrible trap is where Evocation becomes equated with blasting.

And blasting is boring.


Wouldn't say no to Evocation blasts doing d8 instead of d6 damage, and later d10 damage.

And you appear to have just fallen into the trap. :smallfrown:

[Tsuzurao]

And my point is not that Conjuration shouldn't have blast damage dealing spells, but that the ones that it does have make no sense. It shouldn't have them because the designers demonstrated time and again their own lack of understanding of core rules.

I do like Evocation being combined with Abjuration thought. And Necromancy could be Life and Death, gaining Cures and resurrect spells. Name it something else though... "death magic" doesn't leave much to the imagination.

I can't confirm it, due to me first getting into D&D in 3.5, but I'm told that in 2e, Necromancy did cover healing magic as well. If I remember right, the change was made when they hit 3e.

[Qwertystop]

oh, I didn't know that, my bad. does that even apply to monsters that fly? because you get a fair amount of those at mid levels

It even applies to monsters that swim. No summoning whales in the water, you need to put them on the ground (or the seafloor).

[Feytalist]

I can't confirm it, due to me first getting into D&D in 3.5, but I'm told that in 2e, Necromancy did cover healing magic as well. If I remember right, the change was made when they hit 3e.

Healing and resurrection magic did indeed always fall under necromancy. For some reason, it was changed for 3rd ed.

[Hoddypeak]

A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

A whale can be supported by the water. A flying creature that is flying can be supported by the air and is not just floating in empty space. The rule exists to prevent using falling objects to cause damage, or having someone say they create water in somethings lungs and drown them. Though, from a scientific and mathematical point of view, the stomach, intestines, and lungs are external to the body, so you could argue that create water would still work in them.

[Qwertystop]

Actually:

It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it
emphasis mine

Unfortunately, neither liquid nor gas forms a surface that supports anything. The water's surface might count, but that wouldn't support more than a small insect.

[Gullintanni]

Actually:

emphasis mine

Unfortunately, neither liquid nor gas forms a surface that supports anything. The water's surface might count, but that wouldn't support more than a small insect.

There's an argument to be made here that it also supports colossal wooden galleys, but that being said, you probably still can't summon a Dragon onto water :smallamused:

[MesiDoomstalker]

There's an argument to be made here that it also supports colossal wooden galleys, but that being said, you probably still can't summon a Dragon onto water :smallamused:

You can't summon dragons, but you can call one.

Also, the water's surface is broken in the case of boats, and its the difference in relative densities that keep boats afloat, not the water its self. So, no, water is not a surface that can support things because boats float.

[Gullintanni]

You can't summon dragons, but you can call one.

Also, the water's surface is broken in the case of boats, and its the difference in relative densities that keep boats afloat, not the water its self. So, no, water is not a surface that can support things because boats float.

*shrug* I said an argument could be made. Not that you'd necessarily win :smalltongue:

[MesiDoomstalker]

*shrug* I said an argument could be made. Not that you'd necessarily win :smalltongue:

I have a physics lecture in 30 minutes, its kinda on the brain. :smallwink:

[dextercorvia]

Healing and resurrection magic did indeed always fall under necromancy. For some reason, it was changed for 3rd ed.

This had the unfortunate side-effect of forcing the White Necromancer archtype to specialize in a school that isn't Necromancy. False Life, etc. only goes so far. Splats helped a little, but, for me this is one of the wedges between fluff and crunch that 3.5 really drove in.

Agreeing with Coidizor, Evocation doesn't really need to blast better. It doesn't make sense that the shaped raw magic school would get to bypass SR, eg. Expanding force based BFC, and status effects, and/or combining with Abjuration goes a long way to repairing the school's reputation. However, it isn't as bad of a school as it gets a reputation for. I have to think twice about dropping it at low or high levels. Enchantment is much easier for me to drop. Enchantment should probably be split between Divination and Illusion.

Reducing the number of schools would also make Focused Specialist more painful.

[Fax Celestis]

Reducing the number of schools would also make Focused Specialist more painful.

This is bad?

[Treblain]

Healing and resurrection magic did indeed always fall under necromancy. For some reason, it was changed for 3rd ed.

Because necromancy is bad, and only evil people use necromancy, because it's evil. Did I mention the evil? Healing is good, because it heals people, so it's not necromancy. Got it?

[dextercorvia]

This is bad?

No, I intended it as a plus side, and a reason to do this. I guess I never actually said.

[Tyndmyr]

I believe the typical justification is that Evocation blasting forms magic into fire, and so what you have is a ball of magic that happens to deal fire damage.

Conjuration, on the other hand, uses magic to manipulate nature into creating real fire...the kind you'd get from a flint and steel, and then said conjuration spell flings that real fire at the target.

In the first cast, the fire is magical, in the second, the things that created the fire are magical, but the fire itself is mundane. It even makes sense until you start talking about Orbs of Force...at which point...well...it's D&D.

Meh, force fields can be science. I'm cool with that.

[Coidzor]

This is bad?

Well, there are a number of spells that it's the wizards' job to bring to the table so the game can function and the people he's babysitting survive that aren't universal or divination, so there'd be something unpleasant for the other players if more of the wizard's shtick were cut off by focused specialist.

How likely it is that the other players aren't already going to be taking classes to pick up the slack in games where someone will be a focused specialist rather than being forced into it by the wizard's player's choice to double specialize, I dunno.

[dextercorvia]

I started a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12222710#post12222710) to continue the discussion of combining schools as it seems tangential to the OP.

[Venger]

Because necromancy is bad, and only evil people use necromancy, because it's evil. Did I mention the evil? Healing is good, because it heals people, so it's not necromancy. Got it?

oh, naturally. raising the dead is the worst thing that a person could possibly do. animate dead and revive undead are necromancy spells, so naturally, so is "raise dead," sort of the go-to phrase when talking about necromancy outside of D&D

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm

Derp.

[Malachei]

when a caster throws an orb, such as orb of force, have the target pick it up and throw it back. by raw, it's an instantaneous conjuration, so once the Orb is made, it's a mundane object that's actually there, so it should be reusable. a wizard would think twice about hurling them around, when they can be thrown back for the same damage.

Changing Orbs from Evocation to Conjuration was a purely deliberate metagame move to further power Conjuration (so much for balance as a design paradigm in 3.5) and have more SR:No spells. I think imagining the actual effect does not have a place in the designers' metagame concerns.

Said change also made it much easier for Conjurers to drop Evocation, even before one of the weaker schools. There's a lot of 3.0 -> 3.5 spell changes don't make that much sense, IMO.