Rating necromancy in comparions to specialist slots

[Lactantius]

Since my last thread "Rating enchantment..." started such a contoversial discussion (to the point I couldn'T follow up yet), I would like to discuss another debated school: necromancy.

Again, this is about the issue of banning necromancy (and gaining more spells per day) or not.
For further discussion, let's assume that enchantment and evocation schools are off the table (either by already being prohibited or by using them).
Let's also assume that we don't go for dedicated undead creating and controlling stuff, so that spells like Animate Dead, Create Undead, Undead Torch etc. are without any worth.
(Reason: if I wnt to play a real necromancer, I would stick to the cleric or dread necromancer route)

So we have a decision between staying on necromancy or getting extra spells (and thus, more staying power).

To make the choice easier, I have listed all available necromancy spells from any source. I have excluded the obscure necromancy spells with the vile descriptor, but that's just a personal flavor.

Without further delay, let's start the analysis of each spell level.
My rating includes raw power, multi-threat and versatility. Versatility is the most important aspect. I try to find a conclusion for each spell and for the school itself. Since the main power of necromancy is debuffing, we also must analyze the power to debuff, too.

Level 1:
Backbiter: this spell seems to be made to stop a big fighter with his two-handed sword to hit you and hit himself instead.
Sounds nice, but I have two problems with this spell:
first, it costs the wizard one standard action to negate a hit. That's a subpar action choice.
Second, the spell has a narrow target line. RAW, it only affects real weapons like swords, hammers, axes and so on. So, natural weapons are off the table.
Plus, a will save negates the effect. At lower levels, this may be easy to overcome since a foe's will save would be low enough. But starting at mid level, this spell has the same fate like sleep and other spells with HD-cap.
Conclusion: I think this is a sub-par spell.

Ray of Enfeeblement: the good old staple debuffer. Here we start with the powerful debuffing effect. The Necromancy school is all about reducing ability scores, AC, levels, saves and caster level.
Hitting STR seems a good choice. Most foes have STR as main ability to threaten the party (at least, that's my personal experience in pre-made-adventures, especially if you look at the Monster Manuals).
The good thing of Ray of Enfeeblement is that it can make an effect at mid- and high-level-play if metamagic feats are included, especially split ray and empower spell.
Conclusion: I like this spell. Debuffing STR is a good choice. It hits many foes and is therefore very versatile.

Level 2:
Blindness/Deafness: Often underrated since most playgrounders refer to glitterdust to dish out a blindness effect. This may be true for most combat situations, but a campaign may include recurring or fleeing foes. Those foes are blindeed permanently, which is a factor to keep in mind.
Plus, deafness is pretty strong against spellcasters since they have a 20% failure chance if they cast a spell. Especially wizards are a prime target since the spell targets Fortitude.
Conclusion: A decent choice, if you ask me. It is not as versatile in combat like glitterdust, but frankly, D&D includes many spells which are useful for long-term durations, out-of-combat and for generic, non-adventuring situations (just imagine that your wizard is not just a party member, imagine how he would prepare spells if he acts more like an NPC guarding his stronghold. This changes many ratings for spells).


Command Undead: this spell is pretty versatile since you can use it in combat, in downtime or if you have social encounters.
Conclusion:Long duration, special save entries and the ability to control one creature type makes this spell pretty cool, although it is not a first choice for your daily spells/day. But if you explore a crypt, I would memorize at least one of them.

Curse of Impending Blades: debuffing AC without any save seems a good choice. This spell seems to be made for situations when your party must roll very high to kill the foe. A nice side effect is that you cannot dispel the effect which lasts 1 minute per level.
Conclusion: The spells seems a good choice but I don't know if I would memorize this one as a daily spell.

Death Armor: In my first days with D&D, I found spells which protect me pretty cool, especially if they hit the foe.
Yet, I kinda like Death Armor, even with its mediocre damage, duration and its material component. The basic question is: would you prepare and cast a spell which assumes that you will be in a melee situation (and stay there?).
This question also applies for spells like fire shield.
Usually, a wizard is flying, teleporting and just keeping out-of-melee. But D&D gives us tools IF we are in a melee situation (and maybe wanna stay there). I can imagine that the situation occurs where a wizard is bound to a certain spot, either to protect someone or something or because he is unable to use his firt choice of movement (dispelled fly, antimagic, foes are also flying, no space to dimension hop properly and so on).
Conclusion: I'm unsure. I wouldn't prepare this spell as a daily spell. On the other hand, being a versatile wizard also means to deal with new and unexpected situations (which enforce you to keep on a certain square).
Then, buffing up like hell (AC, mirror image, death armor, fire shield etc) can be a good choice.

Desiccating Bubble: the necromantic counterpart to flame sphere. The question is if you like to create a spell effect which deals damage over time (DoT). Many playgrounder claim that combat is over after 3-5 rounds. Again, im torn since this depends strongly on the playstyle and optimization level.
I have experienced many games with more than 5 rounds of combat. 10 rounds and more is no curiosity.
Conclusion: Desiccating Bubble behaves a bit like a summoned creature. You create a spell to get extra actions or a meatshield or extra DoT. I'm not sure if I would prepare this spell as a daily spell since the competition at level 2 is pretty high.

False Life: with low hp, a wizard should use temporary hp (and a high CON) anytimes. The good thing of false life is that it can keep active the whole day with extend spell. The bad thing is that temporary hp do not stack anymore, even if the sources are different. So, a cheap amulet of tears can emulate the effect of false life. If both would stack, false life would be a strong choice.
Conclusion: I'm unsure about the stacking rules for temp. hp.

Ray of Weakness: straightforward debuff on AC and speed. But then again, I prefer Curse of Impending Blades since u don't habe to hit with a ray.
Conclusion: the reduncancy of debuffing starts already at level 2. Redundancy is a problem of debuffing generally since you gain 30 ways to reduce ability scores, AC, levels and so on. I ask myself why I should spreaden my power to many different debuffers if I can reach the same affect with less spells?

Scare: Much like Cause Fear, this spell loses its versatility after ECL 6. A HD cap is just bad.
Conclusion: at low levels, a decent choice. After ECL 6, you would skip it.

Shroud of Undeath: Treantmonk doesn't like this spell, but I can see situations where this can be useful. Granted, this spell does not sound versatile, but then again, I have seen adventures where it would create a new path of solution to infiltrate a undead-heavy location.
Conclusion: This is a utility spell most of the time, but it CAN get a combat spell.

Spectral Hand: A metaspell to ignore the touch range. So, the power of this spell depends whether if you have many melee touch spells you want to apply or not.
Conclusion: This can be useful. Depends totally on your spell selection. Many powerful spells are touch spells, keep that in mind. At high-level-play, you could just take the Archmage's arcane reach. Or you can save this for another useful arcana and stick to the spectral hand. So, this metaspell is all about resource management.

Level 3:
Curse of Impending Blades, Mass: The question is whether you need a mass AC debuffer to justify a +1 slot. It sounds nice, but high AC on more than one (boss) foe is rare. If your party does not hit the all the foes, you have bigger problems than debuffing AC.
Conclusion: Level 3 has a great competition. I would stick to a single curse and skip the mass version.

Gentle Repose: Total utlity spell, but I can imagine that the situations occur where this spell gets very useful (for example, no raise dead available. Or a dead party cleric). A good candidate for a scroll, therefore.
On the other hand, the party cleric can cast this spell at level 2.

Halt Undead: I always wondered if this spell is useful or not. Stopping 3 undead creatures sounds nice, but then, there are 2 things to consider:
- intelligent undead get a save
- nonintelligent undead get no save, but they are weak enough to deal with them otherwise, or not? Skeletons and zombies are no great threat, and even then, turn undead is way more powerful than waisting a level 3 slot.
Conclusion: Undecided. This spell can be a winner, if skeletons/zombies are a real threat. Maybe some stuff like ogre zombies, skeleton dragons? The real dangerous undead are intelligent (shadows, wraiths, vampires, wights), but you could make the save (shadow will +4, greater shadow will +7, wraith will +6, wight will +5).

Healing Touch: the question is: should a wizard have a healing power just in case of?
If a fight goed bad and your meatshield and party cleric are in trouble, you could help them by healing.
Conclusion: I'm undecided. This spell is good if you think that keeping the party alive is not only the cleric's job.

Ray of Exhaustion: Disching out an exhaustion effect is great. -6 STR and DEX means to decrease attack, damage, AC, grapple, ref save and initiative.
Conclusion: Again, I ask myself if it is more useful to debuff a foe or to buff my mates or to use battlefield control. Since a wizard has limited actions, he must decided whether to use buffs, debuffs or BFC. He cannot fulfill all three jobs at once.
And that's my problem with rating necromancy at all. Since your primary target it so kill the foe, why should you bother with debuffing?
Even if a foe is very strong, you just could use your actions to make your party even stronger (instead of weakening the foe).
Ray of Exhaustion is the first spell which is affected by this question and later on, we will ask ourselves again if enervation, circlet of enervation, bestow curse, channeled lifetheft, waves of exhaustion, sinsabur's baleful bolt and fleshshiver are a good primary choice.

Vampiric Touch: Good if you use the spectral hand, otherwise, only nice for Gish-types.

Level 4:
Enervation: Debuffing problem, see ray of exhaustion. Do we spend our action to weaken a foe or do we strengthen the party and change the battlefield?
Even then, enervation is a decent choice. It gets from decent to powerful if you apply split ray and empower spell.
Conclusion: Debuff or not? The choice of banning necromancy depends heavily on spells like enervation.

Fear: a staple spell, but it seems sub-par. You must overcome two obstacles (three if SR applies) to get an effect. Immunity vs fear is rare, but available and mind-affecting is a problem anytimes.
Even then, your success is that your foes run away. In dungeons, this can make it worse than before. They could trigger other encounters or alarming other foes. If we want to control the foe, fear is the worst choice.
Conclusion: I can live without that spell, though, I see cases where it can be useful.

Bestow Curse: A versatile spell since you can apply it in combat and anywhere else. The open ended clause regarding "more curses" makes it more powerful. Im combat, we have - again - the question if it is worth to debuff.
Conclusion:This spell seems solid since the curse options are versatile. reducing saves can be good if you follow up with Save-or-Dies, 50% wasted actions is very good, too.
One thing to remember is the permanent effect: like Blindness, you can apply the spell in non-combat-situations or just prior to the fight. The enemy must get remove curse, break enchantment or even better stuff to get rid of the effect.
Plus, this spell is a good candidate for our spectral hand.

Burning Blood: DoT, which is nice since a save effect won't stop it. Then again, is a level-4-slot still worth dealing DoT, especially if we have the desiccating bubble?

Sinsabur's Baleful Bolt: a overlooked, but great spell. If I must ban necromancy, this is one of the staple spells (besides enervation and horrid wilting) I would miss.
First, this spell is NO ray. It is an area effect much like a lightning bolt. And therefore, it targets reflex saves (which is good).
The area effect is a 5-ft-path, dealing STR and CON damage (2 - 6 points).
Conclusion: This spell debuffs many foes in one path. It targets STR and CON (which is rare) and reflex halves the effect.
A strong candidate for empower spell to guarantee a good hit.

Level 5:
Magic Jar: the good thing about this spell is that it allows something completely new and unique. The bad thing is that it seems to be made for villains or NPCs, so you must find your own spot as wizard to make use of this spell. If you include morale decisions around the soul and life-leeching, be careful to use this spell. It's all about how dark and sinister your spellcaster should be (or ot).

Channeled Lifetheft: Yes, I like this one. The full-round-option is a good choice.
Flavorwise, this sounds pretty dark and evil. I mean, you literally drain the foes life to bolster yourself.
Morale decisisons should be part of spellcasting choice, IMHO.

Circlet of Enervation: basically, a mass version of enervation. That makes this spell awesome.

Graymantle: Highly situational. Maybe other playgrounders find spots to apply this one so it becomes more versatile?
The straightforward approach is to stop the enemy cleric to heal his thrall. Maybe it also workds with regenerative and fast healing abilites (like from trolls and vampires?).
Conclusion: Undecided. It sounds nice, but it seems too situational. Is this a typical NPC/villain spell to harrass the party? Are there other viable options?

Necrotic Skull Bomb: sounds impressive, but again, the 50th way to debuff people. And again, it sounds evil to drain levels.

Opalescent Glare: I like that one, especially since it targets evil creatures. Frankly, the HD is a limit, so it is no number 1 choice to use on an adventuring day (since most low level creatures are weak enough).


Spiritwall: sounds good, especially Treantmonk's creative way to entrap the foes within a dome and let them flee into the level-draining wall.
Conclusion: There are so many walls and we cannot memorize all of them. Wall of Force and Wall of Stone are good enough, but a 3rd wall effect? We don't have that many spell slots....

Symbol of Pain: the starting of the symbol-line. Nobody likes the symbols, but I have a sympathy for them. The heavy price tag and the casting time make sure you use it as niche spell to empower your stronghold. Maybe the designers got worry that a wizard would spam symbols in combat.
But besides buffing your stronghold, a viable choice is protecting your spellbook that way.
If you find a more versatile useage, I'm open minded.

Fleshshiver: the only bad thing about this spell is the touch range (use spectral hand, problem solved).
This spell gains a 5th-level-entry since there is a 5th-level version in the PGtF. You get more bangs for your bucks since you can elevate the spell to level 6 with a metamagic feat.


Level 6:
Circle of Death: killing HD instead of hp sounds good. The price tag makes sure you use it for important fights only. But in such great fight, I can see this spell being strong, even if we have to deal with Fort save and the 9HD cap. You would use this spell to extinguish the minions of the boss to quicken the combat. From this point of view, it behaves like a quickened spell.

Malevolent Tentacles: Black Tentacles plus level drain effect. Is that worth +2 spell levels? I'd say yes if you love debuffing. Which leads us to the basic premise: how much debuff do we need, after all?

Ray of Entropy: another way to deal ability damage. Honestly, with so much different debuffers, this is a bad situation to deal with.

Symbol of Fear: see Symbol of Pain. I still love Symbols :/

Level 7:
Avasculate: strong spell against monsters with massive hp, especially since the fort save does not save against the hp-reduction effect.
This can be a total boss killer and change the difficult mode from heavy to easy.
One downside: again, the spell stinks so evil and dark that a good wizard would think twice to use that spell - or not?

Evil Glare: strong debuffer, but I hesitate if I see the evil descriptor. RAW, it matters not. But frankly, this sounds cruel and plain-evil. Not easy for a straight good-aligned wizard. But then again, such a good-aligned wizard kills with save-or-dies and evocations, too.

Finger of Death: the archetypical save or die spell. It is a matter of taste. I like save-or-dies.
Conclusion: It's like gambling: either you win (one-shot-kill) or lose (a spell). But you can increase your pot odds with DC-increasers like spell focus, spell enhancer and more.
Plus, in comparison to flesh to stone and other SoD, FoD starts at lvel 7 which gives it a naturally higher DC.
Since FoD is a death effect, make sure your foe has no death ward or similar protection. And that's what dispelling is made for, isn't it?

Sword of Darkness: this cold be an awesome spell. Unfortunately, the spell does not get the usual attack modifier (INT modifier plus caster level). I suppose this is an error - just check Mordenkainen's Sword to compare.
It it is an error and you correct it, the spell is worth its slot.
The only problem is the evil tag. I'm still unsure if good-aligned wizards would use evil spells carelessly.

Symbol of Weakness: see Symbol of Pain. More love for symbols, please!


Waves of Exhaustion: mass version of ray of exhaustion. This spell gets recommended very often, but I'm reluctant.
Conclusion: Paying +4 spell levels for a mass version is very expensive. We talk about Level 7 here, after all. And do you really need to debuff STR and DEX on all targets? It could be an overkill, after all.

Level 8:
Avascular Mass: if you use Avasculate, you will use that one, too. Just think about this evil descriptor and the flavor text.

Blackfire: Evil tags and dakr flavor texts are part of this spell, too.
The interesting fact is that the more powerful the necromancy spells gets, the more evil and dark stuff you will find.
I wonder why there is no official rule regarding the useage of such dark spells and non-evil wizards.
Yes, I hesitate to apply such spells for my wizard, even if they give insane powers.

Clone: much as magic jar, you get a new and unique ability instead of another debuffer. I can see many cool ways to apply this spell. Frankly, I much more like circumstancial and downtime spells like this than those daily no-brainers. But that's just me.

Horrid Wilting or: Abi Dhalzim's Horrid Wilting: this is a plain good non-energy nuke with automatic friend/foe detection inside. Sometimes, you just want to nuke.
Metamagic can make this insanely strong.
If you are not an incantatrix (or else), invest into a feat (sudden maximize) or item (greater rod of maximize spell).
Worth the slot.

Symbol of Death: The last of the necromantic symbols. 150 hps seems low, but then again, most humanoid foes should be good enough to target.

Veil of Undeath: Necromancy as not many personal buffs - this is one, and it is vers strong. The list of immunities is long and the duration good enough.
Conclusion: Personally, I would stick to other sources to gain most of the immunites (like the heart-of-spells, elemental body or a fortification item).
On the other hand, you could save those other resources by casting one 8th-level-spell. It is a matter of taste. High level slot vs a few lower level slots and/or items.
The Talisman of Undying Fortitude is a good substitute, for example. For only 8.000gp, you get the same immunites, but only for a short period of time. The item is more combat orientated, veil of undeath is a comfortable no-brainer if you want to be protected a long time.
IMHO, the item is good enough since you can activate it with a swift action and it works 2/day.

Level 9:
Astral Projection: this is a mayor utility spell. Search the discussions around this spell. Optimizers use it to send in their fake characters. Originally, this spell's purpose is multiverse travelling since the astra plane is - in many cases - the only way to reach certain planes.
If you ban necromancy, you lose a powerful tool at higher levels.

Energy Drain: this spell should have way more d4's to justify a 9th-level slot. A split ray empowered enervation spell gets 2* (1d4*50%) and is more powerful than a 9th-level-spell. So, something went wrong
I would recommend 4d4, maybe even more.
Conclusion: Skip it or tweak it. It tweaked, it could be a viable choice, depending on the d4's.

Hide Life: a rare and circustancial buff (XP cost), coming from a rare source: 3.0E Tome&Blood. But since there is no update, this version is still valid.
Conclusion: You just can't be killed. Yes, that's the effect. If you are dying or else, your condition is just staggered.
You can only take partial actions, which is an old 3.0E rules term. In 3.5, the equivalent would be a move action? Maybe swifts and immediates too, but at least no standard action and more.
Basically, this is a second life you get for paying 5000 XP. It behaves much like a lich's phylactery, but faster and instantaenous.

Wail of the Banshee: the major save-or-die. I know, it can be circumvented since it is a death effect. Still, I love this spell. Just make sure there are no death wards active.



----
Okay, now we have all major necromancy spells listed.
If I have forgotten an important spell, just add it.


The main question now is:
Is it a good trade to forsake all those spells to get more spell slots?

Some facts:
- extra specialist slots only make a small amount of your total spells/day, especially if the wizard reaches higher levels and thus, gains new spell levels.
- on the other hand, the extra spell slots have different qualities. +1/spell level does not sound impressive, but if we look closer, we see the that it is the quality of the spell levels which make extra slots so worthy.
A 15th-level wizard gains one extra slot from level 1-7. Although that are only 7 slots per day, it also means that this wizard has more options to use his more powerful slots (say, level 4-7).
- the forsaken power is Necromancy. In short, we forgive the power to debuff our enemies (plus some utility and buff spells).
- If we give up this school, do we lose all important debuffs or do we have equivalent spell effects in the other schools? Note that battlefield controls which disable the foe's action are not such debuffs. So, if we find spells which create level drain, exhaustion, save reducers etc., this would be perfect.
- Even then, the question is allowed: do we need debuffs, after all?
As already mentioned, a wizard has limited ressources (spells/day) and limited actions per round. If a wizard focuses on party buffs and battlefield controlling, he mayhap not be able to debuff the foe, too.
- Since the goal of D&D is to reduce hp to -10, is debuffing not a sub-par choice? It just switches the difficult mode from "difficult" to "easy." But the same effect can be achieved with party buffs, summons and BFCs.

Finally, what do we lose with forsaking Necromancy?
- Flavorwise, we lose powerful and dark-themed abilites to deal with our foes.
- Ruleswise, we lose debuffs, creating undead and some utility spells.
Is that loss worth the extra slots gained?
So, do we really lose versatility?

[eggynack]

Offhand, your list is missing shivering touch, which is holy crap so powerful, especially when used with spectral hand, and double especially when used all the time. Also, I know you're doing so purposefully, but your construction of "Necro or slots" is a bit of a false dichotomy, given the other schools available for banning. Also also, you mention skipping animate dead, and screw that. Sure, a dedicated necro based minionmancer should be a cleric or dread necro, but a spell doesn't have to be your whole shtick. You can keep the school for the shivering touch, and gain some cool advantages from the animate dead. Easy as pie. Besides, once you actually get animate dead, the difference in spell level isn't all that important, because you can easily cast it outside of combat situations. What I'm saying is, taking animate dead being bad as a given is ridiculous when you're trying to evaluate the power of a school. It's a thing that must be proved, in one direction or the other.

Edit: In fact, double screw not going necromancy for animate dead. Just because you're not the best at something, doesn't mean you can't do it with high competency. It'd be like a druid saying, "Oh, I can't cast panacea on you, thus curing your blindness. A cleric is better at it, so you'll just have to proceed through life in a blinded way." You can keep necromancy, just for animate dead, and then use your fancy wizard spells to do other stuff. It's not like we're specializing here.

[Pickford]

Lactantius: Why did you skip over core spells (Disrupt Undead, Touch of Fatigue, Cause Fear, Chill Touch, Ghoul Touch, Contagion, Blight, Waves of Fatigue, Eyebite, Undeath to Death, and Soul Bind)?

I also would disagree with your reasons for not exploring the undead creating abilities. Yes, other classes can do something like them...but that doesn't remove them from a necromancer, it's just an overlap.

eggynack: While I agree shivering touch should be in there, bear in mind it's technically worse than hold person (also a 3rd level spell). Because the 3d6 dex damage only exist for 1 round/level, it has the same duration as hold person from an equal level caster but it has the downside of random chance not fully immobilizing the target. Upside no save and no mind-affecting subtype, downside no guaranteed success and cold subtype. Which is more useful may be a factor in what type of campaign you're running in.

(I completely agree about the undead spells point)

[eggynack]

eggynack: While I agree shivering touch should be in there, bear in mind it's technically worse than hold person (also a 3rd level spell). Because the 3d6 dex damage only exist for 1 round/level, it has the same duration as hold person from an equal level caster but it has the downside of random chance not fully immobilizing the target. Upside no save and no mind-affecting subtype, downside no guaranteed success and cold subtype. Which is more useful may be a factor in what type of campaign you're running in.
I wouldn't call that technically worse, so much as occasionally worse. No save means a whole hell of a lot, particularly when the replacement is so hard to defend against. Mostly, you're using this to instantly slay dragons, which is pretty sweet. A save versus no save is the difference between pretty good and on the edge of broken much of the time.

Edit: Also, the fact that you're dealing dexterity damage fits in nicely with the fact that touch attacks work best against low dexterity enemies.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

eggynack: While I agree shivering touch should be in there, bear in mind it's technically worse than hold person (also a 3rd level spell). Because the 3d6 dex damage only exist for 1 round/level, it has the same duration as hold person from an equal level caster but it has the downside of random chance not fully immobilizing the target. Upside no save and no mind-affecting subtype, downside no guaranteed success and cold subtype. Which is more useful may be a factor in what type of campaign you're running in.

Damage doesn't go away when a spell ends. If it imposed a penalty then it would last 1 round/level, because a penalty only persists as long as the spell imposing it. Call Lightning doesn't impose a hit point penalty, it deals hit point damage, which will be around even after the spell that inflicted it ends. The same goes for Shivering Touch, it deals Dexterity damage, and damage lasts until healed.

That the spell lasts 1 round/level, and doesn't specify that it ends after a single touch is made, implies that for 1 round/level any touch you make deals 3d6 Dex damage. It is most definitely better than Hold Person.

[MirddinEmris]

Waves of Exhaustion isn't only mass version of Ray of Exhaustion - it's a Mass + No Save version, that's why it s so awesome.

[TuggyNE]

Being staggered (e.g. hide life) does not limit you to move actions in 3.5. It's standard actions.

[Story]

Blindness/Deafness: Often underrated since most playgrounders refer to glitterdust to dish out a blindness effect. This may be true for most combat situations, but a campaign may include recurring or fleeing foes. Those foes are blindeed permanently, which is a factor to keep in mind.

Permanent doesn't mean permanent in D&D. If they are or have access to a caster, they'll be fixed next morning. I'd pass.

One thing you missed about Ennervation is that it can be used to create Wights if you want.

[TuggyNE]

Permanent doesn't mean permanent in D&D. If they are or have access to a caster, they'll be fixed next morning. I'd pass.

One thing you missed about Ennervation is that it can be used to create Wights if you want.

That wasn't eggynack that said that. :smallconfused:

[eggynack]

That wasn't eggynack that said that. :smallconfused:
I dunno. I might have said it this one time. It mighta been a dream I had though. It's been a weird week like that.

[Story]

That wasn't eggynack that said that. :smallconfused:

Well I tried to quote both, but the Eggy quote probably appeared first. Since the OP was so long, it just blends in, so I probably mistakenly thought it was the start of the OP quote while editing it down.

I was wondering what happened there.

[Psyren]

Being staggered (e.g. hide life) does not limit you to move actions in 3.5. It's standard actions.

It's standard in PF as well.

[Ansem]

Enervation is worth it alone for me....
The fact you downrate it quite badly in your description means you haven't used it properly. I've done two builds entirely around this spell and my party was thankful for it and my DM in rage, since I could bring any foe down to lvl 1, no matter if we were lvl 7 or 17.
At that point f*ck strengthening the party.
After all, not getting hit beats being harder to hit any day, why I feel tanks are overrated and battlefield control and debuffing is underrated.
And Necromancy has some of the best debuffs available.

[Lactantius]

@Ansem

Enervation is worth it alone for me....
The fact you downrate it quite badly in your description means you haven't used it properly. I've done two builds entirely around this spell and my party was thankful for it and my DM in rage, since I could bring any foe down to lvl 1, no matter if we were lvl 7 or 17.
At that point f*ck strengthening the party.
After all, not getting hit beats being harder to hit any day, why I feel tanks are overrated and battlefield control and debuffing is underrated.
And Necromancy has some of the best debuffs available.

You said it already. You made a build completely around a one-trick-pony to make enervation very good. It seems like you did not read my analysis wholly. I mentioned that enervation is very strong - with the right metmagic feats.
But you cannot deny that the spell alone is a mediocre option. 1-4 negative levels is nice, but not so good that I would stick to Necromancy, alone for that spell.
And since I don't assume specific builds with metamagic reducers, we must work with the spell in its basic version.
And even then, there is still the question how powerful and important debuffing is?
After all, the goal is to reduce the foe's hp to -10. I can do it by shifting the difficulty level by weakening the target or I can do it with BFC, summons and buffs.
Still, since the action economy is crucial, we cannot do all the stuff. So we have to decide what to do and what not.
And in 9 of 10 cases, I find it more useful to strenghten the party and control the battlefield.
That's why I question the matter of debuffing completely.

@Psyren/TuggyNE:

Originally Posted by TuggyNE View Post
Being staggered (e.g. hide life) does not limit you to move actions in 3.5. It's standard actions.
It's standard in PF as well.

Thanks for the rules. But that makes Hide Life even more powerful since you can still do alot of bad stuff (mainly, casting).
Is this a hidden pearl within the necromancy school?

@Story:

Originally Posted by eggynack View Post
Blindness/Deafness: Often underrated since most playgrounders refer to glitterdust to dish out a blindness effect. This may be true for most combat situations, but a campaign may include recurring or fleeing foes. Those foes are blindeed permanently, which is a factor to keep in mind.
Permanent doesn't mean permanent in D&D. If they are or have access to a caster, they'll be fixed next morning. I'd pass.

One thing you missed about Ennervation is that it can be used to create Wights if you want.


Yeah, I left out the side effect of enervation. If you follow my post, you will see that I try to negate spell effects with evil (by a RAW descriptor) or quasi-evil (level drains, dark magic, more RAI and fluff) effects.
This is not important for all players (who disregard such reservations), but for some it is, especially if you try to play a good-aligned or even exalted wizard - such things happen.
So, at least consider this point if you analyze certain necro spells.

About permanent blindness/deafness: again, totally dependant on your play-style. In my settings, there is not a fullcaster on every street corner who got nothing better to do than to disenchant a blind dude.
I would go so far to say that this depends on abstract approaches of gaming:
do you prefer an immersive, character-driven game with a world-simulation or an "ARS-game" which goes all for action, CRPG-style and party-tailored character decisions (to which choosing a prohibited school belongs to)?

@eggynack & pickford:
my list left out those necromantic spell intentionally. Shivering Touch is just a broken spell which is banned of my tables since it does something it should not be able to do: trivializing big battles against dragons.
I also left out undead creation - as mentioned in my foreword - with a good reason.
The choice of banning necromancy or not shall not be conditional on using undead creation or not.
With other words, there are enough wizard concepts which don't want to deal with disturbing the death at all (again, the alignment and character immersion, even if that may not be a reason for you).
So, if we don't want to create undead in the first place, we must evaluate the necromancy school with the leftovers. And thats debuffing, hexes, curses, level drains, some utility and some (self-)buffs.
And those spells are rated.


Well, the replies have no answers yet to the question if giving up necromancy is a loss or a good trade-off by gaining extra spell slots.

[Silva Stormrage]

Fleshshiver was updated to 6th in spell compendium it was also changed to a targeted spell and is pretty good.

Also a thing to note is that you can get some of these situational spells out of combat with planar binding and the like. Especially things like Astral Projection and Bestow Curse or primarily out of combat spells.

[eggynack]

@eggynack & pickford:
my list left out those necromantic spell intentionally. Shivering Touch is just a broken spell which is banned of my tables since it does something it should not be able to do: trivializing big battles against dragons.
Crazy broken spells seem like a decent reason to keep a school. If you're only going to include good spells, without including the fantastic ones, your analysis is going to be biased.

I also left out undead creation - as mentioned in my foreword - with a good reason.
The choice of banning necromancy or not shall not be conditional on using undead creation or not.
With other words, there are enough wizard concepts which don't want to deal with disturbing the death at all (again, the alignment and character immersion, even if that may not be a reason for you).
So, if we don't want to create undead in the first place, we must evaluate the necromancy school with the leftovers. And thats debuffing, hexes, curses, level drains, some utility and some (self-)buffs.
And those spells are rated.

This doesn't feel like a fair claim for you to make. What you're saying is functionally identical to, "The choice of banning transmutation shall not be conditional on form changing or not. In other words, there are enough wizard concepts which don't want to deal with disturbing the form at all. So, if we don't want to change form in the first place, we must evaluate transmutation with the leftovers." It's, y'know, illogical. Any wizard can animate dead, not just the non-good ones. Animate dead is a part of necromancy. Not including such spells in your analysis makes that analysis, once again, highly biased. If you want to talk about a school of magic, let's talk about a school of magic.

Edit:
I would go so far to say that this depends on abstract approaches of gaming:
do you prefer an immersive, character-driven game with a world-simulation or an "ARS-game" which goes all for action, CRPG-style and party-tailored character decisions (to which choosing a prohibited school belongs to)?
By the way, which one is which? It seems like the game where people cure their blindness with the tools available is the immersive, character driven game. I mean, what would you do if someone cast a spell to cause you to go blind, and there were some reasonably cheap way to not be blind? It might take more than a single day, but I wouldn't expect a character, especially not a villain who presumably has some variety of resources (because he didn't die immediately against the PC onslaught) to not cure his blindness within the week.

[AMFV]

It is important to note that you should rate necromancy from a debuffer perspective rather than from a Battlefield control perspective. Even the great Treantmonk considered a debuffer as a valid role for GOD, so it might be wise to look at Necromancy in the light of that role.

Although as a Wizard if I was focusing on debuffing I'd go generalist, probably Elven generalist since the debuffs are spread around and many of the good ones are in the poorer schools (Enchantment, Necromancy) and the like, so it's probably good to focus not too much on any one school.

[Story]

Yeah, I left out the side effect of enervation. If you follow my post, you will see that I try to negate spell effects with evil (by a RAW descriptor) or quasi-evil (level drains, dark magic, more RAI and fluff) effects.
This is not important for all players (who disregard such reservations), but for some it is, especially if you try to play a good-aligned or even exalted wizard - such things happen.
So, at least consider this point if you analyze certain necro spells.


I've played a Good aligned Necropolitan Wizard before. I suppose my views on D&D morality are a bit different then yours. But obviously if you houserule away half of the school, then it's not going to be as good as it could be.

[JaronK]

I have to admit, I love a lot of Necromancy spells. Animate Dread Warrior is incredible as long as you can find some humanoid corpses with class levels (I find most campaigns have some powerful ones). Combine it with Spell Stitching and you get incredible minions.

With that said, you don't need Necromancy to Spell Stitch something, so you can get away with Spell Stitching ADW, Animate Dead, Awaken Undead, and similar on your own minions to avoid paying their costs down the road. Of course, you have to somehow get the minion to begin with.

But Animate Dead is really incredible when you get it. In general, all the "create a permanent minion" spells are incredibly useful, especially when supported by Black Sand or Necrosis Carnexes. And they get that much better if you're doing long adventuring days.

JaronK

[Pickford]

@eggynack & pickford:
my list left out those necromantic spell intentionally. Shivering Touch is just a broken spell which is banned of my tables since it does something it should not be able to do: trivializing big battles against dragons.
I also left out undead creation - as mentioned in my foreword - with a good reason.
The choice of banning necromancy or not shall not be conditional on using undead creation or not.
With other words, there are enough wizard concepts which don't want to deal with disturbing the death at all (again, the alignment and character immersion, even if that may not be a reason for you).
So, if we don't want to create undead in the first place, we must evaluate the necromancy school with the leftovers. And thats debuffing, hexes, curses, level drains, some utility and some (self-)buffs.
And those spells are rated.


Well, the replies have no answers yet to the question if giving up necromancy is a loss or a good trade-off by gaining extra spell slots.

Why not just use a White or Silver Dragon then? (Since they would be immune). This seems relevant given that the DM can essentially do anything they want, including providing fights that knowingly mitigate the most otherwise powerful abilities.

[AMFV]

I've played a Good aligned Necropolitan Wizard before. I suppose my views on D&D morality are a bit different then yours. But obviously if you houserule away half of the school, then it's not going to be as good as it could be.

This is true, I'm currently setting up a good aligned necromancer, and I've wound up using a lot of [Evil] spells, just have to be a little pragmatic about it, using evil to do good is hardly evil.

[eggynack]

Well, the replies have no answers yet to the question if giving up necromancy is a loss or a good trade-off by gaining extra spell slots.
Missed this bit. The problem with answering your question is that you're constructing the question in a particularly poor way. Leaving off reasonably powerful spells during spell evaluation is poor form. You've essentially built up a really odd scenario, which is, "Is it correct to ban necromancy if you really dislike the effects of necromancy?" The other issue is that you've constructed an odd false dichotomy here, wherein necromancy should be compared directly to specialist slots, as if that's how wizards work. You're missing out on the possibility of banning other schools, the power of domain wizard and elven generalist wizard, as well as the cost of banning other schools, because you need two if you're not a divination specialist. It's a really odd question you've presented, in other words.

[Lactantius]

@eggynack:

First: I know that you are a follower of the idea that anything that is printed is automatically available and MUST be taken by a wizard player.
I cannot argue against that position, but I can try to explain that there are other positions considering play-styles, too.
My play-style is immersive, which means that we (our group thankfully works all within the same philosophy of play-style) try to mesh RAW, RAI and even campaign/setting infos (which are not covered by rules, all the times).

That's why I try to analyze necromancy without the evil-themed stuff like finding bones, unearth graves to get new material and build up unholy creatures which violate all laws in civilized countries.
That's also why I hesitate to use debuffs with an evil descriptor like avascular.
That's also why I question spells w/o an evil descriptor but which sound very evil much like enervation, which is nothing more, nothin less than draining the life essence up to the point of reaching the soul of a creature (that's the reason for the rule with the wight spawn).
So yes, that's a reasonable and understandable argument to evaluate necromancy.

Second: I have excluded other schools because I try different approaches (like, keeping evocation and/or enchantment). Or I have already decided to ban enchantment (goind diviner) and try to justify if going for a focused diviner with banning necromancy is a good deal.
And there we are on the main question: dealing slots vs. a magic school.
To decide that, we must know what we lose (regarding versatility) and if it is a real loss, after all.
I left out animate dead & Co. for the already mentioned reasons, but also because it fits my play-style to be uncompromising when playing a good-aligned wizard: no evil stuff, no necropolitan, no negative energy stuff IF that stuff is connected to dark magic.
In the Forgotten Realms, I'm undecided. Here, we would have another candidate for the dark magic stick: shadow weave.
Plus, many good-aligned NPC wizard (for example, the seven sisters) make use of necromancy in most of its forms.
Plus, Mystra teaches that all kind of magic is equal and that the morale connection depends on the goal and the resonsibility what you use it for (and what not).
But even the seven sisters wouldn't use animate dead, to flesh out my example.

[Psyren]

I've played a Good aligned Necropolitan Wizard before. I suppose my views on D&D morality are a bit different then yours. But obviously if you houserule away half of the school, then it's not going to be as good as it could be.

You have to approach things from a reasonableness standpoint too. Not allowing, say, Streamers or Heroics in your campaign could technically be called a houserule since it's a printed spell from a WotC source, but I'd wager it's a pretty common one.

[eggynack]

@eggynack:
First: I know that you are a follower of the idea that anything that is printed is automatically available and MUST be taken by a wizard player.
I cannot argue against that position, but I can try to explain that there are other positions considering play-styles, too.

My play-style is immersive, which means that we (our group thankfully works all within the same philosophy of play-style) try to mesh RAW, RAI and even campaign/setting infos (which are not covered by rules, all the times).

That's why I try to analyze necromancy without the evil-themed stuff like finding bones, unearth graves to get new material and build up unholy creatures which violate all laws in civilized countries.
That's also why I hesitate to use debuffs with an evil descriptor like avascular.
That's also why I question spells w/o an evil descriptor but which sound very evil much like enervation, which is nothing more, nothin less than draining the life essence up to the point of reaching the soul of a creature (that's the reason for the rule with the wight spawn).
So yes, that's a reasonable and understandable argument to evaluate necromancy.

Second: I have excluded other schools because I try different approaches (like, keeping evocation and/or enchantment). Or I have already decided to ban enchantment (goind diviner) and try to justify if going for a focused diviner with banning necromancy is a good deal.
And there we are on the main question: dealing slots vs. a magic school.
To decide that, we must know what we lose (regarding versatility) and if it is a real loss, after all.
I left out animate dead & Co. for the already mentioned reasons, but also because it fits my play-style to be uncompromising when playing a good-aligned wizard: no evil stuff, no necropolitan, no negative energy stuff IF that stuff is connected to dark magic.
In the Forgotten Realms, I'm undecided. Here, we would have another candidate for the dark magic stick: shadow weave.
Plus, many good-aligned NPC wizard (for example, the seven sisters) make use of necromancy in most of its forms.
Plus, Mystra teaches that all kind of magic is equal and that the morale connection depends on the goal and the resonsibility what you use it for (and what not).
But even the seven sisters wouldn't use animate dead, to flesh out my example.
But the problem is, you've constructed this problem with a conditional that won't exist in a lot of places. If you don't like necromancy, don't cast necromancy spells. The cost is quite a bit lower for people who cut off half the school before they even look at it. Your play-style shouldn't be the metric for everyone's playstyle, and a good wizard can cast everything from evil spells to corrupt spells freely. This is what the school is. Sure, wizardly necromancy focuses on debuffs, but tossing away minionmancy is missing out on a lot of the variety of the school. I mean, you didn't construct the enchantment question as, "How good is enchantment? By the way, I'm philosophically opposed to controlling people's mental state."

[Bonzai]

I think the basic question the OP asked it flawed. "Is it worth giving up Necromancy as a specialist wizard"? The answer very much depends on what you want to specialize in. For me the only non-negotiable schools are Divination ( because you can't), and Abjuration (as a wizard I will never williningly give up my ability to disrupt magic), and Transmutation. The three tough choices are Conjuration, Illusion, and Necromancy. I only give one of these up if I am specializing in one of these schools and becoming focused specialist. The auto throw away schools are Evocation and Enchantment. There is nothing these two schools do that can't be replicated in the other schools. If I am specializing in one of these schools then I will figure out what style I want to play, and figure out which of the three good schools I want to give up.

Bottom line, its not something that can be out right decided in a vacume.

[eggynack]

The three tough choices are Conjuration, Illusion, and Necromancy.
I can't really see how tossing conjuration can be justified. It does just about everything, often better than the other schools, and often things that other schools can't do at all. Moreover, it often does these things just about unconditionally, and unconditionality is crazy important. Sure, there're specific defenses for specific things, but it's nigh on impossible to defend against everything. In other words, conjuration is basically the wizard of wizard spell schools.

[Bonzai]

I can't really see how tossing conjuration can be justified. It does just about everything, often better than the other schools, and often things that other schools can't do at all. Moreover, it often does these things just about unconditionally, and unconditionality is crazy important. Sure, there're specific defenses for specific things, but it's nigh on impossible to defend against everything. In other words, conjuration is basically the wizard of wizard spell schools.

Most of the stuff can be covered through other schools. Maybe not as well, but can still be covered. As I said, I would have to think long and hard about it and it wouldn't be easy.

Summons? Illusion has it covered, and necromancy and enchantment can cover the role as well.

Direct and AoE damage? Evocation, illusion, necromancy can all do it more or less.

Battle field control? Illusion, enchantment, evocation, and necromancy to a lesser extent.

Buffs? Most schools to some extent.

Teleportation: transmutation has a rare few, and illusion has shadow walk.

So yeah... Tough school to give up, and if you do you really want Illusion most likely. Which makes my point.

[ryu]

Most of the stuff can be covered through other schools. Maybe not as well, but can still be covered. As I said, I would have to think long and hard about it and it wouldn't be easy.

Summons? Illusion has it covered, and necromancy and enchantment can cover the role as well.

Direct and AoE damage? Evocation, illusion, necromancy can all do it more or less.

Battle field control? Illusion, enchantment, evocation, and necromancy to a lesser extent.

Buffs? Most schools to some extent.

Teleportation: transmutation has a rare few, and illusion has shadow walk.

So yeah... Tough school to give up, and if you do you really want Illusion most likely. Which makes my point.

Conjuration is still the best in all stated goals shown though, because it doesn't rely on chance for much if anything at all. The others all do to some extent. Yes illusion is good, but mainly as a foil to conjuration and transmutation. I would never willingly ban conjuration.

[eggynack]

Snip.
I think the mistake you're making is that you're dividing things up into categories, and assuming that anything in a category has any equivalence to anything else in that category. The effects you've listed are really most of the effects in the game, and conjuration does many of them better than every other school, and unconditionally at that. None of these schools can summon or battlefield control with anything like the efficiency that conjuration can. Shadow conjuration is no replacement for the real thing when it comes to summoning, and necromancy and enchantment are far too situationally reliant.

Where conjuration earns a lot of its credit is in how unstoppable it is. How do you stop a searing orb of fire, or a dimension door? How do you stop a wall of stone or a solid fog? All of these things have defenses, ranging from simple and common to complicated and uncommon, but what's important is that all of the defenses are different. If you put all the schools together, you only get part of the way to emulating part of the school, and even then you miss out on the most important part.

[Bonzai]

Conjuration is still the best in all stated goals shown though, because it doesn't rely on chance for much if anything at all. The others all do to some extent. Yes illusion is good, but mainly as a foil to conjuration and transmutation. I would never willingly ban conjuration.

Only time I would do it is if I was an Enchanter that had to give up a 3rd school for focused specialist/incantrix/red Wizard/etc.. Schools I would dump would be evocation, necromancy, and conjuration. Illusion goes really well with enchantment mind games, and everything else falls under the non-negotiable group. Illusion and Transmutation would have to fill in the cracks.

[eggynack]

Only time I would do it is if I was an Enchanter that had to give up a 3rd school for focused specialist/incantrix/red Wizard/etc.. Schools I would dump would be evocation, necromancy, and conjuration. Illusion goes really well with enchantment mind games, and everything else falls under the non-negotiable group. Illusion and Transmutation would have to fill in the cracks.
Illusion seems a whole hell of a lot more droppable to me. It's a good school, but nothing that it does is strictly irreplaceable. I mean, since you did it the opposite way in the one direction, what is it that illusion does that you can't do with something else? Also, I really can't even imagine a focused specialist enchanter. It seems like a choice on par with banning conjuration in terms of how problematic it is.

[Pickford]

ryu:

Conjuration is still the best in all stated goals shown though, because it doesn't rely on chance for much if anything at all. The others all do to some extent. Yes illusion is good, but mainly as a foil to conjuration and transmutation. I would never willingly ban conjuration.

So...this only just ocurred to me. But Conjuration does have a hard counter in RAW, as all the conjuration subschools except healing and creation bring a thing to your location, they are all blocked by Dimensional Lock (which lasts for days). So no Summoning, Calling (sorry Gate), or Teleport spells, which seem to be the best things of Conjuration.

[Emperor Tippy]

Illusion seems a whole hell of a lot more droppable to me. It's a good school, but nothing that it does is strictly irreplaceable. I mean, since you did it the opposite way in the one direction, what is it that illusion does that you can't do with something else? Also, I really can't even imagine a focused specialist enchanter. It seems like a choice on par with banning conjuration in terms of how problematic it is.

Simulacrum and Ice Assassin.

Teleportation can be replaced in multiple ways (for one, making a Simulacrum of a Lantern Archon and giving it a Bag of Holding to hop in; or Shapechange into any number of things).

Simulacrum and Ice Assassin can mostly replace Planar Binding.

The Shadow Conjuration line can cover a fair amount of the rest at least somewhat.

The one real loss is the Orb line, and most wizards shouldn't be blasting in the first place so that is a relatively minor loss.

Conjuration's power comes from Teleporation and Calling spells. Teleporation can be faked or accessed in a number of ways and Illusion can provide most of the benefits of Calling.

---
Granted, I am opposed to dropping any schools. There is no school that is "weak". Hell, a class that was just "wizard with access to only one school of magic" is still at least a Tier 3 class (in the case of the Enchanter) with most versions being Tier 2.

[ryu]

ryu:


So...this only just ocurred to me. But Conjuration does have a hard counter in RAW, as all the conjuration subschools except healing and creation bring a thing to your location, they are all blocked by Dimensional Lock (which lasts for days). So no Summoning, Calling (sorry Gate), or Teleport spells, which seem to be the best things of Conjuration.

Cute, but then you have the problem of no less than forty maximized, twinned orbs of force punted at your face in a single round with contingency. Conjuration: Even when ''countered'' it was made to make arbitrarily high HP opponents cease to exist.

[Pickford]

Cute, but then you have the problem of no less than forty maximized, twinned orbs of force punted at your face in a single round with contingency. Conjuration: Even when ''countered'' it was made to make arbitrarily high HP opponents cease to exist.

And the target of that can't have a single contingent resilient sphere that blocks all those orbs?

Edit: Ryu, I get it already, you like to go big or go home, but the price of 44 (!) twinned orbs of force is going to be... (off the cuff calculation)

Oh right it's impossible. (Twin is +4 levels, Maximize is +3 levels (that's 7 for those keeping track in the home game) and Orb of Force is a level 4 spell...that makes each one a 11th level spell slot)

But hey, let's say it weren't impossible pre-epic magic, it would cost...

~484,000gp....and it would take you 968 days to arm.

So, not even a tiny bit practical.

edit: Oh I forgot it'd cost you 38,720 xp too.

edit: forgot the base price isn't 'quite' the end price, but it really doesn't matter when you're talking hundreds of thousands of gold.

[ryu]

And the target of that can't have a single contingent resilient sphere that blocks all those orbs?

Congratulations. You found literally one good defensive spell that blocks the first barrage of four orbs (You are a caster and if four maximized orbs doesn't kill upon hit you're actually decently optimized.) You've also freed me up to point out that nothing actually stops the conjurer from summoning anything outside the radius while you sit in a sphere with your thumbs residing in your nether regions. As a matter of fact singular move action on one of the summon turns and the lock doesn't matter. Actually come to think of it it doesn't send away already called minions rendering this entire point moot. You come up with such effective plans.

Edit: At level twenty we're in wish crafting territory you silly billy. There's nothing that's NOT possible with enough planning here.

[Pickford]

Congratulations. You found literally one good defensive spell that blocks the first barrage of four orbs (You are a caster and if four maximized orbs doesn't kill upon hit you're actually decently optimized.) You've also freed me up to point out that nothing actually stops the conjurer from summoning anything outside the radius while you sit in a sphere with your thumbs residing in your nether regions. As a matter of fact singular move action on one of the summon turns and the lock doesn't matter. Actually come to think of it it doesn't send away already called minions rendering this entire point moot. You come up with such effective plans.

Did I mention that your plan doesn't work in theory or practice? (Oh, I only mentioned it doesn't work in theory because the cost is absurdly high, and you can't actually cast 11th level spells until you're into epic-spellcasting)

Unlike your twinned maximized (totally fictional) orbs of force, widen spell is quite real and (courtesy of a greater rod of widen spell) can actually occur.

edit: If you were wishing contingent spells into effect it would just tack on an additional 5000xp that you can't actually afford. (p.s. PHB says conjured creatures won't use any ability that would normally cost xp if cast as a spell, so all those zany wish fulfillment schemes do not function).

[eggynack]

Simulacrum and Ice Assassin.

Under the definition of replaceability he was using, anything that could theoretically exist in the group of "summoning" could replace anything else in that category, regardless of the comparative power level. Thus, under that definition, simulacrum and ice assassin are quite replaceable. It's a rather illogical way to measure school overlap, which is essentially the point I was making. Also, simulacrum and ice assassin only come into play at pretty late levels, while the best stuff in conjuration is always available. It also feels like your analysis is missing out on the fact that conjuration has many of the best BFC's in the game, and losing those hurts quite a bit.

[eggynack]

Oh right it's impossible. (Twin is +4 levels, Maximize is +3 levels (that's 7 for those keeping track in the home game) and Orb of Force is a level 4 spell...that makes each one a 11th level spell slot)

Arcane thesis? Also throw invisible spell in there for good times. That puts you at an 8th level spell, and you can go lower from there.

[ryu]

Did I mention that your plan doesn't work in theory or practice? (Oh, I only mentioned it doesn't work in theory because the cost is absurdly high, and you can't actually cast 11th level spells until you're into epic-spellcasting)

Unlike your twinned maximized (totally fictional) orbs of force, widen spell is quite real and (courtesy of a greater rod of widen spell) can actually occur.

edit: If you were wishing contingent spells into effect it would just tack on an additional 5000xp that you can't actually afford. (p.s. PHB says conjured creatures won't use any ability that would normally cost xp if cast as a spell, so all those zany wish fulfillment schemes do not function).

First spell long before we met: Gate in a solar. Tell it to let you scrape off a sample. Ice assassin the sample. Tell your new pet to wish for a scroll of ice assassin tuned to the same first solar, and then give it to you. I think you see exactly where this is going. At no point do I need a conjured creature to even cast a spell. Quite frankly you should be glad I'm courteous enough to claim the sample by gating instead of simply drawing it from my component pouch or eschewing materials.

[Pickford]

Arcane thesis? Also throw invisible spell in there for good times. That puts you at an 8th level spell, and you can go lower from there.

That would work for preparation, I didn't even address the fact that the spell you know is Orb of Force, there's no such spell as twinned maximized anything, those are effects pinned onto the spell known.

edit:

Ryu, how do you stop the deity the Solar works for from a) preventing the gate and b) popping into to instantly extinguish the meddling caster from existence?

[TuggyNE]

ryu:


So...this only just ocurred to me. But Conjuration does have a hard counter in RAW, as all the conjuration subschools except healing and creation bring a thing to your location, they are all blocked by Dimensional Lock (which lasts for days). So no Summoning, Calling (sorry Gate), or Teleport spells, which seem to be the best things of Conjuration.

That's not a very good hard counter, since calling spells are generally performed out of combat, and creation has some pretty impressive utility on its own. (Walls, orbs, poison, etc etc.)

For that matter, all you need to do is move twenty feet away and you're golden for summons, calling, or teleportation, and since none of Conjuration's nice things require extraplanar travel once they're present….

Oh yeah, and it's an emanation, so you can just put a hollow ball around the center (assuming e.g. detect magic will let you know what its extent is) and that blocks the emanation; this is pretty minor but it's still amusing. (There's probably a few other vulnerabilities that come from being an area spell instead of a spell on a caster, such as inability to use wings of cover or other personal-only protections, but those are also mostly fairly minor. Still, they do exist.)

[eggynack]

That would work for preparation, I didn't even address the fact that the spell you know is Orb of Force, there's no such spell as twinned maximized anything, those are effects pinned onto the spell known.

I'm pretty sure that crafted stuff can use metamagic, as well as metamagic reduction. I know Tippy talks about doing that all the time.

[ryu]

That would work for preparation, I didn't even address the fact that the spell you know is Orb of Force, there's no such spell as twinned maximized anything, those are effects pinned onto the spell known.

edit:

Ryu, how do you stop the deity the Solar works for from a) preventing the gate and b) popping into to instantly extinguish the meddling caster from existence?

DM fiat response? Adorable. For one either of the other two methods don't even need the gate. I was just being nice. For three a 20th level caster has plenty at their disposal to garner favor from any desired deity. Alternatively simply look at the DM and point out exactly how much fiat that is and that resorting to it is conceding the point.

[Norin]

This thread is not about necromancy any more.

This tend to happen in threads about casters. Massive derail and a "no, i can do this!" - "but then i do that!" contest.

Amusing.

[eggynack]

This thread is not about necromancy any more.

This tend to happen in threads about casters. Massive derail and a "no, i can do this!" - "but then i do that!" contest.

Amusing.
I guess. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to say about this one. How do you argue against, "Necromancy isn't good if you don't like necromancy spells."? I guess I could argue about the philosophy of debuffing, which seems to be the actual goal of the thread, but it seems a bit futile with so many important spells cut off. Ultimately, it's a bit hard to argue about something when you dispute a basic premise of the claim.

[Divayth Fyr]

Ryu, how do you stop the deity the Solar works for from a) preventing the gate and b) popping into to instantly extinguish the meddling caster from existence?
Why would they care? It's not harming the Solar or the deity, for most of them it is not an act which would conflict with their portfolio/alignment (and even in that case, deities don't usually go around extinguishing mortals who happen to do something againts their dogmas). A Mount Everest of a DM fiat will stop any plan, that's true - but that only means you can't do anything because something might come and extinguish you.

[Norin]

I guess. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to say about this one. How do you argue against, "Necromancy isn't good if you don't like necromancy spells."? I guess I could argue about the philosophy of debuffing, which seems to be the actual goal of the thread, but it seems a bit futile with so many important spells cut off. Ultimately, it's a bit hard to argue about something when you dispute a basic premise of the claim.

Oh, I agree that the OP is not discussing Necro on objective terms, rather very subjective and biased towards his own feelings and likes/dislikes. So it is indeed quite hard to argue the points.

I'm just observing the general trend on this forum. It amuses me that very few threads about these things stay on topic and spirals into a contest about who knows what tricks and powerful combos.

Anyways, i like Necro and find it viable and usable. (<-- My contribution. :smallbiggrin:)

[Bonzai]

Under the definition of replaceability he was using, anything that could theoretically exist in the group of "summoning" could replace anything else in that category, regardless of the comparative power level. Thus, under that definition, simulacrum and ice assassin are quite replaceable. It's a rather illogical way to measure school overlap, which is essentially the point I was making. Also, simulacrum and ice assassin only come into play at pretty late levels, while the best stuff in conjuration is always available. It also feels like your analysis is missing out on the fact that conjuration has many of the best BFC's in the game, and losing those hurts quite a bit.

If you were referring to me, I was looking at the various niches the schools fill from a general perspective. Are certain schools better at certain roles than others? Absolutely. Can other schools still get the job done? Yes. The only schools that can't be replaced at all are Divination, Abjuration, and to a lesser extent Transmutation. Other than those you can cover one schools specialty with a mix of others. I'm not going to into comparative levels for all schools or what have you. You want disposable fodder to slow down and distract the enemy? Conjuration is your go too school, but Illusion, Necromancy, and Enchantment can fit that role too. Direct damage? Evocation is king, but all schools but divination have something to cover that. You get the idea. You don't need to be 100% optimized to do your job in the party, and often times it doesn't matter how well you do it so much as it gets done when it needs too.

Putting it back into perspective in regards to the OP, is it worth dropping Necromancy? It can be. The last wizard I played was a conjurer with circle magic. I've already said that Divination, Abjuration, and transmutation are never on the table, and that Evocation and Enchantment are usually on the table. When I had to drop a third school it was a choice between Illusion and Necromancy. Between those two Necromancy was the clear choice to drop, as Simulacrum and Circle Magic is brokenly strong. But that was the choice that best fit my particular build, and other builds may not benefit the same way. It all comes down to what your trying to accomplish and how you want to go about doing it.

[eggynack]

If you were referring to me, I was looking at the various niches the schools fill from a general perspective. Are certain schools better at certain roles than others? Absolutely. Can other schools still get the job done? Yes. The only schools that can't be replaced at all are Divination, Abjuration, and to a lesser extent Transmutation. Other than those you can cover one schools specialty with a mix of others. I'm not going to into comparative levels for all schools or what have you. You want disposable fodder to slow down and distract the enemy? Conjuration is your go too school, but Illusion, Necromancy, and Enchantment can fit that role too. Direct damage? Evocation is king, but all schools but divination have something to cover that. You get the idea. You don't need to be 100% optimized to do your job in the party, and often times it doesn't matter how well you do it so much as it gets done when it needs too.
I understand that, but your definition of niche here is incredibly broad, such that under that definition illusion has nothing to call its own. For example, shadow walk is a perfectly nice spell, but it does little to replace conjuration's tactical teleportation spells, like dimension door and benign transposition. Similarly, necromancy and enchantment are rather situational and long term as minionmancy goes, so you have little to copy summon monster. Shadow conjuration is a thing, but it's also a thing that's very bad at summon monster, because of how necessary it is to keep up. Ultimately, in the argument you constructed to ban conjuration, I can't see much justification to not ban illusion.

[Lactantius]

@Psyren:

You have to approach things from a reasonableness standpoint too. Not allowing, say, Streamers or Heroics in your campaign could technically be called a houserule since it's a printed spell from a WotC source, but I'd wager it's a pretty common one.

You could also argue that using more and more supplement books is a houserule and that core only is, well, a core game.
That's my main issue on this boards: all and every source is considered automatically available.
That's why D&D can end in ridiculous combos and stuff.

People tend to forget Rule 0 and the small, but important note in the DMG that ANY rule presented here is optional.
And that's the core rule. :)


@eggynack:
Necromancy must work if you are not dedicated to animiating stuff. That's the thesis and the question if necromancy is worth banning another school.
There are many reasons to do so:
either cause of character-driven reasons or maybe because of the same reason why item creation feats are not worthy all the time: a tight timetable, less downtimes and more.

I wonder why it is so difficult to rate necromancy w/o applying animiating death.
Or why it is so difficult to analyze a school w/o using vile/corrupt stuff. Just because it is written somewhere in the WotC sources to do crazy stuff, you are not obliged to do so.
With other words: don't counter an analysis based on the idea that all ressources are unlimited available. Anticipate.


Frankly, I like some necromancy spells. That should be obvious if you read my analysis.

[eggynack]

Necromancy must work if you are not dedicated to animiating stuff. That's the thesis and the question if necromancy is worth banning another school.
There are many reasons to do so:
either cause of character-driven reasons or maybe because of the same reason why item creation feats are not worthy all the time: a tight timetable, less downtimes and more.
There's not really a reason why a wizard would be incapable of animating stuff. Character driven reasons could apply to any type of magic, rather than just animate dead. If the only problem here is a tight timetable, or less downtime, then we evaluate the spell, and keep that in mind. Some things take more time than others, and we evaluate them, costs and all.


With other words: don't counter an analysis based on the idea that all ressources are unlimited available. Anticipate.
There's no assumption here. If you're playing a wizard in just about any game, animate dead will be available. There's really no question on that count, and I have nothing to anticipate. If you have some other problem with the spells, like that they're expensive, or that they take awhile, say that they're bad. Don't say that they don't exist.

[Lactantius]

I. Most gaming rounds I know have a strict rule called "Books Allowed: X,Y,Z etc."
In my experience, the clause that all sources are available is of academic, not practical nature.

II. Carrying around undead minions has many things to consider:
1.) Group agreement. Either class-specific collisions (good-aligned cleric, paladins) or just the other PC's attitude and alignment can cause an ineffective and problematic useage.

2.) Logistics. Many adventures and campaigns require a tight group number. This starts with "leaving off our horses at the dungeon entrance and never see them again" and ends in "can we carry around our long-time called minions?"

3.) Campaigns. Be honest, most civilized cities don't allow walking dead on the streets and even leads to a violation of the law. I mean, there is a reason why necromancers keep their studies secret and work in nightshifts.
If you evaluate animate dead, you must include all possible factors, not just the written spell in the PHB (as why the PHB states just RAW and no campaign connection, which, by itself, is mandatory if you don't play in an abstract, sterile labaratory).
And even by RAW, you must have the materials around to animate dead.
So, you must visit graveyards, have a contract with criminals getting your corpses or other stuff.

4.) Less downtimes. I can find spontaenously 2 major campaigns where you would have sparse time to create items, minions, build your stronghold and stuff.
CotSQ and RHoD are my examples. I am sure that many other printed campaigns have a downtime problem.

Many limits, if you ask me (besides the morale question, which you totally ignored).

[ryu]

I. Most gaming rounds I know have a strict rule called "Books Allowed: X,Y,Z etc."
In my experience, the clause that all sources are available is of academic, not practical nature.

II. Carrying around undead minions has many things to consider:
1.) Group agreement. Either class-specific collisions (good-aligned cleric, paladins) or just the other PC's attitude and alignment can cause an ineffective and problematic useage.

2.) Logistics. Many adventures and campaigns require a tight group number. This starts with "leaving off our horses at the dungeon entrance and never see them again" and ends in "can we carry around our long-time called minions?"

3.) Campaigns. Be honest, most civilized cities don't allow walking dead on the streets and even leads to a violation of the law. I mean, there is a reason why necromancers keep their studies secret and work in nightshifts.
If you evaluate animate dead, you must include all possible factors, not just the written spell in the PHB (as why the PHB states just RAW and no campaign connection, which, by itself, is mandatory if you don't play in an abstract, sterile labaratory).
And even by RAW, you must have the materials around to animate dead.
So, you must visit graveyards, have a contract with criminals getting your corpses or other stuff.

4.) Less downtimes. I can find spontaenously 2 major campaigns where you would have sparse time to create items, minions, build your stronghold and stuff.
CotSQ and RHoD are my examples. I am sure that many other printed campaigns have a downtime problem.

Many limits, if you ask me (besides the morale question, which you totally ignored).

Someone has clearly never heard of bags of holding. Neat thing about undead: They don't need to breath or be fed. They also don't complain when shoved into a bag on your person.

[AMFV]

I. Most gaming rounds I know have a strict rule called "Books Allowed: X,Y,Z etc."
In my experience, the clause that all sources are available is of academic, not practical nature.

II. Carrying around undead minions has many things to consider:
1.) Group agreement. Either class-specific collisions (good-aligned cleric, paladins) or just the other PC's attitude and alignment can cause an ineffective and problematic useage.

2.) Logistics. Many adventures and campaigns require a tight group number. This starts with "leaving off our horses at the dungeon entrance and never see them again" and ends in "can we carry around our long-time called minions?"

3.) Campaigns. Be honest, most civilized cities don't allow walking dead on the streets and even leads to a violation of the law. I mean, there is a reason why necromancers keep their studies secret and work in nightshifts.
If you evaluate animate dead, you must include all possible factors, not just the written spell in the PHB (as why the PHB states just RAW and no campaign connection, which, by itself, is mandatory if you don't play in an abstract, sterile labaratory).
And even by RAW, you must have the materials around to animate dead.
So, you must visit graveyards, have a contract with criminals getting your corpses or other stuff.

4.) Less downtimes. I can find spontaenously 2 major campaigns where you would have sparse time to create items, minions, build your stronghold and stuff.
CotSQ and RHoD are my examples. I am sure that many other printed campaigns have a downtime problem.

Many limits, if you ask me (besides the morale question, which you totally ignored).

For the first point I have ran many games, and participated in several the general rule I have seen is usually all WOTC stuff is on the table, and oftentimes any non-WOTC stuff can be approved.

1.) What alignment clash? Is raising undead objectively evil? There are certainly moral arguments you could make that would make it so. My viewpoint is that it's tantamount to recycling. They don't need their bodies anymore, if you don't use them for evil then it's not really evil, as long as you don't ask your good aligned cleric friend to animate them himself there should be no problem, as wizards can cast alignment restricted spells to their hearts content.

2.)I have never played a game with an "arbitrary headcount limit" I can see of no way that could be introduced without completely shattering my suspension of disbelief. It's a terrible bother for me even in video games where system limitations are more clearly evident. Do you also forbid rangers and druids their animal companions? Or summoners their summons?


3.) Disguise undead is a spell, bags of holding are a thing. Cloaks are practically free and cloaked and shrouded undead are easy to disguise. Not all societies are opposed to necromancy, not even all good aligned ones, they mostly have more complex agendas.

4.) RHOD has downtime in days, you can easily manage to cast several spells that take minutes to cast. In fact you could animate dead fairly easily. Also animating dead is really only a standard action. Raising your minions is pretty non-frustrating time wise, so that'd be more a problem for Artificers than Necromancers.

The moral question is only a problem under a particular reading of alignment, and since few characters have a code of conduct they are likely allowed to have contradictions in alignment. For example good characters that murder, or evil characters that won't. Alignments are not so simple.

[Divayth Fyr]

Necromancy must work if you are not dedicated to animiating stuff. That's the thesis and the question if necromancy is worth banning another school.
So, does Enchanting must work if you aren't dedicated to messing with minds (so, no mind-affecting spells at all), Transmutation if you don't want anything changing/modifying a physical object and Evocation if you completely skip any damage dealing spells?

[Emperor Tippy]

and Evocation if you completely skip any damage dealing spells?

About the only good evocation damage dealing spell is Magic Missile with Fell Drain attached. There are a bare handful of others that are decentish.

Evocation sucks at damage dealing but it is the generally best defensive school in the game.

[Divayth Fyr]

About the only good evocation damage dealing spell is Magic Missile with Fell Drain attached. There are a bare handful of others that are decentish.

Evocation sucks at damage dealing but it is the generally best defensive school in the game.
Still, one wouldn't really think about specializing in it outside of some blaster build, no?

[eggynack]

I. Most gaming rounds I know have a strict rule called "Books Allowed: X,Y,Z etc."
In my experience, the clause that all sources are available is of academic, not practical nature.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. It has very little to do with the points being made. Moreover, you can just weight your evaluation more towards sources closer to core, if it's such a big issue for you. As for your other points, I feel that other folks have handled it quite nicely.

About the only good evocation damage dealing spell is Magic Missile with Fell Drain attached. There are a bare handful of others that are decentish.

Evocation sucks at damage dealing but it is the generally best defensive school in the game.
Well, sure I guess. In that case, you can just revise the point with a leaning towards defense rather than blasting, and all will be copacetic.

[Captnq]

Oh, did you write up spell reviews in another thread? Could you supply the link? I'd like to add your editorial to The Spellbook.

[Captnq]

Now, I'm not trying to be rude, but you are bringing up old threads. You might wish to google-fu a little in the future. Here.

Here's everything about inflicting negative levels (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4571.msg80865#msg80865).
Chill Touch (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4571.msg64711#msg64711).
Bestow Curse (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4571.msg70533#msg70533).
Vampiric Touch (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4571.msg87082#msg87082).
Ray of Enfeeblement (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4571.msg64219#msg64219).
And Backbiter (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4571.msg84857#msg84857).

I'll be sure to add your comments to The Spellbook, however.

[Story]

You have to approach things from a reasonableness standpoint too. Not allowing, say, Streamers or Heroics in your campaign could technically be called a houserule since it's a printed spell from a WotC source, but I'd wager it's a pretty common one.

There's a large gap between that and banning Ennervation though. Shivering Touch is more of a gray area. I wasn't going to use it, but someone else in my group brought it up so we'll see.

Also, what's wrong with Heroics? It's a versatile buff, but it's hardly game breaking unless you do something silly like DCFS.


I. Most gaming rounds I know have a strict rule called "Books Allowed: X,Y,Z etc."
In my experience, the clause that all sources are available is of academic, not practical nature.

II. Carrying around undead minions has many things to consider:
1.) Group agreement. Either class-specific collisions (good-aligned cleric, paladins) or just the other PC's attitude and alignment can cause an ineffective and problematic useage.


Again that's your personal experience. Mine is pretty much the opposite. But most of the best spells are in Core anyway.

[Pickford]

karpik777:

Why would they care? It's not harming the Solar or the deity, for most of them it is not an act which would conflict with their portfolio/alignment (and even in that case, deities don't usually go around extinguishing mortals who happen to do something againts their dogmas). A Mount Everest of a DM fiat will stop any plan, that's true - but that only means you can't do anything because something might come and extinguish you.

Norin is right, this is beginning to get off-topic, so this'll be the last I say on the matter. Ryu is incorrect that this is DM fiat. There's text on the monster that says they are companions of deities, so screwing with a solar rightfully requires some thought about possible retaliation.

Karpik, this is an act of kidnapping, it doesn't matter if no lasting harm occurred. It's not because it's against some portfolio (although that's surely conceivable), it's because it's a personal affront. If you slap someone in game are you expecting no response and considering one to be DM fiat? (After all, it's not harming them really...)

[ryu]

It's not harming them at all. As a matter of fact it's directly less dangerous and time consuming than the things solars are somewhat regularly gated in to do by high level wizards. Further as repeatedly pointed out this is just the method I used to be polite about how I obtained the solar sample instead of simply gripping it out of my pouch or eschewing materials. Frankly you should be thankful I was willing to blow so much XP on simple courtesy to verisimilitude. Based on RAW I quite explicitly didn't have to.

[Captnq]

Lactantius:
Congrats! Your comments were uploaded into The Spellbook (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=5044.msg72093#msg72093). Your observations may be of service to other spellcasters in the future. Next expected release of The Spellbook is (JANUARY/2014) and will be version (5).

However, I have noticed something about your observations. You really seem down on draining levels.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems your opinion is that the only way to defeat your enemy is to kill them. This is incorrect. The goal is to render your enemy helpless. Dead usually is helpless. But there are other forms of helpless. The primary ways of rendering someone helpless are:

1. HP Loss
2. Attribute loss
3. Level Loss
4. Action Loss

Now let us look at Level Drain:


Condition, Negative Level: For each negative level gained, a creature takes a –1 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks, loses 5 hit points, and takes a –1 penalty to effective level. (That is, whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce its value by 1 for each negative level.) In addition, a spellcaster loses one spell or spell slot from the highest spell level the target can cast. If two or more spells fit this criterion, the caster decides which one becomes inaccessible.


HP Loss: We don't just lose 5 HP, we can't even heal them back. 5 HP G-O-N-E until the negative level is restored. The tarrasque could be brought low if you reduce his max hit points to 0. No wish required.

Level Loss: Enemy Spellcasters are at -1 CL. -1d6 damage. Short durations. Short Range. Short area. Fewer targets. Drop the CL low enough, he can't even cast certain spells anymore because spells have a minimum CL to cast.

Attribute Loss: -1 to Attack, Saving throws, Skill Checks, and ability checks. That leaves you weakened so others can finish you off. Lower saving throws mean more likely to fail to save on the next level drain you cast.

Action loss: Enemy spellcasters lose the highest level spell they know. A party armed with wands of Fell Drain Sonic Snap firing every round will take the most wizards and in a few short rounds reduce him to his backup emergency dagger.

Yes, level loss isn't that scary against your normal mook. It is a terror to any enemy spellcaster. And don't we all speak about how scary high level wizards are?

[Bonzai]

I understand that, but your definition of niche here is incredibly broad, such that under that definition illusion has nothing to call its own. For example, shadow walk is a perfectly nice spell, but it does little to replace conjuration's tactical teleportation spells, like dimension door and benign transposition. Similarly, necromancy and enchantment are rather situational and long term as minionmancy goes, so you have little to copy summon monster. Shadow conjuration is a thing, but it's also a thing that's very bad at summon monster, because of how necessary it is to keep up. Ultimately, in the argument you constructed to ban conjuration, I can't see much justification to not ban illusion.

The broad definition was kind of the point. Most schools don't really have anything uniquely their own. The biggest exception would be Abjuration for anti-magic. Other than that, in broad terms you can cover your bases with other schools. Conjuration is a great school, but you can get by without it. What does it give you that is unique?

1. Summons/Minions? Again, Illusion, Necromancy, and enchantment can do that too to some extent.

2. Direct & AoE Damage? Most schools barring Divination have some means of offence.

3. Travel? Shadow Walk is ok. Mass Teleport is a transmutation, as is tanslocation trick. I believe there are more, but that's what jumps to mind.

4. Battle Field Control? Illusion, Enchantment, Necromancy, and Evocation can all do that too.

5. Buffs? Not exactly Conjurations strong point, and most schools have quite a few.

Am I missing something? That Conjuration can cover all of these things shows what a strong and flexible school it is, but that doesn't mean that it is indispensable. The same goes for most schools.

[ryu]

The broad definition was kind of the point. Most schools don't really have anything uniquely their own. The biggest exception would be Abjuration for anti-magic. Other than that, in broad terms you can cover your bases with other schools. Conjuration is a great school, but you can get by without it. What does it give you that is unique?

1. Summons/Minions? Again, Illusion, Necromancy, and enchantment can do that too to some extent.

2. Direct & AoE Damage? Most schools barring Divination have some means of offence.

3. Travel? Shadow Walk is ok. Mass Teleport is a transmutation, as is tanslocation trick. I believe there are more, but that's what jumps to mind.

4. Battle Field Control? Illusion, Enchantment, Necromancy, and Evocation can all do that too.

5. Buffs? Not exactly Conjurations strong point, and most schools have quite a few.

Am I missing something? That Conjuration can cover all of these things shows what a strong and flexible school it is, but that doesn't mean that it is indispensable. The same goes for most schools.

What you're missing is that conjuration is demonstrably best at most of those things. Yes it matters. Doing the thing is fine. Doing it well is better.

[eggynack]

The broad definition was kind of the point. Most schools don't really have anything uniquely their own. The biggest exception would be Abjuration for anti-magic. Other than that, in broad terms you can cover your bases with other schools. Conjuration is a great school, but you can get by without it. What does it give you that is unique?

1. Summons/Minions? Again, Illusion, Necromancy, and enchantment can do that too to some extent.

2. Direct & AoE Damage? Most schools barring Divination have some means of offence.

3. Travel? Shadow Walk is ok. Mass Teleport is a transmutation, as is tanslocation trick. I believe there are more, but that's what jumps to mind.

4. Battle Field Control? Illusion, Enchantment, Necromancy, and Evocation can all do that too.

5. Buffs? Not exactly Conjurations strong point, and most schools have quite a few.

Am I missing something? That Conjuration can cover all of these things shows what a strong and flexible school it is, but that doesn't mean that it is indispensable. The same goes for most schools.
I've seen your definitions of niche, and how other schools fulfill these niches, and it's just insufficient. For example, you listed illusion as copying summoning. It can not. It looks like it can, because shadow conjuration is right there, but summon spells are incredibly level dependent, so getting them at a lower level is highly problematic. The fact that these summons die to a stiff breeze compounds this problem. That leaves you without the "summoning" half of "summoning/minionmancy", which leaves you without the tactical benefits of that sort of spell. With conjuration, you can't just copy these spell types in broad strokes. You have to copy really narrow spell types, because a lot of these effects are pretty unique. Also, translocation trick is conjuration now, so you still don't have a tactical teleportation.

[Haarkla]

So we have a decision between staying on necromancy or getting extra spells (and thus, more staying power).

To make the choice easier, I have listed all available necromancy spells from any source.
The entire methodology of this thread is flawed.

In general the choice of wether or not to specialise is primary, and the choice of which schools to specialise in and prohibit mostly secondary.

In general at levels 1-3 the extra spell slots are so valuble, that a specialist wizard is superior.

Please do not start any more threads on the wizard specialisation system until you understand that system.

[Lactantius]

@Haarkla: no need to be rude.
Have you ever imagined that I am referring to a broad set of class variables?
It is very right to compare slots vs. school as primary thought, especially if you already HAVE specialized and must pick a second prohibited school.

Or you may look over to the focused specialist option and wonder if that +1 spell slot each level is worth banning another SINGLE school.

So yes, this absolutely comparable.
Versatility matters.
Power matters.
Both bases must be covered in D&D.
The first is covered by the number of schools and the question if the loss of a school is a loss in versatility.
The last is covered by the absolute numbers of spells per day.
And within those slots, the higher ones matter.
It is a great difference if you can cast, say, one more 5th, 6th and 7th level spell - or not.

@Captnq:
that's nice, your welcome :)
But honestly, my spell analysis was not meant solely to demonstrate a new insight rather to get a community feedback and a fresh discussion.
Unfortunately, as proven, this is a difficult task in we cannot broaden the common playground and thus, open up for extrinsic factors like those I already mentioned.

[Story]

Unfortunately, as proven, this is a difficult task in we cannot broaden the common playground and thus, open up for extrinsic factors like those I already mentioned.

If you have major houserules or campaign specific constraints, then people will address those in those context of a thread asking for help with that campaign. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.