Why does evocation suck? 3.5

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys. I've recently gone over the wizard spell list, and I can't see why so many people say evocation is bad. It has really cool, damage dealing spells. I compared it to conjuration, and it just seems to be more focused on "I blow that up!" So why do people say it sucks? And as always, go nuts.

[AmberVael]

Because a one shot damage spell is not as good as instantly taking down an enemy (with a debuff of some kind, or a save or die spell, or a disabling spell), and generally not as efficient as just buffing your allies (the extra damage an allied character can get with Haste is more than you can do with your fireball, for example). Add to this the tendency for it to be blocked by reflex saves (and thus vulnerable to evasion), spell resistance, and energy resistance, and it tends to be less reliable. In short, it's often not even good enough at what it is supposed to do, let alone compared to what else you can do.

The fact that many of the best damage spells are outside of evocation just adds insult to injury.

[Cuaqchi]

The primary reason is because of the options you have as a wizard/sorcerer. Even if you just want to deal damage there are ways to attack things other than HP which will always be significantly lower. These targets include but are not limited: stats (A zero is out of the fight or in the case of CON dead), level/HD, saves (to make other tricks work better), attack/defense values (To make your friends kill stuff better). Evocation rarely if ever targets any of these things directly and barely gets them as secondaries.

[starwoof]

Dealing damage isn't really the wizard's job, that goes to the barbarian. The wizard should be buffing, debuffing, and generally doing things the rest of the party is not capable of. Dealing 17 (average) damage with a fireball at level 5 is okay, but dealing 34 at level 10 is much less impressive, especially because that is when monster hit dice start to ramp up very quickly. Evocation has a few nice control spells though, so it isn't all bad.

[JBarca]

As far as I'm aware, it boils down to most of the "really cool, damage-dealing" spells in Evocation contain two major red flags: They like to offer saves (a friend of mine likes to say that if you've offered a save, you've already lost), and they like to be SR: Yes. These two factors mean that many, if not all, creatures will take significantly less damage (up to and including "none") from a fireball than, say, an Orb of Fire.

Not to mention blasting is generally considered sub-optimal. One round of some damage, vs ending the fight or buffing the fighter (multiple rounds add up, especially with iterative attacks).

[HunterOfJello]

Evocation as a school overall doesn't suck. However, the reasons it doesn't suck are not what you think they are.

The reason people talk badly about evocation is because doing damage is a role that is best left to people in the party that aren't wizards.

A fireball that does 22 damage to 4 targets in one round could easily have been replicated by a barbarian over 2 rounds. Instead of dealing that generally small amount of damage once, the wizard could have instead cast a spell like Haste which would let 3 additional party members gain extra attacks for the next several rounds (as well as the other benefits of Haste like massively increased movement speed). Over the course of a fight, Haste will likely end up resulting in a significantly higher amount of damage than Fireball will have.

Wizard make amazing support and battlefield control characters. They don't make amazing damage dealers.

~

The reason evocation isn't actually all that bad is because if you go outside of core and gather up all the evocation spells in the entire game, then there are quite a few decent evocation spells that can work as battlefield control spells at the same time. It's a spell a person can do without, but I would give up Enchantment far more quickly than I would drop Evocation.

If you want to see a list of some great Evocation spells, check out Treantmonk's Guide to Wizard Spells: God's Tools - Part 1: Evocation (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1152046).

One of my favorite spells in the game for levels 5-10 is Blacklight and that's an Evocation spell.

[Alabenson]

There are a couple reasons evocation is generally looked down upon by optimizers;
First, as has already been pointed out, dealing damage is generally considered a suboptimal use of a wizard or sorcerer's actions, outside of a few high-op builds. Generally speaking, wizards and sorcerers are much more effective when they use their spells for buffing, debuffing, and crowd control. Furthermore, evocation offers vanishingly few alternatives to damage dealing, whereas other schools (conjuration and transmutation in particular) can be useful in almost any conceivable circumstance.

Secondly, the majority of evocation spells are seen as being suboptimal for damage dealing due to the fact that they tend to offer saving throws and/or are subject to spell resistance, as compared to damage dealing conjurations spells that rarely offer saving throws against damage and are almost never subject to spell resistance.

[Teapot Salty]

So conjuration is generally superior? I only use the core books if that has any affect on things.

[Phelix-Mu]

It's not so much that evocation sucks. Just that only damaging monsters with the blasty that makes up much of the school is so pish-posh compared with the actual limits of spell optimization. There are a couple gems in evocation that do other things, but the sheer versatility of several of the other schools rather outshines evocation.

Let me rant for a moment about conjuration. There is way, way, way too much stuff in conjuration. Teleporting, summoning, calling, a bunch of stuff that pretty clearly should be evocation, some things that probably should be abjuration or transmutation, and in general a smorgasbord of stuff that is extremely versatile and effective. This is quite simply too much currency for any one school. I understand that they were going for thematic trends, and that splats kind of exacerbated the problem, but my inner designer screams when I think of all that is going on in conjuration. As compared with...let's say...enchantment.

So, of course evocation, a bit lacking compared to other mid-grade stuff, looks terribad in general. Compared to the heavy hitters, conjuration and transmutation, evocation is very sad indeed.

Not to say that it can't be optimized, of course. Killing things might not be optimal, but you can certainly be stupidly good at it. And at lower-op tables, where killing things is really the extent of what people are trying to do with magic (in addition to some basic utility and problem-solving), then AoE energy stuff ain't too shabby.

[Silva Stormrage]

So conjuration is generally superior? I only use the core books if that has any affect on things.

Really that may make things worse. While true in core only conjuration doesn't have the damage spells that evocation has it has other better uses of its actions as others noted above. A lot of the good conjuration BFC and Debuff spells are in core. See Grease, Glitterdust, Web, etc.

[afroakuma]

Basically, evocation is still designed around the idea that you play fair and your magic can sometimes fail you.

And all the other schools laugh at that. :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

Blasting has its moments, when you're surrounded by goblins and you want to wipe them out, or when you just need to kill some hulking behemoth, but those moments aren't that common. Dealing damage has the same flaws when you use magic to do it that it always does, which is mostly that an enemy with all their HP and an enemy with one HP hit equally hard, and you can potentially have no real tactical impact on combat as a result, even on a failed save. Evocation based blasting particularly sucks, as it tends towards rather unreliable things like fireball, which are far worse than something like orb of fire.

There are two caveats to evocation's suckage that are often ignored, however. First, evocation doesn't suck. Evocation blasting sucks, and that is expanded by people to mean that the whole school sucks. The best evocation spell isn't fireball by a long shot. It's a school that has contingency, resilient sphere, wall of force, wind wall, sending, defenestrating sphere, and a whole bunch more. It's still one of the worst schools, primarily because other schools have more to offer (apart from enchantment, which is worse), and because shadow evocation can cover some ground towards recovering the school, but losing evocation can hurt a lot more than some give it credit for.

Second, blasting doesn't suck. Evocation blasting sucks, and that is expanded by people to mean that the whole type of spell sucks. As above, fireball isn't the best blasting spell by a long shot. Orb of fire, for example, is capable of hitting a golem inside of an anti-magic field, consistently because of the ranged touch attack, and it has a fancy rider effect on top of that. Those are really the qualities you look for in a blasting spell. You want your blasting to still have the potential to do something if it doesn't kill the enemy, you want it to hit a wide range of enemies, and you want to deal good damage, because orb of fire also does that.

I think that's basically the basics. Evocation is a low tier school of magic, but you could easily specialize in it and have a worthwhile spell of every level. It faces a decent degree of overlap, and the unique effect density is rather low, but it's a pretty good school on occasion.

[Teapot Salty]

Second, blasting doesn't suck. Evocation blasting sucks, and that is expanded by people to mean that the whole type of spell sucks. As above, fireball isn't the best blasting spell by a long shot. Orb of fire, for example, is capable of hitting a golem inside of an anti-magic field, consistently because of the ranged touch attack, and it has a fancy rider effect on top of that. Those are really the qualities you look for in a blasting spell. You want your blasting to still have the potential to do something if it doesn't kill the enemy, you want it to hit a wide range of enemies, and you want to deal good damage, because orb of fire also does that. Can you name a couple of good blasting spells for me? Preferably but not restricted to core.

[Juntao112]

Hey guys. I've recently gone over the wizard spell list, and I can't see why so many people say evocation is bad. It has really cool, damage dealing spells. I compared it to conjuration, and it just seems to be more focused on "I blow that up!" So why do people say it sucks? And as always, go nuts.

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
— Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[Silva Stormrage]

Can you name a couple of good blasting spells for me? Preferably but not restricted to core.

Orb of Fire, Maw of Chaos, Wings of Flurry for out of core

In core… Prismatic Spray? It can blast decently and also instantly kill people or take them out. Its less a blast though.

[Gavinfoxx]

Here are some great PHB Conjurations:

Grease
Obscuring Mist
Summon Monster II
Glitterdust
Web
Phantom Steed
Sleet Storm
Stinking Cloud
Summon Monster III
Black Tentacles
Dimension Door
Solid Fog
Summon Monster IV
Lesser Planar Binding (you can bind Barghest and Succubus and Bearded Devils and Formian Taskmasters and Nightmares and bralani eladrin...)
Summon Monster V
Teleport
Wall of Stone
Planar Binding (bind astral devas, trumpet archons, glabrezu, ghaele eladrin, leonals, gray slaads...)
Summon Monster VI
Greater Teleport
Summon Monster VII
Plane Shift
Magnificent Mansion
Greater Planar Binding (bind planetars, Nalfeshnee, ice devils, death slaads...)
Maze
Summon Monster VIII
Gate (!!!!!!)
Summon Monster IX
Teleportation Circle

[Phelix-Mu]

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
— Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Eloquent. But all I could think of was Sun Tzu prying open a wooden crate marked ACME and pulling out the beginnings of a false tunnel entrance.

[eggynack]

Maybe disintegrate? There aren't all that many great core options for blasting spells. It is possible, though not definite, that core wizard blasting sucks. As for non-core, I usually think in druid terms. I dunno if fancy druid blasting lists would be helpful, though it's possible. One of the best blasting spells is probably boreal wind (Frost, 89), which actually is evocation, come to think of it. It might mostly be fireball, and fireball wannabes, that suck. Ooh, icelance (SpC, 119) is on the wizard list, and it's a conjuration. That one is good. Creeping cold (SpC, 55) is only on the druid list, unfortunately, but it's transmutation, and pretty amazing when extended. it's a pretty long list, I think.

Edit: Boreal wind is on the wizard list too, by the by. It's just at a lower level for druids, and that is crazy relevant.

[Lanaya]

Disintegrate is pretty awful. The number of damage dice looks impressive, but you need to roll to hit and they get a Fortitude save, so anything speedy is likely to dodge, anything tough is likely to take 5d6 damage and anything neither speedy nor tough still has a decent chance of not being zapped into dust because you're still relying on two d20 rolls going your way. Compare it to Slay Living, which kicks in a level earlier and flat-out kills them if they fail the save at the cost of having melee range, or flesh to stone which allows the same save, doesn't need to roll to hit and (effectively) kills outright if they fail that save. It doesn't do anything if they pass their save, but disintegrate might as well do nothing on a successful save either.

[Theomniadept]

Let me give you an example:

9th level Conjuration spell Summon Elemental Monolith. For a paltry fee you can get an Earth Elemental big enough and strong enough to take any amount of damage you want it to while it pounds away with its slam attacks with a +40 doing 6d8+15, every round for a round per caster level. No Spell Resistance, you just summon it and the enemy has to deal with it or attempt to dismiss it or banish it, though the +16 to Will saves protects the thing quite well against that.

Now let's look at Meteor Swarm, the pinnacle of Evocation. Four meteors, all affected by Spell Resistance. Each meteor takes an attack roll to hit touch, then does 2d6 points of bludgeoning damage (subject to DR which means at 17th level, no damage), and 6d6 points of fire damage (This is equivalent to a 6th level fireball. With average 21 damage you would be hard pressed to damage anything worthwhile). If you miss, there is no bludgeoning damage and every creature in a 10 foot square inclusive of the target makes a Reflex save against the fire damage for half.

Seriously? Is that even a contest? This is a 9th level spell and it contains SR, touch AC, DR, Fire resistance, and Reflex save for each individual meteor. That's 5 x 4 = 20 hurdles to jump through. As was shown, our elemental monolith can do better damage than that spell every single round and has no chance of not appearing.

But maybe we're not being fair. Reality Maelstrom of the Spell Compendium create a 20 ft radius hole in existence with a 40 foot radius secondary area outside that. But again, it comes with spell resistance and the only way to suck the enemy target into this black hole is to make them fail a reflex save, then a will save. One save and they'll just leave the spell's are and then you've wasted it.

Now, to give it some credit, 99% of all Force spells belong to this school, which means all of those Bigby Hand spells, which are admittedly somewhat good. Also, this school has a lot of Light spells, which means Sunbeam and Sunburst, meaning that between Force and Light spells Evocation functions only as a halfway-decent undead killer.

That's just too incredibly specific to focus on. Abjurant Champion and Argent Savant really rock Force spells, but if you're a Wizard then specializing in it is always sub-par. All the other energy damage spells are just flash-bang-gone, reflex for half, evasion for none, resistance for none.

However, there are some good things about it; with Frost Mage you can fire ice damage spells like Hail Storm that damage and control the battlefield and you ignore cold resistance and immunities, which makes some select cold spells worth the trouble. Then there's the Force Missile Mage from Dragon Magazine combined with Twin Spell + Repeat Spell + Shapechange into Spellweaver + Quicken Spell = 196 magic missiles from 1 round of casting.

But, on the whole, Evocation is at best a one trick pony. One trick ponies are Tier 3 or 4, while Wizard and Sorcerer can do so much more with other schools, even in the specific realm of elemental damage.

[Arbane]

Part of the problem is that most of the blasty spells are the same as they were in AD&D, but average hitpoints have gone up since then.

[Rubik]

(subject to DR which means at 17th level, no damage)Spells are never subject to DR. They are subject to hardness, however.

[Theomniadept]

Spells are never subject to DR. They are subject to hardness, however.

Source on that please. If it says Bludgeoning then it has that descriptor and is subject to the DR, much like how a morningstar (bludgeoning and piercing) would be subject to it.

[FireJustice]

Damage spells are outclassed by save or die, save or suck, just die, just suck spells.

area spells target reflex, the easiest save to pump.
Evasion and improved evasion make things even worse for the caster.
also energy resistance and energy imunity, many blasting spells have a energy type

Blasting rarelly will one shot targets. It can kill tons of mooks, but mooks are rarely more than a distraction

What else.... oh yeah, Spell resistance and Spell imunity (constructs/golens).
Evocation has to deal with it (it's magical fire)
But Conjuration(Creation) don't (magic creates real fire).

[Rubik]

Source on that please. If it says Bludgeoning then it has that descriptor and is subject to the DR, much like how a morningstar (bludgeoning and piercing) would be subject to it.From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction):

Damage Reduction
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

[eggynack]

Disintegrate is pretty awful.
That logic is fair enough, though disintegrate does have some non-blasting utility.

Source on that please. If it says Bludgeoning then it has that descriptor and is subject to the DR, much like how a morningstar (bludgeoning and piercing) would be subject to it.
"The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities." Taken from hereabouts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction).

Spells are never subject to DR. They are subject to hardness, however.
Unless they say otherwise explicitly, of course. Splinterbolt is a thing, after all.

[AmberVael]

Source on that please. If it says Bludgeoning then it has that descriptor and is subject to the DR, much like how a morningstar (bludgeoning and piercing) would be subject to it.

Monster Manual I, page 307

Damage Reduction (Ex or Su)
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks... the creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

Rules Compendium, page 41

Damage reduction doesn't reduce the damage from energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

[Rubik]

Unless they say otherwise explicitly, of course. Splinterbolt is a thing, after all.Well, there is that.

Also, ha-ha! I swordsaged everyone!

[Alabenson]

Disintegrate is pretty awful. The number of damage dice looks impressive, but you need to roll to hit and they get a Fortitude save, so anything speedy is likely to dodge, anything tough is likely to take 5d6 damage and anything neither speedy nor tough still has a decent chance of not being zapped into dust because you're still relying on two d20 rolls going your way. Compare it to Slay Living, which kicks in a level earlier and flat-out kills them if they fail the save at the cost of having melee range, or flesh to stone which allows the same save, doesn't need to roll to hit and (effectively) kills outright if they fail that save. It doesn't do anything if they pass their save, but disintegrate might as well do nothing on a successful save either.

I wouldn't call Disintegrate awful, per se, just somewhat limited in utility.
Compared with Slay Living, for example, Disintegrate is;
a) Usable at a distance
b) Ignores immunities to death effects like Death Ward
c) Is a ray, which means it benefits more from metamagic
d) Is able to affect undead and other creatures that are otherwise immune to Slay Living and similar spells.
e) Has (albeit limited) utility outside of being a SoD

I wouldn't argue Disintegrate is the best spell of its level, but it does have a number of advantages over similar spells.

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, there is that.

Also, ha-ha! I swordsaged everyone!

I believe it is either "swiftbladed" or "duskbladed" by context.:smalltongue:

[Rubik]

I believe it is either "swiftbladed" or "duskbladed" by context.:smalltongue:Actually, I just cast Haste on my arcane swordsage.

Eat it, evocation. Transmutation 4ever!

[Theomniadept]

Wow, that seems incredibly cheesy that even when magic includes descriptors they are just completely superfluous. Still, that only brings Meteor Swarm down to 16 hurdles.

[Rubik]

Wow, that seems incredibly cheesy that even when magic includes descriptors they are just completely superfluous. Still, that only brings Meteor Swarm down to 16 hurdles.You still have to deal with immunities to bludgeoning and fire, though.

[Theomniadept]

Well then, guess those hurdles just got stood back up, though the one's a little wobbly.

[zionpopsickle]

Its not really that evocation sucks; evocation spells are generally good at doing what they are designed to do. The problem is that there are either spells in other schools which tend to do those things better or that what those spells do are secondary or tertiary roles for the caster.

Sure, fireball is actually a pretty good spell at clearing out mooks, but the wizard has an illiterate, greatsword armed friend with anger management issues who is better at doing that.

To answer another question, the reason that conjuration and transmutation are considered so good is that they have access to a huge variety of spells since both tend to be catch-all schools that got a ton of spells that didn't quite fit other schools dumped into them.

[Alabenson]

Its not really that evocation sucks; evocation spells are generally good at doing what they are designed to do.

Truthfully, even this statement is open to debate. The majority of evocation spells are "Reflex Half / SR Yes", meaning that between the existence of Evasion, Energy Resistances and Spell Resistance there's a significant probability that any given evocation spell will have a negligible effect.

[eggynack]

Its not really that evocation sucks; evocation spells are generally good at doing what they are designed to do.
I rather disagree. Evocation spells are mediocre at doing what they are designed to do, which is presumably blasting. They're actually pretty good when they're doing other stuff. Contingency alone is quite possibly worth not banning the school, or it would be, were shadow evocation and craft contingent spell not things. It's a school that's full of utility, defense, and battlefield control. It's just not quite as full of that stuff as certain other schools.

[zionpopsickle]

I rather disagree. Evocation spells are mediocre at doing what they are designed to do, which is presumably blasting. They're actually pretty good when they're doing other stuff. Contingency alone is quite possibly worth not banning the school, or it would be, were shadow evocation and craft contingent spell not things. It's a school that's full of utility, defense, and battlefield control. It's just not quite as full of that stuff as certain other schools.

I don't think I expressed myself very well because that is generally in line with what I was trying to say. Evocation does have spells that do many of the things that you want to do (contingency, Forcecage etc.) and those spells are not actually bad at doing those things (there are a lot of seriously terrible spells out there in every school). It just doesn't do any of the things you want to do better than any other school and thus it ends up being redundant in most builds.

[eggynack]

I don't think I expressed myself very well because that is generally in line with what I was trying to say. Evocation does have spells that do many of the things that you want to do (contingency, Forcecage etc.) and those spells are not actually bad at doing those things (there are a lot of seriously terrible spells out there in every school). It just doesn't do any of the things you want to do better than any other school and thus it ends up being redundant in most builds.
Ah, fair enough then. I suppose I was assuming a certain definition of "What evocation was designed to do," which is usually considered to consist mostly of blasting.

[Venger]

Maybe disintegrate?


Disintegrate is pretty awful. The number of damage dice looks impressive, but you need to roll to hit and they get a Fortitude save, so anything speedy is likely to dodge, anything tough is likely to take 5d6 damage and anything neither speedy nor tough still has a decent chance of not being zapped into dust because you're still relying on two d20 rolls going your way. Compare it to Slay Living, which kicks in a level earlier and flat-out kills them if they fail the save at the cost of having melee range, or flesh to stone which allows the same save, doesn't need to roll to hit and (effectively) kills outright if they fail that save. It doesn't do anything if they pass their save, but disintegrate might as well do nothing on a successful save either.

This is a pretty good catalog of disintegrate's failings.

As previously mentioned, it's pretty decent to use to kill undead.

However, disintegrate is not evocation, it's transmutation.

[Juntao112]

Disintegrate is an utility spell that can also do damage.

[dreadwind80]

Its not as optmised as other schools - but I find you miss parts of it when you specialise and lose it as it has some very iconic and useful spells. Just for sheer blast single target its not great at times.

wall of fire, wall of force - great control
magic missle is fantasic at getting rid of mirror images & incorporeal targets
fireball is a huge area effect spell - sure it depends on the situation, but it has its uses and outside of adventuring parties, this is why armies in D&D are worried about wizards on their ranks of mooks for morale as well as damage
as someone said light spells - this is actually a major issue for adventurers who do not have darkvison. The same applies for darkness.
Sending - Do I need to say anything else?
and the killer - Contingency

as always, its about how you use the spells at your command

[HammeredWharf]

Personally, Im a rather big fan of all the hand spells evocation has. Grasping Hand is especially good and/or ridiculous. I once used it to grapple with a colossal monster our DM threw at us. "Wait, your grapple check is over 50?" That was fun.

Basic fireball blasting can get pretty good with some cheese. For example, recently I threw together an evoker build that could deal 13d6+13 sonic damage with his fireball at level 6. That's relatively impressive and doesn't make me feel as guilty as optimizing a conjurer would.

[Juntao112]

fireball is a huge area effect spell - sure it depends on the situation, but it has its uses and outside of adventuring parties, this is why armies in D&D are worried about wizards on their ranks of mooks for morale as well as damage


"God fights on the side with the best artillery."
"An army marches on its stomach."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon won many battles through good use of artillery (which caused the most battlefield deaths in the Napoleonic wars), but he suffered a crushing defeat in Russia when he overextended his supply lines and could not support his operations in the harsh Russian winter.

So it is said that novices talk about weaponry, amateurs talk about strategy, and professionals talk about logistics.

A 5th level wizard could use his two 3rd level spell slots Fireball the enemy and kill, perhaps, 20-30 foot soldiers. Or he could help a group of soldiers sneak into the enemy base (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibilitySphere.htm) and poison their water supply, which would present a larger problem.

(And, of course, there's also assassinating the enemy commander, preferably when he's asleep. Because war is ungentlemanly.)

[superjudas]

Evocation does not suck at all, the "problem" with a blaster mage with evocation is that it is hard to make it broken (like really really good)

Everything you say about spell resistance, saves, elemental resistance just means that blaster evocation is somewhat balanced. Therer are actually counters to a blaster evoker, which is a good thing :)

If you play in a really high optimized group a blaster evoker sucks.
If you play in a somewhat high optimized group a blaster evoker can be ok, but not the best in your group.
If you play in a not so optimized group the blaster evoker is good without being silly and overshadow the rest of the pary. Balanced :)

In a group where the "fighter" is not a pouncing barbar with leap attack and shock trooper, where the cleric/wizard is not all about save or die, or no save you suck spells the blaster evoker can be fun to play for both you and everybody in your group.

[Ivanhoe]

"
A 5th level wizard could use his two 3rd level spell slots Fireball the enemy and kill, perhaps, 20-30 foot soldiers. Or he could help a group of soldiers sneak into the enemy base (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibilitySphere.htm) and poison their water supply, which would present a larger problem.

(And, of course, there's also assassinating the enemy commander, preferably when he's asleep. Because war is ungentlemanly.)

But couldn't the 5th level wizard do exactly that also with evoker spells?
Help a group of soldiers sneak into the enemy base? - create diversion with a fireball attack elsewhere, or cast darkness during night to provide concealment/"hide in plain sight" opportunities.
Assassinate enemy commander when asleep? - just get a floating disk with 500 pounds of stones and drop on sleeping commander.:smallwink:

In general, evocation school, including the damaging spells, is very versatile.

[Drachasor]

But couldn't the 5th level wizard do exactly that also with evoker spells?
Help a group of soldiers sneak into the enemy base? - create diversion with a fireball attack elsewhere, or cast darkness during night to provide concealment/"hide in plain sight" opportunities.

Depends on if Daniel Jackson was the base commander or not.


Assassinate enemy commander when asleep? - just get a floating disk with 500 pounds of stones and drop on sleeping commander.:smallwink:

That plan makes no sense given how Floating Disk works.

[Ivanhoe]

Depends on if Daniel Jackson was the base commander or not.

Well, I do not know about him, but a diversion, in particular in low-mid level games, is not really such a bad idea. Guards usually react to the obvious, not to the "what may be". Also, darkness.:smallwink:


That plan makes no sense given how Floating Disk works.

But it does. Floating disk is 3ft above ground, put it above sleeping commander (very few beds are 3ft high) and move out of range/move it higher so it winks out.

Edit: just noticed it does not work by falling objects rules (needs 10ft at least). Just CDG then, or some blasting spell...

[Juntao112]

But couldn't the 5th level wizard do exactly that also with evoker spells?
Help a group of soldiers sneak into the enemy base? - create diversion with a fireball attack elsewhere, or cast darkness during night to provide concealment/"hide in plain sight" opportunities.
1. Opening a stealth mission with an artillery barrage is certainly a... novel tactic. I can't imagine why it isn't used more often in real life. Have you considered suggesting this to the SEALS so that they may make use of it in their future missions?
2. Darkness causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm) You are actually making your soldiers more visible.


Assassinate enemy commander when asleep? - just get a floating disk with 500 pounds of stones and drop on sleeping commander.:smallwink:

The disk floats approximately 3 feet above the ground at all times and remains level. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/floatingDisk.htm)


In general, evocation school, including the damaging spells, is very versatile.
Especially if you start ignoring how the spells work.

[Ivanhoe]

1. Opening a stealth mission with an artillery barrage is certainly a... novel tactic. I can't imagine why it isn't used more often in real life. Have you considered suggesting this to the SEALS so that they may make use of it in their future missions?

It's standard inflitration tactics, I wonder what is the problem about that. Decoy, infiltrate. So it helps. Of course not in all cases.


2. Darkness causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm) You are actually making your soldiers more visible.

You are saying that a spell creating concealment is actually making concealment impossible? Strange. How exactly do you see a shadowy illumination at night?
Of course the group sneaking into the enemy camp should not use the darkness to snuff out lights/torches of that camp, that is fairly obvious.


The disk floats approximately 3 feet above the ground at all times and remains level. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/floatingDisk.htm)

Adressed above. Forgot about the falling objects rule.


Especially if you start ignoring how the spells work.

Well, there should be other evocation spells that allow the wizard to assassinate and/or help the group sneak into somewhere. Don't you know any?

[Juntao112]

It's standard inflitration tactics, I wonder what is the problem about that. Decoy, infiltrate. So it helps. Of course not in all cases.
When German troops seized Fort Eben-Emael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael), they did so quietly by inserting themselves via glider. They did not use artillery to wake up the fort defenders and put the entire installation on high alert. Because that would have been dumb.

Your turn. Name an operation where a sneak attack on a base/fortress/installation was aided by a direct attack on said site.


You are saying that a spell creating concealment is actually making concealment impossible? Strange. How exactly do you see a shadowy illumination at night?
Blame whoever wrote the rules. But that's what it says; not darkness, but "shadowy illumination". Which means "more visible than dark". Which is, presumably, not a good thing.


Of course the group sneaking into the enemy camp should not use the darkness to snuff out lights/torches of that camp, that is fairly obvious. They also will have to contend with the fact that, if they move into a lit area, they're radiating shadowy illumination. This is a bad thing.


Well, there should be other evocation spells that allow the wizard to assassinate and/or help the group sneak into somewhere. Don't you know any?
Don't you?

[Ivanhoe]

When German troops seized Fort Eben-Emael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael), they did so quietly by inserting themselves via glider. They did not use artillery to wake up the fort defenders and put the entire installation on high alert. Because that would have been dumb.

Your turn. Name an operation where a sneak attack on a base/fortress/installation was aided by a direct attack on said site.

Since this is all about a fantasy game, what about LoTR where one part of the group basically starts two huge battlefield areas (Rohan and Gondor) plus then finally march with big trumpets and everyone to attack Mordor, all the while a small group infiltrates mount doom? Seems to have worked.:smallcool:


Blame whoever wrote the rules. But that's what it says; not darkness, but "shadowy illumination."

Well, "shadowy illumination" is just fluff, not a game term. "Concealment" that is provided to everyone in its radius, however, is a game term. Since people, however, will notice that lights will get less powerful in the darkness area, they will note something odd/magical is under way. But still, they won't notice the people hiding with concealment. So it has to be used with care (say, a covered stone with darkness) by the infiltrators. It helps, just like invisibility - which likewise does not make the group succeed on all move silently checks.
Also, when you do not like this area effect, just get Veil of Shadow from SpC.


So you're saying that Invisibility Sphere is the better choice here?

Depends, since the group can no longer see each other which may be awkward.


There's also the part where people will notice a bunch of floating rocks.

Ah, that part! I though it was only assasination and no question how you got there.:smallwink: Anyhow, forget my stupid floating disk idea (corrected that already).


Don't you?

Well, for a 5th level wizard ... veil of shadow I already mentioned above ... use dancing lights as decoy ... blacklight is also basically an improved version of darkness ... flashburst for 120ft radius blinding when things go wrong / your friends in the enemy camp need to make a fast escape ... manyjaws for assassination from some distance away ... otherwise just CDG

[Juntao112]

Since this is all about a fantasy game, what about LoTR where one part of the group basically starts two huge battlefield areas (Rohan and Gondor) plus then finally march with big trumpets and everyone to attack Mordor, all the while a small group infiltrates mount doom? Seems to have worked.:smallcool:
They attacked the Black Gate to draw Sauron's attention away from Mount Doom. They did not, however, attempt to attack Mount Doom itself.

So when sending assassins into the enemy base, you should preferably attack something that is not the enemy base. Perhaps a target a few miles away, for instance.


Well, "shadowy illumination" is just fluff, not a game term. "Concealment" that is provided to everyone in its radius, however, is a game term.
Correct, it grants concealment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#concealment) (20% miss chance) to people inside of it.

An area of total darkness, however, grants total concealment (50% miss chance).

You are easier to hit at night when you're in a sphere of darkness than if you were in pitch black night.


Since people, however, will notice that lights will get less powerful in the darkness area, they will note something odd/magical is under way. But still, they won't notice the people hiding with concealment. So it has to be used with care (say, a covered stone with darkness) by the infiltrators.

Unless the enemy puts the bottom of the barrel on watch duty, someone will conclude that a mobile sphere of darkness is probably a bad thing.


It helps, just like invisibility - which likewise does not make the group succeed on all move silently checks.
Darkness, like invisibility, does not help people succeed on move silently checks. However, Darkness, unlike invisibility, is a more visually distinct effect.


Also, when you do not like this area effect, just get Veil of Shadow from SpC.
Swirling wisps of darkness obscure your form, granting you concealment.
The 20% miss chance is active even if the attacker has darkvision. (http://dndtools.eu/spells/miniatures-handbook--75/veil-of-shadow--1974/)

Can you explain why this is preferable to Invisibility?


Depends, since the group can no longer see each other which may be awkward.
Those affected by this spell can see each other and themselves as if unaffected by the spell. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibilitySphere.htm)


Well, for a 5th level wizard ... veil of shadow I already mentioned above ... use dancing lights as decoy ... blacklight is also basically an improved version of darkness ... flashburst for 120ft radius blinding when things go wrong / your friends in the enemy camp need to make a fast escape ... manyjaws for assassination from some distance away ... otherwise just CDG
1. Casting the spell Dancing Lights not only requires a verbal component, but, again, lets the enemy know something's up, which is generally seen as an undesirable course of action.
2. Blacklight creates an area of total darkness... which has the same problems as Darkness as you approach the enemy camp: someone's going to notice something awry when a big globe of blackness comes rolling up to the perimeter.
3. Flashburst has the same radius as Fireball. You're not exactly going to take out the enemy camp with this one. Here, I'll be helpful: You should use Pyrotechnics for this purpose.
4. Manyjaws deals 5d4 damage per round for 3 rounds, reflex save for half.

[TuggyNE]

Since this is all about a fantasy game, what about LoTR where one part of the group basically starts two huge battlefield areas (Rohan and Gondor) plus then finally march with big trumpets and everyone to attack Mordor, all the while a small group infiltrates mount doom? Seems to have worked.:smallcool:

Strategic decoy; the armies were never within a hundred miles of Frodo and Sam, and the deception relied on them being independent of any support for weeks if not months at a time.

Translating that into D&D, a blaster would then only be useful for helping the team infiltrate if they don't accompany them at all. This is … not ideal.


Well, "shadowy illumination" is just fluff, not a game term.

It actually is a game term. Behold.
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. A creature can’t hide in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.

In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Hide check to conceal itself.

In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a -2 penalty to AC, moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and most Strength and Dexterity-based skill checks.

And then there's a table summarizing light sources by the extent of their "Bright" and "Shadowy" illumination.

[HammeredWharf]

Regarding Darkness at night: Why would you need it in the first place? It gives you 20% concealment, but that's what you normally have at night, if not less. The only difference between Darkness and a normal evening is that creatures with Darkvision will notice your sphere of magical darkness automatically and any torches will give you away by going dark. Shadowy illumination is a game term, but it's also not a bunch of rays of darkness or anything else unusual. It's just the not-completely-dark condition. Actually, by RAW Darkness arguably makes a dark night lighter.

That being said, this whole comparison is weird, because infiltration is Illusion's game. Of course it's better at it than another school.

[Ivanhoe]

They attacked the Black Gate to draw Sauron's attention away from Mount Doom. They did not, however, attempt to attack Mount Doom itself.

So when sending assassins into the enemy base, you should preferably attack something that is not the enemy base. Perhaps a target a few miles away, for instance.

Still, it's the same principle. There are plenty more examples, from fiction and actual warfare. Do you really want to tell me that a decoy is never used when infiltrating somewhere? That would surprise me.
What is so difficult about accepting that a flashy attack by an evoker can achieve similar results to help infiltrate an enemy camp/castle as just boosting their ability to get in unnoticed with direct means?


Correct, it grants concealment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#concealment) (20% miss chance) to people inside of it.

An area of total darkness, however, grants total concealment (50% miss chance).

You are easier to hit at night when you're in a sphere of darkness than if you were in pitch black night.

Unless the enemy puts the bottom of the barrel on watch duty, someone will conclude that a mobile sphere of darkness is probably a bad thing.

I do not think that the spell darkness ends the night's total concealment effect (if any). Again, you use the darkness from a covered stone when it is useful to the group, not when it draws unwanted attention.


Darkness, like invisibility, does not help people succeed on move silently checks. However, Darkness, unlike invisibility, is a more visually distinct effect.

But it helps more to hide at the same time, and it also lasts longer, usable at will.
Example: group is within camp behind a large tent in an area that would normally be lit by a nearby torch. Guards apprach from the other side of the barn. The cover is removed from the stone, everyone in the group can make a hide check even though there is no real cover.
Guards come round the corner and will likely not notice the unusual darkness in that area. DMs may allow spot checks on top of those vs the hide checks of the group, but it depends on how the darkness is used.


Swirling wisps of darkness obscure your form, granting you concealment.
The 20% miss chance is active even if the attacker has darkvision. (http://dndtools.eu/spells/miniatures-handbook--75/veil-of-shadow--1974/)

Can you explain why this is preferable to Invisibility?

Easy. It is not seen through by see invisibility effects. Although in many other instances, inivisbility is preferable. But it is also an assassin spell for a reason :smallwink:


Those affected by this spell can see each other and themselves as if unaffected by the spell. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibilitySphere.htm)

Ah, that makes sense. Overlooked that.


1. Casting the spell Dancing Lights not only requires a verbal component, but, again, lets the enemy know something's up, which is generally seen as an undesirable course of action.

It's a medium range spell (in this case -15 to listen), and can also be silenced quite easily.


2. Blacklight creates an area of total darkness... which has the same problems as Darkness as you approach the enemy camp: someone's going to notice something awry when a big globe of blackness comes rolling up to the perimeter.

Yes, it is the same as darkness, just a bit more powerful - as I already said. It only appears that we disagree on when a globe of different illumination is useful.


3. Flashburst has the same radius as Fireball. You're not exactly going to take out the enemy camp with this one. Here, I'll be helpful: You should use Pyrotechnics for this purpose.

Pyrothechnis is also good, but flashburst has the effect of potentially blinding in a 120ft radius as per spell description.


4. Manyjaws deals 5d4 damage per round for 3 rounds, reflex save for half.

It is actually 5d6 per round for 3 rounds. 15d6 total with one spell from relative safety is not too bad at level 5.

Edit:


It actually is a game term. Behold.

And then there's a table summarizing light sources by the extent of their "Bright" and "Shadowy" illumination.

Thanks for that hint - I did not realise it was a real game term. Still, it does not really say anything but that it leads to the game effect of concealment.

Again: while I also believe that a darkness radius moving around can attract attention, I do not think that it will be always noticed when used in the right circumstances.

[Necroticplague]

For evocations blasting: conjurations do it better. For evocations battlefield control: conjurations does that better, too. For anything unique, use illusion to simulate them (the whole shadow line, from shadow evocation to shades).

[Juntao112]

Still, it's the same principle. There are plenty more examples, from fiction and actual warfare. Do you really want to tell me that a decoy is never used when infiltrating somewhere? That would surprise me.
Oh, they are often used. Just not, you know, on the target that's being infiltrated. Since that would raise suspicion. Which would be bad.


What is so difficult about accepting that a flashy attack by an evoker can achieve similar results to help infiltrate an enemy camp/castle as just boosting their ability to get in unnoticed with direct means? To quote Bill Nye (the Science Guy), "Show me one piece of evidence and I would change my mind immediately."

So far, all you've done is give very bad examples of how evocation can be used to support infiltration.

Again, causing general alarm in a place you are trying to sneak into is bad because you don't want people on their guard. You want them to think nothing's happening. So if you want to support an infiltration team with fireballs, you should be fireballing something in the next county over and drawing attention to yourself there.

Of course, that would mean that you aren't around to cast Darkness...


I do not think that the spell darkness ends the night's total concealment effect (if any). Again, you use the darkness from a covered stone when it is useful to the group, not when it draws unwanted attention.
When would it be useful? Outside at night, you don't need it. Inside the camp, it draws attention.


But it helps more to hide at the same time, and it also lasts longer, usable at will.
Example: group is within camp behind a large tent in an area that would normally be lit by a nearby torch. Guards apprach from the other side of the barn. The cover is removed from the stone, everyone in the group can make a hide check even though there is no real cover.
Why don't we make it easier and give everyone a tower shield to hide behind?


Guards come round the corner and will likely not notice the unusual darkness in that area. DMs may allow spot checks on top of those vs the hide checks of the group, but it depends on how the darkness is used.

So you're plan relies on the guard not noticing a 20ft radius emanation of shadowy illumination. Can you understand why I am having trouble taking this seriously?


Easy. It is not seen through by see invisibility effects. Although in many other instances, inivisbility is preferable. But it is also an assassin spell for a reason :smallwink:
How do you feel about the Darkvision spell? (Though it should be note that since both spells have a duration not measured in hours, it is unlikely that the sentries will have either.)


Yes, it is the same as darkness, just a bit more powerful - as I already said. It only appears that we disagree on when a globe of different illumination is useful.
Its a dead giveaway that something's there, which runs counter to the point of a sneaking mission.


Pyrothechnis is also good, but flashburst has the effect of potentially blinding in a 120ft radius as per spell description.
Pyrotechnics has the same radius and spell range. Its better because if you use Darkness and Manyjaws, you're out of third level spells and can't cast Flashburst.


It is actually 5d6 per round for 3 rounds. 15d6 total with one spell from relative safety is not too bad at level 5.
My mistake, I must have remembered the PGtF version. The SpC version, though, has a duration of "Concentration, up to 3 rounds", which seems like it would cause trouble with the running away part.

[dreadwind80]

I point out that, yes, you could poison the water supply. This is reactive, the army is already there.

The wizard has this option, but the knowledge that one man with a view of battle field can demolish it killing mooks, may prevent that army approaching in the first place.

Theres shock and awe tactics with evocation not to be overlooked. The posion use is effective I grant, but may break rules of engagement, morality and requires time to work - fireball instant death.

[BrokenChord]

Evocation doesn't actually suck. Even if all magic (of all types) was properly balanced compared to the Evocation school, mages would still be some of the most powerful and useful characters in the game. Problem is, for some reason the designers decided "putting in intentionally worse and better things is a great design idea because it rewards experienced players" was a good idea (it's not, and btw I gleaned that info from an interview, sue me) so basically yeah, pretty sure the designers intended for everyone to become Conjuration specialists eventually.

[Juntao112]

I point out that, yes, you could poison the water supply. This is reactive, the army is already there.

The wizard has this option, but the knowledge that one man with a view of battle field can demolish it killing mooks, may prevent that army approaching in the first place.
This is assuming the enemy has no spellcasters of his own, which is not a reasonable assumption.


Theres shock and awe tactics with evocation not to be overlooked.
Funny you should use that phrase... (http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2003/November%202003/1103shock.aspx)

Shock and awe relies on disrupting the enemy's means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure which render him unable and therefore unwilling to fight. It does not mean going about blowing his soldiers up in a spectacular manner.


The posion use is effective I grant, but may break rules of engagement, morality and requires time to work - fireball instant death.

Because poisoning people is so much worse than roasting them to death.

[Psyren]

It doesn't suck in a vacuum - it's just that the other schools (minus enchantment) are stronger.

[Ivanhoe]

Oh, they are often used. Just not, you know, on the target that's being infiltrated. Since that would raise suspicion. Which would be bad.

Maybe we have a different imagination about the scenario.
My imagination is an enemy camp with plenty of guards and basically one specific infiltration goal (steal information, kill the enemy commander). For this, a decoy is very helpful.
Your imagination seems to be a lone opponent that you need to sneak up to. In that case, of course, a flashy spell drawing his attention is not exactly helpful.


To quote Bill Nye (the Science Guy), "Show me one piece of evidence and I would change my mind immediately."

I did already, but you did not accept it. Which is somewhat different.
Maybe someone else remembers another case from fiction and/or history, if you do not want to accept mine?


So far, all you've done is give very bad examples of how evocation can be used to support infiltration.

I made some rules mistakes on spells (as you did), but the possibilities of some stealth in the evoker's spells are still there.


Again, causing general alarm in a place you are trying to sneak into is bad because you don't want people on their guard. You want them to think nothing's happening. So if you want to support an infiltration team with fireballs, you should be fireballing something in the next county over and drawing attention to yourself there.

Of course, that would mean that you aren't around to cast Darkness...

Why in the next country? Again: I think we have different ideas of how the scenario looks like. When the wizard fireballs the camp gate, the enemy will be on alert, but will likely focus on the gate whereas the group sneaks in elsewhere.


When would it be useful? Outside at night, you don't need it. Inside the camp, it draws attention.

Not always, as I already explained.


Why don't we make it easier and give everyone a tower shield to hide behind?

Nice one!:smallwink: It then is open for debate whether guards would get more suspicious by some tower shields lying around or darker illumination.


So you're plan relies on the guard not noticing a 20ft radius emanation of shadowy illumination. Can you understand why I am having trouble taking this seriously?

Wait a second. This was never "a plan". The question was whether an evoker can contribute with his spells to a stealth mission. A covered stone which can at will produce concealment for the group is such contribution, I daresay. But it does not mean that it will make the group win with no effort.


How do you feel about the Darkvision spell? (Though it should be note that since both spells have a duration not measured in hours, it is unlikely that the sentries will have either.)

Darkvision (spell or racial ability) appear not to penetrate a veil of shadow, and as you said the guards likels will not have it up. So why mention it?


Its a dead giveaway that something's there, which runs counter to the point of a sneaking mission.

Which you keep maintaining, and I just say it is not always so. Use it when useful, not when it is not.


Pyrotechnics has the same radius and spell range. Its better because if you use Darkness and Manyjaws, you're out of third level spells and can't cast Flashburst.

Pyrotechnics helps emulating darkness in exactly what way when used with the flashy version?
And after casting manyjaws, I doubt that a 5th level evoker will be out of 3rd level spells.:smallconfused:


My mistake, I must have remembered the PGtF version. The SpC version, though, has a duration of "Concentration, up to 3 rounds", which seems like it would cause trouble with the running away part.

No problem, I also overlook some details of spells.
Running away ... well ... the wizard could hide with a move action in case veil of shadow is up. But yes, the 3 rounds may be problem. But again, not always.
Adventures are tricky like that :smallbiggrin:

[Juntao112]

Maybe we have a different imagination about the scenario.
My imagination is an enemy camp with plenty of guards and basically one specific infiltration goal (steal information, kill the enemy commander). For this, a decoy is very helpful.
Your imagination seems to be a lone opponent that you need to sneak up to. In that case, of course, a flashy spell drawing his attention is not exactly helpful.
Let's take a camp full of guards.

Let's say you want to infiltrate it for nefarious purposes.

Would it be better to go in quietly, or start of by bombing the entrance and stirring up the hornet's next? In other words, do you seriously expect the camp's guards to abandon their posts and run away from/towards the attackers at the start of the engagement?


I did already, but you did not accept it. Which is somewhat different.
Maybe someone else remembers another case from fiction and/or history, if you do not want to accept mine?
As someone pointed out, Mount Doom was hundreds of miles away from the Black Gate. The entrance to the camp is not hundreds of miles away from the commander's tent.


I made some rules mistakes on spells (as you did), but the possibilities of some stealth in the evoker's spells are still there.

Would you care then to produce it, then?


Why in the next country? Again: I think we have different ideas of how the scenario looks like. When the wizard fireballs the camp gate, the enemy will be on alert, but will likely focus on the gate whereas the group sneaks in elsewhere.

Given that decoys and baits have been used in warfare since roughly the dawn of time, my contention is that any reasonably competent army will step up security through the camp, focusing on the gate. Which is not preferable to a generally lower level of security through the camp.


Nice one!:smallwink: It then is open for debate whether guards would get more suspicious by some tower shields lying around or darker illumination.
Oh, no. Since the tower shields are part of the character's equipment, they disappear along with the characters, so the shields they hid behind are also hidden.


Wait a second. This was never "a plan". The question was whether an evoker can contribute with his spells to a stealth mission. A covered stone which can at will produce concealment for the group is such contribution, I daresay. But it does not mean that it will make the group win with no effort.
I still can't see, for the life of me, how shadowy illumination is useful since it a really obvious sign of something being there that should not be there.


Darkvision (spell or racial ability) appear not to penetrate a veil of shadow, and as you said the guards likels will not have it up. So why mention it?
1. It penetrates Darkness, which is what you'd be using on a group since Veil of Shadow is for a single creature only.
2. Why bring up See Invisibility?


Which you keep maintaining, and I just say it is not always so. Use it when useful, not when it is not.
When is it useful? Again, even if you can hide in it, the guards still see a globe of shadowy illumination. Are you telling me that they'll just see this hemisphere of shadow and go about their business unconcerned?

If the enemy's this incompetent, you might as well walk up to the enemy commander and hand him a poisoned cake while wishing him a happy birthday.


Pyrotechnics helps emulating darkness in exactly what way when used with the flashy version?
... you have lost me completely. I was pointing out Pyrotechnics does what you want from Flashburst for a lower cost.


And after casting manyjaws, I doubt that a 5th level evoker will be out of 3rd level spells.:smallconfused:
Ah, you mean a specialist wizard, not a generalist wizard who learns evocation spells. In that case, you do get three spells. Of course, I'm going to start using a specialist as well...

Hey, remember your plan to squish the enemy commander? Guess what a Transmuter with Fly, True Strike, and a bag full of Shrunken boulders can do.


No problem, I also overlook some details of spells.
Running away ... well ... the wizard could hide with a move action in case veil of shadow is up. But yes, the 3 rounds may be problem. But again, not always.
Adventures are tricky like that :smallbiggrin:
You're not doing much running if you're using your move action to hide.

[eggynack]

Maybe we have a different imagination about the scenario.
My imagination is an enemy camp with plenty of guards and basically one specific infiltration goal (steal information, kill the enemy commander). For this, a decoy is very helpful.
Your imagination seems to be a lone opponent that you need to sneak up to. In that case, of course, a flashy spell drawing his attention is not exactly helpful.
I think we're all imagining the same starting situation approximately. It's just that you're imagining some weird outcome from fire balling a tent or whatever. Like, "I just heard an explosion. We're under attack! Everyone rush to the exact location where the explosion is, and just stand there and look at the flames. Let their flickering remind you of your mortality." In reality, it would be more like, "I just heard an explosion. We're under attack! Everyone spread out, and find the source of the attack, because people can attack at range in this and every universe."


I did already, but you did not accept it. Which is somewhat different.
Not really. You listed a situation that was nothing like this situation.



Why in the next country? Again: I think we have different ideas of how the scenario looks like. When the wizard fireballs the camp gate, the enemy will be on alert, but will likely focus on the gate whereas the group sneaks in elsewhere.
Why would they focus on the gate? Does the enemy think that your team specifically hates the gate? Like, that's your mission, destroying this gate?



Not always, as I already explained.
Well, when is this useful for infiltration? If the area is light, then you get a visible region of darkness which is unhelpful, if the area is dark then you get a region of less darkness which is unhelpful, and if the area is of an identical level of brightness, you get nothing, which is very unhelpful. That's all the situations. This spell might help you not get hit, but when it comes to people not knowing you're there, it seems supremely unhelpful.

[theNater]

Maybe we have a different imagination about the scenario.
My imagination is an enemy camp with plenty of guards and basically one specific infiltration goal (steal information, kill the enemy commander). For this, a decoy is very helpful.
In the case of assassinating a commander, it would be preferable if the commander was asleep at the time. This is an unlikely state of affairs if the main gate is under attack.

In the case of specific information or items recognized by both sides to be vital, there is likely a small group of guards whose current duty is protecting that stuff. An attack at the gate is not likely to draw them off. It would be preferable that they be bored and distractable than that they be alert and ready for an attack of some kind.

If the information you're after isn't under specific guard, then the attack on the gate may help. But other than that, it's better to get in and out without anyone knowing you were there at all.

[Adanedhel]

I have an example of a fictional battle where "artillery" was used to obscure a direct assault:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html

[Juntao112]

Doesn't the comic also show the stealth part of his plan failing?

[eggynack]

I have an example of a fictional battle where "artillery" was used to obscure a direct assault:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html
That's closer, but that's not exactly this at all. I don't think a fireball is nearly sufficient to establish where an attack is coming from, and thus divert focus in this manner. So, if you wanted to pull this off in the theoretical bandit camp, you'd have a decoy force engage in a prolonged attack against an area of the camp, in order to fully establish the location of the attack, and then you'd send in the stealth group once the diversion was fully in place.

[Felhammer]

It isn't that evocation sucks. It's that the other things a Wizard could be doing with that spell slot are generally superior options due to the way the game was designed.

[theNater]

I have an example of a fictional battle where "artillery" was used to obscure a direct assault:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html
That's actually a perfect example of why a diversionary attack is a bad idea. Under normal circumstances, the Azure City throne room contains Shojo, whoever he's meeting with, a moderate number of ordinary soldiers(depending on security concerns for the meeting), and O-Chul(if he's not off on an errand). Thanks to the "diversion", when Xykon got there (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0447.html) he was confronted by the entire Sapphire Guard, combat-ready and buffed up.

[Ivanhoe]

Let's take a camp full of guards.

Let's say you want to infiltrate it for nefarious purposes.

Would it be better to go in quietly, or start of by bombing the entrance and stirring up the hornet's next? In other words, do you seriously expect the camp's guards to abandon their posts and run away from/towards the attackers at the start of the engagement?

Yes, I do expect that for a 5th level challenge (with probably a lot of 1st level mooks as guards). Will not always work, granted, but it is just a natural reaction.
To illustrate my point a question: When somethings explodes in the street in front of your house, will you 1) look out of your window into the street to see what is going on or 2) check first whether someone tries to break open your flat door?


As someone pointed out, Mount Doom was hundreds of miles away from the Black Gate. The entrance to the camp is not hundreds of miles away from the commander's tent.

And as I already pointed out, the principle is the same.


Would you care then to produce it, then?

I already did. But I start to think we are not getting anywhere with this ...


Given that decoys and baits have been used in warfare since roughly the dawn of time, my contention is that any reasonably competent army will step up security through the camp, focusing on the gate. Which is not preferable to a generally lower level of security through the camp.

Why again would the level of security in a camp be low in the first place? That may be the case, but let us assume that camp expects an attack. Then the flashy decoy plays up to the expectations and helps the infiltrating group more.


Oh, no. Since the tower shields are part of the character's equipment, they disappear along with the characters, so the shields they hid behind are also hidden.

That's why I used the blue font. I know about that absurd RAW trick (although likely there is some weird RAW interpretation opposing it somewhere...)


I still can't see, for the life of me, how shadowy illumination is useful since it a really obvious sign of something being there that should not be there.

Because when guards do not remember what the exact light conditions should be like when you come round the corner, then it is better than seeing people trying to hide in vain without a darkness effect up.


1. It penetrates Darkness, which is what you'd be using on a group since Veil of Shadow is for a single creature only.

Again, why bring it up when you say yourself that darkvision is not relevant for this situation?


2. Why bring up See Invisibility?

Confusion. See invisibility cannot see through veil of shadow. You asked what is the differenence to invisibility. Voila.


When is it useful? Again, even if you can hide in it, the guards still see a globe of shadowy illumination. Are you telling me that they'll just see this hemisphere of shadow and go about their business unconcerned?

I offered already plenty of situations when this can be useful. You just refuse to accept them.


If the enemy's this incompetent, you might as well walk up to the enemy commander and hand him a poisoned cake while wishing him a happy birthday.

Well, the enemy commander was assumed asleep in the original scenario (separate from the infiltration scenario).. so I am not exactly sure what you mean with that.


... you have lost me completely. I was pointing out Pyrotechnics does what you want from Flashburst for a lower cost.

Ah, I see - somehow a misunderstanding ensued because you made it appear as if pyrotechnics would emulate darkness, flashburst as well as the manyjaws spell.
In any case, pyrotechnics provides not the same effect, since the blindness last 2d8 rounds in the case of flashburst (and within 20ft core spell radius dazzled for a round even when saving) vs pyrotechnics' 1d4+1 rounds. Which reflects it being 3rd level vs 2nd.


Ah, you mean a specialist wizard, not a generalist wizard who learns evocation spells. In that case, you do get three spells. Of course, I'm going to start using a specialist as well...

3 spells? I count only flashburst and manyjaws used as 3rd level spells. And again, there never was any talk about the infiltration help and assassination attempt all done by the same evoker in the same night.


Hey, remember your plan to squish the enemy commander? Guess what a Transmuter with Fly, True Strike, and a bag full of Shrunken boulders can do.

Three spells vs one used by evoker. OK...But yes, transmuter has quite an arsenal.


You're not doing much running if you're using your move action to hide.

The good point is, when you hide, you do not need much running anymore...:smallwink:

Anyhow, I give up - we appear not to agree on how useful stealth evoking spells bring to the table.

Another issue altogether is how much unique spells evocation brings to the table, since an evoker banning some other school but illusion will still have the niche stealth spells available.
Any thoughts on that?

[Psyren]

That's actually a perfect example of why a diversionary attack is a bad idea. Under normal circumstances, the Azure City throne room contains Shojo, whoever he's meeting with, a moderate number of ordinary soldiers(depending on security concerns for the meeting), and O-Chul(if he's not off on an errand). Thanks to the "diversion", when Xykon got there (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0447.html) he was confronted by the entire Sapphire Guard, combat-ready and buffed up.

Actually, the diversion would probably have worked if not for the Order. It was only because of Roy that AC even knew the real goal for the goblins was the Gate. Otherwise they would have just seen it as the goblins attacking their most hated enemy, and the paladins would probably have been spread out along the wall.

Worse still, Soon would have been in the throne room no matter how they attacked it. So even if RC and Xykon had snuck in somehow and killed the few paladins there + Shojo, they still would have been - if not killed outright - at least delayed long enough by the epic revenant until backup arrived.

[Ivanhoe]

Actually, the diversion would probably have worked if not for the Order. It was only because of Roy that AC even knew the real goal for the goblins was the Gate. Otherwise they would have just seen it as the goblins attacking their most hated enemy, and the paladins would probably have been spread out along the wall.

Worse still, Soon would have been in the throne room no matter how they attacked it. So even if RC and Xykon had snuck in somehow and killed the few paladins there + Shojo, they still would have been - if not killed outright - at least delayed long enough by the epic revenant until backup arrived.

QFT - that comic part shows exactly what I mean by flashy decoys; and the Sapphire guard would have been "activated", anyhow.

[ericgrau]

It's the victim of internet hyperbole. It was everyone's favorite school for a while, then they said conjuration was better, then instead of saying conjurations is first and evocation is 2nd or so, somehow they think that means evocation is 8th.

In particular in core it has some of the best battlefield control and other random super handy spells. And really it's not your 3rd-15th best spell that matters, it's your #1 and #2 spells. Keep it for wall of force BFC alone, or for the other 9 superb spells too, but keep it. Don't dump some of your best options. Work around losing good but not supreme options of another school if you have to. And dump enchantment without a 2nd thought and then spend your thinking on figuring out what 2nd school you need to ditch. Poor poor enchantment. There are ways to make it work but it's usually the one we can agree on dumping.

[Ivanhoe]

In particular in core it has some of the best battlefield control and other random super handy spells. And really it's not your 3rd-15th best spell that matters, it's your #1 and #2 spells. Keep it for wall of force BFC alone, or for the other 9 superb spells too, but keep it.

In agreement here. So, in core, what are the top evocation spells to take?
Level 1: Magic missile, level 2: shatter, level 3: fireball, level 4: resilient sphere, 5: wall of force, 6: contingency, 7: grasping hand, 8: polar ray, 9: meteor swarm.

Hm. Is that really better than what enchantment offers? Well, will also look at PHB II and spell compendium what else is in there.

[Psyren]

Enchantment is good if you are facing enemies that it will work on. The only problem is that you have no control over what you'll fight.

Pathfinder makes both of these schools a lot better (enchantment especially), and even makes banning schools less painful. If you ban Evocation you can still cast Contingency for instance, it'll just be more expensive.

[ericgrau]

In agreement here. So, in core, what are the top evocation spells to take?
Level 1: Magic missile, level 2: shatter, level 3: fireball, level 4: resilient sphere, 5: wall of force, 6: contingency, 7: grasping hand, 8: polar ray, 9: meteor swarm.

Hm. Is that really better than what enchantment offers? Well, will also look at PHB II and spell compendium what else is in there.
Well I wouldn't do it by level. You found most of them. Not shatter, polar ray or meteor swarm (though they're ok). Flaming sphere is good at low level. PF boosted it further making it practically an automatic choice for levels 3-4 in PF core (and an ok backup at level 5-6). Chain lightning is good too. The other Bigby's hand spells are great too, except maybe the first one in core. Crushing hand is probably better than meteor swarm. Delayed blast fireball spamming can be decent, especially with time stop and/or energy substitution, though it's a little narrow.

There are more in other books and it does complicate things a bit ya.

[theNater]

Actually, the diversion would probably have worked if not for the Order. It was only because of Roy that AC even knew the real goal for the goblins was the Gate. Otherwise they would have just seen it as the goblins attacking their most hated enemy, and the paladins would probably have been spread out along the wall.
The Sapphire Guard's entire purpose for existing is to defend the Gate and they know that two Gates have gone down. Paladins are Good, not dumb; somebody's going to suggest that this force may be after the Gate.

Worse still, Soon would have been in the throne room no matter how they attacked it. So even if RC and Xykon had snuck in somehow and killed the few paladins there + Shojo, they still would have been - if not killed outright - at least delayed long enough by the epic revenant until backup arrived.
Depends on the objective. Remember, in the comic, Xykon and RC wanted to conquer the city. So the number of defenders in the throne room is irrelevant; they'd have to be killed at some point anyway. If they were attempting one of the missions suggested earlier in the thread-assassination of Shojo, or theft of the Sapphire-then they could have plausibly gone in invisibly, done the deed, and jumped out the window to get away from the ghost-martyrs and other defenders. Fewer guards in the room means they'll take fewer hits in the one to two rounds they're there.

[eggynack]

Yes, I do expect that for a 5th level challenge (with probably a lot of 1st level mooks as guards). Will not always work, granted, but it is just a natural reaction.
To illustrate my point a question: When somethings explodes in the street in front of your house, will you 1) look out of your window into the street to see what is going on or 2) check first whether someone tries to break open your flat door?
When something explodes in the street in front of my camp full of people, I will likely just do both, because there's more than one person. You've mobilized the camp, in other words.


And as I already pointed out, the principle is the same.
Not really, because as I pointed out in the OotS example, the diversionary attack is a prolonged one that could conceivably be a real attack, and there is a clear magnitude and source of that attack. Your single fireball has none of those things, and it's close enough to what you're trying to hide that you could just get yourself caught. Diversionary tactics are a thing. This isn't a successful one, because you haven't constructed a credible and well known threat.


Because when guards do not remember what the exact light conditions should be like when you come round the corner, then it is better than seeing people trying to hide in vain without a darkness effect up.
I don't know what you mean here. There's either an orb of darkness, which should be pretty clearly visible, or your darkness does zero things.



I offered already plenty of situations when this can be useful. You just refuse to accept them.
I cannot recall you presenting one that makes sense. It's not just us obstinately refusing to accept your obviously correct argument in order to be contrarian. It's us not thinking your argument holds weight.


It's the victim of internet hyperbole. It was everyone's favorite school for a while, then they said conjuration was better, then instead of saying conjurations is first and evocation is 2nd or so, somehow they think that means evocation is 8th.

I think that did happen, but I don't think it happened to the extent you're claiming. Evocation was shuffled to 8th from 1st or so, and that's going too far, but a true analysis of the school doesn't place it at 2nd. It's a lot more like the 6th or 7th best school, better than enchantment, and maybe better than necromancy depending on what you're trying to do. It's not better than conjuration, transmutation, or abjuration, and it's probably worse than illusion. Divination isn't usually relevant for this sort of thing, due to its nature, but I'd likely put it above evocation as well. Evocation has some solid spells, but other schools have more.

[Ivanhoe]

When something explodes in the street in front of my camp full of people, I will likely just do both, because there's more than one person. You've mobilized the camp, in other words.

In doing both, you devote less attention to the real threat.
Also, when the camp mobilises, confusion can ensue during which an infiltrating group could get more opportunities to reach their goal etc. (during the mobilisation, they could even just run along pretending to be part of the mobilisation, not needing to hide anymore etc)
Again: it is not always the best thing to do, but neither it is always a useles thing to do.


Not really, because as I pointed out in the OotS example, the diversionary attack is a prolonged one that could conceivably be a real attack, and there is a clear magnitude and source of that attack. Your single fireball has none of those things, and it's close enough to what you're trying to hide that you could just get yourself caught. Diversionary tactics are a thing. This isn't a successful one, because you haven't constructed a credible and well known threat.

You just say that it is not successful. However, the only way to really find out would be to use it in play and see how the npcs/DM react. I have plenty of experience in my gaming groups where something like that worked. Also plenty, where other infiltration tactics were better.


I don't know what you mean here. There's either an orb of darkness, which should be pretty clearly visible, or your darkness does zero things.

Again: darkness provides the degree of shadowy illumination (just as a regular night) and not a clear-cut visible globe of darkness. When some guards patrol the camp, the infiltrating group could block the light in their area (say, from campfires) when guards pass by. It is not something that becomes immediately apparent to the guards, I would say. But of course a DM can always rule a spell useless in such a situation.


I cannot recall you presenting one that makes sense. It's not just us obstinately refusing to accept your obviously correct argument in order to be contrarian. It's us not thinking your argument holds weight.

Darkness is a spell that provides concealment. This allows people to hide. The spell description specifically describes that you can bring it along and switch it on and off at your leisure. However, no game mechanics are provided at all that people will immediately notice a "shadowy illumination". While I concede that this can become obvious, it is far from being apparent automatically.

But I guess it can't be helped if you see it differently. Then apparently evocation is not useful for stealth at lower levels for you.:smallwink:

[Vrock_Summoner]

Why does Evocation suck? Because it can't be used to bend a small army of powerful demons to my will. Once I've done that, they can do the damage. And the battlefield control, for that matter.

[strider24seven]

Really that may make things worse.

Not very much so, see below.


While true in core only conjuration doesn't have the damage spells that evocation has

True. Conjuration's (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/acid-fog--2372/) blasting (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/cloudkill--2374/) spells (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/incendiary-cloud--2401/) vastly (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/melfs-acid-arrow--2408/) outmatch (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/evards-black-tentacles--2391/) them (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/sleet-storm--2436/).

Even in core, illusion is a better candidate for blasting because it gets 85% of the school in two (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/shadow-evocation-greater--2702/) spells (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/shadow-evocation--2701/). And it's the good 85% (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/contingency--2597/).

[eggynack]

In doing both, you devote less attention to the real threat.
How would you know? In particular, how do you have any knowledge that the location of the fireball is where the attack is coming from? In fact, how do you even know that the fireball is where that particular fireball is coming from? It just doesn't make much sense. You need a sustained attack, which the enemy has real knowledge about. Otherwise, you're just playing the "Hope your enemies are really dumb" game. If your enemies are really dumb, then what plan would not work, and why do you need evocation to pull this off?



Again: darkness provides the degree of shadowy illumination (just as a regular night) and not a clear-cut visible globe of darkness.
There's no real indication of that. It just says, here there be darkness, and outside there be no darkness.


Darkness is a spell that provides concealment. This allows people to hide. The spell description specifically describes that you can bring it along and switch it on and off at your leisure. However, no game mechanics are provided at all that people will immediately notice a "shadowy illumination". While I concede that this can become obvious, it is far from being apparent automatically.
It seems like it would be just as apparent as just hiding normally. I mean, either someone's looking in your direction, and they see either a globe of darkness or your party, or they're not, and they see neither.


But I guess it can't be helped if you see it differently. Then apparently evocation is not useful for stealth at lower levels for you.:smallwink:
Pretty much, especially if you're comparing this to other schools of magic. I mean, if you really want a sustained and convincing attack, you'd probably be better off summoning some creature, and telling to attack the other side of camp. Then you have a real and obvious threat that isn't necessarily connected to any sort of separate attacking force.

[Psyren]

The Sapphire Guard's entire purpose for existing is to defend the Gate and they know that two Gates have gone down. Paladins are Good, not dumb; somebody's going to suggest that this force may be after the Gate.

Except that without Roy, they'd have known nothing about Xykon's presence in the army, and therefore would still have thought the best way to protect the Gate is by keeping goblins out of the city entirely - i.e. reinforcing the wall.



Depends on the objective. Remember, in the comic, Xykon and RC wanted to conquer the city.

Actually no - only Redcloak wanted to conquer the city. Xykon didn't want it at all (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0416.html) - he only cared about the gate. But if the ritual really does take weeks as he said, then invading the city is very much necessary.

[Shining Wrath]

Because many monsters have LOTS of hit points, as in "more than your entire party combined", and therefore whittling away at that huge pile is less effective than having the monster fall asleep, or get confused and attack its friend, or be stunned and incapable of acting for a round.

Consider the Glitterdust spell versus a scorching ray at level 3, against a group of 6 CR 1/2 hobgoblins.

Scorching Ray will do 4d6 damage to one target, average of 14. One hobgoblin screams and dies. 5 are left.

Glitterdust catches perhaps 4 or 5 of the hobgoblins in a clump, depending on initiative et cetera. Hobgoblins save at -1 on Will versus a DC of (10 + 2 + 3 or 4 for caster ability score), call it 15, so they need to roll at least 16. 75% of them will miss this.

~3 of the hobgoblins are now blind. From SRD:

The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

They may not be dead YET, but they will be soon. Their AC just dropped from 15 to 12, they have a 50% miss chance on their attacks, and they are moving at half speed.

Call them about 1/3 the threat they were.

Glitterdust reduced the effective number of hobgoblins by 2.

[eggynack]

They may not be dead YET, but they will be soon. Their AC just dropped from 15 to 12, they have a 50% miss chance on their attacks, and they are moving at half speed.

Call them about 1/3 the threat they were.

Glitterdust reduced the effective number of hobgoblins by 2.
Hobgoblins? More like Hobbledgoblins. Ho ho ho.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Evocation in and of itself isnt bad but take that with a grain of salt as I say it

Its not bad at battlefield control with Walls Bigby Hands Forecage and the like

Its even got some utility with things like Sending and Contingancy

Its just that at lv15 if your spending an 8th level slot on Polar ray to do 17-35 of 175 HP damage to a Nalfeshnee [CR14] you might as well just have wasted your round

Its also the victim of many a grandfather clause in its spell list that didnt evolve from old editions and were kept the same level.For instance Disintegrate is far too high level for a damage spell that sometimes doesnt do damage especially where there are SOD spells at earlier levels.The reason is that in AD&D Disintegrate was a targeted SOD spell that wasent a "Death" effect and had extra utility by melting things [Said utility is now the only reason to have it not a neat little bonus]Some other spells suffer that such as the Bigbys spells [Crushing hand was virtually inescapable in AD&D and significantly more damage than Meteor suck...errr Swarm and incapacitated a target that couldnt teleport at will].

[Juntao112]

Yes, I do expect that for a 5th level challenge (with probably a lot of 1st level mooks as guards). Will not always work, granted, but it is just a natural reaction.
To illustrate my point a question: When somethings explodes in the street in front of your house, will you 1) look out of your window into the street to see what is going on or 2) check first whether someone tries to break open your flat door?
Here is what I would do.

1. Pause the game on my computer.
2. Look out the window.
3. Reach over to my nightstand and pull out a loaded .357 magnum revolver.
4. Call the police.

Responses 3 and 4 would probably make this the worst time of the day to break into my house. Which is probably why burglars don't use explosions to distract their victims before breaking in.


And as I already pointed out, the principle is the same.

One fireball is not comparable to a sustained attack in terms of distraction.


I already did. But I start to think we are not getting anywhere with this ...

Mainly because your examples are terrible and make no sense.


Why again would the level of security in a camp be low in the first place? That may be the case, but let us assume that camp expects an attack. Then the flashy decoy plays up to the expectations and helps the infiltrating group more.

The security is relatively low in a period of calm. Needless to say, it goes up after an attack.


Because when guards do not remember what the exact light conditions should be like when you come round the corner, then it is better than seeing people trying to hide in vain without a darkness effect up.
And here is the crux of the problem; why would guards not notice a globe of shadowy illumination in the middle of their camp? You think when they walk into an area of darkness which really shouldn't be there, they're going to ignore it?


I offered already plenty of situations when this can be useful. You just refuse to accept them.

Multiple people refuse to accept them because your situations make no sense and seem to rely on counter-intuitive reactions and/or incredibly inept guards.


Well, the enemy commander was assumed asleep in the original scenario (separate from the infiltration scenario).. so I am not exactly sure what you mean with that.

If you're going to assume that the enemy is incompetent, there's really no reason this army should be a threat in the first place.


Three spells vs one used by evoker. OK...But yes, transmuter has quite an arsenal.
More to the point, it is hilarious.


The good point is, when you hide, you do not need much running anymore...:smallwink:

Hiding in a sphere of shadowy illumination in the middle of an enemy camp while their commander is being attacked (and, presumably, vocalizing his pain) is probably one of the better ideas you have proposed so far.


Another issue altogether is how much unique spells evocation brings to the table, since an evoker banning some other school but illusion will still have the niche stealth spells available.
Any thoughts on that?
Shadow Evocation.

[theNater]

Except that without Roy, they'd have known nothing about Xykon's presence in the army, and therefore would still have thought the best way to protect the Gate is by keeping goblins out of the city entirely - i.e. reinforcing the wall.
Their divinations were blocked, indicating at the very least there were some casters among the hobgoblin army. A single wizard of 5th level can cast Invisibility and Fly. That's to say nothing of any hobgoblins who may have snuck into the city in advance(rogues, lower-level casters with Alter Self, and other sneakers are all possible). A small strike team getting past the main gates is easy, if that's what they're trying to do.

Actually no - only Redcloak wanted to conquer the city. Xykon didn't want it at all (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0416.html) - he only cared about the gate. But if the ritual really does take weeks as he said, then invading the city is very much necessary.
Feel free to change the second quoted sentence to "Xykon and Redcloak are trying to conquer the city". It does not affect the rest of the paragraph in any meaningful way.

[Psyren]

Their divinations were blocked, indicating at the very least there were some casters among the hobgoblin army.

Exactly - they only thought to scry at all because of Roy's warning.



Feel free to change the second quoted sentence to "Xykon and Redcloak are trying to conquer the city". It does not affect the rest of the paragraph in any meaningful way.

Your exact words were "depends on their objective" so what they want is in fact meaningful. Redcloak's objective is the city and the gate, Xykon's just the gate. If there was a way to capture the gate without a full-scale invasion Xykon would have done it. There wasn't, ergo the army is needed as a diversionary tactic.

It is Redcloak for whom crushing every paladin 'neath his ironshod heel was a goal.

[Ivanhoe]

Here is what I would do.

1. Pause the game on my computer.
2. Look out the window.
3. Reach over to my nightstand and pull out a loaded .357 magnum revolver.
4. Call the police.

Responses 3 and 4 would probably make this the worst time of the day to break into my house. Which is probably why burglars don't use explosions to distract their victims before breaking in.

In case of the 99% other people not having such a weapon in their house the answer may not be so clear -cut :smallwink:


One fireball is not comparable to a sustained attack in terms of distraction.

It is not. But then, only one fireball may be necessary. Several rounds of uncertainty ensue which the rest of the group can use. Possibly followed up by another some rounds later. Maybe. It all depens on the situation.
But you may continue (as eggynack) to rule out such a situation would ever happen. That's OK I guess.


Mainly because your examples are terrible and make no sense.

To you, yes, apparently. So no use discussing this further I guess.


The security is relatively low in a period of calm. Needless to say, it goes up after an attack.

Yes, but will it go up immediately to perfection? Conversely, will the security be low when there are guards? Will there be new opportunities to infiltrate once a 5th level challenge camp filled with 1st level mooks snaps to attention finding all their proper tasks immediately? I doubt it. You do not. That's the difference.


And here is the crux of the problem; why would guards not notice a globe of shadowy illumination in the middle of their camp? You think when they walk into an area of darkness which really shouldn't be there, they're going to ignore it?

I never said they walk into it. They may pass it by from 30ft distance - they would notice non-hiding infiltrators with better light conditions then.
But as I said, here we agree to disagree.


Multiple people refuse to accept them because your situations make no sense and seem to rely on counter-intuitive reactions and/or incredibly inept guards.

So far I only notice two, you and eggynack.


If you're going to assume that the enemy is incompetent, there's really no reason this army should be a threat in the first place.

There is a vast difference between incompetent enemy and a level appropriate challenge with guards that probably are not on average of the level of the heroes.
I could easily set up a camp for your 5th level illusionist or whatever with no chance at all for him to succeed at infiltration. A DM can ruin quite a lot approaches, I do not see why you give darkness as concealment booster no chance at all, while you make invisibility or fly/true strike/shrink item (shudder) an auto-win.


More to the point, it is hilarious.

Depends. Transmutation would be a tough school to ban in case of a specialist of another school, but you may also emulate some of what a transmuter does with other schools.
Probably I'd usually choose a divine since that would increase number of spells/day while not limiting spell choices too much.


Hiding in a sphere of shadowy illumination in the middle of an enemy camp while their commander is being attacked (and, presumably, vocalizing his pain) is probably one of the better ideas you have proposed so far.

Thank you. I'm glad you like it.:smallwink:


Shadow Evocation.

Weaker & later than evocation but otherwise very nice and versatile.

[Gwendol]

Eh, a fireball sets things... on fire. That is usually a pretty good diversion.

Speaking of evocation spells: flaming sphere is quite nice, especially when combined with pyrotechnics (smoke cloud). SR no, shuts down all vision inside the cloud, and failing a fort save all creatures inside it are debuffed. And the sphere is movable.

[Endarire]

Evocation gets badmouthed because it offers a lot of options that, at least in theory, aren't very useful compared the the breadth of options that Wizards can otherwise use.

Evocation provides a lot of support and utility spells (like wall of force and wind wall and contingency) that are worth using and keeping Evocation over. Evocation also provides opportunities for creativity, GM willing, such as using a fireball to light fires (including signal fires). Evocation is a niche school, kinda like Enchantment, but, again, it has its moments.

Conjuration provides a lot of options that are reliable regardless of circumstance. Transmutation, too. Evocation's offensive spells run into the issue of Elemental Rock Paper Scissors (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ElementalRockPaperScissors), besides the aforementioned issues of Evocation spells not doing that much damage compared to a purpose-built physical character's damage. Alternatively, being able to deal damage to a buncha creatures at once is a draw of Evocations over physical characters.

And as I've experienced in playing D&D, optimization theory sometimes works, but there are many times it doesn't hold. Charm person is frickin' deadly at low levels, even if Enchantment is the first Wizard school I usually oppose. Optimization theory is about playing the odds and understanding probabilities, while noting that there are exceptions.

[Norin]

Did anyone post treantmonk's guide yet?
http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1152046

[Shining Wrath]

When German troops seized [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael"] ... SNIP ...

Your turn. Name an operation where a sneak attack on a base/fortress/installation was aided by a direct attack on said site.

... SNIP ...




I'll play.

Aragorn, Gandalf, and the rest before the Black Gate, creating a diversion (and, vitally, moving Sauron's armies north), which contributed mightily to the success of the most famous sneak attack in all of fantasy literature ... and pray recall we're discussing a fantasy RPG, not Squad Leader.

If you read military history, you'll find that making what was called a "demonstration" was once a standard tactic - move some troops up as though they are about to attack to freeze the enemy reserves so that a real attack elsewhere can succeed. For example, on the second day of Gettysburg a demonstration was staged in the center in the hopes that Longstreet's assault on the Union left would work - which also involved the troops assaulting at a slight angle, so that the Confederate troops would wrap around the end of the Union line and roll them up. That attack almost worked - if someone less capable than Joshua Chamberlin had been in command for the Union at Little Round Top, it probably would have.

On such minutiae swings the fate of nations in war.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Here is what I would do.

1. Pause the game on my computer.
2. Look out the window.
3. Reach over to my nightstand and pull out a loaded .357 magnum revolver.
4. Call the police.

Responses 3 and 4 would probably make this the worst time of the day to break into my house. Which is probably why burglars don't use explosions to distract their victims before breaking in.

Somebody has the ability to make things go boom and you'd rather bank on him using the mundane, non-exploding method to enter your house, rather than getting outside to either kill them yourself (before they could harm you) or just get the frick-frack away with your life?

There were probably grammatical errors in that sentence, but I think you understand what I meant. Your choice of option seems rather... I dunno, silly?

[ryu]

Somebody has the ability to make things go boom and you'd rather bank on him using the mundane, non-exploding method to enter your house, rather than getting outside to either kill them yourself (before they could harm you) or just get the frick-frack away with your life?

There were probably grammatical errors in that sentence, but I think you understand what I meant. Your choice of option seems rather... I dunno, silly?

How do you know the method is non-mundane? Do you have any idea how simple it is to make a basic but effective explosive out of simple household ingredients? His method is nice but I prefer to lurk under the basement stairs with the sharpest knife in the house prepared to go right for the Achilles tendon of anyone coming down the stairs. This is after calling the police and warning them not to go down the basement stairs of course.

[theNater]

Exactly - they only thought to scry at all because of Roy's warning.
Is it your claim that they would not have used divinations if they only had Miko's report on the army of hobgoblins? Because that's going to need a lot of support, if so.

Your exact words were "depends on their objective" so what they want is in fact meaningful. Redcloak's objective is the city and the gate, Xykon's just the gate. If there was a way to capture the gate without a full-scale invasion Xykon would have done it. There wasn't, ergo the army is needed as a diversionary tactic.
Right. If they'd just been able to do a quick in and out, the army would have been counterproductive. The presence of the army increased the guard on the Gate. Since they were trying to take the city, that wasn't a problem, because they were going to need to kill all those paladins sooner or later anyway.

So far I only notice two, you and eggynack.
I am neither Juntao112 nor eggynack, so that makes at least three.

[Vrock_Summoner]

How do you know the method is non-mundane? Do you have any idea how simple it is to make a basic but effective explosive out of simple household ingredients? His method is nice but I prefer to lurk under the basement stairs with the sharpest knife in the house prepared to go right for the Achilles tendon of anyone coming down the stairs. This is after calling the police and warning them not to go down the basement stairs of course.

That still tends to leave the possibility of lots of explosions on the way in. However, if you're going to treat this as a necessary distinction, it would simply make Jun's response irrelevant to the question anyway, because as a general rule in a fantasy setting where fireballin' wizards are not unheard of or even uncommon you aren't going to assume that large explosions are non-replicable mundane "household bombs".

[Juntao112]

Somebody has the ability to make things go boom and you'd rather bank on him using the mundane, non-exploding method to enter your house, rather than getting outside to either kill them yourself (before they could harm you) or just get the frick-frack away with your life?

There were probably grammatical errors in that sentence, but I think you understand what I meant. Your choice of option seems rather... I dunno, silly?

Going out into a street with explosions is foolish. Hunting down the perpetrators is vigilante justice and frowned on in all states, even Texas. When an attack occurs, the best strategy is to stay on the defensive and call the cops.


That still tends to leave the possibility of lots of explosions on the way in. However, if you're going to treat this as a necessary distinction, it would simply make Jun's response irrelevant to the question anyway, because as a general rule in a fantasy setting where fireballin' wizards are not unheard of or even uncommon you aren't going to assume that large explosions are non-replicable mundane "household bombs".

Eh, Necklace of Fireballs.


I'll play.

Aragorn, Gandalf, and the rest before the Black Gate, creating a diversion (and, vitally, moving Sauron's armies north), which contributed mightily to the success of the most famous sneak attack in all of fantasy literature ... and pray recall we're discussing a fantasy RPG, not Squad Leader.

The Mordor example has been brought up before, and was criticized for being a different situation: the Black Gate was hundreds of miles away from Mount Doom, which enabled Aragon to distract Sauron. Attacking Mount Doom to draw the Eye of Sauron away from, er, the hobbits on Mount Doom, on the other hand, would be pointless.


If you read military history, you'll find that making what was called a "demonstration" was once a standard tactic - move some troops up as though they are about to attack to freeze the enemy reserves so that a real attack elsewhere can succeed. For example, on the second day of Gettysburg a demonstration was staged in the center in the hopes that Longstreet's assault on the Union left would work - which also involved the troops assaulting at a slight angle, so that the Confederate troops would wrap around the end of the Union line and roll them up. That attack almost worked - if someone less capable than Joshua Chamberlin had been in command for the Union at Little Round Top, it probably would have.

On such minutiae swings the fate of nations in war.
No one in this thread has ever doubted the usefulness of misdirection in war; what we are discussing here is whether attacking the target a team is trying to infiltrate is a good idea or not. Which Gettysburg isn't quite comparable to.

[Blackhawk748]

Attacking what the group is trying to infiltrate could work, depends how you go about it. Heres an example of something i once did.

The group was sneaking into a Demi-Human fort (its KoK), now my Sorcerer is the only one in the party who sucks at sneaking so i figured i would help by causing several distractions. I used the feat borne aloft to get atop the wall when no guards were nearby and then used it again to get atop the keep. Once there i sent a message to the party via message to begin moving, at which point i fireballed the stable, the warehouse, and the barracks, in that order. During the ensuing confusion and subsequent fires i was able to GTFO and the party was able to assassinate the Warchief. I did need to create another diversion so they could leave too, but i just lobbed a few fireballs at the wall (thank the gods for Long range).

Now i agree that Evocation needs more toys because Conjuration took most of them, but Evocation is good for the fact that it has a lot of AoEs. Also i am a sucker for Scorching Ray

[TuggyNE]

Add me to the tally of those unimpressed by Evoker distraction potential.


Thanks for that hint - I did not realise it was a real game term. Still, it does not really say anything but that it leads to the game effect of concealment.

Candles (and all other light sources) provide "shadowy illumination". So does (deeper) darkness, in so many words. QED.

[Juntao112]

In case of the 99% other people not having such a weapon in their house the answer may not be so clear -cut :smallwink:
There is a great difference in response between those who are prepared, and those who are not.

Now, which category do you think an army falls under?


It is not. But then, only one fireball may be necessary. Several rounds of uncertainty ensue which the rest of the group can use. Possibly followed up by another some rounds later. Maybe. It all depens on the situation.
But you may continue (as eggynack) to rule out such a situation would ever happen. That's OK I guess.

Let's be charitable and assume it does work sometimes. This still isn't as reliable a method of supporting infiltration as just casting invisibility sphere on everyone and having them sneak in.


Yes, but will it go up immediately to perfection? Conversely, will the security be low when there are guards? Will there be new opportunities to infiltrate once a 5th level challenge camp filled with 1st level mooks snaps to attention finding all their proper tasks immediately? I doubt it. You do not. That's the difference.
I do not think that a plan which relies on the enemy being incompetent is particularly wise or impressive.


I never said they walk into it. They may pass it by from 30ft distance - they would notice non-hiding infiltrators with better light conditions then.
But as I said, here we agree to disagree.

They will certainly see the 20ft radius of shadowy illumination. Are you seriously suggesting that isn't at all suspicious?


There is a vast difference between incompetent enemy and a level appropriate challenge with guards that probably are not on average of the level of the heroes.
I could easily set up a camp for your 5th level illusionist or whatever with no chance at all for him to succeed at infiltration. A DM can ruin quite a lot approaches, I do not see why you give darkness as concealment booster no chance at all, while you make invisibility or fly/true strike/shrink item (shudder) an auto-win.

Invisibility not working relies on the enemy having access to spellcasters capable of using See Invisibility all night (so warlocks or dragonfire adepts, then) or access to an item which allows them to use See Invisibility all night, which is really expensive.

Darkness not working requires the enemy to be stupid.

The enemy is more likely to suffer restrictions on equipment and spellcasters than on common sense.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Somebody has the ability to make things go boom and you'd rather bank on him using the mundane, non-exploding method to enter your house, rather than getting outside to either kill them yourself (before they could harm you) or just get the frick-frack away with your life?

When did he say he was going to wait at the door?

When it comes to infiltration, disguises, magical stealth, or, if you really do need a distraction, summoned monsters work better.

[eggynack]

When it comes to infiltration, disguises, magical stealth, or, if you really do need a distraction, summoned monsters work better.
Indeed. Even if fireball can theoretically create a distraction capable of creating a strategic advantage in a bandit camp, that's not an effect that's unique to evocation. In fact, as has been shown, none of this stuff is. In other words, in this situation, you could easily ban evocation and be perfectly fine. As, "How bannable is this?" is pretty much the only question you're asking when you decide what to ban, and this scenario is completely solvable without evocation, and probably in a better way, this argument seems deeply flawed even if every step of the plan proceeds flawlessly. I'm not saying that there are no scenarios where evocation would be the best solution, but this isn't it.

[Quorothorn]

Summary as I see it: blasting is suboptimal, insult to injury is 3.5 gave some of the best blasts to Conjuration/others instead (the Orb spells were Evocation in 3.0, IIRC--then again I think they were SR:Yes at that point, too, oops :smallbiggrin:); Illusion provides the Shadow Evocation spells to, albeit in a limited degree, 'cover' the legitimate gems (usually NOT blasts) in the school if one bans it; in forum discussions there is a lot of backlash about the school (and blasting in general) because less sophisticated (for lack of a better word in my brain right now) players think it's great when from a full optimization process it is not up to par with other things Wizards can do (kind of like how advanced stats people in basketball will get annoyed at someone heaping unvarnished praise on Rudy Gay or Carmelo Anthony and claiming they're better than someone like Paul George--Carmelo Anthony is still really really good at this basketball thing, it's just that he's not nearly AS good as George at this point, much less LeBron James, bu if you find a casual fan you might well see them make that claim, which of course drives the advanced metrics people up a wall).

I mean, I like the school, and so do plenty of others, and in truth it does not "suck" per se. An evocation specialist will still likely be a mechanically capable character, they just won't match up to a Transmutation, Conjuration, or Illusion specialist. And online optimization guides, by their nature, are usually more concerned with/respectful of 'best' rather than the merely 'good', though fortunately most will still talk about the 'good'.

I feel like the backlash point shouldn't be underestimated, honestly. I mean, we have the term "Monkday" around here because regularly people will be coming in asking why Monks are not actually powerful (just look at all the stuff in their "Special"!!!)--a loooot of people outside forums like this hold the opinions that Monks are strong, Fireball is the best spell in the game, Tome of Battle is terrible and overpowered, 'dead levels' are the only flaw in something like the Fighter, Wizards are overly squishy, etc. I suspect frustration at people "Not Getting It" makes the arguments against Evocation (etc) harsher than they would otherwise be.

(...actually that very thing has kind of happened in this topic...)

((Also this post got ramblier than I intended, whoops.))

[Vogonjeltz]

Because many monsters have LOTS of hit points, as in "more than your entire party combined", and therefore whittling away at that huge pile is less effective than having the monster fall asleep, or get confused and attack its friend, or be stunned and incapable of acting for a round.

Consider the Glitterdust spell versus a scorching ray at level 3, against a group of 6 CR 1/2 hobgoblins.

Scorching Ray will do 4d6 damage to one target, average of 14. One hobgoblin screams and dies. 5 are left.

Glitterdust catches perhaps 4 or 5 of the hobgoblins in a clump, depending on initiative et cetera. Hobgoblins save at -1 on Will versus a DC of (10 + 2 + 3 or 4 for caster ability score), call it 15, so they need to roll at least 16. 75% of them will miss this.

~3 of the hobgoblins are now blind. From SRD:


They may not be dead YET, but they will be soon. Their AC just dropped from 15 to 12, they have a 50% miss chance on their attacks, and they are moving at half speed.

Call them about 1/3 the threat they were.

Glitterdust reduced the effective number of hobgoblins by 2.

Why not compare apples to apples? Melfs acid arrow to flaming sphere. The sphere is much better.

[eggynack]

Why not compare apples to apples? Melfs acid arrow to flaming sphere. The sphere is much better.
Why would we compare apples to apples? The whole point is comparing blasting to not-blasting. Also, flaming sphere doesn't seem all that much better to me. Acid arrow is a better damage type, it hits at a longer range, and it uses the far superior ranged touch attack instead of the rather weak reflex negates. Also, acid arrow is able to hit a golem in an AMF, which flaming sphere cannot do. Seems like a lot of points in acid arrow's favor, even if sphere has a couple of advantages. You should probably go with scorching or seeking ray, if you're looking for quality evocation blasting at 2nd level spells.

[lumberingmenace]

Evocation doesn't suck. If it fits your character's background and style to rain down fire and lighting than it fits. And a maximized chain lightning can devastate enemies. If you roleplay and dont rollplay all the time evocation is a classic power archeotype for casters to use

[Vogonjeltz]

Why would we compare apples to apples? The whole point is comparing blasting to not-blasting. Also, flaming sphere doesn't seem all that much better to me. Acid arrow is a better damage type, it hits at a longer range, and it uses the far superior ranged touch attack instead of the rather weak reflex negates. Also, acid arrow is able to hit a golem in an AMF, which flaming sphere cannot do. Seems like a lot of points in acid arrow's favor, even if sphere has a couple of advantages. You should probably go with scorching or seeking ray, if you're looking for quality evocation blasting at 2nd level spells.

Ok, then lets compare the utility in evocation to the blasting (or virtual lack thereof) in conjuration?

Ok at 2, evocation can sunder just about anything, and conjuration can do 2d4 acid damage, less than a 1st level anything with a falchion.

Also, poor reflex saves are much more common among monsters than fort or will. So reflex is actually the best option for attacking an NPC of unknown ability.

[Juntao112]

Ok, then lets compare the utility in evocation to the blasting (or virtual lack thereof) in conjuration?

Ok at 2, evocation can sunder just about anything, and conjuration can do 2d4 acid damage, less than a 1st level anything with a falchion.


Anything? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shatter.htm) .

[eggynack]

Ok, then lets compare the utility in evocation to the blasting (or virtual lack thereof) in conjuration?

Ok at 2, evocation can sunder just about anything, and conjuration can do 2d4 acid damage, less than a 1st level anything with a falchion.
Why would I do that? It seems so arbitrary. How about we compare spells, and y'know, other spells. Also, the best conjuration blasting spell is probably orb of fire. It's of a higher level, but it's one of the few blasting spells worth casting at all. I'm unlikely to ever case flaming sphere, and I'm also unlikely to cast acid arrow. Because they're both mediocre. At least acid arrow has some vague utility in how hard it is to defend against.

Also, poor reflex saves are much more common among monsters than fort or will. So reflex is actually the best option for attacking an NPC of unknown ability.
The second doesn't follow from the first. Were save targeting the only way to hit an enemy, then it could follow, but it is not. For example, targeting touch AC with a ranged touch attack is usually going to be far superior to targeting a reflex save. Also, for any spell with a reflex save for half, evasion is a significant defense.

[Gwendol]

Why would we compare apples to apples? The whole point is comparing blasting to not-blasting. Also, flaming sphere doesn't seem all that much better to me. Acid arrow is a better damage type, it hits at a longer range, and it uses the far superior ranged touch attack instead of the rather weak reflex negates. Also, acid arrow is able to hit a golem in an AMF, which flaming sphere cannot do. Seems like a lot of points in acid arrow's favor, even if sphere has a couple of advantages. You should probably go with scorching or seeking ray, if you're looking for quality evocation blasting at 2nd level spells.

Flaming sphere lasts rounds/level, is directable, and can even jump up 30'. The damage is pitiful (2d6/round), but it has the rider effect of setting everything combustible on fire, including the enemies failing the ref save. To put out the fire, enemies have to waste actions.

Plus, as I mentioned, you can cast pyrotechnics on it for an area debuff/BFC effect that you can move around.

Yes, fire resistance/immunity is common, but there's a feat for that.

[eggynack]

Flaming sphere lasts rounds/level, is directable, and can even jump up 30'. The damage is pitiful (2d6/round), but it has the rider effect of setting everything combustible on fire, including the enemies failing the ref save. To put out the fire, enemies have to waste actions.

Those were the advantages I was speaking of, and I don't think they're enough to make it, y'know, a good spell. You're dealing low end damage over time, and that's not exactly the place you want to be, especially when a save leads to a complete negation of the damage. Flaming sphere isn't much worse than acid arrow, and it might not actually be worse at all. However, it is also not much better, as was claimed.

[Vogonjeltz]

Why would I do that? It seems so arbitrary. How about we compare spells, and y'know, other spells. Also, the best conjuration blasting spell is probably orb of fire. It's of a higher level, but it's one of the few blasting spells worth casting at all. I'm unlikely to ever case flaming sphere, and I'm also unlikely to cast acid arrow. Because they're both mediocre. At least acid arrow has some vague utility in how hard it is to defend against.

The second doesn't follow from the first. Were save targeting the only way to hit an enemy, then it could follow, but it is not. For example, targeting touch AC with a ranged touch attack is usually going to be far superior to targeting a reflex save. Also, for any spell with a reflex save for half, evasion is a significant defense.

Orb of fire maxes out at 15d6 no? And that's a single target. A lightning bolt, which is only 1 level lower, caps at 10d6 but can hit multiple targets (same with fireball)

90 max damage to a single target vs 60 max (70 if meta magicked to the same level of spell) to many targets.

Most evocation attack spells are AoE and so have a higher damage potential.

[Gwendol]

Those were the advantages I was speaking of, and I don't think they're enough to make it, y'know, a good spell. You're dealing low end damage over time, and that's not exactly the place you want to be, especially when a save leads to a complete negation of the damage. Flaming sphere isn't much worse than acid arrow, and it might not actually be worse at all. However, it is also not much better, as was claimed.

It's an ok 2nd level spell; certainly not a bad one. No attack roll, some rider effects, lasts several rounds.

[eggynack]

Orb of fire maxes out at 15d6 no? And that's a single target. A lightning bolt, which is only 1 level lower, caps at 10d6 but can hit multiple targets (same with fireball)

90 max damage to a single target vs 60 max (70 if meta magicked to the same level of spell) to many targets.

Most evocation attack spells are AoE and so have a higher damage potential.
Except orb of fire uses a ranged touch attack, which targets a defense that is harder to gain access to, it doesn't touch SR, so that's an entire defense bypassed, it's an instantaneous conjuration, so it bypasses AMF's as well, and it even has a fortitude save against dazing for a round, which is a fantastic status effect. Evocation blasting has a couple of advantages, but orb of fire is a significantly better spell, just because it's so damn unstoppable, especially if you use searing spell.


It's an ok 2nd level spell; certainly not a bad one. No attack roll, some rider effects, lasts several rounds.
Pretty much. It's nothing special, certainly, though neither is flaming sphere. Also, there is a ranged touch attack roll, which is a step down from what you mentioned, but it has the same SR: no instantaneous conjuration thing that orb of fire does, which is sweet. Sometimes you just need to hit someone in the face, and when you do, it's nice to know that you'll hit your target.

[Vogonjeltz]

Except orb of fire uses a ranged touch attack, which targets a defense that is harder to gain access to, it doesn't touch SR, so that's an entire defense bypassed, it's an instantaneous conjuration, so it bypasses AMF's as well, and it even has a fortitude save against dazing for a round, which is a fantastic status effect. Evocation blasting has a couple of advantages, but orb of fire is a significantly better spell, just because it's so damn unstoppable, especially if you use searing spell.


Pretty much. It's nothing special, certainly, though neither is flaming sphere. Also, there is a ranged touch attack roll, which is a step down from what you mentioned, but it has the same SR: no instantaneous conjuration thing that orb of fire does, which is sweet. Sometimes you just need to hit someone in the face, and when you do, it's nice to know that you'll hit your target.

And fireball/lightning bolt require no attack at all, the DCs can be put through the roof (base 13, plus int, plus 2 from likely having spell focuses, end result being a 19 or so.).

It's more likely that a target will fail the save than not dodge the ranged touch attack.

A touch attack is equivalent to a save really (AC 10 + dex mod + deflection). Considering wizards have a lousy AB there's probably a 50/50 chance the orb does nothing at all, vs a 15% or so chance of still doing half damage from those evocation spells.

[eggynack]

And fireball/lightning bolt require no attack at all, the DCs can be put through the roof (base 13, plus int, plus 2 from likely having spell focuses, end result being a 19 or so.).

It's more likely that a target will fail the save than not dodge the ranged touch attack.

A touch attack is equivalent to a save really (AC 10 + dex mod + deflection). Considering wizards have a lousy AB there's probably a 50/50 chance the orb does nothing at all, vs a 15% or so chance of still doing half damage from those evocation spells.
I disagree, especially at higher levels. Saves scale higher and higher as you level, and when you're packing massive monster HD, your saves can go pretty high. On the other end of the spectrum, a wizard's attack bonus isn't actually all that low, because they often boost dexterity by quite a bit, and because attack bonus scales while, again, touch AC does not. You're also assuming spell focus (conjuration), which just seems like a waste of a feat if you're not going for a particular prerequisite. Meanwhile, save DC's also don't naturally scale, so they'll get worse and worse as you level.

So, let's form an example. I found the chimera (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/chimera.htm), which is a reasonable CR 7 creature that I picked pretty arbitrarily, but we can look at some others after. I'll set the fireball save DC at 18, which is a reasonable 13+5 (int mod), and the wizard's ranged touch attack bonus at 5 or 6, for +3 BAB and +2 dexterity mod, upping to +4 BAB in a level, or perhaps with a +3 dexterity mod. In any case, the chimera has a touch AC of 10, and a reflex save of +7, so the orb will hit about 80% of the time, if not more, and the fireball will pass the save on an 11, which means it passes 50% of the time.

As a second arbitrary creature, I found the ogre barbarian (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogre.htm). Even with the ogre's crappy +2 reflex save, it still passes on a 16, which means a 25% chance of passing, and the touch AC is once again 10, which again means a 20% chance of failure. That's a particularly bad case for the orb too. I actually looked at the succubus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#succubus) before that, but that just seems unfair with its SR of 18. So, touch AC's tend to be pretty low, while reflex saves tend to range from a bit higher to a lot higher. This is also looking at the orb's worst level, because the to-hit just keeps scaling up, while reflex saves do the same. Orbs are a lot more consistent, ultimately.

Edit: For one more example, this time at a higher level, let's look at the razor boar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/razorBoar.htm). The fireball save DC is still about the same, though it's possibly been boosted by one by this point to 19, while to hit is now at something like +5(BAB) + 3(dex). The razor boar has a reflex save of +10, SR 21, and a touch AC of +10. So, the orb of fire is hitting on anything but a 1, so a 95% chance of success, while the boar passes its reflex save on a 9, for a success chance of 40%, and you likely pass your caster level check on an 11, for a success chance of 50%, for an ultimate success chance of 20%. These are very different numbers.

[Quorothorn]

On the other end of the spectrum, a wizard's attack bonus isn't actually all that low, because they often boost dexterity by quite a bit, and because attack bonus scales while, again, touch AC does not.

Nonsense! Optimization by the Numbers clearly shows that touch AC scales! ...backwards. :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

Nonsense! Optimization by the Numbers clearly shows that touch AC scales! ...backwards. :smalltongue:
Heh, yeah, that sounds about right. You replace all the tiny creatures with high dexterity with a bunch of massive hulking beasts without enough dexterity to compensate for their size. Thus, you end up with stuff like the tarrasque (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm), with a reflex save of 29, and a touch AC of 5. Orb of fire is some sweet business, in other words.

[TuggyNE]

A touch attack is equivalent to a save really (AC 10 + dex mod + deflection).

Ummmm, no. Saves scale automatically at the rate of one every two or three levels. AC does not scale automatically at all. Both have an ability modifier and a single fairly common magical bonus type (resistance and deflection respectively). Attack bonuses and highest-level spell DCs scale automatically, and attack bonuses apply to even the lowest-level spells equally, as well as allowing certain situational modifiers like being invisible or attacking an entangled foe.

[Gwendol]

My only objection to orbs, etc, is that they require LOS, and perhaps also LOE to work. Evocation spells like fireball don't, which can be a deciding factor. Denying LOS is fairly easy to do after all.

Edit: also, anything with a miss chance will be annoying unless you have true seeing, whereas area attack spells don't care.

[Drachasor]

I think a large part of the problem with evocation isn't just the fact there are a lot of OP spell effects. Granted, that's a big part too. However, another big problem is that damage is really screwy in d20.

The guy one-shotting BBEGs isn't really intended. But they didn't keep a good cap on how martial damage works. So you have some that do tons of damage and others that do very little damage largely based on how they chain abilities together.

Spell damage is harder to tweak like that (though not impossible). So the base damage for spells is overall very weak, probably erring more towards the "intended" side of things. This generally makes spell damage a bad way to go unless you min-max the heck out of it or you toss on status effects and the damage is just a plus. Especially when you add the fact that spell damage caps, you have limited spells per day, and metamagic is one of the big ways to buff spell damage. When you look at Core for instance, it is very hard to make spell damage good between levels 1 and 10. If you combine enough non-core stuff together then that can change, or if you tweak things right and spend money just right on metamagic rods and the like. Overall though, it's difficult. And keeping that damage relevant can be hard too (especially if you use magic items).

Pat of this is a 2E legacy, of course. Fireball did 1d6 per level in 2E and capped at 10d6. However, hit points in 2E were a LOT lower. Only warriors could get constitution mods to HP greater than +2/HD. And you need a 16 Con to get a +2 modifier (and a 15 for a +1). This meant that fireball packed more a punch against most enemies.

Anyhow, I think a big problem is that they didn't really have a good baseline on how damage should work in D&D. Not one that they tested and tweaked. 4E was much better in this regard (a general strength), though 4E suffered immensely by not leveraging this design into letting players be creative with powers -- a really stupid move, imho, and one chosen because they wanted to make money off selling new powers.

Edit: Another issue of course is binary and absolute defenses in d20. Those don't help either.

[Svata]

Let me give you an example:

9th level Conjuration spell Summon Elemental Monolith. For a paltry fee you can get an Earth Elemental big enough and strong enough to take any amount of damage you want it to while it pounds away with its slam attacks with a +40 doing 6d8+15, every round for a round per caster level. No Spell Resistance, you just summon it and the enemy has to deal with it or attempt to dismiss it or banish it, though the +16 to Will saves protects the thing quite well against that.


Just to make note, that spell lasts 1 round/level, but has the requirement of making you concentrate on it and be unable to cast other spells. Until you take into account Somorous Hum, a third level spell from 14 pages earlier in the same book. It lasts 1 min/level, and (cast the before a spell with a duration depending on concentration) explicitly maintains concentration for you so you can cast spells other that one.

[Ivanhoe]

There is a great difference in response between those who are prepared, and those who are not.

Now, which category do you think an army falls under?

An army with 1st level mooks? Defnitely the "prepared, yet not perfect" category :smallsmile:


Let's be charitable and assume it does work sometimes. This still isn't as reliable a method of supporting infiltration as just casting invisibility sphere on everyone and having them sneak in.

Well, charity aside, thanks for starting to see the uses of an evoker as providing stealth support for a group!
And I'll also agree to your main point: invisibility sphere is of course superior stealth boost! I never denied that. The whole point was whether an evoker could also contribute with his spells for stealth missions. I showed he can - but certainly evocation is worse at it than what the illusion school offers (meanwhile, the same holds true for the illusion school when it comes to damage-dealing, where it can contribute, but not as much as evocation).


I do not think that a plan which relies on the enemy being incompetent is particularly wise or impressive.

Neither do I. We only disagree on what kind of incompetence and wisdom is involved. There seem to be some that would argue as you do here in this thread, some that rather see some merits in the tactics I proposed. Probably also different gaming experiences.


They will certainly see the 20ft radius of shadowy illumination. Are you seriously suggesting that isn't at all suspicious?

Yes. In the right circumstances (say, shadowy illumination or my barn wall example also nearby but not in the spot where the group has to hide etc.).


Invisibility not working relies on the enemy having access to spellcasters capable of using See Invisibility all night (so warlocks or dragonfire adepts, then) or access to an item which allows them to use See Invisibility all night, which is really expensive.

Darkness not working requires the enemy to be stupid.

The enemy is more likely to suffer restrictions on equipment and spellcasters than on common sense.

Whenever someone evokes "common sense" in D&D, it's time to run!:smallsmile:
More seriously, inivisiblity sphere lasts 5 minutes by a 5th level caster. It can help in many circumstances, in many others it will not be enough, while a 50 minute darkness stone activated at will is still usable by the inflitration group.

[TuggyNE]

My only objection to orbs, etc, is that they require LOS, and perhaps also LOE to work.

LoE yes, LoS no; you can bing them into the middle of a fog cloud just fine as long as you know what square to aim at. 50% miss chance, but so? :smalltongue:

[Gwendol]

LoE yes, LoS no; you can bing them into the middle of a fog cloud just fine as long as you know what square to aim at. 50% miss chance, but so? :smalltongue:

50% chance your spell will be completely wasted, if the enemy has the courtesy of not moving since you last saw him? Yeah, I think we can both agree there are better options at this point.

Evocation as a school isn't bad enough to drop: there are a few spells you actually really want to have on hand.

[Ivanhoe]

Evocation as a school isn't bad enough to drop: there are a few spells you actually really want to have on hand.

Possibly, after this discussion so far, this is something most can agree on?:smallsmile:

[Necroticplague]

Possibly, after this discussion so far, this is something most can agree on?:smallsmile:

Partially. Yes, there are some options you want to keep. However, their mostly contingency and walls, so your fine just Shadow Evocationing, even if you drop the whole evocation school.

[Vogonjeltz]

I disagree, especially at higher levels. Saves scale higher and higher as you level, and when you're packing massive monster HD, your saves can go pretty high. On the other end of the spectrum, a wizard's attack bonus isn't actually all that low, because they often boost dexterity by quite a bit, and because attack bonus scales while, again, touch AC does not. You're also assuming spell focus (conjuration), which just seems like a waste of a feat if you're not going for a particular prerequisite. Meanwhile, save DC's also don't naturally scale, so they'll get worse and worse as you level.

So, let's form an example. I found the chimera (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/chimera.htm), which is a reasonable CR 7 creature that I picked pretty arbitrarily, but we can look at some others after. I'll set the fireball save DC at 18, which is a reasonable 13+5 (int mod), and the wizard's ranged touch attack bonus at 5 or 6, for +3 BAB and +2 dexterity mod, upping to +4 BAB in a level, or perhaps with a +3 dexterity mod. In any case, the chimera has a touch AC of 10, and a reflex save of +7, so the orb will hit about 80% of the time, if not more, and the fireball will pass the save on an 11, which means it passes 50% of the time.

As a second arbitrary creature, I found the ogre barbarian (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogre.htm). Even with the ogre's crappy +2 reflex save, it still passes on a 16, which means a 25% chance of passing, and the touch AC is once again 10, which again means a 20% chance of failure. That's a particularly bad case for the orb too. I actually looked at the succubus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#succubus) before that, but that just seems unfair with its SR of 18. So, touch AC's tend to be pretty low, while reflex saves tend to range from a bit higher to a lot higher. This is also looking at the orb's worst level, because the to-hit just keeps scaling up, while reflex saves do the same. Orbs are a lot more consistent, ultimately.

Edit: For one more example, this time at a higher level, let's look at the razor boar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/razorBoar.htm). The fireball save DC is still about the same, though it's possibly been boosted by one by this point to 19, while to hit is now at something like +5(BAB) + 3(dex). The razor boar has a reflex save of +10, SR 21, and a touch AC of +10. So, the orb of fire is hitting on anything but a 1, so a 95% chance of success, while the boar passes its reflex save on a 9, for a success chance of 40%, and you likely pass your caster level check on an 11, for a success chance of 50%, for an ultimate success chance of 20%. These are very different numbers.

Although anecdotal evidence has been shown to be more convincing (regardless of the truth), i would suggest you try doing an analysis of all creatures.

Also, fireball would be used against many creatures, likely 3+, that increases both the total damage and chances of full success. Even "failure" from the fireball is still half damage, but nothing for the orb.

[Gavinfoxx]

Failure on a Fireball is no damage, due to evasion, improved evasion, SR, and fire resistance.

[Svata]

But reflex is the easiest save to get reduced to taking no damage if you make the save.

Swiftbladed

[eggynack]

Although anecdotal evidence has been shown to be more convincing (regardless of the truth), i would suggest you try doing an analysis of all creatures.
I don't think that's strictly necessary. There's a pretty decent amount of variance, but most creatures have a touch AC of around 10, and there aren't that many creatures who fall significantly outside that zone, especially later on. Even creatures with high touch AC are going to also have high reflex saves. I mean, you mentioned optimization by the numbers, so just take a look at that. Reflex saves keep going up and up, and touch AC keeps hovering around the same place, and occasionally shrinking. I'm not sure what it is about the logic and data I've presented that is particularly unconvincing, so it doesn't make much sense to me to continually toss out more logic and data.


Also, fireball would be used against many creatures, likely 3+, that increases both the total damage and chances of full success. Even "failure" from the fireball is still half damage, but nothing for the orb.
Perhaps, but then you're stuck with this spell that only applies when you're facing a group of enemies, and you would likely be better off with some BFC of the stinking cloud variety in that case. Orbs are hard to defend against, and fireballs are pretty easy to defend against, and they become less and less reliable as you level. I'd rather take the spell that can deal with a situation that's difficult for a wizard, like hitting a golem in the middle of an AMF, than a spell that can deal with a situation that's easy for a wizard, like defeating a group of weak enemies.

[georgie_leech]

Although anecdotal evidence has been shown to be more convincing (regardless of the truth), i would suggest you try doing an analysis of all creatures.

Also, fireball would be used against many creatures, likely 3+, that increases both the total damage and chances of full success. Even "failure" from the fireball is still half damage, but nothing for the orb.


Orbs can crit though, by virtue of having an attack roll.

Let's run through the SRD then, using Eggynack's numbers for a level 7. For most of these, I'm not factoring in multiple opponents, becaue it raises the encounter's CR; just straight up "Which spell better kills a level-appropriate target?"

Aboleth: +3 Ref gives a 30% Save rate (70% success) and Touch AC of 9 gives 85% success. Advantage Orb.

Air Elemental: Huge: This guy literally only fails his Reflex save on a 1, thanks to a whopping +19 Reflex. Meanwhile, the Orb can still actually hit this thing, thanks to a Touch AC of 17 only blocking 55% of the attacks, leaving 45% to slip through.

Animated Object: Gargantuan: 70% Fireball, but 95% Orb thanks to a laughable Touch AC of 4.

Black Pudding: A -2 Ref and a Touch AC of 3 means both hit except for critical failures. I'm willing to give this one to Fireball though, as the ooze's Split ability makes it more likely you'll end up with multiple targets to hit.

Bulette: Reflex +8 = 45% chance at full damage; Touch 10 means 80% Ranged Touch Attack. Orb.

Chaos Beast: Here we have our first alphabetical creature with SR. 50% no save, but a full 35% (SR 15 vs Caster Level 7 = pass on an 8) of Fireballs fizzle, for an overall success rate of 32.5%. Compared to a touch AC of 11, for a 75% Success rate, Orb wins handily.

Chimera: See Above. Incidentally, Writing out the bonuses each time is getting kind of pointless; I'm shortening it to end calculations

Chuul: 60% No save, 70% Orb

Criosphinx: 50% Fireball, 85% Orb

Cryohydra (6 heads): 55% Fireball, 85% Orb

Dire Bear: 40% Fireball, 80% Orb

Dragonne: 45% Fireball, 75% Orb

Drider: 65% Fireball, 75% Orb

Earth Elemental: Huge: 65% Fireball, 95% Orb (Hits on a 2)

Elasmosaurus: 40% Fireball, 80% Orb

Elephant: 50% Fireball, 90% Orb

Fire Elemental: Huge: Discounted for obvious reasons :smalltongue: Although Fire Orb, weirdly, can still daze, as immunity to Fire only addresses the damage and not the rider. Still, a Level 0 spell's functionality is better than none.

Flesh Golem: Fireball can't hurt at all no matter what, Orb cuts right through Immunity to Magic (90% it hits Touch AC)

Formian Task Master: 45% Fireball, 65% Orb

Hellcat: 30% No save x 55% SR Fizzle = 16.5% Fireball, 60% Orb.

Hill Giant: 70% Fireball, 90% Orb

Hydra (8 heads): 50% Fireball, 85% Orb

Invisible Stalker: 35% Fireball, 65% Hit x 50% Total Concealment (invisibility) = 32.5% Orb. Fireball wins by a nose, as well as being a heck of a lot easier to aim if you don't know the specific square it's in.

Lilend: 35% Fireball, 70% Orb

Medusa: 50% Fireball, 70% Orb

Monstrous Scorpion: Huge: 70% Fireball, 90% Orb

Nymph: 25% Fireball, 45% Orb

Ogre Barbarian: See above

Phasm: 30% Fireball, 70% Orb.

Pyrohydra (6 heads): Immune to all damage, but Orb can still technically Daze.

Succubus: 50% no save x 50% SR Fizzle = 25% Fireball, 75% Orb

Water Elemental: Huge: 40% Fireball, 70% Orb

Water Naga: 60% Fireball, 80% Orb

Alas, I'll be filling in the Remorhaz, Scorpionfolk, Cloud Giant Skeleton, Spectre, and Cachalot Whale when d20SRD stops 404ing on me.

EDIT: And lo, the unnecessary belabouring of the point continues!

Cachalot Whale: 40% Fireball, Orb hits on a 2

Cloud Giant Skeleton: 50% Fireball, 80% Orb

Remorhaz: 55% Fireball, 85% Orb (As a side note, jeez, I've never noticed before how dangerous that Swallow Whole is. Average 47 damage from a successful grapple check? OW)

Spectre: 60% Fireball, 55% Orb. Hey, advantage Fireball!

Scorpionfolk: I hope this information is accurate; the d20SRD can't find it, but another site that appears to be an archive of the original d20SRD page is working. 40% no save x 50% SR Fizzle = 20% Fireball, 80% Orb.

In summary, most monsters in the SRD at CR 7 can be more easily damaged by the Orb of Fire than Fireball. Unfortunately, I haven't enough caffeine handy to also work out what the average damages for each creature is, to see if the fact that none of these monsters has Evasion has any significant effect. My gut feeling though is that it's not enough to overcome the much greater hit rate of the Orb or its potential Daze rider effect. The fact that the Orb can also do *something* to every creature here, even if Daze from a 4th level slot isn't exactly efficient, is also something it has going for it, mostly because the idea of flinging fire at a creature literally made of fire and having it impede it in some fashion is hilarious.

[nightwyrm]

Pat of this is a 2E legacy, of course. Fireball did 1d6 per level in 2E and capped at 10d6. However, hit points in 2E were a LOT lower. Only warriors could get constitution mods to HP greater than +2/HD. And you need a 16 Con to get a +2 modifier (and a 15 for a +1). This meant that fireball packed more a punch against most enemies.

Just as an addendum, 2e and older monsters don't have the 6 base stats. They have hit dice and maybe some additional hp which are not pegged to the number of HD at all. So they tend to have much fewer hp than in 3.x. Blasting is awesome in those editions because a lot of monsters will die even if they made their save.

[Shining Wrath]

Going out into a street with explosions is foolish. Hunting down the perpetrators is vigilante justice and frowned on in all states, even Texas. When an attack occurs, the best strategy is to stay on the defensive and call the cops.



Eh, Necklace of Fireballs.



The Mordor example has been brought up before, and was criticized for being a different situation: the Black Gate was hundreds of miles away from Mount Doom, which enabled Aragon to distract Sauron. Attacking Mount Doom to draw the Eye of Sauron away from, er, the hobbits on Mount Doom, on the other hand, would be pointless.


No one in this thread has ever doubted the usefulness of misdirection in war; what we are discussing here is whether attacking the target a team is trying to infiltrate is a good idea or not. Which Gettysburg isn't quite comparable to.

We are now at the point where you have to define the size of the target and the size of the team. In some cases a large explosion on one side of the target might permit a team to approach on the other side; a demonstration, as it were. It depends upon how disciplined the enemy troops are, and how smart their commander, and many other variables; but you can certainly imagine situations where, e.g., troops would be shifted to the side of a fort where an explosion just made a hole in the wall, permitting a small elite team to scale the wall on the other side.

A wizard with a wand of fireballs on the east side could convince a less-smart commander that the assault is about to occur there, while the team of Warblades sprints towards the west wall under the cover of a darkness spell. The non-disciplined troops on the west wall are so busy looking over their shoulders at the noise and fire behind them that they don't notice the moving blob of darkness until it's only a few yards away from the wall. And then 10 level 10 Warblades leap onto the parapet among the level 1 warriors, and gruesomeness ensues.

The smart commander with disciplined troops lights the Warblades up with concentrated archery fire as soon as they come in range. As I said, it matters who is inside the fort.

[Quorothorn]

Although anecdotal evidence has been shown to be more convincing (regardless of the truth), i would suggest you try doing an analysis of all creatures.

Also, fireball would be used against many creatures, likely 3+, that increases both the total damage and chances of full success. Even "failure" from the fireball is still half damage, but nothing for the orb.

Actually, none of us here really needs to, per se, because the information is already available. By Optimization by the Numbers' (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=5culutlc1eudu6p5parthujde4&topic=3472) research in to, we can see that the average touch AC for the monsters in the SRD at CR 1/8 is 14; at CR 1/2 the average is 11.86; at CR2 the average is 11.84; at CR5 the average is 10.55; at CR8, 10.58; CR11, 10.92; CR14, 11; CR17, 9.57; CR20, 9.11.

Like I said, it scales...backwards. Somewhat inconsistently so (at CR12 the average touch AC is....7.17, the highest just a 13), but there it is. Obviously this is not including all the array of splatbooks, but I somehow doubt they'd change things all that much, because a key point is that high CR monsters that are not humanoid tend to be very big, and therefore their touch AC siiiinks downwards whereas their HP tends to blast upwards--and due to their sheer preponderance of HD, so do their saves.

I feel bad for Evocation, honestly, because I think a lot of its shortcomings are a direct result of the fact that 3.X's "game balance" is, quite frankly, bad at times. Conjuration and Transmutation should NOT be blatantly better than every other school, and Enchantment and Evocation (and Necromancy I s'pose) blatantly worse, with Abjuration, Illusion, and Divination more in the middle--or, if they ARE, that tiering ought to be reflected in the rules (off the top of the head example, if you specialize in Evocation, maybe you only have to ban one school, whereas if you pick Conjuration, you have to ban Transmutation and two others--this isn't at all a new idea, obviously, just an example!). The only concession in the actual published rules is Divination specialists only having to bar one school, which becomes amusing when Divination is actually oft considered better than, say, Enchantment.

A lot of it really is how much defense monsters have against what the school offers. Enchantment is a problem because basically everything it does is shut down completely by immunity to Mind-affecting...which, incidentally, multiple entire creature types posses (Construct, Undead, Vermin) and they all show up regularly from the low CRs (Zombie, Giant Ant) to the high (vampire, dragon skeleton, colossal monstrous scorpion). So, even though it has potential game-changers online from 1st class level, it has serious problems 'landing'. I'd feel bad for Enchantment, too, if I didn't have such a personal squick about mind control that leads to a dislike of the school.

Similarly, Evocation has too many hoops to jump through to land telling blows. It targets REF, which is actually decent because monsters are much better with FORT, generally speaking, and many kinds are better at WILL. The problem is that they almost all target REF, which results in redundancy, and that Evasion is a thing (and much more common than Mettle). Most Evocation is also dishing out fire and electricity, which so coincidentally are the most common elements to run in to Resistance or OUTRIGHT IMMUNITY to. You can change the element your spells are using, of course, but generally at a non-trivial opportunity cost.

Add on to that, the idea of fighting bunches of lesser enemies is not really supported by the encounter rules as written, where you're more likely to get single or paired creatures, or at most a handful, which are around the same claimed CR as the PCs, than a whole bunch where that truly massive radius of Fireball becomes LOT more useful (if you look at how many hexes a Cone of Cold or Fireball hits it really is impressive, it's just situations where it's also applicable are not necessarily common enough to buy 'em). This is obviously very DM-dependant, but again, them's the rules, and Evocation spells have some trouble dealing nearly enough damage against single 'big' targets, possibly BECAUSE they are designed with groups in mind. Or, y'know, that their damage coding is a relic of earlier editions that is no longer applicable...

Look at it this way: the 'standard' damage set for an arcane blast is 1d6 damage per caster level (and it insultingly tends to cap out at some point). Typical monsters will have AT LEAST as many HD as their CR (usually quite a bit more, on occasion even twice as much! This is also why Turn Undead, outside specific builds, quickly becomes nothing more than fuel for Divine/Devotion feats and special abilities), and their HD size will also usually NOT be a d6, AND they will have CON bonuses on top of that unless they're Undead or Constructs (which use d12s and d10s so they're still ahead of expected Fireball damage). Typical blasts start out well behind in the race against level-appropriate targets.

And then there's Spell Resistance, which like Evasion can just outright fizzle most Evocation when it shows up.

Conjuration is generally set in to the same Xd6 damage coding when it's blasting, of course, but can often target different/fewer defenses (and yes, touch AC is a much better defense to target than any save, especially as one moves in to the mid-levels and up), have natural rider effects...heck, the Orb spells even have a higher damage cap than a Lightning Bolt, just to be rude about the whole thing. Oh yeah and the school is the one that lets you Teleport.

...phew. With all of that said, I still will take the line of thought that Evocation does not really 'suck'. It's still magic, it still provides some serious game-changers (Contingency, Wall of Force, even something as simple as Wind Wall or Tiny Hut) and some good fun things (Resilient Sphere, the Prismatic and Hand spells), and it's not as though it's completely impossible to be a reasonably effective blaster using Evocation, and if the campaign is set up to present situations where those big area blasts are actually useful, somewhat more so. Again it's just that multiple other schools of magic are outright better (at minimum Conjuration, Illusion, and Transmutation), when one simply takes the rules as written. Plus the existence of Shadow Evocation is one of those insult added on to injury things that just makes it worse, and easier to dismiss the school.

[nightwyrm]

I think a lot of the issues with spells and schools are legacy issues. The majority of the spells were designed with a different game in mind. A different game where monsters have lower hps and saves are always easier to make as monsters get tougher. A game where wacky spells have wacky drawbacks (haste ages you one year, polymorphing someone else can kill them, etc.).

When spells were ported into 3.x, a lot of the simple spells (eg. damage spells) were simply copied over while wacky spells with long write-ups gets simplified and have drawback removed.

[Ivanhoe]

We are now at the point where you have to define the size of the target and the size of the team. In some cases a large explosion on one side of the target might permit a team to approach on the other side; a demonstration, as it were. It depends upon how disciplined the enemy troops are, and how smart their commander, and many other variables; but you can certainly imagine situations where, e.g., troops would be shifted to the side of a fort where an explosion just made a hole in the wall, permitting a small elite team to scale the wall on the other side.

A wizard with a wand of fireballs on the east side could convince a less-smart commander that the assault is about to occur there, while the team of Warblades sprints towards the west wall under the cover of a darkness spell. The non-disciplined troops on the west wall are so busy looking over their shoulders at the noise and fire behind them that they don't notice the moving blob of darkness until it's only a few yards away from the wall. And then 10 level 10 Warblades leap onto the parapet among the level 1 warriors, and gruesomeness ensues.

The smart commander with disciplined troops lights the Warblades up with concentrated archery fire as soon as they come in range. As I said, it matters who is inside the fort.

Excellent scenario. Yes, this is what I imagined an evoker can contribute to an infliltration goal or the group.

Buit again, as you also said, it depends on the situation.

[Sheogoroth]

There are some tricks to make it pretty darn amazing with ECL boosters, and you see the most immediate benefit on that front.
But most spells have built-in parameters of maximum spell damage dice that
The dirtiest trick I know is Practiced Spellcaster + Wildmage which can give you up to a net +6 caster level, but fireball has a maximum of 10d6- you reach the cap very rapidly to be sure, which is why evocation might be the best for low levels, but you reach a cap nonetheless- which turns you into a 1- trick pony that isn't getting much better at said trick.

[Juntao112]

We are now at the point where you have to define the size of the target and the size of the team. In some cases a large explosion on one side of the target might permit a team to approach on the other side; a demonstration, as it were. It depends upon how disciplined the enemy troops are, and how smart their commander, and many other variables; but you can certainly imagine situations where, e.g., troops would be shifted to the side of a fort where an explosion just made a hole in the wall, permitting a small elite team to scale the wall on the other side.
I can also imagine situations where the enemy commander is so stupid that he links all of his ships from stem to stern before a naval battle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Red_Cliffs), which makes him vulnerable to attack by fire, and loses his fleet. Doesn't mean its likely, though.


A wizard with a wand of fireballs on the east side could convince a less-smart commander that the assault is about to occur there, while the team of Warblades sprints towards the west wall under the cover of a darkness spell. The non-disciplined troops on the west wall are so busy looking over their shoulders at the noise and fire behind them that they don't notice the moving blob of darkness until it's only a few yards away from the wall. And then 10 level 10 Warblades leap onto the parapet among the level 1 warriors, and gruesomeness ensues.

I agree that this is an example of an evoker supporting his allies, though this is definitely not an evoker supporting infiltration.


An army with 1st level mooks? Defnitely the "prepared, yet not perfect" category :smallsmile:
What about a more experienced army?


Well, charity aside, thanks for starting to see the uses of an evoker as providing stealth support for a group!
Don't put words into my mouth. I am simply stating that, in the best case scenario, you're not supporting well.


Yes. In the right circumstances (say, shadowy illumination or my barn wall example also nearby but not in the spot where the group has to hide etc.).

Do you know how sensitive the human eye is? (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html) Its really quite sensitive. (http://www.livescience.com/33895-human-eye.html)

But we're not talking real-life here, we're talking about D&D. So I guess the question is whether the infiltrators have enough ranks in the Hide skill to reliably hide from guards, and what the Spot check is to notice that a shadowy illumination cuts off abruptly at the 20ft mark.



More seriously, inivisiblity sphere lasts 5 minutes by a 5th level caster. It can help in many circumstances, in many others it will not be enough, while a 50 minute darkness stone activated at will is still usable by the inflitration group.
Quality over quantity. Especially when 50 minutes of Darkness can be a liability.

As eggynack pointed out, your team is either
1. In a darker area, in which case you do not use the Darkness.
2. In an area with the same lighting, in which case you do not use the Darkness.
3. In a lighter area, in which case using Darkness makes you more noticeable since you're changing the lighting in a well-define 20ft radius.

[HammeredWharf]

"Infiltrating" a stronghold of mooks is rather pointless at level 10. At that point, your druid friends could just blow the entire thing up with tornadoes and be done with it.

[eggynack]

"Infiltrating" a stronghold of mooks is rather pointless at level 10. At that point, your druid friends could just blow the entire thing up with tornadoes and be done with it.
Probably hurricanes unless you're pushing CL, which you probably should be, but the point holds. I'd probably just go with blizzard though. That spell is crazy for thing destruction, and it even has a stealth component, because enemies can't see in the blizzard. Pack up all of your allies with snowsight and go to town. We've just constructed this absurdly specific situation, which requires pretty odd rulings to work, and evocation is still the inferior choice to pretty much anything else. Evocation has its place. It has a lot of places, actually. That place is just not this place.

[HammeredWharf]

Probably hurricanes unless you're pushing CL, which you probably should be, but the point holds.

One could argue Control Winds stacks with itself. It's not a bonus and modifies a natural phenomenon. Personally, I wouldn't allow it or use it, but it's still worth noting in a theoretical situation. But yes, hurricanes would do the job just fine.

[eggynack]

One could argue Control Winds stacks with itself. It's not a bonus and modifies a natural phenomenon. Personally, I wouldn't allow it or use it, but it's still worth noting in a theoretical situation. But yes, hurricanes would do the job just fine.
I'm somewhat doubtful. You're talking about a continuous magical effect with a duration, and those don't stack with themselves by the rules. You might be able to stack with something like eye of the hurricane though.

[Vogonjeltz]

Orbs can crit though, by virtue of having an attack roll.

Let's run through the SRD then, using Eggynack's numbers for a level 7. For most of these, I'm not factoring in multiple opponents, becaue it raises the encounter's CR; just straight up "Which spell better kills a level-appropriate target?"

Aboleth: +3 Ref gives a 30% Save rate (70% success) and Touch AC of 9 gives 85% success. Advantage Orb.

Air Elemental: Huge: This guy literally only fails his Reflex save on a 1, thanks to a whopping +19 Reflex. Meanwhile, the Orb can still actually hit this thing, thanks to a Touch AC of 17 only blocking 55% of the attacks, leaving 45% to slip through.

Animated Object: Gargantuan: 70% Fireball, but 95% Orb thanks to a laughable Touch AC of 4.

Black Pudding: A -2 Ref and a Touch AC of 3 means both hit except for critical failures. I'm willing to give this one to Fireball though, as the ooze's Split ability makes it more likely you'll end up with multiple targets to hit.

Bulette: Reflex +8 = 45% chance at full damage; Touch 10 means 80% Ranged Touch Attack. Orb.

Chaos Beast: Here we have our first alphabetical creature with SR. 50% no save, but a full 35% (SR 15 vs Caster Level 7 = pass on an 8) of Fireballs fizzle, for an overall success rate of 32.5%. Compared to a touch AC of 11, for a 75% Success rate, Orb wins handily.

Chimera: See Above. Incidentally, Writing out the bonuses each time is getting kind of pointless; I'm shortening it to end calculations

Chuul: 60% No save, 70% Orb

Criosphinx: 50% Fireball, 85% Orb

Cryohydra (6 heads): 55% Fireball, 85% Orb

Dire Bear: 40% Fireball, 80% Orb

Dragonne: 45% Fireball, 75% Orb

Drider: 65% Fireball, 75% Orb

Earth Elemental: Huge: 65% Fireball, 95% Orb (Hits on a 2)

Elasmosaurus: 40% Fireball, 80% Orb

Elephant: 50% Fireball, 90% Orb

Fire Elemental: Huge: Discounted for obvious reasons :smalltongue: Although Fire Orb, weirdly, can still daze, as immunity to Fire only addresses the damage and not the rider. Still, a Level 0 spell's functionality is better than none.

Flesh Golem: Fireball can't hurt at all no matter what, Orb cuts right through Immunity to Magic (90% it hits Touch AC)

Formian Task Master: 45% Fireball, 65% Orb

Hellcat: 30% No save x 55% SR Fizzle = 16.5% Fireball, 60% Orb.

Hill Giant: 70% Fireball, 90% Orb

Hydra (8 heads): 50% Fireball, 85% Orb

Invisible Stalker: 35% Fireball, 65% Hit x 50% Total Concealment (invisibility) = 32.5% Orb. Fireball wins by a nose, as well as being a heck of a lot easier to aim if you don't know the specific square it's in.

Lilend: 35% Fireball, 70% Orb

Medusa: 50% Fireball, 70% Orb

Monstrous Scorpion: Huge: 70% Fireball, 90% Orb

Nymph: 25% Fireball, 45% Orb

Ogre Barbarian: See above

Phasm: 30% Fireball, 70% Orb.

Pyrohydra (6 heads): Immune to all damage, but Orb can still technically Daze.

Succubus: 50% no save x 50% SR Fizzle = 25% Fireball, 75% Orb

Water Elemental: Huge: 40% Fireball, 70% Orb

Water Naga: 60% Fireball, 80% Orb

Alas, I'll be filling in the Remorhaz, Scorpionfolk, Cloud Giant Skeleton, Spectre, and Cachalot Whale when d20SRD stops 404ing on me.

EDIT: And lo, the unnecessary belabouring of the point continues!

Cachalot Whale: 40% Fireball, Orb hits on a 2

Cloud Giant Skeleton: 50% Fireball, 80% Orb

Remorhaz: 55% Fireball, 85% Orb (As a side note, jeez, I've never noticed before how dangerous that Swallow Whole is. Average 47 damage from a successful grapple check? OW)

Spectre: 60% Fireball, 55% Orb. Hey, advantage Fireball!

Scorpionfolk: I hope this information is accurate; the d20SRD can't find it, but another site that appears to be an archive of the original d20SRD page is working. 40% no save x 50% SR Fizzle = 20% Fireball, 80% Orb.

In summary, most monsters in the SRD at CR 7 can be more easily damaged by the Orb of Fire than Fireball. Unfortunately, I haven't enough caffeine handy to also work out what the average damages for each creature is, to see if the fact that none of these monsters has Evasion has any significant effect. My gut feeling though is that it's not enough to overcome the much greater hit rate of the Orb or its potential Daze rider effect. The fact that the Orb can also do *something* to every creature here, even if Daze from a 4th level slot isn't exactly efficient, is also something it has going for it, mostly because the idea of flinging fire at a creature literally made of fire and having it impede it in some fashion is hilarious.

If you don't test versus multiple targets then you might as well not bother testing at all. The fireball is an AoE, using it in a single target will always be less effective than using a single target spell.

You wasted a lot of post attacking a straw man, so I've spoilered it.

[ryu]

If you don't test versus multiple targets then you might as well not bother testing at all. The fireball is an AoE, using it in a single target will always be less effective than using a single target spell.

You wasted a lot of post attacking a straw man, so I've spoilered it.

Thing is crowds are already some of the least threatening things in the game on average. Higher numbers in CR means lower defensive prowess, individual durability, weaker attack potential, and easy take downs with simple divide and conquer tactics. Keeping all of this in mind, if fireball is only relevant against basically the least threatening combat scenario in the entire game, why is fireball relevant to begin with again?

[eggynack]

If you don't test versus multiple targets then you might as well not bother testing at all. The fireball is an AoE, using it in a single target will always be less effective than using a single target spell.

You wasted a lot of post attacking a straw man, so I've spoilered it.
But, y'know, being able to actually kill the thing you want to kill is more important than just dealing haphazard damage to crappy targets. Besides, the chance of an enemy failing against an orb seems greater than against a fireball to the extent that it's worth only hitting one enemy, especially when there's a chance of debuff after. This is also right after you get orb of fire, when it's at its worst. Run those numbers again, this time at level 12, and the fireball will compare even more unfavorably. As is, there are absolutely no straw men here. You explicitly said that a target would be more likely to fail the save than to fail to dodge the ranged touch attack. He wasn't attacking a straw man. He was attacking you, or rather your claims, as was I.

[Vogonjeltz]

But, y'know, being able to actually kill the thing you want to kill is more important than just dealing haphazard damage to crappy targets. Besides, the chance of an enemy failing against an orb seems greater than against a fireball to the extent that it's worth only hitting one enemy, especially when there's a chance of debuff after. This is also right after you get orb of fire, when it's at its worst. Run those numbers again, this time at level 12, and the fireball will compare even more unfavorably. As is, there are absolutely no straw men here. You explicitly said that a target would be more likely to fail the save than to fail to dodge the ranged touch attack. He wasn't attacking a straw man. He was attacking you, or rather your claims, as was I.

Sorry the single orb isn't killing a hydra at CR 7. The fireball, on the other hand, will kill several lower CR targets where a single higher level spell would still kill only one.

He was comparing the best case scenario for the orb (a single target) vs the worst case scenario for the fireball (a single target). That's the straw man I was referring to because it is an easy argument to make and one that I never actually made. The very definition of a straw man.

By comparison, the fireball could kill 3 CR 4 barghests, an equivalent challenge, while the orb could only kill 1. (Or 3 gargoyles;

Similarly, one fireball could conceivably eliminate an entire war band of goblins (mounted on worgs). Orb? Not so much.

[eggynack]

He was comparing the best case scenario for the orb (a single target) vs the worst case scenario for the fireball (a single target). That's the straw man I was referring to because it is an easy argument to make and one that I never actually made. The very definition of a straw man.




It's more likely that a target will fail the save than not dodge the ranged touch attack.
It seems a lot like an argument you made to me. You even had incorrect theoretical numbers to support your incorrect point. This is the opposite of a straw man. In any case, yeah, fireballs are better at killing goblins. As Mark Twain once so eloquently said, "So what?" Killing goblins is easy, and a good number of other wizard spells do that job fine. And yeah, a regular orb won't kill a hydra. Pretty much no non-metamagic'd spell will on its own, which is part of why blasting sucks. That's usually why you use metamagic, such that these spells actually do something.

[zionpopsickle]

And stinking cloud can basically end every one of those encounters anyway and is also useful against casters, big single enemies, and as a practical joke.

Look, I am a huge proponent of fireball being an underrated spell but it isn't actually all that good because it attacks one of the weakest strategies an enemy can use against your party. Mooks are not a good metric to test anything against because mooks are not supposed to be a challenge.

[Vogonjeltz]

And stinking cloud can basically end every one of those encounters anyway and is also useful against casters, big single enemies, and as a practical joke.

Look, I am a huge proponent of fireball being an underrated spell but it isn't actually all that good because it attacks one of the weakest strategies an enemy can use against your party. Mooks are not a good metric to test anything against because mooks are not supposed to be a challenge.

Making them nauseous doesn't kill them, and it most certainly doesn't end the encounter.

Killing a goblin is easy. But then, so is killing kobolds, right?

[zionpopsickle]

You do know what nausea does right? If the enemies are nauseated there isn't an encounter left since they cannot take any real offensive actions against you (unless you get into a Tucker's kobolds situation which is a separate encounter really). After nauseating the enemy any party beater can just walk around and execute all the enemies at their leisure.

[eggynack]

Really, if you're facing off against Tucker's kobolds, I'm pretty doubtful that fireball will be the spell you want. Your enemies are all hidden and spread out and stuff.

[ryu]

Really, if you're facing off against Tucker's kobolds, I'm pretty doubtful that fireball will be the spell you want. Your enemies are all hidden and spread out and stuff.

The most ideal answer to that scenario is selective contingent death from above. For when you must be absolutely certain that ALL the kobolds in the surrounding area are beyond deadificated.

[HaikenEdge]

Surely if you're involved in Tucker's Kobold, the correct tactic is to not antagonize them, and instead try to find a diplomatic solution, lest they throw an endless amount of Kobolds at you.

[ryu]

Surely if you're involved in Tucker's Kobold, the correct tactic is to not antagonize them, and instead try to find a diplomatic solution, lest they throw an endless amount of Kobolds at you.

They can't throw endless kobolds at me if everything in a ten mile radius that isn't me just died.

[pyromanser244]

Thing is crowds are already some of the least threatening things in the game on average. Higher numbers in CR means lower defensive prowess, individual durability, weaker attack potential, and easy take downs with simple divide and conquer tactics.

I'm going to have to disagree on this point. a large group of enemies is actually scarier than a single BBEG in most cases, at least by my experience. even when the BBEG actually is more powerful than the entire party he still has a problem, namely that the party gets several times the number of actions per round. for example, the traditional party of 4 is going to end up getting about 4 times as much done as any single character can (assuming they have equal access to action economy shenanigans). and if there existed a way for the BBEG to get 20 different actions off in his turn he'd actually be worse off since the party could use the same techniques against him. this is an arms race that the single BBEG simply can't win without DMs banning stuff for the players but not the BBEG.

on the other hand a group of enemies can easily own this and other advantages against the party. and the only downside the group has, smaller stat numbers, isn't written in stone. there is no rule saying that BBEGs can't team up, or that all groups must be comprised of easily killed clowns. an encounter can use many old dragons as a challenge and be just as valid as those that used only 1. if this sort of thing isn't often done, it has more to do with assumptions made about "fair play" and the conditions for "winning" an encounter than with any concrete game mechanics.

[eggynack]

on the other hand a group of enemies can easily own this and other advantages against the party. and the only downside the group has, smaller stat numbers, isn't written in stone. there is no rule saying that BBEGs can't team up, or that all groups must be comprised of easily killed clowns. an encounter can use many old dragons as a challenge and be just as valid as those that used only 1. if this sort of thing isn't often done, it has more to do with assumptions made about "fair play" and the conditions for "winning" an encounter than with any concrete game mechanics.
You seem to be talking about a different thing here than killing a bunch of mooks, which was the challenge proposed. This is more like killing two or three high power enemies, which is a valid situation, but I don't think that it's a situation that makes fireball a superior choice. Even when facing a few hard hitting enemies, you'd still rather use the reliable single target spell over the spell that hits a bunch of targets unreliably, because you care more about having one enemy dead than you do about having several enemies injured. Moreover, difficult encounters will often have increased defenses, above and beyond even what the statistical analysis indicated before. This will usually mean a lower chance of fireball based success, because there are a lot of easily accessible fireball defenses, and it will mean a similar chance of orb based success, because there aren't many defenses against orbs.

[georgie_leech]

I'm going to have to disagree on this point. a large group of enemies is actually scarier than a single BBEG in most cases, at least by my experience. even when the BBEG actually is more powerful than the entire party he still has a problem, namely that the party gets several times the number of actions per round. for example, the traditional party of 4 is going to end up getting about 4 times as much done as any single character can (assuming they have equal access to action economy shenanigans). and if there existed a way for the BBEG to get 20 different actions off in his turn he'd actually be worse off since the party could use the same techniques against him. this is an arms race that the single BBEG simply can't win without DMs banning stuff for the players but not the BBEG.

on the other hand a group of enemies can easily own this and other advantages against the party. and the only downside the group has, smaller stat numbers, isn't written in stone. there is no rule saying that BBEGs can't team up, or that all groups must be comprised of easily killed clowns. an encounter can use many old dragons as a challenge and be just as valid as those that used only 1. if this sort of thing isn't often done, it has more to do with assumptions made about "fair play" and the conditions for "winning" an encounter than with any concrete game mechanics.

Like I mentioned in the post, I was just looking at equal CR Encounters, because trying to sort out every possible combination that gets up to cr 7 would have taken me until now just to write them out, let alone figure out the math. I was also mostly just running the numbers on which spell is more likely to hit, not so much which out damages. In this case, with Eggynack's barebones numbers, the Reflex Save of the creature has to be 10 points lower than Touch AC to be more accurate. Besides, both spells are situational to an extent. Band of weaker creatures/mooks? Fireball away. More powerful single target creature with equal cr? you're probably going to hit more often with the Orb. Band of Old Dragons? I'd suggest BFC if you feel like being risky or the tried and true "Running the Hell away" if you have any sense of self preservation.

[ryu]

I'm going to have to disagree on this point. a large group of enemies is actually scarier than a single BBEG in most cases, at least by my experience. even when the BBEG actually is more powerful than the entire party he still has a problem, namely that the party gets several times the number of actions per round. for example, the traditional party of 4 is going to end up getting about 4 times as much done as any single character can (assuming they have equal access to action economy shenanigans). and if there existed a way for the BBEG to get 20 different actions off in his turn he'd actually be worse off since the party could use the same techniques against him. this is an arms race that the single BBEG simply can't win without DMs banning stuff for the players but not the BBEG.

on the other hand a group of enemies can easily own this and other advantages against the party. and the only downside the group has, smaller stat numbers, isn't written in stone. there is no rule saying that BBEGs can't team up, or that all groups must be comprised of easily killed clowns. an encounter can use many old dragons as a challenge and be just as valid as those that used only 1. if this sort of thing isn't often done, it has more to do with assumptions made about "fair play" and the conditions for "winning" an encounter than with any concrete game mechanics.

You and I play at hilariously different optimization levels. Each side in our wizard chess conflicts is never going to run out of actions. No not even then. Why? Arbitrarily large amounts of contingent spells. What do I mean by arbitrarily large? Literally any number of contingent spells of any level can be prepared up to and including sets requiring scientific notation to be readable. Conflict in our games doesn't even care about initiative counts when people get serious.

[JaronK]

A lot of people are comparing Orb of Fire to Fireball, but the only thing that needs to be said there is that Conjuration has a solid blast spell, so blasting is still an option if you drop Evocation. Which one is better is actually not relevant, so long as they're debatably in the same league.

In general, when we look at schools to ban, we're figuring out what options are denied us. With Evocation, you lose a lot of blast spells... but you still have a lot. Orb spells are an obvious example. Maw of Chaos is for some reason Abjuration, so the highest damage blast spell is still yours. So blasting isn't lost. Really what you lose is Contingency... except Greater Shadow Evocation does that too. In fact, that spell alone gives you all the utility you'd ever need from Evocation. This means you don't actually lose any options by banning Evocation.

By comparison, banning Conjuration means you can't teleport, nor can you use Planar Binding to summon up powerful minions with spells. Necromancy can get you minions too, but you can't pick them, you can only hope to blunder into them. Same goes for Enchantment. Pickable minions is so powerful it's game breaking (Efreeti!). And Teleportation is all kinds of awesome. Conjuration also lets you build castles when you're bored, which is harder to do with just Transmutation.

So in the end, it's not that Evocation is terrible... it's that you lose the least by dropping that as one of your schools. Between Conjuration/Abjuration blast spells and Shadow Evocation for utility, you basically lose nothing at all.

JaronK

[Ivanhoe]

In general, when we look at schools to ban, we're figuring out what options are denied us. With Evocation, you lose a lot of blast spells... but you still have a lot. Orb spells are an obvious example. Maw of Chaos is for some reason Abjuration, so the highest damage blast spell is still yours. So blasting isn't lost. Really what you lose is Contingency... except Greater Shadow Evocation does that too. In fact, that spell alone gives you all the utility you'd ever need from Evocation. This means you don't actually lose any options by banning Evocation.

By comparison, banning Conjuration means you can't teleport, nor can you use Planar Binding to summon up powerful minions with spells. Necromancy can get you minions too, but you can't pick them, you can only hope to blunder into them. Same goes for Enchantment. Pickable minions is so powerful it's game breaking (Efreeti!). And Teleportation is all kinds of awesome. Conjuration also lets you build castles when you're bored, which is harder to do with just Transmutation.

So in the end, it's not that Evocation is terrible... it's that you lose the least by dropping that as one of your schools. Between Conjuration/Abjuration blast spells and Shadow Evocation for utility, you basically lose nothing at all.

JaronK

I would tend to disagree. Even conjuration could be banned for a specialist using other spells to emulate what conjuration offers.
Necromancy and Enchantment were mentioned to get minions, there is also shadow conjuration/shades. It is less reliable and possibly weaker, sure, but potentially more candidates than conjuration, plus - in the case of necromancy and enchantment - they also last longer. Also, "pickable minions" with conjuration when looking at calling effects is often a wild card of DM interpretation, including whether the conjurer would even know the creatures and all their abilities to pick from (i.e. metagaming and cherrypicking all monster manuals).
Losing teleportation hurts, but similar to getting contingency with a higher-level spell (shadow evocation), you can get teleport and plane shift effects via limited wish/wish spells, as well as shadow walk and astral projection.

I'd say a wizard specialising depends much more on what a player wants to achieve in general and what fluff he likes, rather than schools that objectively speaking can be dropped in all cases.



What about a more experienced army?

Then we are talking about a higher level wizard, I suppose, and higher level scenario.


Don't put words into my mouth. I am simply stating that, in the best case scenario, you're not supporting well.

Sorry. But again even here you say, you can imagine a situation where an evoker is supporting infiltration. That is all I'm saying, too. It is just the number of situations an evocation spell can help infiltration and stealth missions that we disagree on, it seems.


Do you know how sensitive the human eye is? (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html) Its really quite sensitive. (http://www.livescience.com/33895-human-eye.html)

Yes, but it has no game mechanism mentioned for this - the DM would decide whether guards/npcs get spot checks to detect something is odd.


But we're not talking real-life here, we're talking about D&D. So I guess the question is whether the infiltrators have enough ranks in the Hide skill to reliably hide from guards, and what the Spot check is to notice that a shadowy illumination cuts off abruptly at the 20ft mark.

Yes, indeed, that is the question. In some cases it will work, in some it will be impossible.


Quality over quantity. Especially when 50 minutes of Darkness can be a liability.

Not when used smartly. Plus, it could be used to make an escape (for instance, when they get detected, darkness is brought up immediately, they can hide and sneak away with the darkness between them and the guards: Edit: on a second thought, probably not in most cases since the guards would still be able to see/observe them and they do not have hide in plain sight - would also make darkness way too powerful).


As eggynack pointed out, your team is either
1. In a darker area, in which case you do not use the Darkness.
2. In an area with the same lighting, in which case you do not use the Darkness.
3. In a lighter area, in which case using Darkness makes you more noticeable since you're changing the lighting in a well-define 20ft radius.

And 4. in an area that would otherwise allow no hide checks and still not be immediately suspicious. The possibilities of scenarios are simply too vast to completely exclude darkness will ever be able to be of some help.

But I think it is no more use to discuss this further. We agree to disagree, I guess.

[Juntao112]

Then we are talking about a higher level wizard, I suppose, and higher level scenario.
Only if every enemy you go up against is CR appropriate. Which would be odd...


Yes, but it has no game mechanism mentioned for this - the DM would decide whether guards/npcs get spot checks to detect something is odd.

And when he does, I would hope his ruling had some ground in reality. Otherwise, I guess its time to break out the Tower Shields...


Not when used smartly. Plus, it could be used to make an escape (for instance, when they get detected, darkness is brought up immediately, they can hide and sneak away with the darkness between them and the guards: Edit: on a second thought, probably not in most cases since the guards would still be able to see/observe them and they do not have hide in plain sight - would also make darkness way too powerful).

Yes... that's kind of what I've been saying.


And 4. in an area that would otherwise allow no hide checks and still not be immediately suspicious.

I am really curious; what kind of area would that be?

[Necroticplague]

I would tend to disagree. Even conjuration could be banned for a specialist using other spells to emulate what conjuration offers.
Necromancy and Enchantment were mentioned to get minions, there is also shadow conjuration/shades. It is less reliable and possibly weaker, sure, but potentially more candidates than conjuration, plus - in the case of necromancy and enchantment - they also last longer. Also, "pickable minions" with conjuration when looking at calling effects is often a wild card of DM interpretation, including whether the conjurer would even know the creatures and all their abilities to pick from (i.e. metagaming and cherrypicking all monster manuals).
Losing teleportation hurts, but similar to getting contingency with a higher-level spell (shadow evocation), you can get teleport and plane shift effects via limited wish/wish spells, as well as shadow walk and astral projection.

I'd say a wizard specialising depends much more on what a player wants to achieve in general and what fluff he likes, rather than schools that objectively speaking can be dropped in all cases.

Pray do tell, how are you going to emulate Conjuration if you drop it? the Shadow spells only allow for conjuration spells of the creation or summoning subschool. Wish can emulate lower level stuff, but you can equally say that about all schools (do note wish has an XP cost while shadow spells don't).In addition, Conjuration loses out being emulated by Shadow abilities because they are effected by being only partially real, while the evocation spells you want (wind wall, wall of force, contingency) don't. Necromancy and Enchantment to get minions is unreliable at best. Plus, conjuration allows you to get Outsiders with potent SLAs/SU abililities. Which you can't get with necromancy because they dissolve on death, and all the ones you'd want have saves or immunities that make Dominating a crapshoot. Knowledge of something to summon is just a relatively easy Knowledge (planes) away.

[TuggyNE]

Necromancy and Enchantment were mentioned to get minions, there is also shadow conjuration/shades. It is less reliable and possibly weaker, sure, but potentially more candidates than conjuration, plus - in the case of necromancy and enchantment - they also last longer. Also, "pickable minions" with conjuration when looking at calling effects is often a wild card of DM interpretation, including whether the conjurer would even know the creatures and all their abilities to pick from (i.e. metagaming and cherrypicking all monster manuals).

Knowledge checks require no metagaming and are Core. Most full casters also get the appropriate skills on their class list. Done.

Conjuration minions are not merely pickable: they are pickable from some of the best monsters in the game, Outsiders (and Elementals, and some others). You can get SLAs and Sus and movement modes and all kinds of things. Enchantment cannot do this without first a) encountering and b) defeating the monster to begin with; Necromancy cannot do this at all without certain specific high-level spells or class abilities, and when it does, it's subject to the same problem as Enchantment.

In other words, Conjuration minionmancy is strictly proactive (and is far more difficult to defend against), while others are almost strictly reactive.

(Shadow conjuration can summon and create, but cannot call or teleport, which are the most open-ended subschools. Shades… is a ninth-level spell. Just give in and use gate already.)

[Rastapopolos]

you can imagine a situation where an evoker is supporting infiltration.

Something like this? http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0157.html :smallbiggrin:

[Gwendol]

I guess it also will have to depend on at which level the game is at. Evocation offers one of few ways to deal with incorporel and invisible creatures at level 1.

[Vogonjeltz]

You do know what nausea does right? If the enemies are nauseated there isn't an encounter left since they cannot take any real offensive actions against you (unless you get into a Tucker's kobolds situation which is a separate encounter really). After nauseating the enemy any party beater can just walk around and execute all the enemies at their leisure.

Goblins have a +3 fort save, their worg mounts have a +6, that means only about 1/2 the goblins are likely to fail, and only around 1/4 of the mounts. That's not the worst choice, but it's outright inferior to using fireball.

Sorry I didn't multiquote, but don't contingencies take like a day to put on? Isn't that unlikely to be available in most adventure scenarios?

[eggynack]

Goblins have a +3 fort save, their worg mounts have a +6, that means only about 1/2 the goblins are likely to fail, and only around 1/4 of the mounts. That's not the worst choice, but it's outright inferior to using fireball.
That's not outright inferior at all. A creature who's still in the cloud after a round has to make another save, and failing the save is as good as death when you'll still be nauseated for at least two rounds when it goes away. The cloud also makes seeing harder, and controls the direction of engagement as only a big cloud of death can. Fireball is just one and done losing any tactical impact on combat beyond that individual round. Hell, what if other goblins follow in the footsteps of the first group, or what if there're more enemies than you can capture effectively in a 20 foot radius? You'll be pretty glad you cast a stinking cloud then.

Finally, stinking cloud is still awesome when you're not facing an army of goblins. Toss the thing at a big enemy who wouldn't even die to a fireball if they failed their save, and their failure in this case would likely mean an easy death, and toss it at a few strong enemies who would also not die to fireball (because seriously, it's not that much damage), and they also have a good chance of just dying. There are likely some situations where fireball has some advantage, but stinking cloud is really good in this situation, and it's also really good in other situations, and that makes it a spell worth preparing. Prepping a spell in the hopes that a pretty specific situation will come up, when you could otherwise prepare a spell for that situation and also a lot of others, is a bad idea.

[Philistine]

A +3 Fort save vs Stinking Cloud is only a 50% chance of success if you assume the caster has a 10 or 11 in their casting stat - at which point he couldn't legally be casting a 3rd-level spell anyway. More realistically, then, the spell will completely incapacitate around 2/3 of the goblins and slightly over 1/2 the worgs on average.

Meanwhile the Fireball is likely to kill all of the goblins, but will leave all of the worgs completely unimpeded - even full damage is very unlikely to kill them, and about half of them will only take half damage (since their Ref save is as good as their Fort save).

[Talderas]

I'm going to have to disagree on this point. a large group of enemies is actually scarier than a single BBEG in most cases

The only reason a horde of mooks has any chance of defeating a much more powerful enemy is because of the nature of the system and guaranteed success or failure on rolls of 1 or 20. Things like damage reduction, elemental resistance, and immunities makes even though auto-failures a tickle if they have any effect at all.

--


Goblins have a +3 fort save, their worg mounts have a +6, that means only about 1/2 the goblins are likely to fail, and only around 1/4 of the mounts. That's not the worst choice, but it's outright inferior to using fireball.

Sorry I didn't multiquote, but don't contingencies take like a day to put on? Isn't that unlikely to be available in most adventure scenarios?

Goblin: +3 fort, +1 ref, -1 will, 5hp
Worg: +6 fort, +6 ref, +3 will, 30hp

Fireball, DC17 Ref. Damage range 5-30. Average damage 17.
Stinking Cloud, DC17 Fort.

Goblins save on stinking cloud on a roll of 14-20 (35% chance) and save on a roll against fireball of 16-20 (25% chance). Worgs save on stinking cloud or fireball on a roll of 11-20 (50% chance).

The goblins are entities that don't matter in this scenario since it's the worgs that provide all danger. If a worg succeeds on his reflex save then he's lost about a little under 1/4th of its hp and fully capable of taking actions. If a worg fails on his reflex save then he's lost about a little over 1/2th of its hp and fully capable of taking actions. If a worg succeds on his fortitude save then he's lost no hitpoints and fully capable of taking actions. If a worg fails on his reflex save then he's lost no hitpoints and incapable of taking actions.

We can reasonably assume that the stinking cloud will disables about two thirds of goblins and one half of worgs while fireball disables all the goblins and no worgs. Even if you can't go around executing all the worgs before nausea wears off it does prevent the worgs from being a danger for the duration of nausea. This means have a better numerical ratio against the worgs.

[Hurnn]

Mostly because of hp creep and the fact they nerfed the **** out of the spells.

lets look at Fireball

They increased the range by quite a bit and the area is theoretically the same but what is missing in the is volume. throw a 3.5 fire ball into a 50 by 50 by 10 room and you fry everything but whats at the outer edges. Do the same with an 1st or 2nd ed fireball and you fry the room and anything 100' down the corridor too. put your aim point on the ground and you get a 25' radius which doesn't sound like much but its 16 extra squares.

That said Evocation still has plenty of sweet spells, just the ones that do damage are lamer than any other schools spells that do damage...

[Vogonjeltz]

That's not outright inferior at all. A creature who's still in the cloud after a round has to make another save, and failing the save is as good as death when you'll still be nauseated for at least two rounds when it goes away. The cloud also makes seeing harder, and controls the direction of engagement as only a big cloud of death can. Fireball is just one and done losing any tactical impact on combat beyond that individual round. Hell, what if other goblins follow in the footsteps of the first group, or what if there're more enemies than you can capture effectively in a 20 foot radius? You'll be pretty glad you cast a stinking cloud then.

Finally, stinking cloud is still awesome when you're not facing an army of goblins. Toss the thing at a big enemy who wouldn't even die to a fireball if they failed their save, and their failure in this case would likely mean an easy death, and toss it at a few strong enemies who would also not die to fireball (because seriously, it's not that much damage), and they also have a good chance of just dying. There are likely some situations where fireball has some advantage, but stinking cloud is really good in this situation, and it's also really good in other situations, and that makes it a spell worth preparing. Prepping a spell in the hopes that a pretty specific situation will come up, when you could otherwise prepare a spell for that situation and also a lot of others, is a bad idea.

Why would anyone stay in the cloud? Or enter it?


The only reason a horde of mooks has any chance of defeating a much more powerful enemy is because of the nature of the system and guaranteed success or failure on rolls of 1 or 20. Things like damage reduction, elemental resistance, and immunities makes even though auto-failures a tickle if they have any effect at all.

--



Goblin: +3 fort, +1 ref, -1 will, 5hp
Worg: +6 fort, +6 ref, +3 will, 30hp

Fireball, DC17 Ref. Damage range 5-30. Average damage 17.
Stinking Cloud, DC17 Fort.

Goblins save on stinking cloud on a roll of 14-20 (35% chance) and save on a roll against fireball of 16-20 (25% chance). Worgs save on stinking cloud or fireball on a roll of 11-20 (50% chance).

The goblins are entities that don't matter in this scenario since it's the worgs that provide all danger. If a worg succeeds on his reflex save then he's lost about a little under 1/4th of its hp and fully capable of taking actions. If a worg fails on his reflex save then he's lost about a little over 1/2th of its hp and fully capable of taking actions. If a worg succeds on his fortitude save then he's lost no hitpoints and fully capable of taking actions. If a worg fails on his reflex save then he's lost no hitpoints and incapable of taking actions.

We can reasonably assume that the stinking cloud will disables about two thirds of goblins and one half of worgs while fireball disables all the goblins and no worgs. Even if you can't go around executing all the worgs before nausea wears off it does prevent the worgs from being a danger for the duration of nausea. This means have a better numerical ratio against the worgs.

I think the damage would be 7d6 (7-42) save for half (3.5-21)

[eggynack]

Why would anyone stay in the cloud? Or enter it?
Because there's folks on the end of the cloud closest to you. In the former case, they have difficulty leaving in a way which threatens you if there's some fighter or summons blocking the way, and in the latter case they have to enter if they want to reach your team. You're altering the direction of engagement, which is something that fireball cannot do. If enemies just won't go through the cloud, then you may as well have put a big wall up in the middle of the battlefield, and that's intrinsically useful.


I think the damage would be 7d6 (7-42) save for half (3.5-21)
I thought this assessment was taking place at 5th level, because both spells are 3rd level. In any case, average damage on a failed save is 24.5, which is still less than a worg's HP.

[georgie_leech]

I thought this assessment was taking place at 5th level, because both spells are 3rd level. In any case, average damage on a failed save is 24.5, which is still less than a worg's HP.

7th; Orb of Fire is 4th level.

[eggynack]

7th; Orb of Fire is 4th level.
No, I got that. We're talking about stinking cloud now however, which sets the minimum at 5. I don't know if we adjusted for that or not, though I assumed we did. Maybe not though.

[georgie_leech]

No, I got that. We're talking about stinking cloud now however, which sets the minimum at 5. I don't know if we adjusted for that or not, though I assumed we did. Maybe not though.

Ah, misunderstood. Carry on.

[Vogonjeltz]

Because there's folks on the end of the cloud closest to you. In the former case, they have difficulty leaving in a way which threatens you if there's some fighter or summons blocking the way, and in the latter case they have to enter if they want to reach your team. You're altering the direction of engagement, which is something that fireball cannot do. If enemies just won't go through the cloud, then you may as well have put a big wall up in the middle of the battlefield, and that's intrinsically useful.


I thought this assessment was taking place at 5th level, because both spells are 3rd level. In any case, average damage on a failed save is 24.5, which is still less than a worg's HP.

They could overrun in most cases (the worgs being large creatures) or simply move back the way they came. Being mounted on worgs gives these goblins tons of mobility and options.

True the average is less, so on average the ones who fail their saves will live. Of course none of the goblins survive.

Edit oops I'm thinking of the HD advanced versions of worgs

[eggynack]

They could overrun in most cases (the worgs being large creatures) or simply move back the way they came. Being mounted on worgs gives these goblins tons of mobility and options.
They have options, as they always did. Those options are just being limited by a lot. Worgs are actually medium creatures though, and pretty mediocre at overrunning as a result. Also, if the worgs are starting nauseated and trying to leave in the direction of your party, then they can only move each round, which is problematic, especially if they're trying the overrun thing. Backing away is a decent option, but then those worgs are out of combat, and that's time that you can take advantage of.

True the average is less, so on average the ones who fail their saves will live. Of course none of the goblins survive.
Pretty much. Nauseating about half the worgs is more important than killing all the goblins though, so stinking cloud is better, and that's probably even true with stinking cloud not sticking around. And it does stick around. It also nauseates most of the goblins, incidentally, which is nice. Options obviously get even better if you're at 7th level too. Just consider something like black tentacles or solid fog.

[Petrocorus]

All this discussion have confirmed what i already thought, orbs spell are probably a bit too good for their level and Conjuration didn't need them with all the other spells it already has, the clouds spell notably replace blasting and are more efficient. Orbs spell should probably be Evocation, and that won't make the school really better.

On a related note, does someone remember in what school was the teleportation sub-school before 3.5?



Now, which category do you think an army falls under?

Depends greatly on the competence of the general.



I feel like the backlash point shouldn't be underestimated, honestly. I mean, we have the term "Monkday" around here because regularly people will be coming in asking why Monks are not actually powerful (just look at all the stuff in their "Special"!!!)--a loooot of people outside forums like this hold the opinions that Monks are strong, Fireball is the best spell in the game, Tome of Battle is terrible and overpowered, 'dead levels' are the only flaw in something like the Fighter, Wizards are overly squishy, etc. I suspect frustration at people "Not Getting It" makes the arguments against Evocation (etc) harsher than they would otherwise be.
I wouldn't be surprise if in some gaming groups, Warlock are seen as more powerful than wizard because of the unlimited uses / day and fighter and pally considered as the best mêlée classes.
Not to mentioned the good ol' players who play 3.5 the same way they played 1st Ed. With Fireballing wizard, Shield & Broad Pally, and mostly healing cleric.

[Venger]

teleportation spells used to be transmutation in 3.0.

[ryu]

teleportation spells used to be transmutation in 3.0.

And making me need transmutation even harder than I already did actually further unbalances the schools.

[tonberrian]

Of course, evocation doesn't just have blasting. There's also Crushing Grip (PHBII), which starts off with a no save nerf to all checks, ac, and movement speed, and then adds a fort save vs. Paralysis at the beginning of your next turn - sadly it has a short duration, but even extended rapid Crushing Grip is at par on saving throws.

It's just a shame that evocation doesn't have a lot of spells like that.

[NotAnAardvark]

You have it backwards.

Evocation is just the only wizard tree that's not completely and utterly broken.

An optimized blaster is still better than half the classes in the game at least, it's just that the rest of the wizard's spell list is so completely and utterly insane.

[eggynack]

You have it backwards.

Evocation is just the only wizard tree that's not completely and utterly broken.

An optimized blaster is still better than half the classes in the game at least, it's just that the rest of the wizard's spell list is so completely and utterly insane.
I don't really understand why this equivalence is always drawn. Not all evokers are necessarily blasters, and not all blasters are necessarily evokers. Meanwhile, evocation is far from the only school that isn't broken. Enchantment is probably actually worse than evocation, and necromancy isn't doing that much better. I don't know if evocation would even be banned nearly as much as it is were shadow evocation not a thing. Losing contingency hurts like hell (as long as you're not just getting craft contingent spell).

[ryu]

I don't really understand why this equivalence is always drawn. Not all evokers are necessarily blasters, and not all blasters are necessarily evokers. Meanwhile, evocation is far from the only school that isn't broken. Enchantment is probably actually worse than evocation, and necromancy isn't doing that much better. I don't know if evocation would even be banned nearly as much as it is were shadow evocation not a thing. Losing contingency hurts like hell (as long as you're not just getting craft contingent spell).

And quite frankly why are you not just getting craft contingent spell? It's like contingency except better in like all of the ways at the same time.

[eggynack]

And quite frankly why are you not just getting craft contingent spell? It's like contingency except better in like all of the ways at the same time.
True enough. It's not so much that evocation lacks broken effects, but that the main broken effect, and most of the other major effects, can be replicated so efficiently.

[Vogonjeltz]

And quite frankly why are you not just getting craft contingent spell? It's like contingency except better in like all of the ways at the same time.

Doesn't it cost money? (or was it xp? or both?) I wouldn't say that's better, just different.

Actually, I might call it worse as the spell just costs slots.

[Talya]

Note that a greater shadow evocation contingency also works. (and since it's not an actual contingency, you can probably have a shadow evocation contingency AND a regular contingency...)

[ryu]

Doesn't it cost money? (or was it xp? or both?) I wouldn't say that's better, just different.

Actually, I might call it worse as the spell just costs slots.

First off the contingency spell does in fact have a cost beyond slots. You must keep a focus on your person at all times. That focus costs two thousand gold last I checked. Small, I'll admit, but it's something beyond spell slots.

Second crafting XP is obviated by ambrosia farming. Ambrosia is a substance that can be gathered in hilariously large amounts over time for what is as relatively low cost. It can also be used in place of XP in crafting.

Second the actual things craft contingent spell are capable of are far superior to contingency. Contingency limits you to only one contingent spell. Crafted contingent spells stack up to the number of HD on the creature the spells are attached to. Contingency limits the level of spell you're allowed to have and that the spell you're using must target you. Crafted contingent spells have neither of those limits. Do I need to go on with examples of the silly things these several key differences allow for at various levels of OP or have I made my case clear enough at this point?

[TuggyNE]

First off the contingency spell does in fact have a cost beyond slots. You must keep a focus on your person at all times. That focus costs two thousand gold last I checked. Small, I'll admit, but it's something beyond spell slots.

*1500gp. And, of course, fixed cost instead of variable cost, in the economic sense.

[ryu]

*1500gp. And, of course, fixed cost instead of variable cost, in the economic sense.

Shows how long it has been since I actually bothered reading that spell. Still the difference is hardly significant agreed?

[Vogonjeltz]

First off the contingency spell does in fact have a cost beyond slots. You must keep a focus on your person at all times. That focus costs two thousand gold last I checked. Small, I'll admit, but it's something beyond spell slots.

Second crafting XP is obviated by ambrosia farming. Ambrosia is a substance that can be gathered in hilariously large amounts over time for what is as relatively low cost. It can also be used in place of XP in crafting.

Second the actual things craft contingent spell are capable of are far superior to contingency. Contingency limits you to only one contingent spell. Crafted contingent spells stack up to the number of HD on the creature the spells are attached to. Contingency limits the level of spell you're allowed to have and that the spell you're using must target you. Crafted contingent spells have neither of those limits. Do I need to go on with examples of the silly things these several key differences allow for at various levels of OP or have I made my case clear enough at this point?

Ok but what is ambrosia, and what is the opportunity cost of obtaining it?

[ryu]

Ok but what is ambrosia, and what is the opportunity cost of obtaining it?

Ambrosia is the essense of pure joy extracted by the spell distilled joy. Basically anytime someone is happy you can turn that happy into crafting XP. This spell is a great thing to put in traps, clocks, and basically anything that can cast a spell without your direct involvement.

Considering my traditional method of getting this stuff en mass is to open a massive chain of brothels which I actually profit on and collect ambrosia at the same time? The opportunity cost is actually negative because I actually straight up get more out of the operation than I put in and very quickly at that.

[Necroticplague]

Ambrosia is the essense of pure joy extracted by the spell distilled joy. Basically anytime someone is happy you can turn that happy into crafting XP. This spell is a great thing to put in traps, clocks, and basically anything that can cast a spell without your direct involvement.

Considering my traditional method of getting this stuff en mass is to open a massive chain of brothels which I actually profit on and collect ambrosia at the same time? The opportunity cost is actually negative because I actually straight up get more out of the operation than I put in and very quickly at that.

My normal method is just to have people with nipple clamps of exquisite pleasure (makes pain feel like pleasure) stare at symbols of pain until their duration runs out. Lot less labor intensive if you have spell clocks/traps/this one weird construct with spellsongs to do the job for you. And takes up less space.

[Gavinfoxx]

My normal method is just to have people with nipple clamps of exquisite pleasure (makes pain feel like pleasure) stare at symbols of pain until their duration runs out. Lot less labor intensive if you have spell clocks/traps/this one weird construct with spellsongs to do the job for you. And takes up less space.

Don't like the BoVD stuff... I mention some other methods in my handbook here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aG4P3dU6WP3pq8mW9l1qztFeNfqQHyI22oJe09i8KWw/edit

[Vogonjeltz]

Ambrosia is the essense of pure joy extracted by the spell distilled joy. Basically anytime someone is happy you can turn that happy into crafting XP. This spell is a great thing to put in traps, clocks, and basically anything that can cast a spell without your direct involvement.

Considering my traditional method of getting this stuff en mass is to open a massive chain of brothels which I actually profit on and collect ambrosia at the same time? The opportunity cost is actually negative because I actually straight up get more out of the operation than I put in and very quickly at that.

Huh, and you never get robbed?? ( or face competition? Or have to adventure?)

Also, brothels are legal??

[ryu]

Huh, and you never get robbed?? ( or face competition? Or have to adventure?)

Also, brothels are legal??

First half of the post: Those are called plot hooks. If I'm to go around murder-hoboing I'd prefer it be against people who directly slighted me. or at least someone in the party. Makes it more personal. Also can you think of a funnier plot hook off the top of your head than D&D pimp war?

Second half: Medieval times are different from our times man. Any king disagrees? I think he'll find a man who can single-handedly break his entire economy on a whim through indirect action a rather powerful lobbyist.

[Vogonjeltz]

First half of the post: Those are called plot hooks. If I'm to go around murder-hoboing I'd prefer it be against people who directly slighted me. or at least someone in the party. Makes it more personal. Also can you think of a funnier plot hook off the top of your head than D&D pimp war?

Second half: Medieval times are different from our times man. Any king disagrees? I think he'll find a man who can single-handedly break his entire economy on a whim through indirect action a rather powerful lobbyist.

I was thinking more along the lines of how it's illicit even then, and who's to say other powerful interests (besides the king whose word is absolute law in medieval times) aren't looking to wet their beaks?

I don't find a totally worry free brothel to be plausible.

[ryu]

I was thinking more along the lines of how it's illicit even then, and who's to say other powerful interests (besides the king whose word is absolute law in medieval times) aren't looking to wet their beaks?

I don't find a totally worry free brothel to be plausible.

Oh I don't doubt some poor sap is going to try and mess with my plans. The fact of the matter, though, is that by the time this is a large scale business I've become more powerful than most planes of existence. When just starting out? Still more powerful than the entire local royal infrastructure, and all it controls.

[eggynack]

I was thinking more along the lines of how it's illicit even then, and who's to say other powerful interests (besides the king whose word is absolute law in medieval times) aren't looking to wet their beaks?

I don't find a totally worry free brothel to be plausible.
The king's word was law in medieval times because medieval times did not have wizards. In these medieval times, while people might think that the king's word is law, in reality it is your word that is law, for the king is a figurehead who has been mind raped to have the beliefs that are most beneficial to you. Basically, wizards are awesome.

[Vogonjeltz]

The king's word was law in medieval times because medieval times did not have wizards. In these medieval times, while people might think that the king's word is law, in reality it is your word that is law, for the king is a figurehead who has been mind raped to have the beliefs that are most beneficial to you. Basically, wizards are awesome.

What makes you think the king isn't a wizard and doesn't have magic items of continuous mind blank, and doesn't have guards/regular check ups with the kings council to ensure no shenanigans?

Even with wizards (see: Merlin) the king is the one who rules, with an iron fist in a velvet glove.

[eggynack]

What makes you think the king isn't a wizard and doesn't have magic items of continuous mind blank, and doesn't have guards/regular check ups with the kings council to ensure no shenanigans?

Even with wizards (see: Merlin) the king is the one who rules, with an iron fist in a velvet glove.
My point isn't the specific method, but rather that the wizard will likely be able to handle issues that arise. Because he can. Maybe the brothel is entirely stored on its own demiplane, and he has a way to shepherd people to and from it. Maybe he just has sufficiently powerful guards in place such that it's exceedingly difficult to stop him. Maybe a lot of things.

[ryu]

What makes you think the king isn't a wizard and doesn't have magic items of continuous mind blank, and doesn't have guards/regular check ups with the kings council to ensure no shenanigans?

Even with wizards (see: Merlin) the king is the one who rules, with an iron fist in a velvet glove.

Does the wizard king have more resources? If no just either kill off or mind rape him. If yes just teleport off to a different area to house your starting operation. Nothing suitable on the plane? That's fine. We have planeshift. The fact of the matter is we have a literally endless amount of space and people to work with. Eventually by law of averages you'll find one who isn't ready to oppose what you're setting up, or doesn't have any desire to for one reason or another.

[Vogonjeltz]

My point isn't the specific method, but rather that the wizard will likely be able to handle issues that arise. Because he can. Maybe the brothel is entirely stored on its own demiplane, and he has a way to shepherd people to and from it. Maybe he just has sufficiently powerful guards in place such that it's exceedingly difficult to stop him. Maybe a lot of things.

And maybe the competition is cheaper and around the corner instead of somewhere on the ethereal plane? Hiding your business is a terrible model unless we're talking about assassins.

[eggynack]

And maybe the competition is cheaper and around the corner instead of somewhere on the ethereal plane? Hiding your business is a terrible model unless we're talking about assassins.
Yeah, but you offer a pleasant locale with total secrecy, and maybe you're on a fast time plane such that folks can spend awhile at your brothel without losing their jobs or whatever.

[ryu]

Plus his solution isn't the only one that works. Why bother forcing the market to meet your demands when it's on the whole cheaper to simply continue traveling by various means until you find the place the market suits you?

[eggynack]

Plus his solution isn't the only one that works. Why bother forcing the market to meet your demands when it's on the whole cheaper to simply continue traveling by various means until you find the place the market suits you?
Pretty much. There is a pretty massive number of solutions to this problem, many of them dependent on the exact nature of that problem. If the entire planet is opposed to brothels, but there's still a reasonable market, cause obviously, then maybe making a demiplane is the best option, and why would there be a corner brothel when they're exploded on sight? If it's only half the world that's opposed to them, maybe move to the other half. If the whole world is opposed, but it's also generally weaker than you, maybe make the whole world not be opposed. All of these things can be reasonably pulled off by a wizard, just because pretty much all things can be reasonably pulled off by a wizard. Arguing each minor point to death is a bit of a waste of time when you consider it relative to the universe of possibilities.

[Gwendol]

Why would there (obviously) be a market?

[ryu]

Why would there (obviously) be a market?

Because sex sells, even then, especially then, and always will? It's a bit explicit when put that way, but can you really deny it?

[HolyCouncilMagi]

A spell can only be as capable as the person casting it. Evocation sucks only as much as its user, by choice or otherwise, is sucking, and the only time everything else is broken is with a broken player.

That last part came out wrong, I make it sound like optimizers are wrongbad and need to be fixed. But hopefully people understand what I actually meant.

That said, there's no denying that the best spells outside of Evocation are quite a bit more versatile than the best spells in Evocation, and effective Evocation-focused builds tend to be more feat-heavy than most wizard builds. But Evocation isn't inherently terrible, even compared to other schools. The only school I really think deserves slander is Enchantment, and even that has a gem here and there that leaves reasonable potential for good builds based around it. Granted, it won't be the same in concept, because relying on the thematic Mind-Affecting spells is just a bad idea, but it works with proper selection.

So, yeah. Evocation isn't a bad school at all. Many people just prefer not having to work for their arcane successes, and Conjuration/Transmutation/Illusion are certainly less unwieldy than Evocation. If you build correctly though, Evocation is just as viable as the two most popular schools, admittedly in a few less ways.

[Gwendol]

Because sex sells, even then, especially then, and always will? It's a bit explicit when put that way, but can you really deny it?

That is your opinion, not mine.

[Norin]

Oh, these threads alway spiral into strange and silly dicussions.
*grabs his popcorn*

:smallbiggrin:

[Ansem]

people who cant use something will easily say it suck, there is no one win button in D&D

[Studoku]

people who cant use something will easily say it suck, there is no one win button in D&D
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over my infinite wishes.

[Necroticplague]

That is your opinion, not mine.

Its not called "the oldest profession" for nothing.

[Vogonjeltz]

Its not called "the oldest profession" for nothing.

Hrm, it occurs that cityscape may have something on this.


*Found it, brothels are located in the red light district, which is generally the center of illicit activity. Visitors are often harassed by the city guards.

The plot hook mentioned also has one infiltrated by a succubus, but I'd also think there are plenty of undead who could get involved too.

*When most cities have a red light district, it's a little odd to go to more effort to find what is basically the same thing.

[Forrestfire]

Iirc, Sharn: City of Towers had something about a changeling red light district, too.

[Philistine]

That is your opinion, not mine.

It is not an "opinion" that for the vast majority of human beings, sex is one of the strongest urges after bare survival - if not the strongest. Likewise, it is not an "opinion" that societies which have officially banned prostitution wouldn't have had to ban it if nobody wanted to do it. Furthermore, it is not an "opinion" that some other societies have embraced the idea, in some cases even running brothels out of churches/temples (so much for it always being "illicit"). Finally, it is not an "opinion" that Magic - especially in D&D3, where magic is uniquely (even absurdly) broad, powerful, and flexible in its effects - is capable of solving all the practical problems associated with prostitution.

So your opinion is counter to the available evidence.

[Petrocorus]

Where can i find that ambrosia spell?

On topic of brothels, there were and are many places and times where and when it was perfectly legal. And many culture, as others have said, have embraced it. GRR Martin didn't invent anything for GoT, except maybe the pimp being one of king's minister.
It was legal and regulated in France until the 50s or the 60s and it's still legal in Spain and Brasil, for example. And many people believe it's arguably better than having streetwalkers working clandestinely in dark alley, with all the dangers and issues involved, without any regulations and protections from the authorities.


Iirc, Sharn: City of Towers had something about a changeling red light district, too.

I haven't read Sharn yet, but the fact that changeling would be used for that was pretty obvious to me.

[Karnith]

Where can i find that ambrosia spell?
It's Distilled Joy, in the Book of Exalted Deeds, p. 96.

[Petrocorus]

It's Distilled Joy, in the Book of Exalted Deeds, p. 96.

OK, thanks, seen it.

I don't really understand the permanent duration. You enchant a character and it gives you a dose each time this character feel bliss?

And given the casting time, i don't see how you could use it on the customer of a brothel?

[Yawgmoth]

That is your opinion, not mine. If by opinion you mean "fact that has been proven by several thousand years of human history and commerce" then sure.

[Gwendol]

We are talking about a fantasy game here, under the absolute control of a DM. Please refrain from sweeping generalizations about peoples wants and desires in the real world. Murder has been around longer than prostitution; does that raise its legitimacy?

[Forrestfire]

"At the end of the day, long as there's two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NZDwZbyDus)

As far as murder being a viable profession in a fantasy world, I'd imagine it's even more legitimate than prostitution.

[Gwendol]

Agreed. I wonder just how viable a brothel business can be in world populated by legions of shapechangers and negative energy drinkers (demonic or undead)?

[Necroticplague]

We are talking about a fantasy game here, under the absolute control of a DM. Please refrain from sweeping generalizations about peoples wants and desires in the real world. Murder has been around longer than prostitution; does that raise its legitimacy?

Depends on what you mean by "legitimacy". If you "reality of its frequent occurrence", then yes. Note that I never said it was right (I do, but that's an entirely separate thing), only that their's good precedence that it would work.


Agreed. I wonder just how viable a brothel business can be in world populated by legions of shapechangers and negative energy drinkers (demonic or undead)?

Highly. Some people will have a specific thing they "go for", and shapechangers provide for a very easy way to try and fill niche ones. I don't really see how energy drainers would have any impact, since almost all (the main exception being fooccubi), draining energy requires an overt offensive attack, usually a slam or claw.

On a semi-related note, the existence of Remove Disease would help things quite a bit.

[Philistine]

We are talking about a fantasy game here, under the absolute control of a DM. Please refrain from sweeping generalizations about peoples wants and desires in the real world. Murder has been around longer than prostitution; does that raise its legitimacy?
The default pantheon for this fantasy game includes a deity whose primary pursuits are "wine, women, and song." One of the most popular, and almost certainly the best-known, specific settings includes not one but two Goddesses (one of "beauty, love, and passion" and one of "hedonism, sensual fulfillment, festhalls, and cats") whose portfolios lend themselves extremely well to running temple brothels. Finally, given that we are talking such a basic human desire, the DM would have to explicitly specify that No Humans In His World Are Interested Ever - at which point we're talking about how the game is played at different individual tables, so that ryu's "There's always a market!" is every bit as valid as your "Nuh uh!"

And murder? See: "murderhobos." It's not just legitimate in a typical fantasy world, it's probably the most common playstyle.


Agreed. I wonder just how viable a brothel business can be in world populated by legions of shapechangers and negative energy drinkers (demonic or undead)?
Shapechangers are a positive boon for the business. Whatever your preference, we can fill it in six seconds or less!
As for negative energy feeders - the answer to magic in 3.X is, as always, more magic. That might be thrill seekers paying for a Death Ward in order to sample something novel, or the community banding together/hiring adventurers (to use magic) to drive out the predator(s), or whatever. Magic solves everything.

[BrokenChord]

If you guys want to talk about the implications of fantasy races and magic on the prostitution industry, I think that warrants its own thread.

... The real question for here is how Evocation compares to other schools in terms of usefulness in application by brothels :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

Agreed. I wonder just how viable a brothel business can be in world populated by legions of shapechangers and negative energy drinkers (demonic or undead)?
Pretty well, I'd figure, especially when your high powered staff would be reasonably capable of picking out those types, and when some people will inevitably have a thing for being energy drained (and subsequently healed of said energy draining). Probably a decent amount of people actually, cause recreational energy draining sounds kinda interesting when I think about it. In any case, I don't know how I could possibly assume that this world of ours does not contain a sex drive, along with folks willing to pay to satisfy that drive, especially in a world where the humans are ostensibly human.

[Necroticplague]

and when some people will inevitably have a thing for being energy drained (and subsequently healed of said energy draining). Probably a decent amount of people actually, cause recreational energy draining sounds kinda interesting when I think about it.

Well, that's certainly one way to get that "weak-in-the-knees" feeling.

[ericgrau]

I think that did happen, but I don't think it happened to the extent you're claiming. Evocation was shuffled to 8th from 1st or so, and that's going too far, but a true analysis of the school doesn't place it at 2nd. It's a lot more like the 6th or 7th best school, better than enchantment, and maybe better than necromancy depending on what you're trying to do. It's not better than conjuration, transmutation, or abjuration, and it's probably worse than illusion. Divination isn't usually relevant for this sort of thing, due to its nature, but I'd likely put it above evocation as well. Evocation has some solid spells, but other schools have more.
The limited battlefield control such as wall of force is better than the conjuration options for battlefield control. If there were more of the same type of spells it would top conjuration. Barring heavy polymorph abuse it is at or near 2nd, but then with polymorph abuse you might but transmutation above conjuration too.

Evocation, conjuration and transmutation are the big 3 with the general purpose combat spells which are hardest to ban. But you could ban any school, even 2 of these, and still do well with the other schools. The other schools are nice when they apply but often they don't apply, so they tend to be the easiest to get rid of. On the Schrodinger-forum-discussion wizard divination is near top, but in matching what you are dealing with right now, it is on the bottom. That is what makes the spontaneous divination ACF super nice though.

Like I said it often doesn't make much difference what you ban b/c there are alternatives, but if you want to see what I mean then try playing with evocation, conjuration and transmutation all banned. Only illusion, abjuration, divination, enchantment and necromancy. Then play another game with only evocation added back in (conjuration and transmutation still banned) and see the night and day difference. And actually necromancy has a couple general purpose combat spells which people often miss, so if you wanted to be really strict you'd leave it out too, or at least those 3-5 spells: ray of enfeeblement, false life, enervation and maybe animated dead & circle of death. Do this with core or similar low cheese power, not shadowcraft mage nor spontaneous divination ACF nor some such.

[Vogonjeltz]

"At the end of the day, long as there's two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NZDwZbyDus)

As far as murder being a viable profession in a fantasy world, I'd imagine it's even more legitimate than prostitution.

I'm pretty certain the d&d universe still considers assassins to be criminals operating outside the bounds of the law.

And despite there being a possible magical bandaid for some of the associated issues from brothel work, from the description in cityscape (I don't know of any other location it's discussed) it is definitely illicit, and frowned upon by the ruling bodies.

[Necroticplague]

The limited battlefield control such as wall of force is better than the conjuration options for battlefield control. If there were more of the same type of spells it would top conjuration. Barring heavy polymorph abuse it is around 2nd, but then with polymorph abuse you might but transmutation above conjuration too.

Black Tentacles.
Web.
Grease.
Obscuring Mists.
Fog Cloud.
Sleet Storm.
Stinking Cloud.
Solid Fog.
The entire summon line (including swarm and monster).

That's the battlefield control for conjuration, just sticking with core and spells of 4th or lower. For comparison, with those same criteria:

Gust of Wind.
Wind Wall.
Wall of fire.
Wall of Ice.
Resilient Sphere.

[ericgrau]

Black Tentacles.
Web.
Grease.
Obscuring Mists.
Fog Cloud.
Sleet Storm.
Stinking Cloud.
Solid Fog.
The entire summon line (including swarm and monster).

That's the battlefield control for conjuration, just sticking with core and spells of 4th or lower. For comparison, with those same criteria:

Gust of Wind.
Wind Wall.
Wall of fire.
Wall of Ice.
Resilient Sphere.
Ya conjuration has more, but evocation has better ones. That was the point. If evocation had a lot more spells as powerful as wall of force, wall of ice and resilient sphere it would top conjuration. I wouldn't count gust of wind or wind wall or wall of fire though (nor would I count the two fogs as much, but they're ok). At level 1-3 evocation gets squat diddly for battlefield control, but flaming sphere and fireball are very effective at low level. And likewise there are other gems. The replacement options are only half as good. The idea is that you can only prepare X spells no matter how many nice ones are available, so you want the best ones first. So you bite the bullet and say "I may regret not having X when Y happens, but I can't be ready for everything anyway (outside of Schrodinger wizard forum discussion and/or months of DM maddening divinations), so I'll keep the stronger spells and ban these."

[Forrestfire]

I'm pretty certain the d&d universe still considers assassins to be criminals operating outside the bounds of the law.

And despite there being a possible magical bandaid for some of the associated issues from brothel work, from the description in cityscape (I don't know of any other location it's discussed) it is definitely illicit, and frowned upon by the ruling bodies.

It probably depends on the place. I mean, "the assassins" is an organization mentioned in the prestige class writeup, and presumably they operate openly in at least some places. Any nation is going to have covert operatives who might be willing to kill for their country, and even multiversal law has the Inevitables, which hunt down and kill transgressors.

[Vogonjeltz]

It probably depends on the place. I mean, "the assassins" is an organization mentioned in the prestige class writeup, and presumably they operate openly in at least some places. Any nation is going to have covert operatives who might be willing to kill for their country, and even multiversal law has the Inevitables, which hunt down and kill transgressors.

Only the second example (killers for the state) is legal. The other two not so much.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Only the second example (killers for the state) is legal. The other two not so much.

There's a huge difference between something being illegal and that same something being difficult to make a lot of money off of. Especially if the average people the kingdom is sending after you are level 1-3 while you aren't even a full-fledged assassin until 6th level at least. Potentially getting caught is almost a nonissue.

[theNater]

Only the second example (killers for the state) is legal. The other two not so much.
The question wasn't "is prostitution legal in D&D cities", but "is there a market for prostitution in D&D cities". The first one is going to vary from city to city, of course, but the second one is going to be a "yes" in a most cases.

Barring very unusual circumstances, a character can probably hire an assassin or prostitute in any major city, if they have the money and are willing to work outside the law.

[Gwendol]

Black Tentacles.
Web.
Grease.
Obscuring Mists.
Fog Cloud.
Sleet Storm.
Stinking Cloud.
Solid Fog.
The entire summon line (including swarm and monster).

That's the battlefield control for conjuration, just sticking with core and spells of 4th or lower. For comparison, with those same criteria:

Gust of Wind.
Wind Wall.
Wall of fire.
Wall of Ice.
Resilient Sphere.


I think Forcecage could also fit on that list.

[ryu]

The people demand a thread on the magical effects of magic on the prostitution industry eh? Okay I'll start up a thread on it and edit the OP with commonly discussed things as they appear.

[Vrock_Summoner]

I think Forcecage could also fit on that list.

Nah. Too expensive to consider a consistent factor.

[Karnith]

Nah. Too expensive to consider a consistent factor.
Additionally, that was a list of Core spells that were 4th-level and lower. Forcecage, as a 7th-level spell, doesn't fit the criteria. Otherwise Evocation would have been able to claim Wall of Force, Prismatic Wall, Telekinetic Sphere, and (depending on how you classify them) some of the Bigby's Hand spells.

[ryu]

Thread's up guys. I'll get to copying topics into the OP later.

[Augmental]

The limited battlefield control such as wall of force is better than the conjuration options for battlefield control. If there were more of the same type of spells it would top conjuration.

Conjuration has a lot more than battlefield control.

[ericgrau]

Conjuration has a lot more than battlefield control.
Post #238.


Nah. Too expensive to consider a consistent factor.
A common misconception. The number of fights in a D&D campaign is incredibly few. Stuff like forcecage material components for a no-save, just win, are the best and most affordable places to put your WBL. Not permanent items. When you get the spell at level 13 you can already afford to spam it. Even if you do something ridiculous like 12 cages per level even against foes where it is overkill when you are already winning the fight from your previous one, it still barely dents your WBL.

[Vrock_Summoner]

13 CR-appropriate combats per level does not mean 13 single opponents. Ignoring for the moment that I don't use the XP rules anyway, Forcecage is also nowhere near a No Save Just Lose. Lose an action, maybe, but nothing catastrophic with how easy they are to escape from by the time they come online. As a wise gamer once told me, if you can take a creature out with Forcecage, it probably wasn't too much of a threat anyway.