Why does everyone hate evocation?

[Frostthehero]

I recently started playing wizard, and no matter how hard I try, I am unable to understand why people dislike evocation. With very few exceptions, evocation spells are the only ones that deal damage. Most other schools de-buff and allow saves, but the problem is that they allow saves. Something such as protection from spells almost negates any chance of "save or suck" spells affecting your enemies. Some spells, such as polymorph, or acid fog, can deal damage, but spells such as these are few and far between. Shivering touch and several others deal ability damage, and allow no saves, but these do not kill outright. The question boils down to "why wouldn't you want to deal damage, rather than just de-buff your enemies?" shadow evocation can do that, but only to a point, and it can be saved against.

[Asteron]

I recently started playing wizard, and no matter how hard I try, I am unable to understand why people dislike evocation. With very few exceptions, evocation spells are the only ones that deal damage. Most other schools de-buff and allow saves, but the problem is that they allow saves. Something such as protection from spells almost negates any chance of "save or suck" spells affecting your enemies. Some spells, such as polymorph, or acid fog, can deal damage, but spells such as these are few and far between. Shivering touch and several others deal ability damage, and allow no saves, but these do not kill outright. The question boils down to "why wouldn't you want to deal damage, rather than just de-buff your enemies?" shadow evocation can do that, but only to a point, and it can be saved against.

First and foremost, because direct damage is the worst way to deal with an enemy. If you don't kill them outright, then they are still just as effective as they were before (all it takes is 1 HP.) If you debuff them, then they are not as effective. Second, the Orb of line of spells are just as effective at dealing damage and they don't allow SR. Third, it is much easier to optimize melee to deal more damage, plus it's all that they can do. Best leave it to them. Finally, there are many spells that can hamper and divide the enemy that don't allow a save or SR, like fog cloud. They are far and away the most effective way to deal with some enemies (although not all.)

Evocation has its uses (contingency), it's just not the most effective way to do things.

[AmberVael]

Because debuffing the opponent, buffing your allies, or shaping the battlefield is often more effective than adding on the minimal damage that spells can do.

Example: Say you're level 5. You could spend a 3rd level spell slot to Fireball some enemies, dealing 5d6 damage to everything in its area (average 17.5 damage to each target that fails its reflex save). Alternately you could cast haste, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm) granting an extra attack and some other small buffs to each party member. Given that it is easy enough for your party fighter to be doing an average of 13 damage at level 1, an extra attack at level 5 can pretty easily reach 17.5 damage or more per hit... and while it isn't in an area, the buff will last for 5 rounds and likely targets the majority of your party. Odds are, haste will do a lot more than one fireball.

As for debuffs and save or lose/die, you're right that it allows a save. However, with the right choice of spell it is effectively "save or you are out of the fight entirely." Pick the right spell against the right enemy (targeting weak saves, for example), and unless they roll well you've taken them out of the fight. Generally, damage spells are going incapable of one hit KOs, while for these spells it is simply the natural course of things. And some still have notable effects on a successful save, and some of the meanest don't even allow for a save. You mention shivering touch- yeah, it can't kill, but it can paralyze. What are most of your enemies going to do when they're paralyzed?

[eggynack]

It's pretty simple, actually. There's no mechanic such that a character with full HP will fight any differently from a character with 1 HP, so if you launch a pure blasting spell at some enemies, and no one dies, then you've had no appreciable tactical impact on combat. Thus, the question becomes, "How often are you going to launch a pure blasting spell such that no one dies," and with the high HP scores in this game, the answer is quite a bit. By contrast, if you debuff an enemy, then that does have an appreciable impact on combat, even if it doesn't lead to the opponent's death. I'm not really sure what protection from spells here is, incidentally, but if you mean spell resistance, then it's hardly a perfect defense.

Incidentally, the actual issue isn't really with either evocation, or with blasting. The issue is with evocation blasting. Evocation has a good number of solid spells, like wind wall, contingency, sending, wall of force, force cage, gust of wind, and a whole lot more. It's not enough to provide an advantage over the more powerful schools in the game, but if you keep evocation, that should be why. Meanwhile, blasting has spells like orb of fire, which is a spell that works with an incredibly high rate of consistency, and which even has a fancy rider effect.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Everyone can deal damage. Most other classes can not only deal more damage than your spells do (unless you spend a lot of effort on them), they can also do it all day.

BFC and debuffs make it so your enemies don't deal damage to you. Summoned monsters soak up damage and deal damage to your enemies over several rounds instead of just once.
For most battles you only need to cast one or two spells and have your mundane partymembers mop up what's left.

Dealing damage is probably the most inefficient way to spend your spell slots in the game.

[Extra Anchovies]

There are a few reasons for this; I personally don't dislike the evocation school, but can see why others would.

TL;DR There are enough spells from other schools that can stand in for (and sometimes surpass) evocation spells that arcane casters don't lose much by forgoing evocations.

Nearly all damage-dealing evocations allow spell resistance, and a good chunk of them also allow saves. Both of these factors change a spell's effectiveness based on your foes' abilities, and the enemies you face is not something you have much control over.
Non-evocation damage spells, such as the Orb spells from Complete Arcane, are more often based on ranged touch attacks and don't allow saves. You have much more control over your own ranged touch attack bonus than you do over enemy saving throws, and touch AC for monsters is often pretty low (especially for big monsters, with those size penalties).
In addition, there are quite a few non-evocation damage spells that don't even allow spell resistance, especially conjuration damage spells. The Orb spells are a good example of this, their premise being that you use magic to summon and fling the energy projectile, but the projectile itself is not a spell in itself.

As for save-or-suck:
A properly timed and targeted save-or-suck can often render a foe as good as dead; slow, for example, limits one creature/level to one action per round, which makes them much easier to deal with. Just back up out of melee, make them into arrow pincushions, and double move back whenever they get too close. That effect alone is powerful; when added on to the -1 AC/attacks/saves and the halved movement speed, it's pretty clear why slow is a very useful spell to have.
Also, save-or-suck spells are often selectively targeted, while most multiple-target evocations affect everything in an area. Your slow spell can target only your enemies, and not any allies who happen to be in melee with them; fireball, on the other hand, doesn't care about allegiances. Some non-evocation multiple-target damage spells can be selectively targeted as well.

Another important advantage of non-evocation spells over evocations is their duration. Fireball is a one-off; buffs with durations in rounds/CL provide a lesser effect but over the time span the cumulative effect could end up being more influential than a few dice of damage all at once. At the extreme are spells that can be cast days in advance, such as animate dead or some of the longer-lasting compulsions/charms. A caster focusing on one-off damage spells is pretty much limited to whatever they can prepare. Wands/staffs/etc can increase this a lot, but those cost either money (if purchasing) or money and xp (if crafting), whereas having cast dominate person three days ago frees up a spell slot without costing a thing.

ETA:
Semi-ninja'd four times, but I was sort of expecting that :smallbiggrin:
An important point that I missed (which the ninjas caught) was that a creature also has the same ability to fight regardless of its HP. A dragon with only 12 HP left can still be a threat; not so for a full-HP dragon that's been totally paralyzed.

[Frostthehero]

I have built my wizard around killing one extremely poweful enemy, or lots of tiny enemies. So far, he is extremely effective at this (after all, 36d6 is more damage than even the most buffed fighter can deal at level 12). As a level 12 wizard, my DM has not been able to throw anything with an EL up to 15 at me that I cannot beat alone. As I said before, save or suck spells allow saves, which is a problem for me. anything with a good save can easily escape up to a 5th level spell. Something like protection from spells increases the number of spells rendered useless.

[nedz]

Evasion mainly.

I have won fights with evocations, which was fun if not efficient. The enemy were a bunch of fighters who were chasing the party around a square building — two Gnomes, who normally have better things to do with their spells, blasted them with Rainbow Blasts and Lightning Bolts — because they conformed to the terrain we kept getting lots of them in straight lines. The party melle types were the bait.

[Ravens_cry]

Look, it's fun blowing baddies skyhigh with sheer fury of the raw elements, and, with enough optimization, you can make it actually kill things. The trouble is the action cost IS TOO DAMN HIGH!:smallyuk:
Let's compare a 2nd level spells. Evocation gives you Scorching Ray. At the level you get it, 4d6, which averages out to 14 damage. Now let's go with, say Haste. Suddenly, the Fighter has an opportunity to do a second attack, an itterative without the minus in BAB, as can the Rogue, the Ranger, even the Monk. If even half of them hit, it's going to add up to more than 14 on average. Even if you compare Fireball, a level higher, you are still likely doing worse than how much you could have helped your compatriots for several rounds with a simple Haste.
Worse, with the way D&D 3.X and damage work, you chop till you drop. That Orc will hurt you for the same at 1 health as they did at 50, 100, or whatever. Often, you are better either buffing your buddies or hurting your enemies with status effects.
In fact, the latter is generally the better option, as fellow PC don't save against your spells most of the time
Also, spells are limited, and you are doing the job of a fighting type, but it's like you can only swing your sword so many times, and you can't generally do it more than once (maybe twice, see Quicken) per round.
So, OK, if it's your thing, fine, sure, do it. Evocation can be fun as all heck, just know its limitations.

[Extra Anchovies]

I have built my wizard around killing one extremely poweful enemy, or lots of tiny enemies. So far, he is extremely effective at this (after all, 36d6 is more damage than even the most buffed fighter can deal at level 12). As a level 12 wizard, my DM has not been able to throw anything with an EL up to 15 at me that I cannot beat alone.

Of course. We (or at least I) haven't been saying that evocations are worthless; a wizard can get by with them, or without them. Evocations are often very effective (and every school has its worthless flukes anyways), and are certainly fun to use; it just doesn't seem (to me at least) to be worth taking more than two prohibited schools for (i.e. I wouldn't go focused evoker or evoker/red wizard). I also, however, probably wouldn't want to take it as a prohibited class, unless I had to give up more than two schools.

[Frostthehero]

I forgot to mention that I build for 20th level. Nothing before that matters. If the spell would not affect a CR 20 monster, then it has almost no use to me. I have never said I would specialize in evocation, (even I realize that this is worthless) but banning evocation seems equally stupid.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I have built my wizard around killing one extremely poweful enemy, or lots of tiny enemies. So far, he is extremely effective at this (after all, 36d6 is more damage than even the most buffed fighter can deal at level 12). As a level 12 wizard, my DM has not been able to throw anything with an EL up to 15 at me that I cannot beat alone.

36d6 averages at ~130 damage. A decently build charger can reach that long before level 12, without any buffs, and without using up spell slots. There's a thread floating around here with a melee character that doesn ~100 damage at first level.

And if all you have is evocation blasting it doesn't take CR 15 to kill you, CR 9 works just fine (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/willOWisp.htm).

That's not to say you can't play evocation. It just isn't the most efficient use of your spell slots, which is why it is frequently banned by specialist wizards.

[Frostthehero]

36d6 averages at ~130 damage. A decently build charger can reach that long before level 12, without any buffs, and without using up spell slots. There's a thread floating around here with a melee character that doesn ~100 damage at first level.

can a charger fly?

[AmberVael]

Thing is, even if you want to just do damage there are plenty of non-evocation spells that can do damage, and not just deal damage but do it more reliably or just better in some way. In fact, one of my absolute favorite damage spells (Maw of Chaos) is Abjuration. Other people have mentioned the Orb spells, but they are worth mentioning again- Conjuration spells with no SR, no save against the damage, and with the potential to deal damage in a variety of decent types.

You can ban evocation and still do damage, and not just do it, but do it well. Banning another school generally loses you a lot more of significance.

[Dr. Cliché]

I recently started playing wizard, and no matter how hard I try, I am unable to understand why people dislike evocation. With very few exceptions, evocation spells are the only ones that deal damage. Most other schools de-buff and allow saves, but the problem is that they allow saves.

Thing is, most Evocation spells allow saves too. And, the DCs are generally easy enough that anything dangerous will make them, whilst anything weak will fail them. But, if they're that weak, do you really need direct-damage spells to win the fight?

Also, a lot of the good spells that allow saves are save-or-die or save-or-lose - as in, a single failed save will either kill/incapacitate your opponent or leave him severely crippled.

To put it another way, if an opponent fails their save against Fireball, they take a bit of damage. If they fail their save against Sleep, then they're out of the fight. Similarly, a Blinded opponent probably isn't going to be putting up much of a fight - and the party rogue will be having a whale of a time.

Also, there are quite a lot of debuffs that allow no save - e.g. the lv1 spell Ray of Enfeeblement.


Shivering touch and several others deal ability damage, and allow no saves, but these do not kill outright.

Actually, Shivering Touch often might as well kill outright. We're talking about a spell that can easily incapacitate a dragon - leaving you free to Coup de Grace it (or whatever else you might feel like doing to a comatose dragon).


The question boils down to "why wouldn't you want to deal damage, rather than just de-buff your enemies?"

If all you want to do is deal damage, why not play a fighter of some kind? Or just spam Eldritch Blast with a Warlock. I mean, surely the best thing about casters is that they have abilities far beyond mere damage?

Really, the main reason is that there are simply more efficient things you can do with your spells - you can incapacitate/cripple enemies regardless of hp. you can buff your allies, you can summon more allies (and then buff them too :smallwink:) which will deal damage every round and possibly also soak up attacks etc. And, if you really want to deal damage, there are just better choices than Evocation. e.g. the Orb of ___ spells (all Conjurations) offer high damage, which ignores spell resistance and allows no save.

[Fax Celestis]

36d6
[...]
As a level 12 wizard

How are you doing this?

[Giddonihah]

If you use Evocation to kill enemies via damage you make the martials feel bad. This combined with the fact that you would be more effective doing something that synergizes with the Martials instead of trying to obsolete them. For instance disabling every enemy via a crowdcontrol spell and letting the Fighter rack up big numbers compared to you shouting out fireball and rolling a dozen d6s, one tends to be seen as more attention grabbing than the other.

[The Insaniac]

I'm not the best person to answer this question but here's how I understand it. It's not that we hate evocation, it's just that it isn't a great school for an optimizer. There are a few issues with evocation based blasting.

1. You step on other people's toes. Everyone and their mother can do direct damage in D&D and for some classes, damage is all that they can do. So, when the your wizard, who can do a heck of a lot more than damage, starts doing it too, you are edging into other people's shticks. It's much better to let the martial and skillmonkey classes do the damage while you use battlefield control, buffs or debuffs to let them do their thing more easily.

2. Compounding this problem, unless you fight hordes of mooks regularly, casting fireball does less damage than slapping haste on the barbarian. I don't remember the calculations exactly, but it does work out that way.

3. Most evocations allow for three defenses: SR, reflex saves and resistances/immunities. SR is less of a problem than the others but it's still an issue. Reflex saves are problematic because anyone can buy a ring of evasion or manifest the psionic power that gives improved evasion or get shape soulmeld (impulse boots) and take no damage from you spell. Energy resistances are very common at mid-high levels and can really do a number on the damage that you're dealing out. You could get around the resistances with energy substitution, but that's one feat gone and most wizards would rather spend the feat on something like quicken spell or arcane thesis. Plus, there's the matter of damage caps.

4. There are better blasting spells in other schools. The most cited ones are the orb of x line. These spells are SR: no touch attacks that carry some nasty rider effects (stun or blind being the two really good ones) and there's one for each energy type including sonic and force. Enervation could technically be considered a blast since each negative level causes the target to lose five hp, only requires a touch attack and carries the other nastiness of negative levels. Maw of chaos deals uncapped chaos damage (technically untyped but..).

5. The best debuffs and crowd control spells don't allow saves or require multiple saves. Freezing fog takes multiple opponents out of the fight while dealing damage and forcing both reflex saves and balance checks to act, stinking cloud requires a save as long as you're in the cloud and the nauseated condition is really bad, freezing glance forces a save every round, shivering touch can easily reduce an opponent to 0 dex (which is effectively dead), the list goes on. And then there are the spells that stop people from acting normally: prismatic wall, wall of force, solid fog, black tentacles, web, etc.

Now, this doesn't mean that evocation is a bad school. It's got some great spells like wall of force, defenestrating sphere, great thunderclap, contingency or howling chain, it just isn't great for blasting.

Edit: Geez, seriously beguilered.

[Ravens_cry]

can a charger fly?
With items, wands, scrolls, potions, and friendly casters, yes.
Your spell slots are better spent on helping your fellow players achieve greatness than with showy pyrotechnics.

[AmberVael]

Wings of flurry deals uncapped force damage.
Wings of Flurry is a pretty decent damage spell. Of course, it also happens to be one of the decent evocation damage spells, so... :smalltongue:

(Also Maw of Chaos deals untyped damage.)

[Blink Knight]

I recently started playing wizard, and no matter how hard I try, I am unable to understand why people dislike evocation. With very few exceptions, evocation spells are the only ones that deal damage. Most other schools de-buff and allow saves, but the problem is that they allow saves. Something such as protection from spells almost negates any chance of "save or suck" spells affecting your enemies. Some spells, such as polymorph, or acid fog, can deal damage, but spells such as these are few and far between. Shivering touch and several others deal ability damage, and allow no saves, but these do not kill outright. The question boils down to "why wouldn't you want to deal damage, rather than just de-buff your enemies?" shadow evocation can do that, but only to a point, and it can be saved against.

There is a substantial gap between the damage those spells deal and the number of HP anything has.

Only the last HP counts.

You could cast a spell that does something if it works or cast a spell that does nothing even if it does work.

[The Insaniac]

(Also Maw of Chaos deals untyped damage.)

True, but creatures with the [chaos] subtype are immune, so I'd call it chaos damage (not like anything has "immune to chaos").


Wings of Flurry is a pretty decent damage spell. Of course, it also happens to be one of the decent evocation damage spells, so...

D'oh, Fixed.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Wings of Flurry is a pretty decent damage spell. Of course, it also happens to be one of the decent evocation damage spells, so... :smalltongue:

(Also Maw of Chaos deals untyped damage.)

Wings of Flurry also happens to inflict daze on a failed save, which almost nothing is immune to. Too bad it's only for sorcerers (who generally don't specialize).

[Milodiah]

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that there should be more to magic than magic missile spells; magic should be doing something esoteric like manipulating gravity or turning things into squids, not just hitting a guy. Anyone can hit a guy, most people can hit a guy from a distance, and a lot of people can kill a guy. At the very least magic should be serving as light artillery, bombarding multiple enemies with a salvo of fireballs to soften them up for the infantry assault. Sure, D&D magic is rather drab when it comes to 'localized alterations of the very fabric of reality' since it (and especially Evocation ) is more geared towards 'harnessing the power of a lifetime of studying arcane forces beyond the realms of man to...kill that guy over by the staircase', but still.

My complaints are pretty much roleplaying and flavor rather than optimization or statistics, but I still feel like they're important in this argument too :smallwink:

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Direct damage (and evocation, as far as the two are connected) is underrated on this board. Decreasing all enemies' HP by 1/2 is kinda like a buff that doubles the rest of your party's damage, because damage stacks. Damage is also a lot better when enemies have been whittled down. In high op play this is meaningless, since people die in one round, but then in high op play you're better off using your spells to set up and detect ambushes.

Wings of Flurry is a pretty decent damage spell. Of course, it also happens to be one of the decent evocation damage spells, so... :smalltongue:

(Also Maw of Chaos deals untyped damage.)Eh, like sleepyphoenixx pointed out, Wings of Flurry is sorcerer only, so the distinction isn't very meaningful. Divine Power is evocation as well, but that shouldn't factor into a wizard's decision to ban/specialize.
How are you doing this?Probably metamagic reducers, since that's the direct damage caster's thing, but generally speaking you can do the same with orbs or other blast effects.

[eggynack]

@Milodiah: You are saying that with the underlying idea that 3.5's magic system does let you control gravity or turn things into squids, right? It's kinda unclear.

[Blink Knight]

Direct damage (and evocation, as far as the two are connected) is underrated on this board. Decreasing all enemies' HP by 1/2 is kinda like a buff that doubles the rest of your party's damage, because damage stacks. Damage is also a lot better when enemies have been whittled down. In high op play this is meaningless, since people die in one round, but then in high op play you're better off using your spells to set up and detect ambushes.

That's actually the exact opposite. If everything's making their saves (and they are, in an optimized game) dealing half and still killing non immune targets is better than doing nothing. Yes, most targets will be immune (get Searing Spell). But save or loses don't work vs strong opponents because they will always save.

In most games though it'd the difference between take off 10% and win target combat though. Which is probably why I've seriously had people who used houserules to add +8 damage per dice still call blasting underpowered.

[Milodiah]

@Milodiah: You are saying that with the underlying idea that 3.5's magic system does let you control gravity or turn things into squids, right? It's kinda unclear.

I know there are things that do that, lots of things that do that. I'm just saying I think of magic ideally being more an exercise in lateral thought, such as bypassing a locked door by using Polymorph Any Object to turn it into a locked squid, rather than just hit it for damage with all of your hit-it-for-damage spells.

[Fax Celestis]

Probably metamagic reducers, since that's the direct damage caster's thing, but generally speaking you can do the same with orbs or other blast effects.

I ask because the presence or absence of houserules could be coloring his spectacles a healthy shade of pink.

[loodwig]

As a DM and a player, I say balderdash to the evocation haters. Being a wizard makes you super adaptive, assuming you don't pick it as a school. Having to chose two bad schools is really a pain when you only have so many spell slots even with 20 starting INT. It makes the first several levels of Wizard seem very painful, and you just look on with envy as the freakin Bard is a more effective caster than you are. This is why I'm particularly fond of choosing universalists, as they get a very tiny advantage and no disadvantages. But I digress.

Evocation is unbelievably useful in the right situations. In the vast majority of situations you're going to be casting spells that have will saves, and being able to take a healthy chuck of life out of an enemy (rather than just blinding him) can seriously help. Not to mention that you have things like elemental damage and bypasses for DR that your fighters and rangers won't be able to overcome.

Of course, if you're hoping that a 5d4 magic missile spell is going to take out the 3 catfolk fighters with 120hp a piece, then you're kidding yourself (or kittening?). Let your beefy fighter blender them, buff her with shield or stone skin or haste, and glitterdust the pesky felines so that the band-aid box who's also at the front line can use his mace instead of his channels every round.

By comparison, if you have that pesky enemy monk/rogue/cleric with AC 40 in buffs and more dexterity than Jet Li, take a bite out of his HP with a missile or ten, and let your fighter coup-de-grace it. And nothing says lovin' to the undead horde like a fireball in your tummy (queue doughboy giggle).

So while I wouldn't ever make a pure evoker, I tend to favor evocation as a school in combat, borrowing from the most awesome spells in other schools. I've heard plenty of players say "If you're a wizard and you're doing damage, something has gone wrong..." and this may be true. But then again, rarely does an encounter go exactly to plan, and sometimes your best bet is to cast fireball on the ceiling, burn the building down, and run like hell. In fact, those are the best encounters in my opinion :)

Evocation has a ton of great spells that I feel really turn the Wizard from Godlike support to situational blaster. And you know what happens to those who bring a gun to a knife fight!

[sleepyphoenixx]

Direct damage (and evocation, as far as the two are connected) is underrated on this board. Decreasing all enemies' HP by 1/2 is kinda like a buff that doubles the rest of your party's damage, because damage stacks. Damage is also a lot better when enemies have been whittled down. In high op play this is meaningless, since people die in one round, but then in high op play you're better off using your spells to set up and detect ambushes.


It doesn't really matter if the enemies live a round longer when they can't really do anything to hurt the party. You can just whip out your crossbow and take potshots at them at that point. Or start looting while your meatsh.. ahem, Esteemed Colleagues mop up what's left instead of wasting your spell slots.

It's not that casters can't do direct damage, far from it. It's just not really necessary on controlled enemies and less efficient than BFC on uncontrolled ones, with the exception of hordes of weak minions that all die to one AoE spell even if they save.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

That's actually the exact opposite. If everything's making their saves (and they are, in an optimized game) dealing half and still killing non immune targets is better than doing nothing. Yes, most targets will be immune (get Searing Spell). But save or loses don't work vs strong opponents because they will always save.

In most games though it'd the difference between take off 10% and win target combat though. Which is probably why I've seriously had people who used houserules to add +8 damage per dice still call blasting underpowered.I agree that direct damage is useful in high op because people make their saves, but damage that doesn't allow a save is more useful than doing half damage on a made save (and probably checks SR too). If you're doing enough damage with some evocation that a quarter of it (made save, half to immune) will kill the enemy outright, you probably could have been doing better with an orb, or hail of stone, or vortex of teeth, or combust...

I'm not sure how you're getting these inflated HP numbers though. If a regular ol' CL 5 fireball got +8 damage per dice, it'd be doing 5d6+40 damage, an average of 57.5 on a failed save. A level 5 fighter with 16 con has 47 HP. So, with that buff, regular, unmodified fireball becomes a save or die for an equal-level tough type.

[bjoern]

Conjuration has equal or better damage spells. The rest that's left in evocation that is exclusive can be gotten through illusion. So its the odd man out.
Like Blockbuster stores.
Movies are awesome, but there are better ways to get them.

[Piggy Knowles]

Evocation gets a bad rap mainly because blasting is so over-hyped by players not "in the know." I think it goes something like this:


Players who are not actually that good at optimization go CRAZY for blast spells, because rolling a lot of dice is cool.
Players who want to roll a whole fistful of dice as they toss around fireballs often get called munchkins if they try to make themselves any better at it than a standard wizard.
People like that come onto various message boards and say "Hey, check out my warmage that was so good it got banned from three campaigns!!" - only to have it shot down immediately as terrible.
People begin doing research, and learning that blasting is the LEAST EFFECTIVE THING A WIZARD CAN DO OMG (except that it's not - more on that later).
Someone else mentions liking the spell fireball, only to get shouted down by players that once loved tossing around blast spells as being the crappiest thing to have ever existed.


In actuality..... blasting is OK. It's not great, but it's OK. I like to think of it as archery with a higher special effects budget. A decent blaster (or heck, even a warmage) can do fine in plenty of campaigns. There are just a few things to think about.

1. Blasting is, in the end, all about doing damage - which means that you've basically placed yourself in the realm of the fighter or rogue, rather than in the realm of the gods.

Blasting is, when you really come down to it, just a showier way of whacking someone with a greatsword or stabbing them in the kidneys. That's OK, though. Doing damage is fun. And honestly, as long as you put a little effort into it, blasting can be quite effective. Just remember that what you're doing is not really that different than the fighter charging and swinging his sword.

2. It is far easier to get really impressive damage numbers with melee than with spells.

Damage in D&D is all about force multipliers (http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F125.jpg). That's why melee is the damage king in 3.5. Get yourself a decent chunk of static damage and start stacking on multipliers, and without much effort you can end up with thoroughly ridiculous damage. Seriously, it doesn't take much actual optimization - a fighter with Power Attack, Headlong Rush and Shock Trooper alongside a valiant weapon will easily outdamage even a focused blaster. It takes really serious optimization chops to outdamage a fairly basic charger, because most force multipliers in D&D tend to be based around charging, and multipliers are how things really get out of control. There are ways to do it, of course - the mailman breaks the action economy into tiny little pieces and easily outdamages most chargers in the process, for example. But in general, it's easier to just build a high damage melee character.

Of course, that shouldn't mean that someone who wants to focus on direct damage should either play a mailman or give up and turn barbarian. There are plenty of instances where blasting is more advantageous than charging. It can be done from the safety of distance, it can easily effect a multitude of enemies, and many of the best blasts have rider effects that make them useful even against those who survive. Finally, dealing damage that needs to be expressed in scientific notation is neat, but it's overkill. Really REALLY killing someone isn't actually any more useful than just killing them. With a little bit of focus and effort, you can build a blaster that can deal consistent level-appropriate damage - and in the end, that's all that really matters.

3. Blasting is less useful than many other types of magic.

OK, this is the big one. There are often way more useful things to do than blast someone. Let's say I'm a 9th-level wizard. What's going to be more useful against most CR 9 enemies, casting cone of cold or casting solid fog?

The former will deal ~31.5 points of damage to any foe that does not resist cold. The average CR 9 foe has ~130 HP (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1118841), so there's a pretty good chance it's going to take me 4-5 blasts to take a level appropriate foe out if I'm just casting it out of the box. If I've invested in my ability and optimized for it, it might take me 2-3 shots instead.

The latter, however, just straight up shuts down most of the CR 9 foes in the Monster Manual. Maybe it doesn't shut them down permanently, but it should remove them for several rounds, which gives you and your party plenty of time to coordinate an attack, finish off other foes, cast other spells, etc. Basically, even in the incredibly unlikely chance that cone of cold rolls max damage, you're still not even dealing 50% damage to a colossal monstrous centipede or eight-headed pyrohydra or roc or triceratops or androsphinx or any of the other random CR 9 enemies I just looked up. On the other hand, if you can catch them in a solid fog, you can almost always set up a win condition.

But.... this doesn't actually mean that blasting is bad. It just means that other things are better. Again, you can build an effective blaster that will do fine in most campaigns. I play all sorts of things that are less powerful than a well-optimized wizard using the best possible spells for any given situation - I'm playing a bard archer and a warblade/totemist in two different campaigns right now, as a matter of fact. I don't cry about the fact that my bard might have done better if he had been able to cast cloudkill, or that my totemist/warblade wouldn't have to waste so much time tracking by scent if he could just cast contact other plane. I just make sure that the character I am playing can do what I want it to do, and call it a day.

Regarding evocation specifically - as many will surely mention, evocation is actually a pretty solid school. It gets a lot of fun BFC spells, plus some really neat spells that you can't find elsewhere like gust of wind, wind wall, otiluke's resilient sphere, contingency and more. Its big problem is that it is thoroughly outclassed by conjuration, which can do many of the things that evocation can do and then a whole bunch more. But really, if I had to play a wizard who could only cast one school of magic, I'd much rather go with evocation than, say, enchantment or abjuration.

[Zanos]

Specialist Wizards have to ban two schools. So let's sound them off and see what we can ban.

Conjuration: The King of Kings. Conjuration is a school so versatile it can do pretty much anything, and a caster with only this school would probably still be awesome. Conjuration has summoning, AoE Save or Suck targeting every save, battlefield control, mobility, and damage. Conjuration can make an entire battlefield of enemies blind, prone, and immobile while your fighter murders them one at a time effortlessly. Controlling the battlefield well can turn an encounter with 4 foes into four encounters with 1 four. I shouldn't have to explain why that is better.

Transmutation: The runner up, IMO. Transmutation has some good buffs, some great battlefield control, a few direct damage spells, and some excellent debuffs. It's a very strong school later in the game when you start getting more powerful stuff like polymorph or shapechange, but even alter self is gamebreakingly good in the right hands.

Abjuration: Not having dispel magic is not a good thing. Has some solid buffs anyway. Also contains most of your warding spells, and stuff that's basically mandatory later like dimensional anchor, mindblank, and most good wards.

Illusion: The power of this school, even at level 1, is only limited by your imagination. It also contains Shadow Conjuration/Evocation and their greater variants. Great value.

Divination: Can't ban this. You probably shouldn't even if you could because the entire mechanic of wizard revolves around being prepared and this helps you do it.

Necromancy: Lots of debuffs and minions, with a damage spell here and there. Worth noting that the minion control in this school is extremely versatile and scales
directly with the difficulty of your encounters. This school definitely contains the most brutal single target debuffs, though. Astral Projection is worth keeping this school by itself at higher levels.

Enchantment: An entire school that's invalidated by an extremely common immunity. Other schools can get you Save or Lose effects or minions that are more reliable. I'd pass on this, but there are gems like mindrape and a couple solid buffs.

Evocation: There are some very good spells in here. Force effects like Wall of Force and Forcecage. Windwall and Gust of Wind. Contingency. But when it comes down to it a lot of effects in this school are replaceable. Other schools do damage. Other schools have walls. Maze is in conjuration. In addition, nearly all Evocation blasting spells allow spell resistance, don't do anything besides damage, and offer reflex saves.


You don't really lose that much from specializing and banning Evocation and Enchantment, and you gain some nice perks.

If you want to deal damage I'd play either a Sorcerer or a Psion instead.

[eggynack]

Illusion: The power of this school, even at level 1, is only limited by your imagination. It also contains Shadow Conjuration/Evocation and their greater variants. Great value.

The big problem with the imagination based illusion spells is that they are often impacted by the whims of DM adjudication. Not always an issue, but it sometimes is. However, illusion still holds its own as a school, despite that problem, due to the reasonable stock of unique effects like invisibility, mirror image, and of course, simulacrum/ice assassin.

[Cruiser1]

Evocation blasting is a tool, and any tool is useful in the right situation:

Swarms: Single target spells like Orbs have no effect on swarms. Swarms can't be damaged with weapons either, so buffing melee does no good. However a AoE like Burning Hands or Fireball does extra damage to swarms.

Mooks: When there's 20 enemies surrounding the BBEG and your party, providing flanking and blocking party movement, an AoE can remove them all at once, much faster than a bunch targeted spells or waiting for melee to chew through them.

Solo: Buffing is of course the best action when part of a large party. However sometimes you're separated from your party, and may need to be able to do damage or battle on your own.

Elemental: That White Dragon almost dead? A Fireball (for example) does half damage even when a monster makes its save, and does extra damage to creatures vulnerable to fire. Fireball becomes a 100% guaranteed way to end this encounter on your turn.

Battlefield control: Just as the best defense is a good offense, so can direct damage can be battlefield control in its own right. Blast a support column, burn the enemy's wall of ice to undo their attempts at BFC, and so on.

[Flashy]

I ask because the presence or absence of houserules could be coloring his spectacles a healthy shade of pink.

Especially since the PHB fireball explicitly maxes at 10d6.

[Milodiah]

To add to my previous comments, I solidly don't care either way about optimization. My level of 'optimization' consists mostly of "Yes, it is good my wizard has Int as his highest score", as well as some stuff along the lines of "A fighter should usually be wearing heavier armor than a ranger" and sometimes I dabble in the thought of "A fighter wielding a club probably isn't using his full potential, if you consider it".

The game I'm running includes a warmage, who basically plays AS evocation magic, and if not literal evocation damage-magic then the spells of other schools that emulate evocation damage-magic. Which is fine by me, that's what his character concept is. He wants to shoot fireballs out of his hand and occasionally hit things with swords if the need arises. Not gonna hassle him about how wizards would be more flexible, or about how damage magic isn't strictly the greatest thing, because he's playing the game how he wants to play it.

[Blink Knight]

I agree that direct damage is useful in high op because people make their saves, but damage that doesn't allow a save is more useful than doing half damage on a made save (and probably checks SR too). If you're doing enough damage with some evocation that a quarter of it (made save, half to immune) will kill the enemy outright, you probably could have been doing better with an orb, or hail of stone, or vortex of teeth, or combust...

I'm not sure how you're getting these inflated HP numbers though. If a regular ol' CL 5 fireball got +8 damage per dice, it'd be doing 5d6+40 damage, an average of 57.5 on a failed save. A level 5 fighter with 16 con has 47 HP. So, with that buff, regular, unmodified fireball becomes a save or die for an equal-level tough type.

I made several different points there:

1: If everything is stacking saves (they are, if you take the save or lose thing to its logical conclusion) you want spells that work anyways.
2: It's actually more difficult to block every form of blasting than just pass any save on a 2 and ignore or redo natural 1s.
3: There's such a huge gap between unoptimized blasting and enemy HP that even more than tripling the damage comes off weak. It is an uphill battle. But once you do it your hundreds of damage is more consistent if everything is stacking save boosts. In most games they aren't because the DMs don't know how.

And using your example, yes the humanoid has low HP but the monster has more than double that and is more threatening than a 5th level Fighter. It also only gets worse at higher levels, 5th level is the absolute best case for blasting.

Really though the best "blasting" spell in an optimized game is the one that does 1d12 per spell on the target. Instant 20d12 because of all the active buffs.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I made several different points there:

1: If everything is stacking saves (they are, if you take the save or lose thing to its logical conclusion) you want spells that work anyways.I've yet to see PCs who stack saves and don't take evasion, and probably mettle. Monsters can get high saves just by pumping the HD, I suppose, but then their hit point totals start getting so ridiculous you're better off buffing the fighter.
2: It's actually more difficult to block every form of blasting than just pass any save on a 2 and ignore or redo natural 1s.Well yeah, that's the point of using no-save spells.
3: There's such a huge gap between unoptimized blasting and enemy HP that even more than tripling the damage comes off weak. It is an uphill battle. But once you do it your hundreds of damage is more consistent if everything is stacking save boosts. In most games they aren't because the DMs don't know how.Again, it's easier just to do damage that doesn't have a save at all. Why use evocation when you can use conjuration to blast better?
And using your example, yes the humanoid has low HP but the monster has more than double that and is more threatening than a 5th level Fighter. It also only gets worse at higher levels, 5th level is the absolute best case for blasting.
Average HP from CR 0-15: HP scale very linearly in this region at about 12.5 HP per CR.So, your average CR 5 monster has roughly 62.5 hit points, so more than the fighter, but not by that much.
Really though the best "blasting" spell in an optimized game is the one that does 1d12 per spell on the target. Instant 20d12 because of all the active buffs.Which spell is this?

[Fax Celestis]

Which spell is this?

Closest I can find is slashing dispel from PHB-II, which is 2 damage per level of dispelled effect. That can still add up pretty quickly, but you'd better be on-point with your dispel check optimization.

[Zanos]

He's referring to Reciprocal Gyre, Complete Arcane p. 199. 1d6 per spell level affecting the target, maximum of 25d6, will for half, fortitude to negate a 1d6 round daze.

EDIT: The spell was apparently republished in the Spell Compendium and does 1d12 per spell level, maximum 25d12. Nothing else changed.

[Blink Knight]

I've yet to see PCs who stack saves and don't take evasion, and probably mettle. Monsters can get high saves just by pumping the HD, I suppose, but then their hit point totals start getting so ridiculous you're better off buffing the fighter.Well yeah, that's the point of using no-save spells.Again, it's easier just to do damage that doesn't have a save at all. Why use evocation when you can use conjuration to blast better?So, your average CR 5 monster has roughly 62.5 hit points, so more than the fighter, but not by that much.Which spell is this?

You'd be surprised how often they don't throw a ring of evasion in.

As for rays. those are actually easily blocked, so that's the main reason. They're also reflectable.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-258919.html

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You'd be surprised how often they don't throw a ring of evasion in.

As for rays. those are actually easily blocked, so that's the main reason. They're also reflectable.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-258919.htmlI believe you're talking about Ray Deflection, a 1 minute/level personal buff, and perhaps buffing touch AC. I find it odd that, in your experience, enemies protect against everything except targeted and AoE effects that do something on a made save.

Also, Hail of Stone still does it better. No save, no SR, no attack roll, not even a target, low enough level to metamagic the crap out of it. Psions with swarm of crystals and action economy abuse do okay as well, but it's more resource-draining.

[Necroticplague]

The mention about making saves very commonly is actually a point in BFCs favor, not blasting (though it is a point against debuffing). A lot of battlefield control doesn't have ways to defend against it becaus it doesn't target you directly. Shape stone? No defense against being trapped inside a box big enough to move around in. Solid fog? no save, no spell resistance, just kiss your mobility goodbye. Black tentacles? No save, no SR, only way you can stop from being immobilized is rolling grapple. Buffing your allies helps regardless of what defenses your enemy has. Entangle still slows them down even if they save (and sticks around, so they'll fail eventually).

Admitingly, evocation can get in on some of this. Wall of force is awesome for stopping people from getting somewhere, hust to name the first example, and forcecge is pretty brutal for something you can't stop.

[Sith_Happens]

I forgot to mention that I build for 20th level. Nothing before that matters. If the spell would not affect a CR 20 monster, then it has almost no use to me. I have never said I would specialize in evocation, (even I realize that this is worthless) but banning evocation seems equally stupid.

IMO if you're building for 20th level then specializing at all is probably the wrong move. Past early levels you're not going to run out of useful spells over the course of a typical day anyways, which means the marginal benefit of an extra slot per level is close to nill.

As for hating on Evocation, that's mainly because it's filled not only with so much blasting (usually not the best thing to spend a spell on, if only because damage is something the rest of your party is already doing anyways), but so much mediocre and redundant blasting, that it's easy to forget about the hard-to-replace gems it does have (pick a [Force] spell, any [Force] spell).

As for Evocation being in so many people's top two favorite schools to ban even in absence of active dislike for it, that's just because it's one of the few schools that's not incredibly hard to ban.

[bekeleven]

How are you doing this?At that level he has disintegrate, so all he has to do is boost his CL by 6. Major bloodlines, or an ioun stone, ulimate magus cheese, etc. all work. Or spells like suffer the flesh, harmonic chorus, spell enhancer, mystic surge, death knell...

[Blink Knight]

I believe you're talking about Ray Deflection, a 1 minute/level personal buff, and perhaps buffing touch AC. I find it odd that, in your experience, enemies protect against everything except targeted and AoE effects that do something on a made save.

Also, Hail of Stone still does it better. No save, no SR, no attack roll, not even a target, low enough level to metamagic the crap out of it. Psions with swarm of crystals and action economy abuse do okay as well, but it's more resource-draining.

I was thinking more like Friendly Fire. With a 48 hour duration.

As for why, it's because most people follow the leader. God Wizard is king so everyone prepares against him. Good idea, but it means overlooking a more basic weakness. I've actually seen a disturbing number of anti spell sorts very weak to something, even that same caster walking up and hitting them in the face.

But as I said before the best damage spell ends up being the one that uses the inevitably mass stacked buffs against them.

[Flashy]

At that level he has disintegrate, so all he has to do is boost his CL by 6.

But that's not an evocation.

[Fax Celestis]

But that's not an evocation.

And is single target, which is not what he's been saying this whole time

[chaos_redefined]

I forgot to mention that I build for 20th level. Nothing before that matters. If the spell would not affect a CR 20 monster, then it has almost no use to me. I have never said I would specialize in evocation, (even I realize that this is worthless) but banning evocation seems equally stupid.

Cool. So, let's look at CR 20 monsters. According to this link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?172050-3-5-Average-Monster-Stats), the average CR 20 monster has 409.33 HP, and has a fort save of 24.22, a ref save of 18.67 and a will save of 21.2.

A Twinned Maximized Empowered Scorching Ray is an 8th level spell slot with Incantatrix metamagic reduction or Arcane thesis. It deals 306 on average, assuming all the rays hit. So, you need 2 to kill it.

In comparison, a Twinned Flesh to Ice is also an 8th level spell, but without the cost reduction. A 20th level grey elf wizard can have: 20 starting int, +5 tome, +5 level-ups, +6 enhancement bonus = 36 intelligence. This is a +13 bonus, resulting in a DC of 27. Add on Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, and we get to 29. So, the enemy needs a 6 or higher... Which means 4 rolls until he's down. Because of twin spell, that's still 2 rounds until he's out. (You might want to melt the ice statue when you're done).

Both spells allow Spell Resistance. One of them has to deal with immunity/resistance. The other has to deal with limitations on targets (but still works on, for example, dragons, outsiders and magical beasts. aka all the CR 20 monsters in the monster manual.) One of them required 3 feats and either a prestige class or a fourth feat. The other one required 3 feats. To be fair, the prestige class gives you the 3 feats for the scorching ray version.

As for undead and golems (aka the things that flesh to ice doesn't work on), you have things like Control Undead and fly/a crossbow.

So, a save-or-suck still kills the enemy just as quickly.

And then, there's also Greater Planar Binding, which allows you to call in a Planetar. And if you can't talk to someone who "particularly enjoy fighting fiends", and convince them to help with your plight, then maybe you wanna talk to a Pit Fiend instead.

[Tvtyrant]

I actually like Evocation. It has a lot of my favorite spells (prismatic spray, Forcecage, Contingency, Wall of Ice, etc.) The bigger issue is that Evocation is deprived of a number of spells that it should have (Prismatic Sphere, Orbs, etc.)

[Milodiah]

I actually like Evocation. It has a lot of my favorite spells (prismatic spray, Forcecage, Contingency, Wall of Ice, etc.) The bigger issue is that Evocation is deprived of a number of spells that it should have (Prismatic Sphere, Orbs, etc.)

I've always found the way that they break down the spells into schools is haphazard at best. Why is shooting a ray of energy an Evocation spell, but shooting an orb of it a Conjuration one?

[bekeleven]

I have built my wizard around killing one extremely poweful enemy, or lots of tiny enemies. So far, he is extremely effective at this (after all, 36d6 is more damage than even the most buffed fighter can deal at level 12). As a level 12 wizard, my DM has not been able to throw anything with an EL up to 15 at me that I cannot beat alone. As I said before, save or suck spells allow saves, which is a problem for me. anything with a good save can easily escape up to a 5th level spell. Something like protection from spells increases the number of spells rendered useless.


And is single target, which is not what he's been saying this whole time


But that's not an evocation.

We can wait for him to confirm, but I don't see that he was talking about aoe evocations there so much as blasting.

One thing I can be certain he did not say is that he dealt 36D6 to everyone in a pile - he said he dealt 36D6 damage, which I interpreted as to a single target, but could also be interpreted as a CL1 fireball in a room with 36 tiny creatures.

side note: 36D6 is 126 damage. 18 base str water orc wirling frenzy spirit lion Barbarian 2/Fighter 4 with Power attack, leap attack, shock trooper, a +4 enhancement to strength (bull's strength?), and a +2 greatsword has a str of 18+4racial+4frenzy+4enhancement= 30 Str (+10), and deals 2D6+2(Enh)+15(1.5Str)+18(3xBAB) per hit, or 42 per hit, with 3 attacks on a charge at +20/+20/+15, for a total of the same damage at half the level. I'm sure you could do it earlier, especially throwing in other buffs, like an enlarge person or bard.

[Pex]

In my group (Pathfinder) the Mytic Theurge is a blaster, and he's been quite effective. It is true that not every time he casts a blasting spell does that spell kill the enemy. What it does do is facilitate hit point attrition in our favor such that the warriors doing their part in addition bring down the enemies. The warriors aren't only doing mop up. Sometimes they're the ones who pile on the damage, and it's the Mythic Theurge popping off a Magic Missile or Scorching Ray to shave off the last few hit points of the enemy. He does do some buffing of his own, mainly through his cleric spells, but it is my Oracle of Life who's the main party buffer.

It is also true that he sometimes casts non-damaging attack spells. I also cast non-damaging attack spells. But gosh darn it these Forums be Three Gorged and Hoovered, the bad guys sometimes actually make their saving throws. Shocking, I know, but I swear on the Tier System Bible even targeting opponents' weak saves, they really, really do sometimes make their save and be unaffected by the spell. When they make their save against the Theurge's blast spells at least they still take some damage to help with the hit point attrition.

In a different campaign our spellcaster is a Summoner, different player as the Theurge is the DM. He does a good job with non-blasting spells. He does cast Haste a lot which has been a big help. We have a lot of warriors in our party, including my Dark Tapestry Oracle whom I built to be a CODzilla, "O" for "Oracle" instead of "or". :smallwink: Create Pit has also seen some glory. However, through Use Magic Device he'll take pot-shots with wands of damaging spells as mop-up. We don't care who gets the final kill. We just want the opponents dead.

Damaging spells are an effective tactic.

[Milodiah]

side note: 36D6 is 126 damage. 18 base str water orc wirling frenzy spirit lion Barbarian 2/Fighter 4 with Power attack, leap attack, shock trooper, a +4 enhancement to strength (bull's strength?), and a +2 greatsword has a str of 18+4racial+4frenzy+4enhancement= 30 Str (+10), and deals 2D6+2(Enh)+15(1.5Str)+18(3xBAB) per hit, or 42 per hit, with 3 attacks on a charge at +20/+20/+15, for a total of the same damage at half the level. I'm sure you could do it earlier, especially throwing in other buffs, like an enlarge person or bard.

And this is why novice munchkins want to shoot giant balls of fire. They have yet to achieve optimization enlightenment.

[Zanos]

The big problem with the imagination based illusion spells is that they are often impacted by the whims of DM adjudication. Not always an issue, but it sometimes is. However, illusion still holds its own as a school, despite that problem, due to the reasonable stock of unique effects like invisibility, mirror image, and of course, simulacrum/ice assassin.
True about the imagination spells. I've found that most DM's reward creativity though, and many application of them don't require a very lenient DM. Fake walls and floors go a long way.
But I did ban Illusion in a recent game as a Focused Specialist. I felt that banning Necromancy on a Necropolitian was tasteless, but I regret it very frequently when I can't cast mirror image or just leave with invisibility.


In my group (Pathfinder) the Mytic Theurge is a blaster, and he's been quite effective. It is true that not every time he casts a blasting spell does that spell kill the enemy. What it does do is facilitate hit point attrition in our favor such that the warriors doing their part in addition bring down the enemies. The warriors aren't only doing mop up. Sometimes they're the ones who pile on the damage, and it's the Mythic Theurge popping off a Magic Missile or Scorching Ray to shave off the last few hit points of the enemy. He does do some buffing of his own, mainly through his cleric spells, but it is my Oracle of Life who's the main party buffer.

It is also true that he sometimes casts non-damaging attack spells. I also cast non-damaging attack spells. But gosh darn it these Forums be Three Gorged and Hoovered, the bad guys sometimes actually make their saving throws. Shocking, I know, but I swear on the Tier System Bible even targeting opponents' weak saves, they really, really do sometimes make their save and be unaffected by the spell. When they make their save against the Theurge's blast spells at least they still take some damage to help with the hit point attrition.

In a different campaign our spellcaster is a Summoner, different player as the Theurge is the DM. He does a good job with non-blasting spells. He does cast Haste a lot which has been a big help. We have a lot of warriors in our party, including my Dark Tapestry Oracle whom I built to be a CODzilla, "O" for "Oracle" instead of "or". :smallwink: Create Pit has also seen some glory. However, through Use Magic Device he'll take pot-shots with wands of damaging spells as mop-up. We don't care who gets the final kill. We just want the opponents dead.

Damaging spells are an effective tactic.
Good crowd control spells either:
1)Target a large area
2)Require a save every round
3)Don't have a save
4)Screw you even if you make the save

Conjuration BFC relies the least on high save DC's of nearly any form of spellcasting.

Also nobody is saying that Evocation isn't effective. Only that it's one of the least versatile schools and that you lose the least from banning it as a specialist wizard. I haven't read anyone in this thread actually say that blasting with evocation isn't viable, only that it's far from optimal.

[jjcrpntr]

All I know is that blasting may not be the most optimized but it sure is fun.

[lightningcat]

I've always found the way that they break down the spells into schools is haphazard at best. Why is shooting a ray of energy an Evocation spell, but shooting an orb of it a Conjuration one?

As far as I can tell, it is because someone at WotC did actually hate Evocation. The Orb spells are so obviously Evocation it is not funny.
But haphazard is understating it, I mean why are the Healing Spells not Necromancy? The school for playing with life and death.

But on the subject of Save or Suck spells, if you and the DM are playing to the same level of optimization then these spells have a 50% success rate? Which means that half of your spells are AWESOME, and you wasted your turn the rest of the time.

[ryu]

As far as I can tell, it is because someone at WotC did actually hate Evocation. The Orb spells are so obviously Evocation it is not funny.
But haphazard is understating it, I mean why are the Healing Spells not Necromancy? The school for playing with life and death.

But on the subject of Save or Suck spells, if you and the DM are playing to the same level of optimization then these spells have a 50% success rate? Which means that half of your spells are AWESOME, and you wasted your turn the rest of the time.

Multiple spells per turn is one answer to that. A much more direct and optimized answer is no save just suck spells. Another is overwhelming force of minionmancy. Another still is time manipulation shenanigans. Another another is good old fashioned information war strats. The best wizards do all of those things, and also other things, with hilarious effectiveness at all times.

[Harrow]

But haphazard is understating it, I mean why are the Healing Spells not Necromancy? The school for playing with life and death.

AFAIK Necromancy being inherently evil and made of hurt was a sacred cow carried in from earlier editions. It's not messing around with life and death, it's messing around with unlife and death and is a separate, opposing element to life.

[DeAnno]

But on the subject of Save or Suck spells, if you and the DM are playing to the same level of optimization then these spells have a 50% success rate? Which means that half of your spells are AWESOME, and you wasted your turn the rest of the time.

Mostly wrong. It is far easier to buff saves than Save DCs in this system, especially with access to gear and buffs. Saves even automatically tend to get buffed a lot by class dipping, which is something optimized characters tend to do more often.

Outside of like... Owl's Insight (which is Druid only, and requires CL buffing to really get strong) I can't think of any great and economical ways to buff save DCs by a huge amount. On the other hand, Conviction, Ruin Delver's Fortune, Moment of Prescience, Benediction, the list goes on. A +6 stat item offers +3 to save DC for 36,000 gp, and a +5 to all saves item costs only 25,000. Lots of feats can reassign saving throw stats (Steadfast Determination, Force of Personality being the biggies.) ToB folk can sub concentration checks for saves fairly easily.

Generally at highish levels of PO, it is really difficult to get peer opponents to fail saves.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There's also a ton of options to lower saving throws, starting with things like shaken and sickened (both -2) and ending with Doomspeak ( -10). Most of them stack.
Protective spells and items can also be easily deactivated. A chained (Greater) Dispel will wreak havoc on your defenses, especially those from items because of their (generally) lower CL.

Combat between optimized characters is all about countering and negating their protections. Just blasting away and hoping your opponent rolls low won't get you far, no matter what spells you use.

That said, a lot of save or suck spells still have effects even when you save so smart spell selection helps against high-save targets.

[Blink Knight]

There's also a ton of options to lower saving throws, starting with things like shaken and sickened (both -2) and ending with Doomspeak ( -10). Most of them stack.
Protective spells and items can also be easily deactivated. A chained (Greater) Dispel will wreak havoc on your defenses, especially those from items because of their (generally) lower CL.

Combat between optimized characters is all about countering and negating their protections. Just blasting away and hoping your opponent rolls low won't get you far, no matter what spells you use.

That said, a lot of save or suck spells still have effects even when you save so smart spell selection helps against high-save targets.

A fair number of those also have saves, rather defeating the point.

That being said evocation has a low floor because of legacy. Dealing 1d6 a level means a lot more when gods barely have over 100. Save or loses also have a high floor because of legacy. When every spell had a static DC and saves improved with level those weren't very good. Naturally, no one involved considered any of that when changing the fundamental assumptions of the game. More relevantly, if you land a Dispel successfully the target is now vulnerable against everything. Suffice it to say anti dispel measures are one of the bigger reasons why a target might be immune to everything except damage. They ran out of resources before hitting that point. Or they just figured no one would use such noob tactics (then someone uses them in a non noobish way).

[Vhaidara]

AFAIK Necromancy being inherently evil and made of hurt was a sacred cow carried in from earlier editions. It's not messing around with life and death, it's messing around with unlife and death and is a separate, opposing element to life.

Not at all. Healing used to be in Necromancy. IIRC, 3e was the first edition to move it out.

[Fax Celestis]

Not at all. Healing used to be in Necromancy. IIRC, 3e was the first edition to move it out.

Didn't 3e codify the "all undead are evil" thing too?

[Necroticplague]

Didn't 3e codify the "all undead are evil" thing too?

Actually, 3.5 did. In 3e, mindless undead were True Neutral (which makes sense, as they don't have the capacity to make moral decisions). Though of note, not all undead are evil, even in 3.5 (though the overwhelming majority are).

[Zanos]

Actually, 3.5 did. In 3e, mindless undead were True Neutral (which makes sense, as they don't have the capacity to make moral decisions). Though of note, not all undead are evil, even in 3.5 (though the overwhelming majority are).
It mentions in one of the poorly written books regarding alignment that even non-evil undead are bad and need to be destroyed because they make negative energy more prevalent in the world which makes it a worse place in some nondescript way.

[Deadline]

Actually, 3.5 did. In 3e, mindless undead were True Neutral (which makes sense, as they don't have the capacity to make moral decisions). Though of note, not all undead are evil, even in 3.5 (though the overwhelming majority are).

All undead ping for the Detect Evil spell, even if they don't have an evil alignment. Deathless (which are totally not undead guys, honest!), are a different type.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I was thinking more like Friendly Fire. With a 48 hour duration.

As for why, it's because most people follow the leader. God Wizard is king so everyone prepares against him. Good idea, but it means overlooking a more basic weakness. I've actually seen a disturbing number of anti spell sorts very weak to something, even that same caster walking up and hitting them in the face.

But as I said before the best damage spell ends up being the one that uses the inevitably mass stacked buffs against them.If we're assuming all casters persist stuff like Friendly Fire it might be a tad difficult to successfully target the caster in the first place, what with illusions, stealth, spell turning/negating effects and the like. And again, I've never seen an anti-mage character without evasion from some source. I've seen characters who happened to be good at killing mages (and other things) not have evasion, but they had other ways of avoiding/obviating attacks. I'm glad you've been fortunate enough to encounter them.

[Blink Knight]

If we're assuming all casters persist stuff like Friendly Fire it might be a tad difficult to successfully target the caster in the first place, what with illusions, stealth, spell turning/negating effects and the like. And again, I've never seen an anti-mage character without evasion from some source. I've seen characters who happened to be good at killing mages (and other things) not have evasion, but they had other ways of avoiding/obviating attacks. I'm glad you've been fortunate enough to encounter them.

Chances are if he has Evasion he doesn't have things like Freedom of Movement, or flying. So that just gives him a more common weakness.

All I'm saying is that it goes right back where it started. Because blasting has a low floor and save or loses have a high floor you go from comparing a high accuracy end encounter spell with something that just does a little damage to comparing spells that will almost never work to save or die or die anyways type deals. It doesn't have to be blasting, it could just as easily be Persisted form altering melee but there's very little getting around the fact that successful attacks kill anyone very quickly within the system.

[Frostthehero]

I would like to bring in another point. Transmution can deal easily as much damage as evocation, by virtue of polymorph, polymorph any object, and shapechange. My personal favorite form is a hydra with 12 heads, allowing for 36d6 damage, and 12 attacks per round, when you aren't breathing fire. Some people have said that buffing melee characters is far better than dealing damage, but what if you turn into a hydra, heavily buff yourself, and use all 12 attacks? With the exception of a charger, no melee character is capable of coming even close to that kind of damage. Coupled with the fact that you can use all 12 heads for attacks of opportunity at NO penalty, I would say that dealing damage is highly effective for a wizard, regardless of how you do it.

Evocation has its weaknesses, but what about coupled gamebreaks? after casting a maximized time stop, (technically requiring a 27th level wizard, with the feats improved metamagic and arcane thesis time stop) you cast 5 maximized delayed blast fireballs, (six, if you won initiative) for a total of 600 or 720 damage in a single turn. With an arcane thesis in delayed blast fireball, you can repeat this several times, allowing your opponent only a single turn in which to move and attack in between each each attack.

[eggynack]

I would say that dealing damage is highly effective for a wizard, regardless of how you do it.
This doesn't follow. Yes, killing people as a hydra can be pretty powerful, but that's because you tend to deal enough damage to take enemies down with reasonable efficiency, and because failure in a single round does not mean failure for the entire use of the spell. Fireball is one and done, while the polymorph line are good for consistent and repetitive damage. It is rather like haste in that way. So, being a hydra can sometimes be highly effective for a wizard. That doesn't make all damage dealing effects effective for a wizard.

Evocation has its weaknesses, but what about coupled gamebreaks? after casting a maximized time stop, (technically requiring a 27th level wizard, with the feats improved metamagic and arcane thesis time stop) you cast 5 maximized delayed blast fireballs, (six, if you won initiative) for a total of 600 or 720 damage in a single turn. With an arcane thesis in delayed blast fireball, you can repeat this several times, allowing your opponent only a single turn in which to move and attack in between each each attack.
That's a bit of a weak maneuver for a wizard with access to 9th's, especially as you seem to be using long term resources on it. Seriously, it falls apart against anyone with fire immunity. Not a good place to be.

[Frostthehero]

This doesn't follow. Yes, killing people as a hydra can be pretty powerful, but that's because you tend to deal enough damage to take enemies down with reasonable efficiency, and because failure in a single round does not mean failure for the entire use of the spell. Fireball is one and done, while the polymorph line are good for consistent and repetitive damage. It is rather like haste in that way. So, being a hydra can sometimes be highly effective for a wizard. That doesn't make all damage dealing effects effective for a wizard.

That's a bit of a weak maneuver for a wizard with access to 9th's, especially as you seem to be using long term resources on it. Seriously, it falls apart against anyone with fire immunity. Not a good place to be.

Fireball in itself is a weak spell. I understand that evocation is not the greatest school, my question is why would anyone ban it, instead of enchantment or necromancy.

in response to the fire immunity thing, archmage with mastery of elements.

[Sith_Happens]

It mentions in one of the poorly written books regarding alignment that even non-evil undead are bad and need to be destroyed because they make negative energy more prevalent in the world which makes it a worse place in some nondescript way.

Actually that's in Libris Mortis. You know, the undead-themed book.

[Deadline]

Fireball in itself is a weak spell. I understand that evocation is not the greatest school, my question is why would anyone ban it, instead of enchantment or necromancy.

in response to the fire immunity thing, archmage with mastery of elements.

The most common reason (and it has been mentioned in this thread repeatedly), is that Evocation holds only a handful of truly useful spells (like Contingency, or Wall of Force). Necromancy holds a much larger variety of useful spells. Ergo, if you ban Enchantment and Evocation, you lose the least versatility as a specialist wizard (especially if your DM allows Shadow Evocation and its big brother to work perfectly fine for things like Contingency).

[eggynack]

Fireball in itself is a weak spell. I understand that evocation is not the greatest school, my question is why would anyone ban it, instead of enchantment or necromancy.
Well, that's a different question right there, linked to the power level of enchantment and necromancy as much as it is to that of evocation. By my reckoning, evocation is actually somewhat more powerful than enchantment, owing to evocation's unique effects like resilient sphere, wind wall, and so on, cause lots of these have already been listed, while it's also somewhat weaker than necromancy, owing to necromancy's unique effects like long term minionmancy, magic jar, powerful debuffs with varied defenses targeted, astral projection, and some others.

The existence of shadow evocation is also a factor, not perfectly replicating evocation by any means, but hitting at least a couple big effects, like contingency. Notably, the reasons have very little to do with blasting, and very much to do with how easy it is to replicate the effects of evocation. Blasting is included in that, with orbs reasonably taking the place of fireballs, if imperfectly, but it also includes stuff like wall of stone taking the place of wall of force, and whispering sand taking the place of sending.


In response to the fire immunity thing, archmage with mastery of elements.
Sure, but then you might be facing someone with evasion and a high reflex save, or, y'know, at this level of investment, I think that spell immunity/resistance might start becoming a factor. Alternatively, they could always just be immune to all of those elements. Energy immunity is pretty awesome.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Fireball in itself is a weak spell. I understand that evocation is not the greatest school, my question is why would anyone ban it, instead of enchantment or necromancy.

in response to the fire immunity thing, archmage with mastery of elements.

People don't ban Evocation instead of Enchantment or Necromancy, they ban it in addition to those two.
Most specialist wizards are probably conjurers (because Abrupt Jaunt), Divination can't be banned, Transmutation is the second strongest school and includes essentials like fly and the polymorph line and Illusion has lots of defensive spells like Displacement, Mirror Image and Invisibility in addition to Simulacrum and the shadow spells.
Abjuration is pretty important for things like dispels, Mind Blank, Magic Circle against Evil (for calling) and a ton of other defensive stuff.

A specialist will ban 2 of the 3, a focused specialist will probably ban all 3. So does anyone who takes levels in Incantatrix or Red Wizard.
All three schools have useful spells, no doubt. Compared to the other schools they are expendable though, which is why they're most often banned.

[Zanos]

Fireball in itself is a weak spell. I understand that evocation is not the greatest school, my question is why would anyone ban it, instead of enchantment or necromancy.

in response to the fire immunity thing, archmage with mastery of elements.

I'm sure some people will argue the merit of these spells.
Animate Dead
Astral Projection
Ennervation
False Life
Animate Dread Warrior
Avasculate
Awaken Undead
Blackfire
Burning Blood
Backbiter
(Greater)Bestow Curse
Command Undead
Control Undead
(Stasis)Clone
(Mass)Curse of Impending Blades
Eyebite
Fear
Finger of Death
Haunt Shift
Kiss of the Vampire
Magic Jar
Ray of Enfeeblement
Escalating Enfeeblement
Ray of Exhaustion
Shivering Touch
Soul Bind
Spiritwall
Undead Eyes
Undead Lieutenant
Undeath to Death
Wail of the Banshee
Waves of Fatigue
Waves of Exhaustion
Horrid Wilting


With evocation you lose force effects and contingency, but other schools can create prisons and contingency comes in a superior feat form or can be replicated with Shadow Evocation. Again Evocation isn't bad, but I have a soft spot for Necromancy personally.

Enchantment is icky. (Greater)Heroism is good, though.

[Frostthehero]

my mistake. necromancy appears to have some uses. I prefer to play a generalist, or a divination specialist who bans evocation.

[Deadline]

my mistake. necromancy appears to have some uses. I prefer to play a generalist, or a divination specialist who bans evocation.

So you create a thread called "Why does everyone hate evocation?", and you yourself ban it when playing a specialist wizard? You're sending me mixed messages here. :smalltongue:

At any rate, I usually prefer generalists as well, because versatility = power. But if you have to specialize (and not be a Diviner), then Evocation and Enchantment are usually the weakest spell schools out there.

[Milodiah]

I'll cross-post here and add that technically, any sufficiently powerful Evocation spell can be used as a much more entertaining version of Knock in a pinch.

[Deadline]

I'll cross-post here and add that technically, any sufficiently powerful Evocation spell can be used as a much more entertaining version of Knock in a pinch.

There was a 3rd level spell called Greater Knock in one of the Swords & Sorcery 3rd party books. Instead of unlocking the door, it caused the door to explode in the opposite direction like a claymore mine.

It was glorious.

[Zanos]

So you create a thread called "Why does everyone hate evocation?", and you yourself ban it when playing a specialist wizard? You're sending me mixed messages here. :smalltongue:

At any rate, I usually prefer generalists as well, because versatility = power. But if you have to specialize (and not be a Diviner), then Evocation and Enchantment are usually the weakest spell schools out there.
If your DM is generous or not paying attention Elven Generalist Domain Wizard is where it's at.

But at low levels the bonus slots from being a specialist are pretty significant if you can't get that past your DM.

[Milodiah]

There was a 3rd level spell called Greater Knock in one of the Swords & Sorcery 3rd party books. Instead of unlocking the door, it caused the door to explode in the opposite direction like a claymore mine.

It was glorious.

Done, and done. Now added to setting. Also adding to warmage spell list.

[Necroticplague]

Fireball in itself is a weak spell. I understand that evocation is not the greatest school, my question is why would anyone ban it, instead of enchantment or necromancy.
Enchantment is one of the first to ban, because almost the whole school can be shut down by simple mind-effecting immunity.

Necromancy, on the other hand, has quite a bit going for it relative to Evocation. One factor is the "preperation" ability of necromancery. in your downtime, you can use necromancery to save you spell slots in the future, though doing things like creating undead minions, pawns with Necrotic Cysts in them, using Astral Projection to make yourself safer, placing various nasty Symbols on objects you own, make some Clones as backups. It also has some fairly potent debuffs, including the no-save enervation, kelgore's grave mist, Wave of Exhaustion, Ray of Exhaustion, and the debuffs commonly applied by undead minions.

[Zanos]

Enchantment is one of the first to ban, because almost the whole school can be shut down by simple mind-effecting immunity.

Necromancy, on the other hand, has quite a bit going for it relative to Evocation. One factor is the "preperation" ability of necromancery. in your downtime, you can use necromancery to save you spell slots in the future, though doing things like creating undead minions, pawns with Necrotic Cysts in them, using Astral Projection to make yourself safer, placing various nasty Symbols on objects you own, make some Clones as backups. It also has some fairly potent debuffs, including the no-save enervation, kelgore's grave mist, Wave of Exhaustion, Ray of Exhaustion, and the debuffs commonly applied by undead minions.
One of my favorite things about necromancy is how well it synergizes with itself. Your minions tend to either be immune or healed by your nasty AoEs.

[Cloud]

As far as I can tell no one hates Evocation, it's just on the short list of schools that are acceptable to ban based on what each school brings to the table. If I got to ban only one school instead of two, I'd pick Enchantment to be honest, Evocation has some very nice non-damaging spells. If I'm starting at a high level I'd probably not specialise at all and keep all the schools.

[Optimator]

In Enchantment's defense, Freezing Glance is f***ing sweeeet.

[Zanos]

In Enchantment's defense, Freezing Glance is f***ing sweeeet.
Yeah, one of the better enchantment spells. Unfortunately it is still [Mind-Affecting] despite not having the tag. There's a line in the PH(I think) where it says that all Enchantment spells are [Mind-Affecting].

[Frostthehero]

So you create a thread called "Why does everyone hate evocation?", and you yourself ban it when playing a specialist wizard? You're sending me mixed messages here. :smalltongue:

At any rate, I usually prefer generalists as well, because versatility = power. But if you have to specialize (and not be a Diviner), then Evocation and Enchantment are usually the weakest spell schools out there.

oops... I meant to say enchantment.

[Vhaidara]

I, for one, will never be able to bring myself to ban Evocation. Keep your silly Gates and Disjunctions and Planar Bindings, I will Fireball EVERYTHING to death. EVERYTHING.

Thank you Searing Spell, for allowing me to kill it with fire. Even when it is made of fire.

[Frostthehero]

I, for one, will never be able to bring myself to ban Evocation. Keep your silly Gates and Disjunctions and Planar Bindings, I will Fireball EVERYTHING to death. EVERYTHING.

Thank you Searing Spell, for allowing my to kill it with fire. Even when it is made of fire.

amen brother.

[eggynack]

I, for one, will never be able to bring myself to ban Evocation. Keep your silly Gates and Disjunctions and Planar Bindings, I will Fireball EVERYTHING to death. EVERYTHING.

Thank you Searing Spell, for allowing my to kill it with fire. Even when it is made of fire.
Well, unless they have the aforementioned evasion+saves, magic immunity/spell resistance, or an AMF. Hence orbs being much better, although they do have more defenses than they're often given credit for.

[Milodiah]

Well, unless they have the aforementioned evasion+saves, magic immunity/spell resistance, or an AMF. Hence orbs being much better, although they do have more defenses than they're often given credit for.

See, you're talking about this thing called "optimization", which has this bad habit of getting in the way of BLASTING **** WITH FIREBALLS.

Also, I just imagined walking up to a wizard in-character and asking him to explain the differences between a fireball and an orb of fire. And then watching him stammer something about one's conjuration and the other is shut up.

[Vhaidara]

Well, unless they have the aforementioned evasion+saves, magic immunity/spell resistance, or an AMF. Hence orbs being much better, although they do have more defenses than they're often given credit for.

Go away eggy. This is not a druid conversation, you have no power here! I cast you out! :smalltongue:

I for one continue to be a faithful student of the V school of thought (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0696.html)

[Frostthehero]

See, you're talking about this thing called "optimization", which has this bad habit of getting in the way of BLASTING **** WITH FIREBALLS.

Again, an amen. Sometimes it is fun to just screw around as a wizard.

[Zanos]

See, you're talking about this thing called "optimization", which has this bad habit of getting in the way of BLASTING **** WITH FIREBALLS.

Also, I just imagined walking up to a wizard in-character and asking him to explain the differences between a fireball and an orb of fire. And then watching him stammer something about one's conjuration and the other is shut up.
I can explain the difference and I don't even have 18 int.
See, Evocation creates energy. Conjuration can conjure stuff though. So the Orb of Fire is actually fire summoned from somewhere else, maybe the Elemental Plane of Fire, where a Fireball is actually fire that you created.

Or if you want to be a smug bastard(you are a wizard, remember), just say that one is fourth level spell and the other is third.

[Milodiah]

It makes sense, yeah, but it just feels weird that they try to make such a big deal of these more or less identical things by sticking them in different schools.

[eggynack]

See, you're talking about this thing called "optimization", which has this bad habit of getting in the way of BLASTING **** WITH FIREBALLS.

Well, y'know, if I don't call out the optimization factor, then it's not like it just stops getting in the way of your fireballs. Folks don't just stop having evasion because you don't like optimization, as nice as that would be.

Go away eggy. This is not a druid conversation, you have no power here! I cast you out! :smalltongue:
To be fair, most of my orb stoppers are oddly druidic, including such classics as friendly fire, fireward, and bat+belt for all of the touch AC.

Edit: Also, gotta note that druid-style evocation destruction is way better. Frigging control winds man. Also, call avalanche. Way closer to where I want to be when I think about ripping apart the world with evocation.

[Brookshw]

Well, y'know, if I don't call out the optimization factor, then it's not like it just stops getting in the way of your fireballs. Folks don't just stop having evasion because you don't like optimization, as nice as that would be.

To be fair, most of my orb stoppers are oddly druidic, including such classics as friendly fire, fireward, and bat+belt for all of the touch AC.

Edit: Also, gotta note that druid-style evocation destruction is way better. Frigging control winds man. Also, call avalanche. Way closer to where I want to be when I think about ripping apart the world with evocation.

Sorry, cant hear you over the fireballs :smalltongue:

Also in all fairness, implosions pretty fun even if not a wizard spell.

[Milodiah]

It's not that we aren't understanding optimization. It's that we don't care about optimization. Let him evade, that's what evasion is for. I don't feel compelled to negate that advantage in order to feel worthwhile in combat, because I think in-character as much as possible. I optimize my characters as much as my characters would optimize themselves.

Which, incidentally, often becomes hilarious.

[Blink Knight]

Most specialist wizards are probably conjurers (because Abrupt Jaunt)

And then they read a grimoire titled "Drow of the Underdark", and look at page 101. At which point they immediately regret their life choice.

[ryu]

It's not that we aren't understanding optimization. It's that we don't care about optimization. Let him evade, that's what evasion is for. I don't feel compelled to negate that advantage in order to feel worthwhile in combat, because I think in-character as much as possible. I optimize my characters as much as my characters would optimize themselves.

Which, incidentally, often becomes hilarious.

In character that makes even less sense. If you were making a career of fighting things to the death for fame, power, fortune, the defense of innocents, some combination of the above, or something entirely different the enemy being able to negate your attacks is not something to be taken lightly. Even assuming your character has a death-wish endangerment of what is ostensibly the entire purpose of his murderhoboing isn't some light thing.

[Snails]

In larger parties (6+), battlefield shaping is incredibly resource efficient. One well placed wall or fog, and the fighters will gleefully rip the enemy into shreds without your need to lift another finger. Frankly, this is fabulous fun for the other players, as well.

I tried playing an evocationist, and it was okay. But it just feels inflexible and I found myself shading my spell selection more and more towards non-blast spells. But it was glorious on the day I was loaded for bear and the Purple Worm was swallowing people left and right. Me: "Maximized Scorching Ray for 72. Quicken Scorching Ray for 43." Other Player: "It still has a lot of hit points. You have to do better than that. Go save the characters getting eaten." Me (next round): "Maximized Scorching Ray for 72. Quickened Magic Missile for 19." Other Player: "Oh. Right you are."

[Milodiah]

In character that makes even less sense. If you were making a career of fighting things to the death for fame, power, fortune, the defense of innocents, some combination of the above, or something entirely different the enemy being able to negate your attacks is not something to be taken lightly. Even assuming your character has a death-wish endangerment of what is ostensibly the entire purpose of his murderhoboing isn't some light thing.

...no. What I am saying is that a character with less D&D combat experience than us as players and someone who doesn't have access to every single text on the various gameplay mechanics that make his universe work is making non-optimal decisions based on the previous.

[Brookshw]

...no. What I am saying is that a character with less D&D combat experience than us as players and someone who doesn't have access to every single text on the various gameplay mechanics that make his universe work is making non-optimal decisions based on the previous.

You mean in character it doesn't make sense for us to be the equivalent of some nutty survivalist living in hermetically sealed bomb shelters filled with large arsenals constantly reviewing every type of manual for every military craft, armament and so forth 24/7? Nah :smallwink:

[Deadline]

And then they read a grimoire titled "Drow of the Underdark", and look at page 101. At which point they immediately regret their life choice.

Are you referring to the Shadow Cloak? It's a pale imitation of the Abrupt Jaunt class feature (it's only usable 3/day, which leaves you high and dry on that 4th encounter), and you can't afford one until what, 5th level at the earliest?

And y'know, it's not like it can't be worn by Conjurers. :smalltongue:

Also, extra conjuration spells per day are pretty sweet, since it's probably the most versatile school of magic. Abrupt Jaunt is just a nice extra to have in exchange for the crummy familiar class feature. If you want a familiar, and you aren't going pure wizard 20, then you'll probably be picking up Obtain Familiar anyway...

[Zanos]

You mean in character it doesn't make sense for us to be the equivalent of some nutty survivalist living in hermetically sealed bomb shelters filled with large arsenals constantly reviewing every type of manual for every military craft, armament and so forth 24/7? Nah :smallwink:
Yeah, I can only manage 20/7. Shaving off the last couple of hours of sleep is difficult, even after optimizing may intake of stimulants.

Seriously though, we aren't adventurers. If I was a mercenary I probably would be doing my homework on my own equipment and my enemies and make damn sure I had good training before getting myself into a situation where lethal weapons are flying at me.

[ryu]

...no. What I am saying is that a character with less D&D combat experience than us as players and someone who doesn't have access to every single text on the various gameplay mechanics that make his universe work is making non-optimal decisions based on the previous.

That however is not being uncaring of optimization and the success it brings. That's the previous position. It's also a bit of a strawman to state that EVERY text ever printed is necessary to understand the follies of blasting. By rights the fact that people who survive past low levels can afford to be ressed even if they do die means everyone and their grandma in the low-mid adventuring world should be trying to observe with various divination effects as much as possible. Even something as basic as the sorts of effects that commonly get employed by the effective people should be massive even assuming the caster in question doesn't know the names for them. That still tells them where to focus information gathering and the research which fluff assumes is happening.

[sleepyphoenixx]

And then they read a grimoire titled "Drow of the Underdark", and look at page 101. At which point they immediately regret their life choice.

At the level where you can easily afford the cloak you have enough spell slots that specialization isn't really all that effective anymore. Maybe you went for Rapid Summoning instead.
The other specialist ACFs just aren't all that great and it's not like you wouldn't be using conjuration spells anyway, so it's hardly a sacrifice compared to specializing in another school (except maybe divination)

[Hecuba]

Canned response

Evocation has:

A big chunk of damage dealing spells which are very easy to replicate to nearly the same efficacy.
A small number of niche damage dealing spells that are fairly hard to replicate directly (generally, long range AoE spells).
Hand Spells
Walls, Forcecage & Company
Contingency


When comparing Evocation to other wizard schools, we this yields the following incentives.

Doesn't matter much because it is easy to replicate fairly well
Is too niche for most casters to be overly concerned and somewhat replicated by Shadow Evocation
As 2, but also overlaps with other single target control options
Has less overlap (though Conjuration can do well for walls too) and some are no-save solutions
Competes with the feat.


That means generally, the loss of evocation hurts most for 4 & 5.
4 and 5 are useful, mind you. They can even be more useful than a specialist's bonus slots-- which why generalist builds are recommended at very high-op levels.
If you are going to specialize, however, they are generally not more valuable than entire other schools (unless you're expecting Ench. or Necro. to be fully shut down).


End Canned response

That said, I love's me some Blistering Radiance.

What's that you say? There's an army you need to kill? I bet it would help to fill ~8000 square feet of where that army is with glowing death.
You want to skip down a few floors in the dungeon you say? I'll toss on an acid-sub and we can wait a few rounds while my toxic glowing ooze dissolves through all the floors within a 50 foot sphere of this one.
The merchant prince won't come out of the castle and chat you say? Well, then, we'll simply have to remove the castle. Widen, acid-sub, sunflower of Pelor.


:vaarsuvius: As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

[Blink Knight]

Are you referring to the Shadow Cloak? It's a pale imitation of the Abrupt Jaunt class feature (it's only usable 3/day, which leaves you high and dry on that 4th encounter), and you can't afford one until what, 5th level at the earliest?

And y'know, it's not like it can't be worn by Conjurers. :smalltongue:

Also, extra conjuration spells per day are pretty sweet, since it's probably the most versatile school of magic. Abrupt Jaunt is just a nice extra to have in exchange for the crummy familiar class feature. If you want a familiar, and you aren't going pure wizard 20, then you'll probably be picking up Obtain Familiar anyway...

My point is that if your main ability is only worth a few thousand gold get a different new ability. There's also nothing preventing you from having more than one.

Nothing matters before level 3 (some would say 5) because of all the random 1-2 hit kills even on dwarf barbs. So yeah.

I'd rather have a small Fort save bonus and a second caster along with having Abrupt Jaunt anyways.

[eggynack]

My point is that if your main ability is only worth a few thousand gold get a different new ability. There's also nothing preventing you from having more than one.
It's not just worth a few thousand gold, because abrupt jaunt is more versatile, powerful, and has more uses/day.


Nothing matters before level 3 (some would say 5) because of all the random 1-2 hit kills even on dwarf barbs. So yeah.

Dwarf barbarians get 1-2 hit kills. Conjurers with abrupt jaunt, as long as they're not flat-footed, generally do not. It's a pretty strong defense. Not a perfect one, but better than what most others are doing.

[Deadline]

My point is that if your main ability is only worth a few thousand gold get a different new ability. There's also nothing preventing you from having more than one.

Sure, but Abrupt Jaunt is rarely the sole reason to be a Conjurer (it's usually pretty frequent for a Gish build though).


I'd rather have a small Fort save bonus and a second caster along with having Abrupt Jaunt anyways.

Again, unless you are taking wizard 20 (and even then, you'll probably want to improve your little xp bomb so it doesn't go off), you'll probably want to take Obtain Familiar instead of having a familiar that is only powered by 5 wizard levels.

That said, familiars that can UMD are pretty awesome as secondary buffers.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There's also the point that there aren't really any other worthwhile abilities to trade your familiar for if you're not going for Rapid Summoning. Abrupt Jaunt is pretty much the best option you have there.

[Blink Knight]

It's not just worth a few thousand gold, because abrupt jaunt is more versatile, powerful, and has more uses/day.


Dwarf barbarians get 1-2 hit kills. conjurers with abrupt jaunt, as long as they're not flat-footed, generally do not. It's a pretty strong defense. Not a perfect one, but better than what most others are doing.

It prevents one attack.

And how? Both are 10 feet in any direction as an Immediate action. The cloak is actually more versatile because it could do something other than move you (not that I could think of a reason why you would). Uses? Get more than 1, switch out.

[eggynack]

It prevents one attack.
It prevents that attack, and presumably other attacks made in the same round by the same opponent, at least if it's a melee opponent.


And how? Both are 10 feet in any direction as an Immediate action. The cloak is actually more versatile because it could do something other than move you (not that I could think of a reason why you would). Uses? Get more than 1, switch out.

The cloak only allows you to teleport in response to an attack, which at the very least stops you from effectively using the item for tactical teleportation. and at most, stops you from using this against forms of offense that don't use attack rolls. As for getting more than one, that's even more expensive, and the fact that this defense is at its best at level one, when folks mostly lack defenses of that effectiveness level, also seems relevant.

[Blink Knight]

Both of them would prevent full attacks (without reach, aka none of the good ones).

Does it actually specify that or does attack = hostile action, with or without a weapon?

[eggynack]

Both of them would prevent full attacks (without reach, aka none of the good ones).
Indeed. This is an advantage of both the cloak and the ACF.


Does it actually specify that or does attack = hostile action, with or without a weapon?
The item itself doesn't specify that, but the PHB glossary definition for attack states, "The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll." Alternatively, you could always argue for the invisibility definition of attack, which is a lot broader (though also likely specific to invisibility), and that accounts for the cloak's best case scenario.

[Pex]

Enchantment is one of the first to ban, because almost the whole school can be shut down by simple mind-effecting immunity.

Necromancy, on the other hand, has quite a bit going for it relative to Evocation. One factor is the "preperation" ability of necromancery. in your downtime, you can use necromancery to save you spell slots in the future, though doing things like creating undead minions, pawns with Necrotic Cysts in them, using Astral Projection to make yourself safer, placing various nasty Symbols on objects you own, make some Clones as backups. It also has some fairly potent debuffs, including the no-save enervation, kelgore's grave mist, Wave of Exhaustion, Ray of Exhaustion, and the debuffs commonly applied by undead minions.

That is the false strength of Necromancy. It is false not because of the power but due to reality of play. PCs generally do not animate or create undead. For a particular campaign of specificity instead of generality, sure, it's possible someone somewhere will play a wizard creating undead galore. However, in the general case of pick any game, players don't create undead. It is not common for PCs to be Evil, and even Neutral characters aren't willy nilly creating undead.

[Milodiah]

Also it isn't all that common for the DM to be willing to allow more than three or so additional player-friendly entities he has to keep track of in and out of every battle.

[Elderand]

That is the false strength of Necromancy. It is false not because of the power but due to reality of play. PCs generally do not animate or create undead. For a particular campaign of specificity instead of generality, sure, it's possible someone somewhere will play a wizard creating undead galore. However, in the general case of pick any game, players don't create undead. It is not common for PCs to be Evil, and even Neutral characters aren't willy nilly creating undead.

And if you want to have an army of undead minion, you don't play wizard, you play dread necromancer for that sweet sweet boost to your control pool.

[Milodiah]

Agreed, without the supplemental classes like dread necromancer it's actually divine casters who are dominant in necromantic antics.

[eggynack]

That is the false strength of Necromancy. It is false not because of the power but due to reality of play. PCs generally do not animate or create undead. For a particular campaign of specificity instead of generality, sure, it's possible someone somewhere will play a wizard creating undead galore. However, in the general case of pick any game, players don't create undead. It is not common for PCs to be Evil, and even Neutral characters aren't willy nilly creating undead.
Wizards don't have any serious mechanical alignment restriction on the creation of undead, so it's really up to the player. So, while it may be a false strength to you, because you don't feel right playing a good necromancer, it's not necessarily a false strength to others.


Agreed, without the supplemental classes like dread necromancer it's actually divine casters who are dominant in necromantic antics.
Wizards aren't the best necromancers by any stretch of the imagination, but it's wrong not to count those minions among their potential assets. You don't need to be the best at something for your use of that thing to be of benefit, and permanent bodies at a reasonable cost is a thing that can definitely be of benefit.

[HaikenEdge]

Honestly, I don't think anybody actually hates evocation; if anything, I think most people here are just ambivalent towards it, and would much rather be doing other things with their turn than casting evocation spells.

[Necroticplague]

That is the false strength of Necromancy. It is false not because of the power but due to reality of play. PCs generally do not animate or create undead. For a particular campaign of specificity instead of generality, sure, it's possible someone somewhere will play a wizard creating undead galore. However, in the general case of pick any game, players don't create undead. It is not common for PCs to be Evil, and even Neutral characters aren't willy nilly creating undead.

Who said anything about Animate or Create Undead? Simply draining someone of levels gives you a wight you can control, while Necrotic Cyst can leave you with undead after using up the mind-controlled minion. Not to mention necromancy is also the school that lets you take control of other undead you do find.

[Zanos]

Animate Dread Warrior is also a Wiz/Sorc only spell. It doesn't come online until later, but for 2750 exp(when you get it) you could get an infinitely loyal minion with class levels. The template does have nasty hits to Int and Cha, but a nice Str boost.

Great to get some clerics or an initiator if you can find one.

[ShurikVch]

Note: Miracle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/miracle.htm) is Evocation too
2-level dip in Wyrm Wizard or Recaster - and it's in your spellbook

[Pex]

Who said anything about Animate or Create Undead? Simply draining someone of levels gives you a wight you can control, while Necrotic Cyst can leave you with undead after using up the mind-controlled minion. Not to mention necromancy is also the school that lets you take control of other undead you do find.

Again, players don't generally create undead as a "but of course" measure, regardless of whatever method that exists to create them even if not specifically the spell Animate Dead.

[ryu]

Again, players don't generally create undead as a "but of course" measure, regardless of whatever method that exists to create them even if not specifically the spell Animate Dead.

Speak for yourself. Before ice assassins come online undead make delightfully cheap and synergistic support to shadowsteel golems.

[Zanos]

Again, players don't generally create undead as a "but of course" measure, regardless of whatever method that exists to create them even if not specifically the spell Animate Dead.
Yeah, I haven't had that experience that in the majority of my campaigns. I don't march my undead army into town except for one or two big bodyguards with hat's of disguise. As long as there's no paladins in the party and I'm not killing innocent people or digging up graveyards to make zombies nobody really seems to mind past giving my character an odd look or finding it generally creepy.

They certainly don't complain when the zombie ogre sets of all the traps instead of them.

[Karnith]

Again, players don't generally create undead as a "but of course" measure, regardless of whatever method that exists to create them even if not specifically the spell Animate Dead.
That has not been my experience; I have animated undead with essentially every Wizard I've ever played (the ones that haven't banned Necromancy, anyway), and players in my games have done it from time to time as well. The moral angle of animating undead has always been a non-issue in my group, even with Good parties.

[Vaz]

It is one of those spells you can cast if you've got spare spell slots available at the end of the day. If they're not going to do something, might as well raise some commoners who can clean your house for you.