Why is an evoc wizard considered bad?

[ChaosArchon]

Basically what the title says, why do people consider an evoc wizard to be a bad choice? Is it because they aren't as useful out of combat, because I'm looking at the spell list and nothing jumps out at me as a better school to deal damage in combat, am I missing something...?

[Larkas]

It's not that it's bad, it's just that you can do better and other schools might make it largely obsolete. This makes it a good choice for specialists to drop.

[eggynack]

Blasting is generally considered suboptimal because it doesn't actually do anything unless it fully kills the opponent, and because it has such a low chance of fully killing the opponent. Evocation blasting is considered particularly suboptimal because it competes with conjuration blasting, which mostly consists of the orb of X line from the spell compendium. Evocation in general is considered suboptimal because, despite some pretty strong unique effects, like wind wall and contingency, they get fewer unique effects than most other schools of magic, with the sole exception of enchantment, and maybe necromancy.

One major source of the lack of unique effects is the fact that they're generally copied elsewhere, with things like shadow evocation, the craft contingent spell feat, and spells that are just kinda similar to what is offered by evocation. Evocation specialization isn't bad, because you're still a wizard, and because evocation has enough spells to support you devoting one/level to the school, but it is worse than other available options.

[ryu]

Basically what the title says, why do people consider an evoc wizard to be a bad choice? Is it because they aren't as useful out of combat, because I'm looking at the spell list and nothing jumps out at me as a better school to deal damage in combat, am I missing something...?

Conjuration gets most all of evocations damage tricks plus other better stuff. Don't like the conjuration substitutes for some unknowable reason? Grip up illusion for shadow evocation. With both of those in mind and the fact that damage is generally a sub-optimal combat strategy you get people sneering at the school as drastically overhyped in the minds of the game's designers. Only school possibly weaker is enchantment and even that has one good use in extremely high-op situations that isn't easy to mimic.

[Rubik]

Look at Fireball, the quintessential Evocation spell.

It offers:

1.) Fire resistance/immunity to avoid damage
2.) SR to avoid damage
3.) Reflex save to reduce damage
4.) (Improved) Evasion to avoid damage
5.) Antimagic Field to avoid damage
6.) Sufficient hit points to avoid dying to damage

It can also be duplicated by Shadow Evocation for basic effect. Likewise, Conjuration spells can avoid nearly all of those pitfalls, AND it frequently offers status effects to go with.

[Larkas]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that Evocation is only about blasting.

It is mostly about blasting, though. :smallbiggrin:

[Squark]

Doing damage is not great in general. Until an enemy hits 0 HP, nothings changed. A good debuff spell can win a fight by itself.

Plus, evocation isn't a great way to do damage unless you go nuts with it (and even then, the orb spells put it to shame for single target- and you can go nuts with mundane damage too). A fireball cast by a 6th level wizard deals 21 damage on average. A raging barbarian with 16 strength base (Very reasonable to assume) deals 14 damage with each strike- but, he's also got the extra damage from his magic weapon, and power attack. That's 28+ damage on average, beating out the wizard- And you don't have to worry about toasting the rest of the party. Plus, the wizard could always just cast haste, so now the barbarian is getting an extra attack, as are any other party members. Or you could summon something.

[ryu]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that Evocation is only about blasting.

It is mostly about blasting, though. :smallbiggrin:

It's just that, removing all the blasting, there aren't many concrete reasons left to pay attention to the school. Of those that remain most can be replicated more or less perfectly.

[eggynack]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that Evocation is only about blasting.

It is mostly about blasting, though. :smallbiggrin:
True, though I don't think you've gone far enough. Yes, from a book and attention perspective, evocation is mostly about blasting, but from an optimization perspective, I don't think it's about blasting much at all. If I'm not banning evocation, it's not because I really want to throw around fireballs, but because I value effects like wind wall, wall of force, resilient sphere, sending, gust of wind, and hell, even floating disk and tiny hut. Maybe also defenestrating sphere, cause that spell is cool. They're mostly not irreplaceable, but they're spells worth having. Just, y'know, less than those offered by some other schools.

[Pex]

Not that I agree with the assessment . . .

Because monster hit points are inflated. A monster with 1 hit point is just as dangerous as a monster with full hit points. Doing damage is almost doing nothing because the monster is still there being a threat after doing the damage. Since spellcasters can get the DC of their spells high while also able to target the poor saves of their opponents, spells that take an opponent out of the combat altogether are likely to succeed. Fireball just does damage and the group of opponents continue to fight. Stinking Cloud takes them out for the rest of the combat until they can be mopped up when the main fighting is done. A couple of enemies can make the saving throw and not be affected. It's still a less number of foes left than Fireball would have done.

Why I disagree with the assessment . . .

Damage spells are still useful against the mooks and minions who fight along with the BBEG. Their hit points are low enough a damage spell can kill them all outright. If not, they have so few hit points left the party warriors can kill them off with one hit on their way to fight the BBEG or picked off by the archer. Monsters and bad guys actually do make their saving throws a lot more often than the Forum brags about non-Evocation spells. Given 5 opponents in a Stinking Cloud, 4 could actually make their save and not be affected. Even if Fireball wouldn't take them out either, damage attrition comes into play as before, easy pickings for the warriors and archer. Maybe it takes two hits to finish one off. While not all BBEGs have superior saving throws for everything, they're still going to make a lot of their saves. Damage spells at least contribute to the hit points attrition on a successful save. A warrior gets to kill him off in 6 hits instead of 7 perhaps. Non-Evocation spells are still a good idea. Sometimes the BBEG will fail the saving throw. It just doesn't mean Evocation spells are so atrocious.

[Spore]

Doing damage is not great in general. Until an enemy hits 0 HP, nothings changed. A good debuff spell can win a fight by itself.


While that's true, affecting enemies with the status "dead" is the most powerful thing you can do. Killing a number of mooks with a fireball exceeding the attack number of said Barbarian. And D&D is all about go huge or go home. By level 1x your character should at least have one specialty while not ignoring other capabilities of the class. A blasting Evocation Wizard isn't done by taking Spell Focus (Evocation). He takes spells that negate Reflex throws, he takes (metamagic) feats that improve bypassing SR, immunity and damage reduction.

And not everyone in this forum thinks that you have to be able to break your setting's universe by introducing Wish loops and other TO shenanigans. Some wizards may even want to play their character on par with their fellow Duskblades, Bards and Paladins and deliberately ignore some potential of their class.

[ArqArturo]

It's just that, removing all the blasting, there aren't many concrete reasons left to pay attention to the school. Of those that remain most can be replicated more or less perfectly.

Hush, you're making my Warmage cry. Think of the Warmages.

[Larkas]

It's just that, removing all the blasting, there aren't many concrete reasons left to pay attention to the school. Of those that remain most can be replicated more or less perfectly.

Quite the contrary, the best Evocation spells don't deal with blasting, or at least not only with blasting, at any rate. Blacklight, Wind Wall, Prismatic Mist, Glowing Orb, Sonorous Hum, Crushing Grip, Wall of Force, Howling Chain, Contingency and Grasping Hand (yeah, you can see that I'm going by TreantMonk's guide here :smallbiggrin: ) are all good-to-great spells that have at most a secondary blast focus, for example. I won't say they can't be replaced or replicated, though. It also doesn't mean that Evocation is brimming to the top with versatility, it just means that there's some. Evocation is a very valid option for a banned school, but it's also not a terrible option for an open, or even specialized, school.


True, though I don't think you've gone far enough. Yes, from a book and attention perspective, evocation is mostly about blasting, but from an optimization perspective, I don't think it's about blasting much at all. If I'm not banning evocation, it's not because I really want to throw around fireballs, but because I value effects like wind wall, wall of force, resilient sphere, sending, gust of wind, and hell, even floating disk and tiny hut. Maybe also defenestrating sphere, cause that spell is cool. They're mostly not irreplaceable, but they're spells worth having. Just, y'know, less than those offered by some other schools.

Indeed! :smallsmile:

[eggynack]

Damage spells are still useful against the mooks and minions who fight along with the BBEG. Their hit points are low enough a damage spell can kill them all outright. If not, they have so few hit points left the party warriors can kill them off with one hit on their way to fight the BBEG or picked off by the archer. Monsters and bad guys actually do make their saving throws a lot more often than the Forum brags about non-Evocation spells. Given 5 opponents in a Stinking Cloud, 4 could actually make their save and not be affected. Even if Fireball wouldn't take them out either, damage attrition comes into play as before, easy pickings for the warriors and archer. Maybe it takes two hits to finish one off. While not all BBEGs have superior saving throws for everything, they're still going to make a lot of their saves. Damage spells at least contribute to the hit points attrition on a successful save. A warrior gets to kill him off in 6 hits instead of 7 perhaps. Non-Evocation spells are still a good idea. Sometimes the BBEG will fail the saving throw. It just doesn't mean Evocation spells are so atrocious.
In that situation, you still kinda seem better off with the one nauseated enemy, and the giant cloud of death where you thought it would best be, than you are with the one and done fireball that's only removed some HP. meanwhile, stinking cloud is better than fireball is at dealing with single big enemies, because while the bad guy has a good chance of saving, the effect still lingers, impacting the battlefield, and a single failed save is as good as death. It just generally seems like a better spell in most situations.

[ryu]

Yes that list of spells were what I was talking about in the those that remain category. It's just that so few of them are things I'd actually miss. Hell even bloody enchantment has one spell that would legitimately hurt to lose in high level play that isn't easily replaced. That spell is mindrape both for defending my information by selectively messing with my own memory and obtaining information flawlessly from non-divination methods.

[Larkas]

Yes that list of spells were what I was talking about in the those that remain category. It's just that so few of them are things I'd actually miss. Hell even bloody enchantment has one spell that would legitimately hurt to lose in high level play that isn't easily replaced. That spell is mindrape both for defending my information by selectively messing with my own memory and obtaining information flawlessly from non-divination methods.

Indeed. I'm just arguing that Evocation isn't bad, it's just that it isn't as good as other schools (primarily Conjuration and Transmutation, but also Illusion and even Enchantment to an extent). It's like comparing a Corolla to a Ferrari: the latter has much more style and horsepower, but both will take you from point A to point B just fine.

Incidentally, I think that some niche protection could be instituted by making orb spells evocation/conjuration and Shadow Evocation nonexistent (or even only capable of mimicking blast spells), but that is not really relevant to this discussion.

[Cloud]

As Larkas pointed out, Evocation has some extremely nice spells, so Evocation as a school itself isn't "bad". It is, however, certainly "less good" than basically every other school except perhaps enchantment (enchantment is much smaller, and is mostly screwed by mind blank, but certainly has some unique effects).

So yeah, not that evocation isn't good, just that's weaker than most and if you're going to specialise to give up schools, your options are limited. You literally can't lose Divination, Abjuration has freaking Dispel Magic, Conjuration does everything, and Transmutation is literally the largest school. Of Illusion, Necromancy, Enchantment, and Evocation, well...I'm keeping Illusion to use Shadow Evocation, sorry, Evocation. Give Evocation the orb spells and remove Shadow Evocation from the game, and then I might be curious (or just stop specialising XD ).

[HunterOfJello]

The core focus of evocation (hp damage) is easily replaced by having a Barbarian or two in the party. A melee character with a two-handed weapon and power attack will deal out damage all day long. A wizard will run out of evocation spells to do damage with pretty quickly and will often do less damage to the same targets than the barbarian would.

A wizard can still use some of the better evocation spells (ones that have extra effects or have wide areas) to achieve their goals, but it isn't a great school for a wizard to solely focus in and it can be dropped if a wizard wants to specialize in a different school. Once a player has the Spell Compendium, a wizard can get single target and area damage spells from Conjuration if they need to.

The other schools that a wizard can dabble in offer options that can't be easily replaced by a 5 Intelligence Half-Orc with anger issues.

[ArqArturo]

The core focus of evocation (hp damage) is easily replaced by having a Barbarian in the party. A melee character with a two-handed weapon and power attack will deal out damage all day long. A wizard will run out of evocation spells to do damage with pretty quickly and will often do less damage to the same targets than the barbarian would.

The other schools that a wizard can dabble in offer options that can't be easily replaced by a 5 Intelligence Half-Orc with anger issues.

Muscle mage, maybe?.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

As many have said, nearly anything Evocation can do, Conjuration can do better. What Conjuration can't to, (Greater) Shadow Evocation can do just as well. If you want to deal damage, Conjuration can do that and so much more. If you want to do the other Evocation stuff, there's another spell from another school that can do it just as well or better. There are a few exceptions to this (Contingency), but in those cases (Greater) Shadow Evocation still makes the Evocation school completely unnecessary.

If you want to blast with flashy elemental spells and insist on subjecting yourself to SR in doing so, play a Shadowcraft Mage or a Psion (Kineticist).

[Captnq]

Hey, sometimes you just want to watch the world burn.

If you, you play a Evocation specialist. You wear a hat of disguise and make sure that you look like you always recently got exploded with singed hair and burnt eyebrows. Then you cast an extended presitigitation every morning so that you are always smoldering for the rest of the day. Talk about it always being cold. Mention your food is undercooked while muttering, "Fireball... fireball... how'd that go?"

But besides being fun, not much TO about evocation.

[Larkas]

If you want to blast with flashy elemental spells and insist on subjecting yourself to SR in doing so, play a Shadowcraft Mage or a Psion (Kineticist).

Or an Evoker. It works just as well, even if it's not playing to the full potential of the Wizard class when it's blasting. You're still just one day away from having the answer to most situations at worst.

And don't forget the poor Warmage! :smallbiggrin:

[ArqArturo]

In my case, I'm a simple-minded soul. I enjoy simple things like fine drink, good company, good food, and the smoldering ashes that were my foes, enriching the soil beneath them.

Sure, Illusions are fine, Enchantments are dandy, necromancy is of... Questionable nature, but good. But they don't make things burn. I'll handle with resistances if I must, and Spell Resistance is the veritable nut enclosing the sweet walnut that is a vanquished foe.

I enjoy evocation because it's destruction from a distance, Warmages in particular are my favorite evokers. If I worry about illusions, I'll join an illusionist. And I don't mind being run over by the other spellcasters, those playing melee characters share the same fate. Besides, the game's no fun if you've solved all problems without it being presented to you (unless you find breaking the DM into a shell of its former self any fun).

[Summerstorm]

Well, everything was said.

I just have to add something to add to the "Damage" vs "Control" - issue. Blasting or somehow enchant, debuff, outright kill or take over an enemy.

Now in my experience the following things are true (in our games - usually by the book, medium op, medium level):

1. Enemies make their damn saves. If you were trying to control something you now have done nothing but wasting a spell-slot and a round. If you were trying to blow him up, at least you do (likely) half damage (Which "stacks" with what your fighter-types are doing)

2. You just never know what to expect: Have filled all slots with cool control spells? Too bad, today is undead and construct day. Filled it with area control? Today is incorporal day. Left a lot of slots open? Well, SURPRISE, they are already here and rolling initiative. - Having stupid, boring fireballs and a feat to switch/change elements at least means you are never sitting there with your pants down. (Unless the surprise-round starts in the loo).

Now, sometimes it just fits and is great fun (We were fighting some Fighters and Ogre Barbarians once, and my telepath and his schism had a great time throwing Death Urges and Charms against Will saves ~+4), but mostly i am admitting to blasting stuff, because it is more... effective.)

Overall i am saying: Blowing things up is more of a swiss-army knife. Always the right tool... maybe not the best though.

[eggynack]

1. Enemies make their damn saves. If you were trying to control something you now have done nothing but wasting a spell-slot and a round. If you were trying to blow him up, at least you do (likely) half damage (Which "stacks" with what your fighter-types are doing)
Really depends on the spell, and on how well you can tailor your casting to poor saves. Many control spells, like stinking cloud, or grease, still have impact on a failed save. Some, like wall of stone, or solid fog, don't have saves at all.


2. You just never know what to expect: Have filled all slots with cool control spells? Too bad, today is undead and construct day. Filled it with area control? Today is incorporal day. Left a lot of slots open? Well, SURPRISE, they are already here and rolling initiative. - Having stupid, boring fireballs and a feat to switch/change elements at least means you are never sitting there with your pants down. (Unless the surprise-round starts in the loo).
That's why you don't do just one of those things with all of your spells. However, mostly, you don't need to focus all that much. For example, most of the control spells I listed above still work on both undead and constructs, apart from stinking cloud, and none of them even touch SR. Incorporeal enemies are a bit of an exception, and you should generally strive to have a slot or two specialized against them. Meanwhile, your stupid, boring fireballs are falling apart against enemies with SR, evasion, an AMF, or a lot of HP.



Overall i am saying: Blowing things up is more of a swiss-army knife. Always the right tool... maybe not the best though.
That's really the opposite of true. Summoning is a Swiss-army knife. Polymorph is a Swiss-army knife. Blowing things up is only really good against a few things, and against those things, it tends to be the best option only occasionally.

[137beth]

When I want to blast, my all-time favorite blasting spell by a large margin is not in evocation. Unfortunately, it is a ninth level spell, so it only gets used in high level campaigns. I'll let people familiar with 9th level non-evocation blasts, or anyone with so little to do that they can search through a random person's post history, guess what it is.

The issue with non-blasting evocation is that while it is very useful, it isn't the kind of thing you normally want every day at every spell level. When you specialize, you get an extra daily spell at each level, so you want to make full use of it. For conjuration, there are enough general-purpose conjuration spells at all levels that you always have something to fill the bonus slots that you would normally want to prepare regardless of specialty. Same goes for transmutation. For most schools, there are enough useful every-day spells to fill every bonus slot at each level in your specialist school, except evocation and enchantment.

Now, evocation has a few common-use spells (wind wall), and it has enough special-purpose spells that I would suggest being careful about banning it (then again, I'd be just as careful, if not more so, about banning any other school; specialization is a really powerful option, but it comes with a hefty penalty). A lot of evocation spells are really useful in rare circumstances. Which makes them good to know, but not good enough to specialize in.

[FMArthur]

I have to say that I do find a lot of use in Evocation's utility spells, which are often unreliable or useless in Shadow Evocation, or just unavailable in vast level gaps between level 1, 9 and 15. Wind Wall is barely even useful by the time you can be emulating it. Semi-real walls of force might as well be 100% fake.

But yes, it's not really that fun to actually go full-on specializing in it. Conjuration blasts just as well and it's not hard to find big AoE conjurations to blast and disable at the same time. I'm basically just arguing against banning it, which is what most people here do. Generalist wizards rock! :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

Wind Wall is barely even useful by the time you can be emulating it.
I don't think shadow evocationing wind wall actually does all that much. It looks like it would just stop 1/5 of arrows, unless you pull some illusion trickery.

[Tvtyrant]

Personally I think the biggest reason is that D&D is turn based, so large swarms of enemies don't suit it well. This defeats the primary point of big area of effect abilities, and the closed environments prevent the range from being important most of the time (the same with bows.)

[shadowseve]

To me evocation may not be the best as far as pure min/max goes but to me burning things and blasting **** is fun. It's kinda like a druid who specializes in consuming face in animal form. It may be more optimal to let your animal companion and summons do that while you focus on battle field control and a few damage spells here and there. However; there's just something satisfying about being a T-rex and eating something that doesn't have a light weapon or being a Dire Polar bear just bashing face. It just makes you grin and say HELL YEAH!! Same thing as evocation; it may not be the best but it does put a grin on my face when I see burnt corpses. :smallbiggrin:

[AnonymousPepper]

Because even putting aside the debate about the superiority of BC, buffs, and debuffs, slot-for-slot Orb of Force from Conjuration kicks the ever loving crap out of anything Evoc can put out, especially when combined with Arcane Fusions for True Strikes. Disintegrate - Transmutation, not Evocation! - hurts more than about 95% of the Evoc school too - in fact, metamagic'd properly, as far as I know only Combust and perhaps that one Wings spell hits harder than an equally well-metamagic'd Disintegrate, and Combust is melee touch. But Orb of Force really is the show-stopper. Base damage output is slightly low compared to the other Orb spells (which are on par with equal-level evoc spells), but it's SR:No, Save:None, and it's force damage so it's also DR:No, Energy Immunity/Resistance:No and hits incorporeal creatures... oh, and it can be cast into an AMF. It will always hit as long as you can make a ranged touch attack - and if you're having trouble with that, Arcane Fusion it with a True Strike.

Not to say that Evoc doesn't have some nice damage tricks itself. The Time Stop+Vortex of Teeth method is a fantastic little thing. And Combust IS the best metamagic seed in the game for damage, to borrow from the Mailman's Handbook, provided you can deal with its downsides (Spectral Hand spell or Archmage's Arcane Reach class ability come to mind). But all in all it's just outclassed generally at the things it's supposed to do best.

[ahenobarbi]

It's just that, removing all the blasting, there aren't many concrete reasons left to pay attention to the school. Of those that remain most can be replicated more or less perfectly.

It has some seriously awesome defenses (Windwall) battlefield control (Wall of force), utility (Contingency).

It's good Scholl to have but many think it's just for blasting and thus poor choice.

[ryu]

It has some seriously awesome defenses (Windwall) battlefield control (Wall of force), utility (Contingency).

It's good Scholl to have but many think it's just for blasting and thus poor choice.

I know full well about all of those. They're on the small list of not inferior blasting options mentioned in the post you quoted. All are easily replaced with something roughly equivalent or better.

Friendly fire, the wall of x conjuration spells, and the vastly superior craft contingent spell make perfectly fine replacements. I have done my checking. There is nothing in this school that legitimately hurts to lose. Not even that. Especially not that.

[ahenobarbi]

I know full well about all of those. They're on the small list of not inferior blasting options mentioned in the post you quoted. All are easily replaced with something roughly equivalent or better.

Friendly fire, the wall of x conjuration spells, and the vastly superior craft contingent spell make perfectly fine replacements. I have done my checking. There is nothing in this school that legitimately hurts to lose. Not even that. Especially not that.

Nope. Wall of force has the huge advantages over other walls: can't be destroyed by brute strength, blocks etheral creatues, can't be dispelled.
Wind wall has it's advantages over friendly fire too: lower level, can cover more than just you, you don't need any target for arrows (to use friendly fire you need to carry some creatures that will take the hit for you, because usually you don't want enemies that close).
Contingency is cheaper than craft contingent spell in long term and nothing stops you from using both (say Contingency get free action every encounter and Craft contingent spell to cover any blind spots in your defenses).
(also notice I didn't bother to bring up anything outside core while you had to use 3 splats)

I'm not saying it's the best school ever or that it's irreplaceable; I'm just saying given a choice I'd rather keep it because it is useful.

[Synar]

Isn't force cage a good spell too, since no one mentioned it?

[eggynack]

Nope. Wall of force has the huge advantages over other walls: can't be destroyed by brute strength, blocks etheral creatues, can't be dispelled.
The thing about being dispelled is really a non-issue because its main competitor is something like wall of stone. Brute force and ethereal creatures are factors, though the former isn't the biggest one, as you need a lot of brute force to pull it off. Meanwhile, wall of force only grants straight walls, while walls of stone can be shaped and curved. That makes it applicable in a lot of situations where wall of force wouldn't be.


Wind wall has it's advantages over friendly fire too: lower level, can cover more than just you, you don't need any target for arrows (to use friendly fire you need to carry some creatures that will take the hit for you, because usually you don't want enemies that close).
I don't think your targets necessarily have to be creatures, so unless you're hovering completely out of range of everything in existence, you're probably fine. At the same time, friendly fire protects against a wider range of things, and, while the long term mode is slower, the fast mode is significantly faster. Really, we don't need perfect replacements here. If you're copying at a reasonably high rate of effectiveness, that's good enough.


Contingency is cheaper than craft contingent spell in long term and nothing stops you from using both (say Contingency get free action every encounter and Craft contingent spell to cover any blind spots in your defenses).
Yeah, but craft contingent just has a ridiculous quantity of advantages, and contingency is one of the things that shadow evocation does best.

(also notice I didn't bother to bring up anything outside core while you had to use 3 splats)
You could always name splat book stuff, if you feel that would help. However, I suspect that the reason for mostly naming core stuff is that most of the best evocation stuff is generally in core. This isn't a restriction that anyone's placing on you from outside, after all.


Isn't force cage a good spell too, since no one mentioned it?
It is, though it suffers a bit from being somewhat expensive. 1,500 GP is a lot, if you're not raking in cash past WBL in some fashion.

[Killer Angel]

Well, everything was said.

I just have to add something to add to the "Damage" vs "Control" - issue.


I would add a metagaming reasoning.
If you kill monsters by damage, you fill the only role of your meleers, stripping away the fun their players can have (to hit hard something 'til it drops dead).
With battlefield control, you decide the fight, but the meleers will still have their fun, and will be grateful to you for the help.

[ryu]

The thing about being dispelled is really a non-issue because its main competitor is something like wall of stone. Brute force and ethereal creatures are factors, though the former isn't the biggest one, as you need a lot of brute force to pull it off. Meanwhile, wall of force only grants straight walls, while walls of stone can be shaped and curved. That makes it applicable in a lot of situations where wall of force wouldn't be.


I don't think your targets necessarily have to be creatures, so unless you're hovering completely out of range of everything in existence, you're probably fine. At the same time, friendly fire protects against a wider range of things, and, while the long term mode is slower, the fast mode is significantly faster. Really, we don't need perfect replacements here. If you're copying at a reasonably high rate of effectiveness, that's good enough.


Yeah, but craft contingent just has a ridiculous quantity of advantages, and contingency is one of the things that shadow evocation does best.

You could always name splat book stuff, if you feel that would help. However, I suspect that the reason for mostly naming core stuff is that most of the best evocation stuff is generally in core. This isn't a restriction that anyone's placing on you from outside, after all.


It is, though it suffers a bit from being somewhat expensive. 1,500 GP is a lot, if you're not raking in cash past WBL in some fashion.

Thank you Eggy you've made most all the relevant counterpoints I would've had I not been doing something else for a few minutes. Outside of possible differences in preferred power level we really do think alike.

[ace rooster]

Mostly it is considered bad because encounters occur at close range in good light conditions, against small numbers of powerful enemies. While these situations make less work for the DM, and less of a slog for the players (and so are used most often), they are actually a special case of encounter that evokers do not shine at. Other than orb of force, the orb line of spells are outranged by cone of cold until level 14, never mind fireball. In the dark (50% of the time above ground and all the time below) concealment provides at least 20-50% protection against touch attack spells, assuming you can find your target (who will generally not be stupid enough to hang about within your darkvision range, and if they are in shadowy illumination can be sniping with a +stupid to the hide check from distance). Fireball does not care whether you can see your target or not, and flaming sphere creates a light source which can be used for target illumination even ignoring the damage. Black-light is huge in these situations.

That said, there is no good reason to specialise in evocation; a staff of fire gives you all the fireballs you need. An evoker is best considered a self propelled artillery piece, who is great at harassing at range, but relies on the other schools for the self propelled bit. He is not a death ray, and any target that can take 10d6 to the face is not his job (and can probably take 60+ damage fine, so there is no point in trying to boost damage to be effective against them). If the DM is only throwing around creatures like this an evoker is going to suck hard, but most creatures in a world will not be. Only fighting high power creatures is a reflection of encounters being skewed a certain way, rather than the power if evokers. In an undead campaign an enchanter is going to suck even harder.

It also has one of the best LoS breaking spells in the game. Tiny hut can be cast in combat, and against targets more the 10ft away is functionally greater invisability, only without being able to be defeated by see invisability or true seeing, and with space for friends to benefit as well.

[Karnith]

Isn't force cage a good spell too, since no one mentioned it?
It's very good in some situations - namely, against creatures who are small enough to fit inside the forcecage itself and who don't have some way to get out (most commonly, teleportation). It gets a lot of talk and play in 1-on-1 duels, because it beats a lot of poorly-constructed builds by itself and is part of a classic kill combo (Time Stop -> Dimensional Lock -> Maw of Chaos/Acid Fog/what have you -> Forcecage), but because of the nature of high-level play (where ways to escape are fairly common), its expensive material component, and because it usually only affects a single enemy at a time its utility in adventures generally is a bit more limited.

When it works, though, it is an amazing spell.

[eggynack]

Thank you Eggy you've made most all the relevant counterpoints I would've had I not been doing something else for a few minutes. Outside of possible differences in preferred power level we really do think alike.
You are welcome. We are oft of one mind on various things.

Mostly it is considered bad because encounters occur at close range in good light conditions, against small numbers of powerful enemies. While these situations make less work for the DM, and less of a slog for the players (and so are used most often), they are actually a special case of encounter that evokers do not shine at. Other than orb of force, the orb line of spells are outranged by cone of cold until level 14, never mind fireball. In the dark (50% of the time above ground and all the time below) concealment provides at least 20-50% protection against touch attack spells, assuming you can find your target (who will generally not be stupid enough to hang about within your darkvision range, and if they are in shadowy illumination can be sniping with a +stupid to the hide check from distance). Fireball does not care whether you can see your target or not, and flaming sphere creates a light source which can be used for target illumination even ignoring the damage. Black-light is huge in these situations.

That said, there is no good reason to specialise in evocation; a staff of fire gives you all the fireballs you need. An evoker is best considered a self propelled artillery piece, who is great at harassing at range, but relies on the other schools for the self propelled bit. He is not a death ray, and any target that can take 10d6 to the face is not his job (and can probably take 60+ damage fine, so there is no point in trying to boost damage to be effective against them). If the DM is only throwing around creatures like this an evoker is going to suck hard, but most creatures in a world will not be. Only fighting high power creatures is a reflection of encounters being skewed a certain way, rather than the power if evokers. In an undead campaign an enchanter is going to suck even harder.

It also has one of the best LoS breaking spells in the game. Tiny hut can be cast in combat, and against targets more the 10ft away is functionally greater invisability, only without being able to be defeated by see invisability or true seeing, and with space for friends to benefit as well.
This isn't really why it's considered bad. I mean, sure, the fireball versus orb of fire debate always rages on, but really, as I've mentioned, the reason you'd keep the school has little to do with fireball, and so the reason you'd ban it has equally little to do with fireball. The fact is, underground dark fights against piles of little opponents is a situation where you can just do something that is neither fireball nor orb of force. The usual consideration is stinking cloud, so let's just go with that again. A bit less range, but not enough less to be particularly relevant.

Orb of fire is for when you're dealing with stuff that's relatively hard to deal with. Like, there's a golem, and he's in the middle of an antimagic field, and maybe he has high saves. BFC's would often work as well, but not all of them, and the ability to seriously damage an AMF'd golem is some sweet business. In particular, it's a thing that wizards aren't the best at, while the long distance mass of weak enemies is pretty much the best case scenario for a wizard.

[shadowseve]

Thank you Eggy you've made most all the relevant counterpoints I would've had I not been doing something else for a few minutes. Outside of possible differences in preferred power level we really do think alike.

Eggy is the **** nothing left to say.

[ryu]

Eggy is the **** nothing left to say.

We both have pretty decent OP-fu. He favors druids and I'm all about wizards.

[Raimun]

A singular blasting spell straight out of the box is most often worse option in combat than other combat spells of equal level.

1st level example: Should I shoot one goblin with Magic Missile or defeat a bunch of them with Color Spray? Cast Burning Hands? Might still not do the gobbos in. Color Spray will.

However, at higher levels, you might be able to use tricks like Meta Magic (etc.) to enhance a choice blasting spell to respectable damage. Most often this means that you need to somehow double the casting of a single blasting spell. 10D6 is not much but 20D6 is.

One further note, if your party has multiple characters with blasting spells, focus fire can be deadly. It's a good tactic to remember if you are fighting multiple enemies and you know their weaknesses. Squad of mummies (elite mooks) is nothing against a rain of arcane fire.

Evocation is not hopeless but it's sharply limited and requires more investment in Class Features, Feats and magic items to work.

Edit: In short: Damage is good if you can make it add up fast enough.

Still, one Save or Suck/Die-spell (cast by a single character) might do in one or more enemies. With single casting, I might add.

[shadowseve]

We both have pretty decent OP-fu. He favors druids and I'm all about wizards.

yeah I've seen you guys post a lot in various threads. You both seem to know your stuff. If I ever make a sorcerer or wizard again I'll have to hit you up for advice.

[ryu]

yeah I've seen you guys post a lot in various threads. You both seem to know your stuff. If I ever make a sorcerer or wizard again I'll have to hit you up for advice.

Keep in mind the first thing I'm going to demand is the makeup of the party with as much certain detail as possible. Nobody wants to be behind the party keel and nobody wants to be so far ahead that everyone else glares at them.

[shadowseve]

Keep in mind the first thing I'm going to demand is the makeup of the party with as much certain detail as possible. Nobody wants to be behind the party keel and nobody wants to be so far ahead that everyone else glares at them.

absolutely agree. the party I'm in now is a cleric, druid (me), wizard and crusader. So we're pretty balanced. Crusader is a lock down build and damn good at the class. To bridge the gap the dm is giving her a few extra magic items that will help her compete. Though thanks to some great advice my character does overshadow the rest a bit.

Though as far as casters go, wizard may rule the sorcerer but I still like the charisma based caster :smallbiggrin:

However I didn't want to offend you with my post about Eggy. He has just taught me a tremendous amount of crap for my druid.

[ryu]

absolutely agree. the party I'm in now is a cleric, druid (me), wizard and crusader. So we're pretty balanced. Crusader is a lock down build and damn good at the class. To bridge the gap the dm is giving her a few extra magic items that will help her compete. Though thanks to some great advice my character does overshadow the rest a bit.

Though as far as casters go, wizard may rule the sorcerer but I still like the charisma based caster :smallbiggrin:

However I didn't want to offend you with my post about Eggy. He has just taught me a tremendous amount of crap for my druid.

Yeah I know. I'm not going to get ruffled over a field of expertise I don't even get into. All I need to know about druids is what one played to a high degree of competence should be capable of at any given level. Very little else is relevant as the party wizard.

[Captnq]

My Thoughts On Fireball. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4571.msg82218#msg82218)

[Amphetryon]

Assuming you've leveraged Evocation to the point where it's doing sufficient HP damage to the targets to be relevant, you've chosen to expend effort on rendering the Fighter-types (more) obsolete, by taking over the one role at which they have a chance to contribute and/or excel: Causing HP damage to an adversary or group of adversaries. That's not often the hallmark of a good team Player.

That said, there are certainly going to be campaigns and particular party configurations where Evocation works reasonably well. If you know your party is going to be exploring large spaces against multiple weak enemies per encounter, and know that one (or more) of your teammates is using that foreknowledge to take Cleave, there are worse things you can do with your Spells than softening up all the mooks to enable Cleave to essentially auto-trigger on every hit. It's just that there are usually better things you can do with your spells, too.

[13ones]

Evocation isn't bad, it is just different. Your Fighter and Ranger will out damage you if you try to race them so don't try to race them. They do single target damage better than you so let them have that. You're better at exploding a dozen dudes at once. BBEG is for them, all of his mooks are for you.

You can't treat Evocation like Conjuration. You can't just hide behind walls, fogs, and summons for every fight and win. You have to use tactical thinking and precise strikes to win a fight with evocation. Conjuration is your tactical nuke that will EVENTUALLY win a fight. Evocation is the strategically placed C4 that blows up the bad guy's fleet of air ships in a cool action sequence to make the fight easier.

If you treat it as battle field control as opposed to damage it gets better. Let me show you with something I've been tinkering with in Pathfinder.

With spell perfection to get dazing spell (metamagic)[Daze for rounds equal to original level of the spell on failed save] and then preparing persistent spell [roll save twice. take worse save] (metmagic) on ball lightning you suddenly, at level 16 have DC 30ish reflex or daze for 4 round spell, roll your save twice and take the worst. With the Admixture school you can change the elemental type on the fly to whatever you wish. And because at 16th you have four orbs you can daze four targets. So in theory with a single spell you could lock down four targets within 260 feet of you for 4 rounds unless them make a save against your spell. "But it has spell resistance!" I hear people cry. One, maybe two feats makes spell pen easier to by-pass. Be an elf if you're really worried.

Oh and spell then lasts for 16 rounds. So you can keep them locked down or proceed to lock the rest of the fight down.

Evocation isn't bad. You just have to use it in the right ways. The spells in evocation are incredible powerful! Just remember a few simple rules;

-Control the battle field
-Blow up as many dudes as possible with a single spell
-Multiple-round spells are your friend. Use them.
-Low level blasts are better than high level blasts. It is often better to metamagic the damage of a spell than cast a higher level spell.
-Admixture is your friend!
-You still need to be able to support the party. Throw haste on the fighter and THEN blow everything up.

[Zubrowka74]

I just wanted to point out that the scales are tipped from the get go. You give one school (evocation) a way to replicate another one's schtick without having the other way around. And you give über dammage dealing to another. So all this is skewed badly against Evocation. What if it had been Show Conjuration or Shadow Transmutation instead, I wonder. Schools should be distinct, or at leasted overlapped equally. Perhaps some spells were a way in the older editions to mitigate specialisation (remember Illusionist used to be a separate class with it's own spell list) but the end result is not balanced.

Also, I think designers overrate blasting.

[ryu]

I just wanted to point out that the scales are tipped from the get go. You give one school (evocation) a way to replicate another one's schtick without having the other way around. And you give über dammage dealing to another. So all this is skewed badly against Evocation. What if it had been Show Conjuration or Shadow Transmutation instead, I wonder. Schools should be distinct, or at leasted overlapped equally. Perhaps some spells were a way in the older editions to mitigate specialisation (remember Illusionist used to be a separate class with it's own spell list) but the end result is not balanced.

Also, I think designers overrate blasting.

Shadow conjuration is a thing. It's just even more limited than shadow evocation on a school with plenty of spells it's literally incapable of replicating. Also conjuration had more unique meats to begin with.

[Hecuba]

To start, no wizard should be considered bad.

Evocation as a school, however, does have some aspects that make it less lucrative for specialists.
Most of its damage utility can be replicated to an acceptable degree out of school.
The only real monopoly evocation has here is long range.
There are spells that explicitly replicate the evocation as illusions.
The primary (but not necessarily most important) focus of the school-- AOE damage-- is not often a particularly strong strategy.

There are, however, several relatively unique and interesting effects that make it somewhat painful to ban at most levels of play. Mostly force effects and contingency. You can operate without these, but they are valuable.

[Talya]

It's kindof like asking "Why is my 2014 Ford Mustang considered slow?" when you're parked at a Ferrari dealership.

The answer is all around you, and yet your car is certainly NOT slow.

[Ravens_cry]

I wonder what it would do for the poor evoker if evocation spells, taking out ones that have no damn business being there, like Contingency, that ordinarily take standard actions can be cast as part of a full attack action. It means burning through your spells a lot faster, but it makes some fairly hefty damage at moderate optimization.

[ryu]

I wonder what it would do for the poor evoker if evocation spells, taking out ones that have no damn business being there, like Contingency, that ordinarily take standard actions can be cast as part of a full attack action. It means burning through your spells a lot faster, but it makes some fairly hefty damage at moderate optimization.

So remove the only parts of the school people actually cared about to optimize blasting harder? That just makes the situation worse...

[Ravens_cry]

So remove the only parts of the school people actually cared about to optimize blasting harder? That just makes the situation worse...
Contingency is just throwing the dog a bone, while blasting, love it or hate it, is what the school is thematically centred around. I think it's better to try and improve that than giving the school spells that have no real business being there.

[Talya]

Contingency is just throwing the dog a bone, while blasting, love it or hate it, is what the school is thematically centred around. I think it's better to try and improve that than giving the school spells that have no real business being there.

Meh. There's actually valid thematic reasons why different spells are in different schools. It's not about balance, or even necessarily about mechanical effect. Mostly they were well thought out from a fluff perspective.

Mostly.

[Vaz]

Miracle is an Evocation. It's also a Cleric spell, but things like Arcane Disciple (Luck) get access to it.

[Ravens_cry]

Meh. There's actually valid thematic reasons why different spells are in different schools. It's not about balance, or even necessarily about mechanical effect. Mostly they were well thought out from a fluff perspective.

Mostly.

Mostly, yes, though I have a few quibbles. I'd prefer healing spells went into Necromancy school, for example. Contingency even more so falls in the 'mostly', in my opinion.

[Captnq]

Personally, I think that they should do what they did for divinations.

Spontaneous Diviner is something you can take as a wizard at 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th. Divinations are very useful, but honestly, who stocks up on detect X when going into a dungeon? They need a spontaneous Evocation. When you want to blast, you want to BLAST, but you don't want to actually fill up your slots with the blaster spells.

In my opinion, it's a perfect fix. No need to re-balance blasting spells. No need to make every else suck more. If you make it possible to spontenously drop a spell for an evocation (which are mostly 1d6/level damage/reflex save), then it will see much more use, and also encourage people to stay in the core class. It should NOT be a feat, but an Alternate class feature.

I mean, if you can be a spontaneous Diviner, and evocation is worse then divinations, Spontaneous Evocation should already exist.

I would NOT allow it for necromancy, illusions, conjuration, enchantment, transmutation, or abjuration. Far too many game breaking combos in those schools.


Mostly, yes, though I have a few quibbles. I'd prefer healing spells went into Necromancy school, for example. Contingency even more so falls in the 'mostly', in my opinion.

Testify Brother!

[Ravens_cry]

It doesn't take away the action cost problem though, which is what I was trying to address. Simply put, 10d6 is not dangerous to any but the most fragile class.

[Miss Disaster]

I like Captnq's idea regarding a homebrew ACF option of that flavor.

Perhaps an even more appropriate game mechanic solution for a niche category of spontaneous-cast spells would be to base it off of the Proteus feat (EoE p. 26). Again, limiting the selection of candidate spells to a narrow category - such as Wiz/Sorc Evocation [Fire] spells.

[eggynack]

It should NOT be a feat, but an Alternate class feature.

What would you be trading, in that case? If this is just spontaneous divination with the serial numbers filed off, then the distinction between feat and ACF is a bit of a pointless one.

It doesn't take away the action cost problem though, which is what I was trying to address. Simply put, 10d6 is not dangerous to any but the most fragile class.
Perhaps, though there's something to be said for just converting crap into blasting. 10d6 isn't particularly dangerous, but when nothing you'd be doing otherwise is dangerous, it seems like it'd be a reasonable fallback.

This does seem a lot stronger than spontaneous divination, however. Divination might be a better school, but evocation is mostly formed of spells you'd like to be casting in the moment, and some of those spells, like those listed in this thread, are actually pretty strong. This could be a bit too much of a wizard buff as a result. I mean, just consider the idea of spontaneous wind wall, gust of wind, and wall of force. Those spells are all pretty situational, and very strong in that situation. That's a lot of power being tossed out.

[Ravens_cry]

Perhaps, though there's something to be said for just converting crap into blasting. 10d6 isn't particularly dangerous, but when nothing you'd be doing otherwise is dangerous, it seems like it'd be a reasonable fallback.

Yes, it's nice as a 'Hey, nothing I prepared today is particular useful, so, hey, let's do this'. However, the idea was for a focused evoker, someone who wants to make blasting their mainstay. Heck, you could even combine the ideas for anyone who decided to be an Evocation School Specialist as the benefit for doing so.

[eggynack]

Yes, it's nice as a 'Hey, nothing I prepared today is particular useful, so, hey, let's do this'. However, the idea was for a focused evoker, someone who wants to make blasting their mainstay. Heck, you could even combine the ideas for anyone who decided to be an Evocation School Specialist as the benefit for doing so.
That kinda makes the opposite of sense. If you want people to specialize, thus filling one spell per spell level with evocations, or more, if they're going focused specialist, then the last thing you want is for folks to have the ability to spontaneously convert spells to evocation. It makes those slots into a pile of meaninglessness. It seems more like a thing to make not-banning better, and to ultimately get people to toss around more fireballs.

[Captnq]

First of all, Here's the list of spells:




Spell List
SL0
SL1
SL2
SL3
SL4
SL5
SL6
SL7
SL8
SL9
Total[/U][/B]


Abjur
1
20
33
38
33
33
21
18
12
14
223


Conj
2
36
29
38
45
38
26
19
11
27
271


Div
4
35
18
19
10
4
9
6
4
3
112


Ench
1
17
24
21
17
11
13
9
14
5
132


Evoc
7
24
48
48
44
34
18
15
11
16
265


Illus
3
15
28
23
12
16
10
5
6
3
121


Necro
4
14
36
27
32
30
28
21
19
11
222


Trans
11
58
89
83
62
67
42
29
24
19
484


Univ
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
0
1
15


TOTAL
35
221
307
300
256
234
168
124
101
99
1845




Now lets look at the breakdown

We have 1845 Spells for sorcerer wizard (another few spells for just sorcerer [27] and wizard [4], but lets skip those).

With the breakdown of what percentage of spells by level over all being:



Spell List
SL0
SL1
SL2
SL3
SL4
SL5
SL6
SL7
SL8
SL9
Total[/U][/B]


ALL
1%
12%
17%
16%
14%
13%
9%
7%
5%
5%
99%



Now, by the numbers' Evocation has the third largest number of spells. Transmutation has 26%, Conjuration 15%, and Evocation has 14%. Illusion and Divination both come in at 6%. But illusion can imitate evocation and conjuration, so in effect it's actually 35% of the available spells, assuming you get to high enough level to start casting shadow magic.

Only 26% of the spells are devoted to spellcasters over 10th level, where shadow magic comes into play, so in a high level campaign, an illusionist has many options. In the single digits, evocation seems to have the edge on conjuration, but many of those evocations are the same spell with different energy descriptors. Conjuration has more unique spells then evocation. And transmutation just rocks my self-centered world when one is 9th or lower.

Hands down, Min/Max wise, Transmutation and Conjuration are top of the list. Evocation simply doesn't have as many toys as the other schools. That said, I still put evocation on par with necromancy, abjuration, divination, enchantment, at least in single digit levels. Once you pass 10th level however, evocation rapidly get's left in the dust. The rise of save-or-sucks and unique spells that provide broad solutions simply makes the one trick pony that is evocation a poor choice.

[Larkas]

That kinda makes the opposite of sense. If you want people to specialize, thus filling one spell per spell level with evocations, or more, if they're going focused specialist, then the last thing you want is for folks to have the ability to spontaneously convert spells to evocation. It makes those slots into a pile of meaninglessness. It seems more like a thing to make not-banning better, and to ultimately get people to toss around more fireballs.

Not necessarily. The ability could work only with blasting spells, the slots could be filled with Evocation spells that are not blasty.

@Captnq: Whoa... They didn't even try to keep a semblance of balance on that front, did they?

[eggynack]

Not necessarily. The ability could work only with blasting spells, the slots could be filled with Evocation spells that are not blasty.
That does seem like a plausible alternative to the ACF given that could work, in terms of incentivizing evocation specialization. If this is a real thing, then it might be worth just constructing an actual list of spells that can be spontaneously cast from. That'd remove some of the ambiguity surrounding how we define blasting, because there's a lot of it. I mean, my general definition is a spell for whom the main goal is damage, but then you get into weird arguments about what the main goals of various spells are.

[Captnq]

What would you be trading, in that case? If this is just spontaneous divination with the serial numbers filed off, then the distinction between feat and ACF is a bit of a pointless one.

Perhaps, though there's something to be said for just converting crap into blasting. 10d6 isn't particularly dangerous, but when nothing you'd be doing otherwise is dangerous, it seems like it'd be a reasonable fallback.



SPONTANEOUS DIVINATION
You can use your connection to the divine to inquire about mysteries beyond mortal ken.
Level: 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th.
Replaces: This benefit replaces the bonus feat gained by a wizard at 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th level.

It REPLACES ALL Bonus Feats. (like a wizard ever advances past 5th) SD is NOT a feat. It is a CLASS FEATURE and always was. You'd be trading the exact same thing, so you couldn't be both. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


This does seem a lot stronger than spontaneous divination, however. Divination might be a better school, but evocation is mostly formed of spells you'd like to be casting in the moment, and some of those spells, like those listed in this thread, are actually pretty strong. This could be a bit too much of a wizard buff as a result. I mean, just consider the idea of spontaneous wind wall, gust of wind, and wall of force. Those spells are all pretty situational, and very strong in that situation. That's a lot of power being tossed out.

As I just pointed out, after 10th level, evocation's usefullness takes a nose dive. So If I wasn't clear, Spontaneous Evocation doesn't kick in until 5th. So you get a moderate pick up from 5th to 10th, then the nose dive in evocation from 10th to 20th is compensated for by the Spontaneous Evocation. Hardly a perfect solution, but if SD is allowed, and divination can be far more deadly then evocation, I see no reason for evocation to not be usable as the ACF SD with the "serial numbers filed off"

[Larkas]

That does seem like a plausible alternative to the ACF given that could work, in terms of incentivizing evocation specialization. If this is a real thing, then it might be worth just constructing an actual list of spells that can be spontaneously cast from. That'd remove some of the ambiguity surrounding how we define blasting, because there's a lot of it. I mean, my general definition is a spell for whom the main goal is damage, but then you get into weird arguments about what the main goals of various spells are.

Maybe there's a reasonable way to generalize that? "Evocation spells that deal damage", perhaps? I know that opens up some double- and triple-threat spells, but is this even bad?

[Captnq]

I like Captnq's idea regarding a homebrew ACF option of that flavor.

Perhaps an even more appropriate game mechanic solution for a niche category of spontaneous-cast spells would be to base it off of the Proteus feat (EoE p. 26). Again, limiting the selection of candidate spells to a narrow category - such as Wiz/Sorc Evocation [Fire] spells.

Actually, if you are willing to dip into one level of cleric and take Initiate of Amauntor, you can the ability to spontaneously cast any fire descriptor spell on YOUR SPELL LIST, not in your spell book. That's 82 fire spells that you can dump any wizard spell and spontaneously cast. I recommend cloiser cleric, and dump the three domains for Domain Feats. It's not like you're going to use them anyways. Knowledge, fire, and law are the best ass kicking combo.

BTW, 1/2 of all evocation spells are the same spell refluffed. Take the Cone of Fire. It's cone of cold, but with FIRE. Seriously? :smalleek:

[eggynack]

But illusion can imitate evocation and conjuration, so in effect it's actually 35% of the available spells, assuming you get to high enough level to start casting shadow magic.
Your asserted percentage for illusion is off. First, shadow conjuration only hits summoning and creation, which misses out on a big chunk of those spells. Second, the level breakdown on shadow spells means that you're necessarily missing some spells, particularly 9th level conjurations, and 8th and 9th level evocations. Finally, this probably was accounted for and actively ignored, but out of the list of shadow spells that can be cast, only a few are actually worthwhile in comparison to the original. As an example from earlier in this thread, consider wind wall, capable of only blocking 1/5 of arrows, or really any summon monster, lagging behind in both level and capacity.

It REPLACES ALL Bonus Feats. (like a wizard ever advances past 5th) SD is NOT a feat. It is a CLASS FEATURE and always was. You'd be trading the exact same thing, so you couldn't be both. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
It replaces a bonus feat. In particular, between 15th and 20th, there is an "or" rather than an "and".


As I just pointed out, after 10th level, evocation's usefullness takes a nose dive. So If I wasn't clear, Spontaneous Evocation doesn't kick in until 5th. So you get a moderate pick up from 5th to 10th, then the nose dive in evocation from 10th to 20th is compensated for by the Spontaneous Evocation. Hardly a perfect solution, but if SD is allowed, and divination can be far more deadly then evocation, I see no reason for evocation to not be usable as the ACF SD with the "serial numbers filed off"
I don't know that that's really accurate. There are some lower level evocation spells that maintain power into high levels, like resilient sphere, gust of wind, and wall of force, and there are some, like forcecage and howling chain, that are reasonably strong high level spells. The first set is the more relevant, and I suspect that it makes this a more powerful option, even after 10th.

Maybe there's a reasonable way to generalize that? "Evocation spells that deal damage", perhaps? I know that opens up some double- and triple-threat spells, but is this even bad?
I don't know the exact numbers, but there are some that really only deal tiny quantities of damage, and mostly do other stuff. As an arbitrary example, not of the evocation school, consider freezing fog. We'd probably have to look at the breakdown of damaging spells that aren't that damaging to check if it's an issue anyway.

[Captnq]

Your asserted percentage for illusion is off.

Ugh. Fine. Quibble over the details. Make it 30%. I still stand by my assessment that shadowmagic is useless/subpar in any campaign where the caster level has not progressed past 10th.




I don't know that that's really accurate. There are some lower level evocation spells that maintain power into high levels, like resilient sphere, gust of wind, and wall of force, and there are some, like forcecage and howling chain, that are reasonably strong high level spells. The first set is the more relevant, and I suspect that it makes this a more powerful option, even after 10th.


I can say the same thing for any of the 8 schools. If I can say the same thing, then the equation is balanced. If the equation is balanced, then we can safely ignore this for the purposes of determining if an Spontateous Divination ACF converted to Evocation is balanced.

In comparison to Initiate of Amauntor (which is a feat, BTW), it costs far more (all your bonus feats and thus prevents you from taking any other Class feature that costs that.) Evocation gives you 265 spells. IoA gives you 82, which you don't even NEED in your spellbook. Yes, you need a one level dip, but I think it's a valid consideration as for what is allowed and what is not.

Certainly, a version where you were limited to a specific energy type or descriptor would be less powerful and more likely to pass a DM's inspection. I stand by my reasoning, however. That sort of nerfing is not needed, because evocation is sub optimal.



I don't know the exact numbers, but there are some that really only deal tiny quantities of damage, and mostly do other stuff. As an arbitrary example, not of the evocation school, consider freezing fog. We'd probably have to look at the breakdown of damaging spells that aren't that damaging to check if it's an issue anyway.

Well, I do have a good handle on the exact numbers. I wrote the Bleeding SPELLBOOK. It eventually morphed into the EVD (see sig for details). 103 handbooks in various states of completion. But let me assure you, the spell book, which is every single spell, was well researched.

For example (Freezing Fog)
Editor (BattleMod): Basically this is solid fog with a quickened/heightened/widened grease spell added on. There’s some inconsequential cold damage merely for flavour. Mixing two good spells like Solid Fog and Grease (that are naturally synergetic) makes this a very good spell. This remains my favorite conjuration spell for the strong triple threat and synergy of the BC/Debuff aspects.

I rate it a BLUE (above average). Why? Because it's 6th and in comparison to what you can do with other 6th level spells. Blue is still above average, mind you, but not top of the list. Purple is top of the list. Guess how many purples I have in Evocation? Not many. I don't even have many greens (average). What has many many MANY blue and purple? Conjuration and Transmutation

Specific examples do not make the over all trend any different. Evocation is not as good as divination. If ACF SD is allowed, ACF Spontaneous Evocation should be.

[Captnq]

In Reguards to ACF SD:

Huh. You know, I never read it that way, but now that you are pointing it out, I guess it could be.

Wow. It's even more broken then before.

And BTW, Complete Champion: Page 45.
ALTERNATIVE
CLASS FEATURES

Page 52,
WIZARD
Spontaneous Divination

Next Column starts New Feats

So, if it's a feat, why is it in the Alternate Class Feature Section, and not in the feat section?

[eggynack]

No. It does not. It replaces all 4 bonus feats. It is a class feature. Where do you get it as a feat? I have been working on a hanbook of the complete list of all feats to include in the EVD. I have never seen this feat. What book is this feat in?
It is an ACF, but it replaces a single bonus feat. You can read it yourself.

This benefit replaces the bonus feat gained by a wizard at 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th level.
I mean, you could make this ACF different, such that it actually does lose all wizard bonus feats, though then you run into the argument that you were making on my behalf, that you're never really going to lose more than one if you just PrC out. The balance is still pretty much the same.



I can say the same thing for any of the 8 schools. If I can say the same thing, then the equation is balanced. If the equation is balanced, then we can safely ignore this for the purposes of determining if an Spontateous Divination ACF converted to Evocation is balanced.
I don't think you can say the same for divination, because all of the spells I listed are good if cast in combat. Divination does have spells that are good in combat, but not really as many at all. You're drawing this broad equivalency really quickly, and I don't think it's an accurate one at all.


In comparison to Initiate of Amauntor (which is a feat, BTW), it costs far more (all your bonus feats and thus prevents you from taking any other Class feature that costs that.) Evocation gives you 265 spells. IoA gives you 82, which you don't even NEED in your spellbook. Yes, you need a one level dip, but I think it's a valid consideration as for what is allowed and what is not.
It looks like it's kinda two feats, as it has a poor feat tax. It's also only usable by clerics (or paladins), which might alter the numbers some, and definitely alters how it should be considered.


Specific examples do not make the over all trend any different. Evocation is not as good as divination. If ACF SD is allowed, ACF Spontaneous Evocation should be.
Basically, my argument is as follows. Evocation is worse than divination, but spontaneous evocation is better than spontaneous divination. This is because, for the best divination spells, you just don't gain much benefit from casting spontaneously. I mean, it might happen sometimes, but how often are you going to say, "I need a contact other plane right this minute,"? Most often, you're going to be running these things between conflicts, and spontaneous divination just acts as a thing to use slots for at the end of the day. You could gain similar benefit by leaving a few slots open. There are some exceptions here, and they make the ability worth having, but the number of spells that really benefit from spontaneous casting in divination is lower than that held by evocation.

Edit:
So, if it's a feat, why is it in the Alternate Class Feature Section, and not in the feat section?
No idea. I guess they wanted it exclusively as a wizard bonus feat, but they could have pretty easily made a feat with that restriction.

[ryu]

It is an ACF, but it replaces a single bonus feat. You can read it yourself.

I mean, you could make this ACF different, such that it actually does lose all wizard bonus feats, though then you run into the argument that you were making on my behalf, that you're never really going to lose more than one if you just PrC out. The balance is still pretty much the same.



I don't think you can say the same for divination, because all of the spells I listed are good if cast in combat. Divination does have spells that are good in combat, but not really as many at all. You're drawing this broad equivalency really quickly, and I don't think it's an accurate one at all.


It looks like it's kinda two feats, as it has a poor feat tax. It's also only usable by clerics (or paladins), which might alter the numbers some, and definitely alters how it should be considered.


Basically, my argument is as follows. Evocation is worse than divination, but spontaneous evocation is better than spontaneous divination. This is because, for the best divination spells, you just don't gain much benefit from casting spontaneously. I mean, it might happen sometimes, but how often are you going to say, "I need a contact other plane right this minute,"? Most often, you're going to be running these things between conflicts, and spontaneous divination just acts as a thing to use slots for at the end of the day. You could gain similar benefit by leaving a few slots open. There are some exceptions here, and they make the ability worth having, but the number of spells that really benefit from spontaneous casting in divination is lower than that held by evocation.

Edit:
No idea. I guess they wanted it exclusively as a wizard bonus feat, but they could have pretty easily made a feat with that restriction.

Clearly they intentionally wanted to force you to have one less feat open total for dark chaos shuffling.

[Captnq]

Basically, my argument is as follows. Evocation is worse than divination, but spontaneous evocation is better than spontaneous divination.

*BLINKS*

You are serious? You'd take spontaneous Evocation over spontaneous Divination? Seriously?

Adept Spirit - 3rd
Alter Fortune - 3rd
Arcane Sensitivity (reach/chain, of course) - 3rd w/metamagic rod.
Arcane Sight - Ignore miss chance 3rd
Arrow Mind (With launch bolt cantrip, of course) - 1st
Assay Spell Resistance - 4th

Now, those are all castable by 9th level and are just the A's.

Evocation:
Arcane Maul - 3rd MAYBE. 5th level wizards should not be in melee.

So. Choosing only one letter in the alphabet as a cross section, I found 6 spells a 9th level wizard might want to cast in combat, but is unlikely to want to walk around with all the time. Yet 1 evocation.

Go on. Pick a letter of the alphabet. I am confidant the pattern will remain the same.

[eggynack]

That's an oddly poor metric, which isn't a thing I would suspect, looking at it. Only around four out of evocation's, by your reckoning, 265 spells are in A, which is actually somehow a smaller number than your list of A spells in divination, despite the fact that you put divination at 112 spells. I can just move down a letter and get B, which seems to have about two total spells in divination, and a pretty massive number in evocation, or C, for whom this is true to a lesser extent in both directions.

Edit: In summary, whatever pattern does emerge, in either direction, this is unlikely to be it.

[Talya]

Remember that Shadow Conjuration does NOT mimic the majority of conjuration spells. In fact, it only can mimic (summoning) and (creation) subtypes.

[137beth]

Isn't force cage a good spell too, since no one mentioned it?

Force cage can either be really good or completely useless. If you are facing an opponent with no short-range teleportation and non disintigrate, which fits in a forcecage, then you can easily disable it while you fight its allies or buff up.

On the other hand, if you are fighting creatures with dimension door, then you trade one of your actions and a 7th level spell for one of their actions and a 4th level spell--not a good trade.

[3drinks]

Personally, I think that they should do what they did for divinations.

Spontaneous Diviner is something you can take as a wizard at 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th. Divinations are very useful, but honestly, who stocks up on detect X when going into a dungeon? They need a spontaneous Evocation. When you want to blast, you want to BLAST, but you don't want to actually fill up your slots with the blaster spells.

In my opinion, it's a perfect fix. No need to re-balance blasting spells. No need to make every else suck more. If you make it possible to spontenously drop a spell for an evocation (which are mostly 1d6/level damage/reflex save), then it will see much more use, and also encourage people to stay in the core class. It should NOT be a feat, but an Alternate class feature.

I mean, if you can be a spontaneous Diviner, and evocation is worse then divinations, Spontaneous Evocation should already exist.

If you want a "Spontaneous Evocation" but especially want it only usable in a blasting role, the best (and in my mind easiest) way to achieve this is by giving them Arcane Fire from the Archmage PrC. That lets them turn their spells into Ld6 damage at a 30ft or so range. So if you need a blast...well, there it is.

[KorbeltheReader]

Riffing off of what was said earlier, my impression is that damage output is the one part of the wizard and sorcerer that WotC made an effort to balance against non-primary-caster classes. While wizards can easily out-sneak rangers, out-skillmonkey rogues, and out-party-face bards, often with a single spell, and have oodles of abilities nobody else gets without being a spellcaster, it's pretty hard to win a damage race against a well-optimized melee character. Plus, as mentioned above, if you could, the melee characters in your party would be wondering what they're even there for.

[CombatOwl]

Basically what the title says, why do people consider an evoc wizard to be a bad choice? Is it because they aren't as useful out of combat, because I'm looking at the spell list and nothing jumps out at me as a better school to deal damage in combat, am I missing something...?

Evocation is only worthwhile if you find ways to give normal evocation spells additional debuff effects--like Dazing Spell from Pathfinder.

[Sudain]

Doing damage is not great in general. Until an enemy hits 0 HP, nothings changed. A good debuff spell can win a fight by itself.

Plus, evocation isn't a great way to do damage unless you go nuts with it (and even then, the orb spells put it to shame for single target- and you can go nuts with mundane damage too). A fireball cast by a 6th level wizard deals 21 damage on average. A raging barbarian with 16 strength base (Very reasonable to assume) deals 14 damage with each strike- but, he's also got the extra damage from his magic weapon, and power attack. That's 28+ damage on average, beating out the wizard- And you don't have to worry about toasting the rest of the party. Plus, the wizard could always just cast haste, so now the barbarian is getting an extra attack, as are any other party members. Or you could summon something.

As a DM, I don't always have everything fight to the death. sometimes I have them run at 20% or 35% HP.

Against one target a fireball isn't the best option, your right. Against 5-10 targets it's a FAR better option. Also don't forget it has a LONG range(600+ feet).


Look at Fireball, the quintessential Evocation spell.

It offers:

1.) Fire resistance/immunity to avoid damage
2.) SR to avoid damage
3.) Reflex save to reduce damage
4.) (Improved) Evasion to avoid damage
5.) Antimagic Field to avoid damage
6.) Sufficient hit points to avoid dying to damage

It can also be duplicated by Shadow Evocation for basic effect. Likewise, Conjuration spells can avoid nearly all of those pitfalls, AND it frequently offers status effects to go with.

You are burning a 5th level spell to replicate a 3rd level spell. A better comparison is Cone of Cold for straight damage. Wall of force sending or interposing hand for evocation at that level.

[eggynack]

As a DM, I don't always have everything fight to the death. sometimes I have them run at 20% or 35% HP.
If they run away when they're low on HP, they should probably also attempt to run if they are nauseated for several rounds. Moreso, in fact.

Against one target a fireball isn't the best option, your right. Against 5-10 targets it's a FAR better option. Also don't forget it has a LONG range(600+ feet).

That's where stinking cloud comes into play. You don't get quite as much range, but you get enough to deal with most problems, and the effect is significantly better in the vast majority of cases.

You are burning a 5th level spell to replicate a 3rd level spell. A better comparison is Cone of Cold for straight damage. Wall of force sending or interposing hand for evocation at that level.
I'm not the biggest fan of shadow evocation for blasting spells either, but the other points still stand. As for your three spells, wall of force can be approximated with wall of stone, sending can be approximated two levels lower with something like whispering sand, and hands of various shapes can be approximated by summoning spells. They're not perfect approximations, but they're close enough for most purposes, and better for some purposes.

[Synar]

Ugh. Fine. Quibble over the details. Make it 30%. I still stand by my assessment that shadowmagic is useless/subpar in any campaign where the caster level has not progressed past 10th.




I can say the same thing for any of the 8 schools. If I can say the same thing, then the equation is balanced. If the equation is balanced, then we can safely ignore this for the purposes of determining if an Spontateous Divination ACF converted to Evocation is balanced.

In comparison to Initiate of Amauntor (which is a feat, BTW), it costs far more (all your bonus feats and thus prevents you from taking any other Class feature that costs that.) Evocation gives you 265 spells. IoA gives you 82, which you don't even NEED in your spellbook. Yes, you need a one level dip, but I think it's a valid consideration as for what is allowed and what is not.

Certainly, a version where you were limited to a specific energy type or descriptor would be less powerful and more likely to pass a DM's inspection. I stand by my reasoning, however. That sort of nerfing is not needed, because evocation is sub optimal.




Well, I do have a good handle on the exact numbers. I wrote the Bleeding SPELLBOOK. It eventually morphed into the EVD (see sig for details). 103 handbooks in various states of completion. But let me assure you, the spell book, which is every single spell, was well researched.

For example (Freezing Fog)
Editor (BattleMod): Basically this is solid fog with a quickened/heightened/widened grease spell added on. There’s some inconsequential cold damage merely for flavour. Mixing two good spells like Solid Fog and Grease (that are naturally synergetic) makes this a very good spell. This remains my favorite conjuration spell for the strong triple threat and synergy of the BC/Debuff aspects.

I rate it a BLUE (above average). Why? Because it's 6th and in comparison to what you can do with other 6th level spells. Blue is still above average, mind you, but not top of the list. Purple is top of the list. Guess how many purples I have in Evocation? Not many. I don't even have many greens (average). What has many many MANY blue and purple? Conjuration and Transmutation

Specific examples do not make the over all trend any different. Evocation is not as good as divination. If ACF SD is allowed, ACF Spontaneous Evocation should be.


...Are you seriously using yourself as a reference for an argument of authority?
Because saying : "Well, I've given low rating score to evocation spells in the handbook I made myself, so surely they must be bad" is not an argument (the actual quality (which other are assessing) of evocation spells being irrelevent to the soundness of your argument).
Unless, of course, if you are a well-recognized and quoted reference on the subject or a primary contributor to first party gaming ressources.
No offense meant, but I believe you should be a bit more modest.





P.S.:Are cloud/fog/whatever spells the best spells? Because every argument about evocation spells, they end up being bringed up for comparison. My opinion is that those are spells I would like to use one or two times, but not more, as it would seem a bit repetitive (but it's been a long time since I played in an actual game, so I might be wrong on every level).

[eggynack]

P.S.:Are cloud/fog/whatever spells the best spells? Because every argument about evocation spells, they end up being bringed up for comparison. My opinion is that those are spells I would like to use one or two times, but not more, as it would seem a bit repetitive (but it's been a long time since I played in an actual game, so I might be wrong on every level).
They're not necessarily the best spells, but they have qualities that make them convenient for comparison. The main comparison that most often comes up is between stinking cloud and fireball. This is because they have the same radius, the same spell level, comparable range, and the overall intended effect of eliminating opponents, either through damage, or through the opponent being nauseated. Meanwhile, stinking cloud has a huge number of advantages over fireball, while fireball has few advantages over stinking cloud. A spell like polymorph is probably better than the fog line, but where do you even start with such a comparison? I also happen to quite like the spells, because they have multiple interesting tactical applications, but that's mostly an opinion thing.

[Story]

Riffing off of what was said earlier, my impression is that damage output is the one part of the wizard and sorcerer that WotC made an effort to balance against non-primary-caster classes. While wizards can easily out-sneak rangers, out-skillmonkey rogues, and out-party-face bards, often with a single spell, and have oodles of abilities nobody else gets without being a spellcaster, it's pretty hard to win a damage race against a well-optimized melee character. Plus, as mentioned above, if you could, the melee characters in your party would be wondering what they're even there for.

Direct damage is one of the few things that was limited. You can still out damage melee by polymorphing and becoming a melee beast yourself.

[ace rooster]

They're not necessarily the best spells, but they have qualities that make them convenient for comparison. The main comparison that most often comes up is between stinking cloud and fireball. This is because they have the same radius, the same spell level, comparable range, and the overall intended effect of eliminating opponents, either through damage, or through the opponent being nauseated. Meanwhile, stinking cloud has a huge number of advantages over fireball, while fireball has few advantages over stinking cloud. A spell like polymorph is probably better than the fog line, but where do you even start with such a comparison? I also happen to quite like the spells, because they have multiple interesting tactical applications, but that's mostly an opinion thing.

150ft is only a -4 to hit with a shortbow, never mind more range focused weapon. With horseshoes of speed you are still in range of a charging horseman, (or rather, he is out of range till he charges). If The DM is letting you think medium range is comparable to long range, then fine, but good luck pulling those shenanigans against me. Also, while nausea is very effective against few powerful creatures that you can finish off in the d4+1 rounds (unlikely at long range, even if you had that range), you still need to expend resources finishing off the targets. It even creates nice cover to hide behind while the target recovers. It shuts down an invisable opponent, but gives him good cover instead. Surviving long enough to either escape or continue fighting is possible, and in that event there is no effect. The only capability that stinking cloud shares with fireball is the area.

Fireball is very effective at killing mooks without having to go near them (impracticle, or just not worth moving 400ft+ to reach them). Stinking cloud is good at bottlenecks and shutting down multiple close targets, which can then be mopped up. Apples and oranges.

Also, the entire light subschool.

[HighWater]

With horseshoes of speed you are still in range of a charging horseman, (or rather, he is out of range till he charges). If The DM is letting you think medium range is comparable to long range, then fine, but good luck pulling those shenanigans against me. Also, while nausea is very effective against few powerful creatures that you can finish off in the d4+1 rounds (unlikely at long range, even if you had that range), you still need to expend resources finishing off the targets. It even creates nice cover to hide behind while the target recovers. It shuts down an invisable opponent, but gives him good cover instead. Surviving long enough to either escape or continue fighting is possible, and in that event there is no effect. The only capability that stinking cloud shares with fireball is the area.

Fireball is very effective at killing mooks without having to go near them (impracticle, or just not worth moving 400ft+ to reach them). Stinking cloud is good at bottlenecks and shutting down multiple close targets, which can then be mopped up. Apples and oranges.

Also, the entire light subschool.
Stinking Cloud reduces visibility to 5ft, which hampers movement, making running or charging impossible because:

You can’t run or charge through any square that would hamper your movement.

So all the player has to do is ready an action to cast Stinking cloud for whenever the horseman comes into range. Presuming the horseman has used a moveaction to come into range (which seems a reasonable assumption), he now has to spend his second move action to get out of the stinking cloud, rather than charging, while both he ánd his mount have to make the Fort save against nauseated. He can't charge you this turn and if he was already charging, his action is lost!
This is superior to a Fireball at this range that hits but doesn't kill, although it's obviously not superior if the fireball does kill. The point is that Fireball doesn't have a back-up plan: if that horseman is still alive, you're gonna get a charged, power attacked lance-to-the-face. A very unfavorable condition for a squishy wizard. With stinking cloud, if the enemy makes the save, they still have to walk through the cloud at half speed, spending a move action, meanwhile being uncertain where you are.

Against archers outside range, the stinking cloud can still be used for concealment, by casting it closely in front of you, providing total concealment, assuming the archers even target the right square.

Your examples are focussed on long range on a nice flat plain with no trees, or humps and bumps to hide behind or hinder the enemy, which is indeed a possible advantage fireball has over stinking cloud. In practice that kind of range increment nearly never comes up ingame without other options to mitigate the problem.

Fireball isn't always inferior to stinking cloud, but for a small group of adventurers, stinking cloud tends to be more effective while also not stepping on the mundane's toes so much.

[eggynack]

150ft is only a -4 to hit with a shortbow, never mind more range focused weapon. With horseshoes of speed you are still in range of a charging horseman, (or rather, he is out of range till he charges). If The DM is letting you think medium range is comparable to long range, then fine, but good luck pulling those shenanigans against me. Also, while nausea is very effective against few powerful creatures that you can finish off in the d4+1 rounds (unlikely at long range, even if you had that range), you still need to expend resources finishing off the targets. It even creates nice cover to hide behind while the target recovers. It shuts down an invisable opponent, but gives him good cover instead. Surviving long enough to either escape or continue fighting is possible, and in that event there is no effect. The only capability that stinking cloud shares with fireball is the area.

Fireball is very effective at killing mooks without having to go near them (impracticle, or just not worth moving 400ft+ to reach them). Stinking cloud is good at bottlenecks and shutting down multiple close targets, which can then be mopped up. Apples and oranges.
I think you're underestimating the similarities some. Yes, there are differences, but those differences are really the point rather than some sort of problem. We're talking about a pair of spells here, same level, same area, both focused on disabling or killing some group of enemies at reasonable range. Yes, fireball has a better range, and that's one situation where fireball is better, but it's one against a massive pile here. Stinking cloud is, unlike fireball, really the sort of spell you use tactically, trying to control the field of engagement, and using that concealment and time away from enemies to your advantage. Also, if you damage the opponent during the time when they're nauseated, and they don't subsequently die, then you're just in a situation similar to that provided by a fireball that doesn't manage to kill.

[georgie_leech]

Just popping in to add the quirk that in a high-seas naval campaign, Evocation becomes relatively much more useful. The constant motion means that most BFC effects end up being left behind, the generally greater range is relevant, and if you do things like target rudders or sails or masts (or pretty much any part of the boat, really), the damage suddenly comes with all the crippling effects that it generally lacks, like preventing attacks or movement.

[Cloud]

Just popping in to add the quirk that in a high-seas naval campaign, Evocation becomes relatively much more useful. The constant motion means that most BFC effects end up being left behind, the generally greater range is relevant, and if you do things like target rudders or sails or masts (or pretty much any part of the boat, really), the damage suddenly comes with all the crippling effects that it generally lacks, like preventing attacks or movement.

Also Evocation in that setting gets the spell submerge ship. Effective or not; that's just plain cool. :3

[Philistine]

Riffing off of what was said earlier, my impression is that damage output is the one part of the wizard and sorcerer that WotC made an effort to balance against non-primary-caster classes. While wizards can easily out-sneak rangers, out-skillmonkey rogues, and out-party-face bards, often with a single spell, and have oodles of abilities nobody else gets without being a spellcaster, it's pretty hard to win a damage race against a well-optimized melee character. Plus, as mentioned above, if you could, the melee characters in your party would be wondering what they're even there for.

Less "WotC actually made a conscious effort to balance it," more "WotC copypasta'd a bunch of stuff from 2E without putting any serious thought into how (or whether) it would work in the new system."

[ace rooster]

Stinking Cloud reduces visibility to 5ft, which hampers movement, making running or charging impossible because:


So all the player has to do is ready an action to cast Stinking cloud for whenever the horseman comes into range. Presuming the horseman has used a moveaction to come into range (which seems a reasonable assumption), he now has to spend his second move action to get out of the stinking cloud, rather than charging, while both he ánd his mount have to make the Fort save against nauseated. He can't charge you this turn and if he was already charging, his action is lost!
This is superior to a Fireball at this range that hits but doesn't kill, although it's obviously not superior if the fireball does kill. The point is that Fireball doesn't have a back-up plan: if that horseman is still alive, you're gonna get a charged, power attacked lance-to-the-face. A very unfavorable condition for a squishy wizard. With stinking cloud, if the enemy makes the save, they still have to walk through the cloud at half speed, spending a move action, meanwhile being uncertain where you are.

Against archers outside range, the stinking cloud can still be used for concealment, by casting it closely in front of you, providing total concealment, assuming the archers even target the right square.

Your examples are focussed on long range on a nice flat plain with no trees, or humps and bumps to hide behind or hinder the enemy, which is indeed a possible advantage fireball has over stinking cloud. In practice that kind of range increment nearly never comes up ingame without other options to mitigate the problem.

Fireball isn't always inferior to stinking cloud, but for a small group of adventurers, stinking cloud tends to be more effective while also not stepping on the mundane's toes so much.

If you are readying an action against someone coming in range then there is a possibility of wasting the action outright, (and if there are more of them than you then your actions are more valuable), and at best it will temporarily incapacitate one creature, while also breaking LoS to it so that you cannot finish it off. Against large numbers of creatures this is a stall, rather than a win.

I am not saying stinking cloud is bad, or even worse than fireball. I am saying that the situations that fireball shines in are situations where the factors that you discount off hand are important (Range, further actions required, lasting impact). A better comparison for stinking cloud is flashburst, which is blind in 120ft radius, (ie the area is larger than the range of stinking cloud). Incidently it is also long range.

Medium range is really not far. A clearing as big as a playing field (not big) will be beyond medium range for all but epic casters. It is not unthinkable for an area that small to have no decent cover. Even in caves widths as large as 450ft are not unheard of, and kobolds will have defenses prepared which use the long sightlines. That this never comes up in your games is not a reflection on evocation, but on your DM.

The comment about stepping on mundanes toes is very relevent, and demonstrates why an evoker is rated as underpowered. It is the same reason archers are regarded as underpowered: Fighting a stand off battle at long range is slow. That evokers and archers do puny damage is irrelevent if the targets cannot hit back, as they will eventually win. The tactics required to make an evoker effective need commitment from the entire party, which the melee guys will get bored with.

[georgie_leech]

Also Evocation in that setting gets the spell submerge ship. Effective or not; that's just plain cool. :3

Heh, yeah, there are all sorts of applications for "we're a submarine now!"

EDIT: While I'm thinking about it, does anyone know of any control water spells that offer more control than, well, Control Water? Specifically that could manipulate a ship-sized section of water such that it can be moved around on its own and separate it from the rest of the water? :smallbiggrin: