General Questions About 3.5 Wizards

[Snownine]

I am brand spanking new to D&D and will be playing my first game this summer. I love the idea of spellcasters and thought it would be fun to play as a sorcerer or wizard. After doing a little reading online however I find that evocation is almost universally reviled, as are direct damage wizards in general. So here are my questions.

1. Why is evocation looked down upon?
2. Are wizards in 3.5 primarily support characters?
3. Is there any way to have an arcane spellcaster that can contribute to the damage output of the party more directly than throwing out buffs.
4. Is another spellcasting class better suited to dealing damage?

[Mystral]

1. Why is evocation looked down upon?

Because with the same spell slot that can do 5d6 points of damage to a few enemies, Reflex for half, you can completely disable the same enemies (Stinking Cloud), buff your parties mundane fighters to do as much additional damage as that spell every round (haste) or do a whole bunch of other cool and more effective stuff. And evocation does next to nothing except that. On the other hand, Conjuration has damage spells galore, and much more. So if the question is which school to ban for specialist wizard, the choice is "Damage, which is meh" or "Damage, which is meh, plus many cool stuff"


2. Are wizards in 3.5 primarily support characters?

They can be played as such, and it is an effective way to play them, but with their giant spell selection, you can play them any way you want, from melee combatants to damage dealers, supporters or.. anything, really.


3. Is there any way to have an arcane spellcaster that can contribute to the damage output of the party more directly than throwing out buffs.

Of course there is, he can always take damage dealing stuff or debuff the enemy, which is another form of support. Or he can throw spells that kill the enemy without any hit point damage, or take them out of the battle in other ways.


4. Is another spellcasting class better suited to dealing damage?

The sorcerer is usually seen as as a good damage dealer, especially in the mailman build (you might want to search for that), which specialises in taking one of your spells and metamagicing it to ridiculous proportions. If you are looking for a more easy way to enter arcane spellcasting and damage dealing, you might want to look at the warmage, who can be played without to much research as a damage dealer with some other battlefield applications, like the mentioned stinking cloud. The Warmage is in complete arcane.

[Malak'ai]

Depending on what books you have available is to what you're able to do with the Wizard... There's a reason they are likened to Batman.

If you're wanting to play a Blaster then it'd be better to go Sorcerer. That way you don't get caught by the "Crap. I forgot to prepare another Fireball today" problem.

As for why Evocation is looked down upon by most is just that, as you've probably read already, there's just soooooo much more that a Wizard can do without becoming mobile artillery. Also, the amount of direct damage you can do with a spell is nothing to really brag about, that is, if you get through the targets Spell Resistance and other defenses.

[eggynack]

Direct damage isn't really a thing that wizards are very good at. I could give you some numbers, if you like, but suffice to say that a barbarian is outpacing a wizard damage-wise at most levels of optimization. Evocation is disliked because it is singularly focused on direct damage spells to the exclusion of most other things. It's just not very versatile. There are some gems, like contingency, wind wall, and wall of force, but they're few and far between. Moreover, other schools can often cover for a lack of direct damage. The orb of x line is a set of conjuration spells from the spell compendium that exemplifies this. They deal good damage, have a rider effect on a failed save, only rely on a touch attack, and bypass everything from anti-magic fields to spell resistance. They obsolete fireballs to a certain extent, though spells like scorching ray are pretty sweet.

I think that it's a bit of a simplification to view wizards as support characters. Really, they're anything characters. They can summon creatures to act as efficient meat shields, or cast a solid fog to lock down a whole combat, or use tactical teleportation abilities to re-position folks. Really, if there's a thing that can be done, wizards can do it, and do it better than most other classes. You don't really have to contribute to damage dealing if you make your enemy's destruction an inevitability. I mentioned it before, but take a good long look at solid fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/solidFog.htm) and start imagining the possibilities that it can provide in combat. Imagine an enemy, or even a group of enemies, utterly locked down while your party has the opportunity to do anything they want. Wizards are also pretty crazy defensively, with stuff like mirror image, fly, the abrupt jaunt ACF, and much much more.

If you want a more straightforward class designed around damage, wizards might not be the best option. I tend to like druids as a more straightforward casting class. They basically get all the damage dealing and battlefield controlling properties of a fighter, wrapped within a friendly riding dog animal companion, as well as the potentially greater damage dealing and battlefield controlling properties of a pile of fighters, summoned spontaneously, as well as those same things in the terms of wild shaping, and also a full spell list. They're like wizards, in that they're crazy versatile, but I tend to like them even more for how forgiving they are. As long as you take natural spell at 6th level, you can effectively alter all of your class features within a day, meaning that build decisions made at the beginning of your gaming career won't hurt later. Clerics are also nice for damage dealing, but I'm less experienced with them.

[ArcturusV]

Well... lets take it easy.

1) Evocation is looked down upon because it's effects tend to be fairly simple, and most other school can either completely replace it, or can replace the parts of it people want. Look for example in Illusions. With a single spell (Shadow Evocation), a character with Illusion spells can replicate a wide range of the Evocation school

As well, you get far more benefits for being a Specialist Wizard over a Generalist. You have to drop at least one school (If choosing Divination as your specialization, which isn't a bad choice at all) or two schools. So you need to look long and hard at the schools and pick which ones you can do without.

Evocations effects are either blatantly copied by other schools (Shadow Evocation), or can be approximated (Often in superior ways) by other schools, like the "Orb of _____" spells in Conjuration.

2) Kinda... not really. It's a hard question. A well played wizard is "Support" in the sense that they can provide a lot of solutions to a lot of problems, and provide answers that the party doesn't otherwise have. Don't have a scout? Pssh, throw Overland Flight and Invisibility on someone. Scout away. Don't have rogue to crack open doors? Got knock on your spell list, cheap and easy.

They're not "Support" though because they are also quite capable of being frontliners (Polymorph into something bruisery and buff up), high damage, cripplers, and dozens of other more direct "Frontman" roles.

To put it simply? A well built wizard (Unlikely for your first time, but handy to know this is possible) is basically Any Role You Want To Play.

3) Yeah. Evocation is... okay. I mean if you pick spells like Acid Arrow, Fireball, etc. You're not going to be all that hurting for damage that you're dealing. You can be perfectly fine for that. There's also things like the aforementioned "Orb of _____" spells in Conjuration, which are some of the better damage you can get in terms of pure damage per effort (Also they avoid some typical "Anti-Wizard" defenses like Spell Resistance and Anti-Magic Fields).

Of course you also have disables. You don't necessarily have to buff. If you do things like Ray of Enfeeblement, Shivering Touch, etc, to weaken enemies, that's another route. You can also be the Combat Engineer, using spells like Wall of Stone, Solid Fog, Evard's Spikey Tentacles of Forced Intrusion, and even Illusions to shape the battlefield and control how the enemies engage you.

4) Kind of tricky. It depends on the campaign style and how you go about it. If you got good rolls for your stats, a Warmage with Warmage's Edge (extra damage on spells for high Int) can be surprisingly good. Similarly if you look at something like the Druid and Cleric for endurance and "Damage" through boosts to yourself, they can keep pace pretty well. Not to mention they can see a lot more combat over the course of a day and still be effective compared to the Wizard.

But you're honestly, if you want just to throw out a lot of dice and have fun watching things burn? I'd say pick sorcerer. If you're going for Pure Damage you're going to want the boost of having more spells per day compared to having access to higher level spells faster. You'll want lots of Metamagic Feats, and when you can grab things that help reduce the costs of Metamagic. Take a few "utility" spells as well just in case. Things like Polymorph and Shapechange will always be a good thing to have up your sleeve.

[HunterOfJello]

If you want to build a wizard with the intention of doing damage, then there are lots of good and effective builds at pulling that off.

I wouldn't say that Evocation is the most hated school of magic, but the least loved and the definitely the easiest to drop.

Wizards can be created to have highly offensive builds and do well with them. If you actually read through Treantmonk's Guide to Wizard Spells: God's Tools - Part 1: Evocation (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869246/Treantmonks_guide_to_Evocation_Spells:_Gods_tools) you'll find lots of interesting and useful spells all throughout the levels.

~~~~~~~~~~~

One reason that Evocation isn't given such a high opinion is the fact that an Offensive Wizard is more effective when he isn't a purely Blasting Wizard. A wizard using evocation, offensive conjuration, summoning, and necromancy on a single wizard with all the spells designed to do direct harm (i.e. not just disable) can be hella effective in any game. A Warmage who only has evocation spells at his command is going to have a far harder job of things compared to evocation with those others schools mixed in.


If you're interested in an actively offensive spellcaster then I reccomend taking a look at the Recaster PrC from Races of Eberron. The class gets a long list of metamagic improvements and options that you can use on the fly to your overwhelming benefit.

[Deathcharge01]

If you're a Wizard....

1. There will come a point in your Wizard career where you would almost always want to become a Specialist Wizard or a Focused Specialist in a school of magic, because it is just better to do so the majority of the times. When doing either of the two mentioned above, you need to ban two or three schools of magic respectively. Now there are 8 schools of magic, Necromancy, Abjuration, Transmutation, Conjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Divination. Divination cannot be banned, so that leaves seven options. Of the seven, Enchantment and Evocation are almost always banned. The spell Mind Blank practically cripples Enchantment and most of Evocation's spells offer Spell Resistance and a save, and in some cases a ranged touch attack also just to do some hit point damage. So as Wizards, we just choose not to use these schools because Enchantment's effects are easily avoided by the enemy and secondly, Evocation's damage can be replicated usually with less effort using Conjuration, while Conjuration also offers Battle field control, Teleports, Summons, apples and grapes.

2. This depends on your group really as the Wizard's role is very dynamic. If you're in a group with two chargers or any melee/ranged combatant that has really good damage output, buff them instead, because that extra attack you allow with the haste spell will bring in much more damage over time than any spell you have available.
If the group is balanced and well rounded, become what you need to be on your initiative. On your initiative, if support is what the group needs - buff that haste/heroism/fly/etc, if debuffs are needed - Slow/ray of X/shriveling touch/etc, if the group needs to escape certain death - regroup/teleport, if the group needs an enemy to take a hit - orb of X that mofo.
In short, Wizards are primarily everything, you just need to adapt to the situation to be who you need to be at that point in time.

3. This depends on how you choose to approach combat. Your question was interesting in that you specifically asked for "damage contribution" without throwing out buffs. I imagine you ask this question this way keeping in mind that combat ends when the enemy's hit points gets to zero. Well, there are other ways to contribute to achieving that zero. Enter save or suck spells. Slow effectively takes away from the enemy's action economy and it gets multiple targets, use without discretion. Freezing glance lasts rounds per level and paralyses opponents for minutes on a failed save. These kind of spells render the enemy helpless or disabled, potentially removing them from combat, thus allowing your group to clean house and get back to them later.
Battle field control is also an effective way, but ArcturusV and Eggynack already covered that.

4. I second this.
Kind of tricky. It depends on the campaign style and how you go about it. If you got good rolls for your stats, a Warmage with Warmage's Edge (extra damage on spells for high Int) can be surprisingly good. Similarly if you look at something like the Druid and Cleric for endurance and "Damage" through boosts to yourself, they can keep pace pretty well. Not to mention they can see a lot more combat over the course of a day and still be effective compared to the Wizard.

But you're honestly, if you want just to throw out a lot of dice and have fun watching things burn? I'd say pick sorcerer. If you're going for Pure Damage you're going to want the boost of having more spells per day compared to having access to higher level spells faster. You'll want lots of Metamagic Feats, and when you can grab things that help reduce the costs of Metamagic. Take a few "utility" spells as well just in case. Things like Polymorph and Shapechange will always be a good thing to have up your sleeve.

[Snownine]

Thank you for the responses, everyone, very informative. The reason I ask is that I have played support characters in other games and found that playstyle very unsatisfying. In addition to being a thankless job in my experience; I like being a damage dealer, slaying enemies.

[eggynack]

Thank you for the responses, everyone, very informative. The reason I ask is that I have played support characters in other games and found that playstyle very unsatisfying. In addition to being a thankless job in my experience; I like being a damage dealer, slaying enemies.
Well, how have you been going about doing support? If you've just been doing stuff like healing, or buffing, that can indeed feel a bit unsatisfying sometimes. It lacks the apparent immediacy of just stabbing something through the face or laying down a fireball. I think that most of the non-buff roles are different from that though. With summoning, you generally control the monsters, so you're getting to do the attacking anyway. With battlefield control, you're altering things in a very visually obvious and tactically interesting way. With debuffing, you're directly impacting your opponents, though it's usually in a way separate from hit-points.

Support, like wizards, can mean anything and everything. What are you looking to get out of your experience in the game? If all you want is to deal a lot of damage, you can't do much better than an optimized barbarian. It always feels a bit unsatisfying to me though, because you lack options. So, y'know, if what would make you happy as a wizard is nothing but damage, then it's probably not the best option, but if you want to do literally anything else, they probably are the best option.

[Deathcharge01]

Thank you for the responses, everyone, very informative. The reason I ask is that I have played support characters in other games and found that playstyle very unsatisfying. In addition to being a thankless job in my experience; I like being a damage dealer, slaying enemies.

Which do you prefer, damaging opponents in melee or damaging them at range?

[Emperor Tippy]

I am brand spanking new to D&D and will be playing my first game this summer. I love the idea of spellcasters and thought it would be fun to play as a sorcerer or wizard. After doing a little reading online however I find that evocation is almost universally reviled, as are direct damage wizards in general. So here are my questions.

1. Why is evocation looked down upon?
Because most people online know enough to follow the general themes of how to make a decent wizard but really don't understand the "why" of those themes or think about it. Evocation is generally crap for blasting and doing damage but it is perhaps the best defensive school in the game and has tons of versatility, if you know what you are doing with it.


2. Are wizards in 3.5 primarily support characters?
No, not unless they want to be.

3. Is there any way to have an arcane spellcaster that can contribute to the damage output of the party more directly than throwing out buffs.
Plenty of ways. Wizard 5 (preferably Grey Elf with the Elf Generalist racial sub level and Spontaneous Divination alternate class feature)/Incantatrix 10/Archmage 4/Mind Bender 1. Grab one of the Orb of X spells and then pile on metamagic (be sure to get Arcane Thesis for the Orb spell). Protect yourself by making your buffs persistent and deal damage by throwing out massively powerful orbs of death. Search for "mailman" or "Cindy" if you want some examples.


4. Is another spellcasting class better suited to dealing damage?
Debatable.


If you're a Wizard....

1. There will come a point in your Wizard career where you would almost always want to become a Specialist Wizard or a Focused Specialist in a school of magic, because it is just better to do so the majority of the times.
Ugh. No it's really not. A wizards power, the thing that makes them the generally considered most powerful base class in the game, is their versatility. Specialization in anything but Divination (which Spontaneous Divination tends to make a waste of time) is enough to drop a wizard down to Tier 2. There are no two schools you can give up that won't screw you over in the versatility department.

Outside of a few select builds specialization is virtually never actually worth it.

----
Apprentice wizards play evocation blasters.
Journeymen wizards play Focused Specialists that ban evocation.
Master wizards play Wizards and shake their heads at the blindness of the lower ranks, having realized the true secret of power. :smallwink:

[eggynack]

So... elven generalists and domain wizards all the way then? I suppose that makes sense. Still, I think there is some validity to specialization. If your spell list contains all different spells, then specialization means that you have more versatility on any given day. You lose out on some great stuff, but it can often be replaced by other great stuff, and it's not much of a loss. I think that there are ways to build a wizard such that you don't really feel the pain of your lost schools, while seeing some good benefit.

[Emperor Tippy]

So... elven generalists and domain wizards all the way then?
Ideally yes but I'll take Human Generalist over Human Focused Specialist most any day. There are some specific builds and ideas where specializing makes sense but from a pure power perspective specializing is almost always weaker.


I suppose that makes sense. Still, I think there is some validity to specialization.
If it fits the character you want to play, by all means specialize. You are still going to be one of the most powerful characters in the game; you will just be weaker than if you hadn't specialized.


If your spell list contains all different spells, then specialization means that you have more versatility on any given day. You lose out on some great stuff, but it can often be replaced by other great stuff, and it's not much of a loss. I think that there are ways to build a wizard such that you don't really feel the pain of your lost schools, while seeing some good benefit.

And one extra spell slot of each level isn't that much of a loss either. At level 20 you already should have around 10 spell slots per encounter assuming you face 4 encounters per day and assuming no real cheese. Does 11 tend to make all that much of a difference? No.

Think of it this way. You can perfectly replicate specialization with one of each level of a Pearl of Power. The straight market cost of that is 285,000 GP. Would you be willing to pay 285,000 GP to regain full access to the two schools of magic that you gave up to specialize? I sure as hell would.

Especially when you consider that the 7th, 8th, and 9th level slots tend to be the ones that really make a difference and matter and that's only 194,000 GP.

The power of the wizard is versatility, anything that reduces your versatility needs a very big benefit (like Incantatrix) to make up for it.

[eggynack]

I suppose your argument makes sense, though there are some other advantages to specialization. Abrupt jaunt is obviously fantastic, especially at low levels, and rapid summoning is great on summoner builds. Additionally, your argument makes more sense at 20th level. At 1st level, when you only get one first level spell per day from the class, and probably one spell from 18 intelligence unless you're playing a +int race, specialization represents one third of your ability to cast throughout the day, and focused specialization doubles your effective spells per day. There's probably a break off point at a certain level where the loss of versatility outweighs the gain in spell slots, but I don't think that break point is at first level. There are definitely levels where spells per day comes at a higher premium than you are claiming.

[Phelix-Mu]

So... elven generalists and domain wizards all the way then? I suppose that makes sense. Still, I think there is some validity to specialization. If your spell list contains all different spells, then specialization means that you have more versatility on any given day. You lose out on some great stuff, but it can often be replaced by other great stuff, and it's not much of a loss. I think that there are ways to build a wizard such that you don't really feel the pain of your lost schools, while seeing some good benefit.

I don't mean to call you out so much as to point out that I'm not sure the bolded part is really consistent with the rest of your argument. "Less versatility allows more versatility" seems to be the thing that Tippy is saying is not true. And I'd have to say, he sounds right on that point. While a specialist will have more stuff from a pretty big list, the specialist's list is by definition smaller (or at least it's supposed to be...enter hijinks). Less versatility, just slightly more of less versatility.

Scrolls, staffs, and proliferation of magic-mart really make day-to-day precise spell selection not a huge issue past say...dunno, I guess it depends on the tone/volume of the game world, but money is pretty easy around 9th or so. With 5ths allowing wholesale alteration of the game world for profit and strategic power (in ways that don't require Tippy's Guide to X-ing the Y: Mighty Magics for Beginners to figure out), then whether you specialized or not, you have access to a lot of stuff, and others in the party can probably reliably UMD anything from your banned schools at that point anyway (or I guess the familiar could).

In any case, to the OP:
Wizards are a good class to play around with once you've acquired a greater knowledge of the spells available and strategic spell use. Warmage or Beguiler may be slightly more novice classes that allow for some versatility while not tossing the player into the vast sea that is THE GRAND LIST OF ARCANE SPELLS. At low levels, spell choice can literally be life or death for the wizard, and while there are some that are hardly ever bad, death as a low-level wizard is a cruel way to learn.

[eggynack]

I believe my point was that there are more spells than spell slots. The real question, I suppose, is whether there are more spell functions that a wizard would like access to than slots. Assuming that you have access to either three or four of your highest level slots, then it's entirely possible, that the four slot list will contain all of the spells on the three slot list, even with access to two additional schools. That would represent an obvious net benefit to the specializing wizard, even in the arena of versatility. However, if the addition of other schools would provide the three slot list with something that the four slot list wouldn't have, then the four slot list can be considered less versatile, as tippy claimed. I think you might be correct though, as I hadn't considered the utility of slot replacing items like wands and scrolls. Those mean that your daily versatility would most likely be definitively increased.

Still, I think there's an optimal impetus to specialize. As I noted, it's a maneuver that's best at low levels, whereas not specializing is best at high levels. Due to the fact that the wizard is exponentially more powerful at high levels than at low levels, specialization would create a more even power level for the wizard.

[Deathcharge01]

Ugh. No it's really not. A wizards power, the thing that makes them the generally considered most powerful base class in the game, is their versatility. Specialization in anything but Divination (which Spontaneous Divination tends to make a waste of time) is enough to drop a wizard down to Tier 2. There are no two schools you can give up that won't screw you over in the versatility department.

Outside of a few select builds specialization is virtually never actually worth it.

Dropping 3 schools(Enchantment/Evocation/+1) to gaining 2 extra spells per level and an ability that reflects the chosen school of magic I think is better than having access to 8 schools and not enough spells per day to fully utilize this versatility. As I said before, Conjuration I think is more consistent at dealing damage save for a few gems in Evocation, and mostly everything gets mindblank when its available, thus rendering the vast majority of Enchantment useless. Why keep these schools when the vast majority spells available in one are inefficient at what they supposedly do and the other becomes pretty much obsolete when mindblank comes online?

Yes there are some builds that exploit the Focused Specialist to the max, however, in a test of Wiz general/20 vs Wiz focused specialist/20, I'm pretty sure the specialist will come out ahead because he has more spells per day and ways to replicate or duplicate the effects of the banned schools, while still having his SU ability available for use. Certain Focused Specialist options stand out here; I don't see how a Focused Specialist Conjurer, Transmuter, or Illusionist doesn't match or surpass a general wiz in terms of actual versatility. The other options (necro and Abjuration) may just break even because they invest heavily into mainly one thing, with that said, they still got slots to fill with Conjuration/illusion/transmutation spells and don't suffer the redundancies and inefficiencies if the generalist.

Choosing to be a generalist Wizard is nice, you do have the options, the question is can you really use them as effectively as you think you can when compared to the ACF.

[ahenobarbi]

If Domain Wizard is available specialist become much less attractive.

[eggynack]

If Domain Wizard is available specialist become much less attractive.
Yeah, domain wizard is kinda ridiculous. Abrupt jaunt is still a pretty nice option though, and focused specialist gets you an extra spell over domain wizard.

[Deathcharge01]

Yeah, domain wizard is kinda ridiculous. Abrupt jaunt is still a pretty nice option though, and focused specialist gets you an extra spell over domain wizard.

I'd thrown in Elf Substitution Generalist Wizardy along with the Domain Wizard. But again no Abrupt jaunt :smallfrown:

[ahenobarbi]

I'd thrown in Elf Substitution Generalist Wizardy along with the Domain Wizard. But again no Abrupt jaunt :smallfrown:

Yup. But banning three schools of magic just to get abrupt jaunt (or banning two and having fewer slots) seems to pricey.

[Emperor Tippy]

I suppose your argument makes sense, though there are some other advantages to specialization.
Sure, with Master Specialist. Focused Specialist is three schools lost for 2 additional spells per level gained.


Abrupt jaunt is obviously fantastic, especially at low levels, and rapid summoning is great on summoner builds.
And it costs you your familiar. Sure AJ is probably better than a familiar most of the time (especially when you can just spend a feat for Obtain Familiar if you want) but stacking that cost with giving up 2 schools of magic?

Rapid Summoning is the same except worse (standard action summoning tending to be worse than AJ). It can be good on specific builds but again, those builds tend to fall fairly firmly into tier 2.


Additionally, your argument makes more sense at 20th level. At 1st level, when you only get one first level spell per day from the class, and probably one spell from 18 intelligence unless you're playing a +int race, specialization represents one third of your ability to cast throughout the day, and focused specialization doubles your effective spells per day. There's probably a break off point at a certain level where the loss of versatility outweighs the gain in spell slots, but I don't think that break point is at first level. There are definitely levels where spells per day comes at a higher premium than you are claiming.
With Elf Generalist (and Domain Wizard especially), it is at first level. Without them it tends to be around 4th level for the break point. By 5th level I would say that a generalist's versatility tends to outstrip the extra spell slots from specialization fairly definitely.


I believe my point was that there are more spells than spell slots. The real question, I suppose, is whether there are more spell functions that a wizard would like access to than slots. Assuming that you have access to either three or four of your highest level slots, then it's entirely possible, that the four slot list will contain all of the spells on the three slot list, even with access to two additional schools. That would represent an obvious net benefit to the specializing wizard, even in the arena of versatility. However, if the addition of other schools would provide the three slot list with something that the four slot list wouldn't have, then the four slot list can be considered less versatile, as tippy claimed. I think you might be correct though, as I hadn't considered the utility of slot replacing items like wands and scrolls. Those mean that your daily versatility would most likely be definitively increased.
It's more that, say, dropping Evocation will cost you Resilient Sphere; which is the best personal protection spell in the entire game. That spell alone is enough to make up for the entire rest of Evocation sucking (and the rest of evocation doesn't suck).
You can't band Divination (and you shouldn't even if you could).
Abjuration has Disjunction, the Dispel line, and Mind Blank just in core; it really can't be banned.
Conjuration has teleport, that alone is worth not banning the school. Enchantment is probably the most bannable school in that it doesn't really have anything that is pretty much worth the school on its own.
Evocation has the Force line, Contingency, and tons more outside of core; and the force line alone is enough to carry the school.
Illusion has the Shadow Evocation/Shadow Conjuration lines, Invisibility, most of the miss chance producers, and Simulacrum; all very good reasons to not ban the school.
Necromancy has a fair chunk of the Save or die/be screwed spells and is good for dealing with undead but in core only it's one of the more bannable schools.
Transmutation has the polymorph line, that alone means don't ban it. The rest of the school is just icing on the cake.

So in a core only game the only two schools that don't have "this spell is worth the school on its own" spells are Enchantment and Necromancy. That being said, Enchantment contains a great many incredibly useful spells and so does Necromancy. You might not need them most of the time but when you have to play in a social setting you can prep enchantment or when you know you will be facing undead then Necromancy can come out to play.

If you are playing your wizard decently you will already have more than enough spells 99% of the time. The extra for specialization just aren't worth the cost. Especially with all of the ways to cover weaknesses if necessary (getting a high CL wand of Fell Drain Magic Missile, for example and then hanging back to dump negative levels to help out in less risky battles).


Still, I think there's an optimal impetus to specialize. As I noted, it's a maneuver that's best at low levels, whereas not specializing is best at high levels. Due to the fact that the wizard is exponentially more powerful at high levels than at low levels, specialization would create a more even power level for the wizard.
Except the extra slots really don't tend to up power that much. They cost you far more than what they bring in.


Dropping 3 schools(Enchantment/Evocation/+1) to gaining 2 extra spells per level and an ability that reflects the chosen school of magic I think is better than having access to 8 schools and not enough spells per day to fully utilize this versatility.
Then you would generally be wrong. Be more frugal with your spells.


As I said before, Conjuration I think is more consistent at dealing damage save for a few gems in Evocation,
Evocation is not the blasting school. It's just about the worst school for attacking an enemy with, period. It's great for battle field control and defense however.


and mostly everything gets mindblank when its available, thus rendering the vast majority of Enchantment useless.
Until your enemy drops a dispel magic followed by a dominate on you, or drops a Disjunction on you, or the party gets you to the negatives and then the enchanter makes you their slave. Enchantment is not useless, it just requires more than average skill to use effectively.


Why keep these schools when the vast majority spells available in one are inefficient at what they supposedly do and the other becomes pretty much obsolete when mindblank comes online?
Because the vast majority of spells in every school tend to suck. It's the gems that tend to matter, and those schools have them.


Yes there are some builds that exploit the Focused Specialist to the max, however, in a test of Wiz general/20 vs Wiz focused specialist/20, I'm pretty sure the specialist will come out ahead because he has more spells per day and ways to replicate or duplicate the effects of the banned schools, while still having his SU ability available for use. Certain Focused Specialist options stand out here; I don't see how a Focused Specialist Conjurer, Transmuter, or Illusionist doesn't match or surpass a general wiz in terms of actual versatility. The other options (necro and Abjuration) may just break even because they invest heavily into mainly one thing, with that said, they still got slots to fill with Conjuration/illusion/transmutation spells and don't suffer the redundancies and inefficiencies if the generalist.
No, I will crush any FS with a Wiz generalist without much trouble at all at level 20. And you will be crushed long before you get through all of your 8th and 9th level spells, much less all of your spells. At level 20 you already have 40+ spells. You have to seriously try to throw 10 spells out in a level 20 encounter, most of the time the encounter is already over by that point.


Choosing to be a generalist Wizard is nice, you do have the options, the question is can you really use them as effectively as you think you can when compared to the ACF.
Yes, easily. Quite frankly, I rarely actually find myself using the vast majority of my spell slots during an adventuring day.

Level 20 I generally need less than five spells to deal with any encounter. I'm really having to think to come up with the last time I had to blow more than 10 in an encounter and can only come up with one time in the past year that I have had to blow more than 15.


If Domain Wizard is available specialist become much less attractive.

If DW is allowed them specialist is the refuge of the idiot in terms of power and optimization.


Yup. But banning three schools of magic just to get abrupt jaunt (or banning two and having fewer slots) seems to pricey.

It's way beyond just pricey.

AJ is nice, maybe worth loosing an 8th level spell slot for, but it's not worth a school of magic.

[Elderand]

Evocation is not the blasting school. It's just about the worst school for attacking an enemy with, period. It's great for battle field control and defense however.

I'm not sure I agree with that, at least if we look outside of core (and foray into setting specific) we can find at least 1 gem for damage dealing.

Dalamar's lightning lance.
How does 39d6 damage for 4 level slot sound ? Whitout any metamagic ?
Granted it's a fort save and has SR: yes but I think it's still good at dealing damage.

[Deathcharge01]

Then you would generally be wrong. Be more frugal with your spells.

Transmutation and Conjuration account for almost 50% of all spells available, you can't get more frugal than that.


Evocation is not the blasting school. It's just about the worst school for attacking an enemy with, period. It's great for battle field control and defense however.

Conjuration is better at battle field control, more consistent with damage, has summons and teleports. And there's abjuration for defense.


Until your enemy drops a dispel magic followed by a dominate on you, or drops a Disjunction on you, or the party gets you to the negatives and then the enchanter makes you their slave. Enchantment is not useless, it just requires more than average skill to use effectively.

An enemy spell caster? No no no, he won't be dispelling or disjoining anything, the concentration check will be too epic. And yes, enchantment has good spells, but putting in the work for a dispel before going with the enchantment attack is exactly the type of inefficiencies we should try to avoid.


Because the vast majority of spells in every school tend to suck. It's the gems that tend to matter, and those schools have them.

Honestly, I don't think Evocation or Enchantment and maybe even Necro is worth the gems they contain. We can dominate the world just fine without them.


No, I will crush any FS with a Wiz generalist without much trouble at all at level 20. And you will be crushed long before you get through all of your 8th and 9th level spells, much less all of your spells. At level 20 you already have 40+ spells. You have to seriously try to throw 10 spells out in a level 20 encounter, most of the time the encounter is already over by that point.

At level 20, the chances of winning any PVP or spellcasting encounter hinges on who wins initiative.


Yes, easily. Quite frankly, I rarely actually find myself using the vast majority of my spell slots during an adventuring day.

Level 20 I generally need less than five spells to deal with any encounter. I'm really having to think to come up with the last time I had to blow more than 10 in an encounter and can only come up with one time in the past year that I have had to blow more than 15.

This is more or less influenced by other factors like the DM. The devil worshiping greedy backstabbing bastards of DMs I've encountered will put you through the wringer, and really test that versatility. One of them asked me to make a concentration check for a fly spell I had active once.....

[ArcturusV]

I dunno, kinda with Tippy on this one. Even at first level you don't really need to specialize. A generalist will end up likely having 5/6 spells per day. Meaning you average out 1.25/1.5 spells per encounter on an average Full Adventuring Day. Well, maybe better than that as at first level I often see adventures with Short Days abounding. The 2 random encounter spaced days apart on your way to the dungeon location, 3 rooms to the first floor before it's cleared, etc. Considering first level does have a lot of "I win the Encounter" spells available to any wizard... and that clever use of Cantrips can make a bigger impact than their spell level would suggest. They're not really hurting for being effective. I'm rarely in that "Hope I get lucky with a crossbow bolt" mode that I hear about at first level with a wizard.

That and as much as people value ACFs for Wizards, if you're actually playing out Level 1... I like having my Scribe Scroll and my Familiar. For the pittance of 12 GP and 1 XP (doable after our first random encounter on the way to the dungeon), I can add +33% to my daily combat potential of 1st level "I win the encounter" spells. And a familiar is just insanely useful. It's like having a swiss army knife on your person. You might not always use it, you wouldn't want to use it in a fight... but at some point you're going to need that danged corkscrew and who's laughing when you bust it out?

[Melcar]

As any spell caster can create his or her own spells, you can always just create a very powerful evocation spells. If you have access to 3rd party books, look up Path of Magic, which contains a prestige class called Forceweaver, that deals some heavy damage. Also School of Evocation hold an evocation spell that does: 1d6 points of damage per caster level, per round, for 1 round per caster level. Thats an average damage of 1400 for a level 20, if the targed saves all the times, (one save per round) thats 700 and lets say that you only break SR half of those times... well a level 7 spell with apotential for 2400, average 1400, and almost surely 350-500 damage.. thats not so bad. It takes a longsword a long time to do that kind of damage.

Personaly I disagree with the fact that evocation is a less effective school. As an Arch Mage, with Mastery of Elements it allows me to choose the opposite element of the target and do 1,5 times the damage from lets say fireball agaist a frost giant, or the other way around.

Conjuration and illution is for me two schoos which I almost never use. I hate the fact that I have to summon something to get my victory, and illution is just to easy to counter or see through.

Transmutation is very good. Disintegrate is a very good spell, especially if you play 3.0 or if you research your own version that functions like 3.0 if you play 3.5. And just a hint. Research an AOE vesion of disintegrate... but be sure to have Mastery of shaping from the arch mage prestige class.

Abjuration lets you cast and create powerful wards and porections spells. Think The Srinshee's Spellshift and go to town.

Necro... well point a die. We like it! Make it into an AOE effect for added power!

I just want to point one thing out....

If you want to create a tactical nuke spell or become a (glass) cannon. Evocation is the best school! I would like to see the spells from conjuration that out deals evocation damage!

[Juntao112]

If you want to create a tactical nuke spell or become a (glass) cannon. Evocation is the best school! I would like to see the spells from conjuration that out deals evocation damage!

Orbs

Melf's Unicorn Arrow

Major Creation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2010735#post2010735)

[eggynack]

I dunno, kinda with Tippy on this one. Even at first level you don't really need to specialize. A generalist will end up likely having 5/6 spells per day. Meaning you average out 1.25/1.5 spells per encounter on an average Full Adventuring Day. Well, maybe better than that as at first level I often see adventures with Short Days abounding. The 2 random encounter spaced days apart on your way to the dungeon location, 3 rooms to the first floor before it's cleared, etc. Considering first level does have a lot of "I win the Encounter" spells available to any wizard... and that clever use of Cantrips can make a bigger impact than their spell level would suggest. They're not really hurting for being effective. I'm rarely in that "Hope I get lucky with a crossbow bolt" mode that I hear about at first level with a wizard.

That and as much as people value ACFs for Wizards, if you're actually playing out Level 1... I like having my Scribe Scroll and my Familiar. For the pittance of 12 GP and 1 XP (doable after our first random encounter on the way to the dungeon), I can add +33% to my daily combat potential of 1st level "I win the encounter" spells. And a familiar is just insanely useful. It's like having a swiss army knife on your person. You might not always use it, you wouldn't want to use it in a fight... but at some point you're going to need that danged corkscrew and who's laughing when you bust it out?

I think I'm around the middle on the whole thing. I hadn't really considered not specializing to a great extent, but the argument for being a generalist is pretty convincing. I don't think I'm necessarily on the "generalized wizardry is the one true path to high power as a wizard" bandwagon, but I might be on the "generalized wizardry is always better if you have access to domain wizard, and tends to be better at high levels if you don't" bandwagon. It seems like a reasonable enough claim to me.

[Melcar]

Orbs should be evocation if one read the schools discribtions. The books are know to contain many many mistakes, and creating an orb of fire is not conjuration but evocation. It might say conjuration in the books, but then the book are wrong. Read and understand the schools, how they work and what each school of magic is about. Then one will see, that sending forth lightning in any form cant be conjuration, but must be evocation.

The melfs unicorn thing deals 1d8+8 how is that good?

[Juntao112]

Orbs should be evocation if one read the schools discribtions
Orbs are in Conjuration if one reads the spell description.

I endeavor to see things as they are, not as they should be.


The melfs unicorn thing deals 1d8+8 how is that good?

Have you read the full version of the spell?

[eggynack]

Orbs should be evocation if one read the schools discribtions

The melfs unicorn thing deals 1d8+8 how is that good?
So... your argument is that because evocation should have all the good blasting spells, it has all the good blasting spells? It all seems rather circular. Orb of fire is conjuration, therefore you are just wrong. The fact that it's quite possibly the best blasting spell in the game just makes the facts even more sad for evocation.

[Melcar]

Come on....

When I go through the school of conjuration online, I see that alot of damaging spells that to me is evocation. Like "Blast of Flame". How that spell, when it basically is a fireball effect, is not an evocation spell just tells me, that somehow the writers have not done their homework.

Can it be, that alot of old 3,0 evocation spells and effects are now considered conjuration in 3.5, because they saw that cunjuration was only summon and teleport in 3.0???

Anyway... Im following what makes sense when using the spell school discription: Evocation: Spells that manipulate energy or create something from nothing.


Conjuration: Conjuration: Spells that bring creatures or materials to the caster. To me a flame is not a material.

[ArcturusV]

I'd say his point is more valid in that what defines the split of "Is this Conjuration or is this Evocation?" seems a little... arbitrary.

One could say it's Conjuration because Conjuration is channeling things from other players. That's why it has Teleport, Summoning, and as much as I shake my head at it, Healing and Inflicting spells. It's calling forth the energies/objects from somewhere else. Thus the Orb of Fire is a Conjuration as it's calling forth Fire energy from somewhere else.

Then again Evocation is defined as creating energy and effects upon the world. You create fire energy and blast it out in a Fireball, you create energy to raise a Wall of Force, etc. Orb of Fire could have been Evocation because it is creating a ball of elemental energy in the world.

It's not of course. But mostly because someone decided to make it Conjuration at the design/development steps when they could have easily made it evocation.

Of course, WotC already thought Evocation was one of/the most powerful school in the game anyway, particularly if you read books like Tome and Blood and how they describe schools. So they probably put it in Conjuration because Evocation was already so insanely powerful that it dominated all other schools so we couldn't give it even more stuff.

[eggynack]

Come on....

When I go through the school of evocation online, I see that alot of damaging spells that to me is evocation. Like "Blast of Flame". How that spell, when it basically is a fireball effect, is not an evocation spell just tells me, that somehow the writers have not done their homework.

Can it be, that alot of old 3,0 evocation spells and effects are now considered conjuration in 3.5, because they saw that cunjuration was only summon and teleport in 3.0???

Anyway... Im following what makes sense when using the spell school discription: Evocation: Spells that manipulate energy or create something from nothing.


Conjuration: Conjuration: Spells that bring creatures or materials to the caster. To me a flame is not a material.
Good for you, I guess? It's conjuration. Maybe it shouldn't be conjuration, because the school doesn't need the help, but it is conjuration. You asked for non-evocation ways to blast, and it's right there. Your opinion on the nature of spell schools is irrelevant. Also, you should generally work on your syntax. Your posts are pretty hard to read.

[Juntao112]

Conjuration: Conjuration: Spells that bring creatures or materials to the caster. To me a flame is not a material.

Plasma is ionized gas. It is considered the fourth state of matter and can commonly be found in arc wielders, lightning, and the sun.

[Melcar]

I will try to work on my syntax.

I know my oppinion is irrelevant, but so is all but the players at the table, so thats not a valid point to make. I was simply trying to point out, that a lot of elemental conjuration spells porabably should have been evocation. That how I see it! And I do believe this forum is about sharing oppinions??? Yes?

Generally the tone is hard. And Im sorry, but just because your guys are über nerds, and know every rule, spell, feat and class ever written, its not ok to call my post irrelevent. There ARE a lot of mistakes in the books, and to me this seems like one of them. And yes, if you want to follow the rules as they are written thats fine. But you will run into a lot of problems.

In my game spells like Orb of Fire or Acid are all evocation, because it fits the way we think/read the spell school describtion! Generally all elemental damaging spells are evocation.

Remember that the books are guidelines. I think Gygax once said something about the only thing we as players should not tell our DM was that he needen no rules... or something like that. Thats why I have changed it.

[Melcar]

Plasma is ionized gas. It is considered the fourth state of matter and can commonly be found in arc wielders, lightning, and the sun.

Whats the density of a flame? Weight wise?

[Juntao112]

Please understand that we do not know your houserules, so when you ask us what blasting spells Conjuration has, we are going to go look in a book and tell you what blasting spells Conjuration has.


Whats the density of a flame? Weight wise?
Depends on the gas mixture. What would you like? By default, air is a mostly oxygen/nitrogen mixture.

[Melcar]

Its fine that you point out my lack of knowledge about the school.

What I had a problem with, was the way that my thoughts were recieved. Im not here to be dismissed!

[Juntao112]

Respect is earned, not given.

[Melcar]

Please understand that we do not know your houserules, so when you ask us what blasting spells Conjuration has, we are going to go look in a book and tell you what blasting spells Conjuration has.


Depends on the gas mixture. What would you like? By default, air is a mostly oxygen/nitrogen mixture.

Ok... well since the gas on fire is hot, and hot gas weighs less than cold, A flame cant realy weigh as mush as room temperature oxygen. But Im no expert.


Am I realy the only one here that thinks its a mistake, to place elemental damaging spells under conjuration?

[Juntao112]

Ok... well since the gas on fire is hot, and hot gas weighs less than cold, A flame cant realy weigh as mush as room temperature oxygen. But Im no expert.
Fortunately, we're using magic.


Am I realy the only one here that thinks its a mistake, to place elemental damaging spells under conjuration?

Acid Arrow.

[Melcar]

Respect is earned, not given.

So... respect is earned on the basis of D&D knowledge? Is that what you are saying? Here I am being as polite as I can and you say something like that?

Thats very rude!

[Juntao112]

Lack of knowledge is not the issue. Ignorance is the issue.

The difference is that one arises from insufficient information, and the other arises from a poor attitude towards learning.

It is entirely possible to be uninformed and respected. Simply be open minded when stating your opinions and listen to what more experienced people say.

It is impossible to be an expert on everything, and most people understand this. It is entirely possible to be humble and have a good attitude, however, so when people do not, it is less easily forgiven.

[Max Caysey]

When did he have a bad attitude?

[Juntao112]

I was expanding on the statement. I am not going to say he has a bad attitude, but asking for good Conjuration damage spells, then saying "Oh, those don't count because they do damage, should be Evocation, and are Evocation at my table" comes across as somewhat disingenuous.

[Abaddona]

If "Orb of..." series of spells were indeed a mistake then that mistake was made two times: in Complete Arcane and in Spell Compedium - so i doubt it.

Also calling someone "uber nerd" is in no way being polite.

[Elderand]

I still think that when it comes to pure damage evocation wins if one is willing to look at setting specific material.

Orb of whatever does (whitout metamagic) 15d6 damage, so an average of 52.5 damage. Big advantage, SR no.

Dalamar's lightning lance, same level as the orbs, does whitout metamagic 9d6 untyped damage and 30d6 electricity damage so an average of 136.5 damage. Disadvantage SR yes

Since both spells are of the same level they are just as open to metamagic abuse so lightning lance will always outdamage an orb spell.

The one factor in favor of the orb is of course the SR no, but outside of antimagic field I'm not sure how much that matters.

Another exemple : Raistlin wheel of flame does 120d6 damage in a 60ft area over the course of 15 rounds. So an average of 420 damage. Of course it takes time and it's SR yes, but I don't know of a conjuration spell of 6th level that does comparable damage. *

*It's possible the damage of wheel of flame could go up way higher, something like 682.5 average at CL 20. The spell says it does 1d6 on the first round 2d6 on the second and so on, up to 15d6 on the 15th round but the spell doesn't actually say it stops doing damage afterward, just that the damage doesn't go higher than 15d6 for the following round. Opinion ? The spell is on page 49 of tower of high sorcery.

[tiercel]

A lot of folks are quick to turn their noses up at Evocation/direct damage (other than specialized builds like the Mailman), but having some of it in your toolbox can be handy.

Unless you are a specialist, it's not that special, as a wizard, to just do hp damage to one target. Melee and archer types have plenty of ways of doing that. (And if you just want to bust out big hunks of magic hp damage to individuals/small groups, duskblade is probably more in your... <John Cleese>idiom?</John Cleese>... than straight up wizard.)

Where wizards are more useful is their ability to apply damage to areas / groups of foes at once. Hence, the oft-maligned fireball. You don't have fireball because you want to do 6d6-save-for-half-then-minus-fire-resistance to the dragon, you have fireball to annihilate that stupid kobold warren in one blast so you can get to the dragon more easily. (Or to badly injure the BBEG's group of Trusted Lieutenant bodyguards so that your melee tank can get in there and finish the job quickly to get in the BBEG's face.)

[Don't get me started on direct-damage, SR:No, "nonmagical magic" orbs and other Conjurations.]

As for Enchantment, it's conventional TO wisdom that "Enchantment sux cos mind blank wins forever." Yes, mind blank is freakishly strong for what it does, but it is an 8th level spell, which means for many campaigns it will either never enter play, or only BBEG(s) near the end of the campaign will reasonably have access to it. Plus, by time you reach levels where opponents can reasonably be buffed with mind blank, you're at a level of play where tearing down their buffstacks with, e.g., greater dispel magic is probably a correct opening move anyway.

(This is not an argument that mind blank is okay and not a problem, it's an argument that mind blank doesn't obviate the school of Enchantment before mind blank is even in play.)

Probably the bigger problem with Enchantment, from a narrative point of view, is its save-or-lose nature. Putting aside the mechanics of how likely it is for your enchantment spell to work on your target, if you go loaded for bear with Enchantments to the big boss battle you could wind up with just frustration (if you don't land your effects) or anticlimax ("turn off the boss battle music, the BBEG just flubbed his save against hideous laughter... how embarrassing").

... also don't get me started on the Abrupt Jaunt ACF for conjurer specialists. It's bad enough that Conjuration is pretty much already the Best School Ever, much less handing out a defensive ability at 1st level that is so strong that you arguably about have to go up to greater mirror image or celerity (both of which are 4th level spells and arguably broken) to find a better all-around defense. Certainly, Abrupt Jaunt is so much more mechanically powerful than the other PHB II specialist "trade in your familiar" ACFs that it's silly.

[Juntao112]

I find Fireball's most useful feature is often the fact that it burns things.

[eggynack]

Various stuff.
You missed the fact that the orb spells have pretty good rider effects, like dazing for orb of fire, and that the orb spells rely on the usually more reliable touch attack, rather than the lance's save for half.

@Melcar: The reason you're not being respected as much as you think you should be isn't just because you're completely and utterly wrong, but because you insist upon standing by a completely wrong point. People make mistakes. Hell, I make tons of mistakes all the time. I once spent the better part of a melee arena based thread forgetting about the flatfooted condition entirely, and misunderstanding the effects of damage reduction on statistics. Just within the last day, I claimed that solid fog in pathfinder acts the same way as it does in 3.5. The trick to getting people to respect you despite that, is to just admit you're wrong, and calm down a bit. The world isn't going to end just because you lose an argument, and you have lost this one. If you want to debate the rules as they should be, I think there's a thread on the front page debating the very thing you're talking about. Threads are assumed to be based on the actual books, not on any particular game's house rules.

[Elderand]

You missed the fact that the orb spells have pretty good rider effects, like dazing for orb of fire, and that the orb spells rely on the usually more reliable touch attack, rather than the lance's save for half.

Given that the lance does more than twice the damage of the orb (close to three time) save for half isn't much of a problem unless facing something with evasion.

The orbs are good spells, I'm not disputing that, but if your goal is to do as much hp damage as possible, there are better spells, even at their level.

[ArcturusV]

Well, evasion is pretty danged common. At least magnitudes more common than the similar effect for Fortitude or Will saving throws. I mean just Player's Handbook you have evasion on: Barbarian, Druid Animal Companions (Which are effective party members on their own), Monk, Paladin Mount (Which if done right again is basically an extra party member), Ranger, Rogue, Familiars.

Stuff that doesn't: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard.

Out of the stuff that doesn't, with handy access to spells the Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Cleric can get a lot of resistances or boosts to saving throws.

So you're really only left with it having a good chance of being fully effective against: Bards, Fighters, Paladins. 3/13 target types.

[eggynack]

Given that the lance does more than twice the damage of the orb (close to three time) save for half isn't much of a problem unless facing something with evasion.

The orbs are good spells, I'm not disputing that, but if your goal is to do as much hp damage as possible, there are better spells, even at their level.
I was mostly bringing it up because they were things you did not bring up that favored the orbs. The rider effects also seem extremely relevant. If you know what dazed does, you know how ridiculous that can be. The reason people apply metamagic to orbs, and don't apply metamagic to the lance, is because the orbs are far more universally applicable. An enemy with a good touch AC is pretty rare, so your attacks are dealing their damage against just about all enemies all the time. Another thing you failed to mention is that orbs go through anti-magic fields. That is just crazy powerful right there. Based on that alone, I'd rather prepare an orb than prepare a lance. Being able to hit a golem is one thing, but being able to hit a golem in an anti-magic field is just amazing.

[TuggyNE]

As for Enchantment, it's conventional TO wisdom that "Enchantment sux cos mind blank wins forever." Yes, mind blank is freakishly strong for what it does, but it is an 8th level spell, which means for many campaigns it will either never enter play, or only BBEG(s) near the end of the campaign will reasonably have access to it. Plus, by time you reach levels where opponents can reasonably be buffed with mind blank, you're at a level of play where tearing down their buffstacks with, e.g., greater dispel magic is probably a correct opening move anyway.

Enchantment isn't weak because of mind blank, it's weak because it requires even more planning than usual to amass suitable minions, and because of protection from evil, the Undead and Construct types, and Sense Motive. Note that those are available from level 1.

However, "weak" doesn't mean "T5", it's more "weaker than most of the other schools". You can still make a perfectly decent character around Enchantment; it might drop down as far as T3, though.

[Frosty]

However, "weak" doesn't mean "T5", it's more "weaker than most of the other schools". You can still make a perfectly decent character around Enchantment; it might drop down as far as T3, though.Beguiler??

[TuggyNE]

Beguiler??

Basically, although Beguiler has Illusions and skills as well. Of course, even a Focused Specialist Enchanter has another four whole schools of versatility, so it's kind of a wash.

If you made a hypothetical Enchanter-lite with nothing but Enchantment spells and no class features, it would probably be a weak and annoying T3. Still capable of a fair bit in most situations, but requiring certain mindsets and fairly substantial expertise.

[ArcturusV]

Maybe lower and tier 4 as a "nothing but enchanting" probably is also really campaign themes/setting dependent on the power scale.

[Elderand]

I was mostly bringing it up because they were things you did not bring up that favored the orbs. The rider effects also seem extremely relevant. If you know what dazed does, you know how ridiculous that can be. The reason people apply metamagic to orbs, and don't apply metamagic to the lance, is because the orbs are far more universally applicable. An enemy with a good touch AC is pretty rare, so your attacks are dealing their damage against just about all enemies all the time. Another thing you failed to mention is that orbs go through anti-magic fields. That is just crazy powerful right there. Based on that alone, I'd rather prepare an orb than prepare a lance. Being able to hit a golem is one thing, but being able to hit a golem in an anti-magic field is just amazing.

The avantage of the lance over the orb is the ability to hit 3 eneies with the one spell rather than just one. So you use it against 3 medium enemies and the orb against just the one. Also barring metamagic like searing spell, you have to have prepared the right orb or an enemy could have immunity to it. The lance does a minimum amount of damage that nothing stops no matter what.

I'd prepare the orbs over the lance for everyday occurence, but I believe the lance has it's place in some situation. Same with the wheel, I'll prepare something else over it most time, but if I know I can set things up it can work really well.

[eggynack]

The avantage of the lance over the orb is the ability to hit 3 eneies with the one spell rather than just one. So you use it against 3 medium enemies and the orb against just the one. Also barring metamagic like searing spell, you have to have prepared the right orb or an enemy could have immunity to it. The lance does a minimum amount of damage that nothing stops no matter what.

I'd prepare the orbs over the lance for everyday occurence, but I believe the lance has it's place in some situation. Same with the wheel, I'll prepare something else over it most time, but if I know I can set things up it can work really well.
I just noticed that the lance actually has a ranged touch attack and a save, rather than just a save. That means that it's not even getting past enemies that would have stopped the orbs with high touch AC's. Additionally, lightning immunity is stopping all but 10.5 damage from the lance, so I don't see that as being very important. If I have an orb or a lance prepared, I'm generally not shooting them at apparently immune enemies no matter what. If I don't know they have immunity, 10.5 damage and 0 damage are really similar. You also have up to three separate touch attacks, saves, and resistances. That means that lightning resistance is going to stop the lance far more than fire resistance is going to stop the orb.

Generally, I'm going to prepare the orb, and the corner case where the lance is better isn't enough to stop me from banning the school. Finally, people are far more likely to have access to the spell compendium than to the dragonlance campaign setting. It's setting specific, while spell compendium is one of those books that anyone with spells is going to want. It seems somewhat relevant.

[tiercel]

Enchantment isn't weak because of mind blank, it's weak because it requires even more planning than usual to amass suitable minions, and because of protection from evil, the Undead and Construct types, and Sense Motive. Note that those are available from level 1.

However, "weak" doesn't mean "T5", it's more "weaker than most of the other schools". You can still make a perfectly decent character around Enchantment; it might drop down as far as T3, though.

Most of those weaknesses are tradeoffs for strengths of Enchantment. Sure, it might take a little work/planning to get minions together, but they are long-term (at least for (mass) charm monster and dominate person/monster) without gold or XP cost, and restricted only by who/what you can find and get to fail a Will save.

Actually minionizing enemies is actually a double win, since you not only defeat them but turn them into a resource for your side. In most cases that's strictly stronger than debuffing, battlefield controlling, or even outright removing your enemies. So it makes some sense there's a price for that—and while protection from X is strong, the "that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject" clause seems to restrict it more or less to the charm X/dominate X spells or ones that work very much like them.

Admittedly Sense Motive is strong identifying RP applications of Enchantment effects, but that doesn't matter so much in battlefield conditions.

That there are creature types immune to [Mind-Affecting] at all levels is a more serious weakness, true... and the reason that a truly focused Enchanter would make sure to have minions around, to deal with those mindless brutes. More realistically, most Enchanter specialist wizards still have *some* other schools to fall back on (having a bit more breadth than the Beguiler spell list).

No, Enchantment doesn't match up to, say, Conjuration (which is so ridiculously good that a wizard who only ever casts Conjurations is probably not only playable but at least high Tier 2 in Core, much less when adding splatbook goodies). But no single school of magic should probably be held up to that ridiculous of a standard; even the warmage and dread necromancer get a little help from themed spells outside their specialty school (plus themed class abilities). Frankly, if a single school of full-casting magic clocks in around Tier 3 it's probably in the right neighborhood (and just serves as notice of how strong Conjuration is compared to everything else).

[ahenobarbi]

No, Enchantment doesn't match up to, say, Conjuration (which is so ridiculously good that a wizard who only ever casts Conjurations is probably not only playable but at least high Tier 2 1 2in Core, much less when adding splatbook goodies).

I wanted to raise Planar Binding... but with conjuration alone it's not that good (still you get Gate but it's kinda late).


But no single school of magic should probably be held up to that ridiculous of a standard; even the warmage and dread necromancer get a little help from themed spells outside their specialty school (plus themed class abilities). Frankly, if a single school of full-casting magic clocks in around Tier 3 it's probably in the right neighborhood (and just serves as notice of how strong Conjuration and Transmutation is are compared to everything else).

Transmutation is about as powerful as Conjuration (being very different).