Do enchantment spells suck?

[Masakan]

Simple question, simple answer.
I've been trying to perfect an enchantment based character(Base Class Bard) for a while, only to find out that there are a plethora of different monsters immune to it.
Is there anyway around it?
Are enchantment spells more useful for out of combat?
Or have I just been chasing a massive goose egg and spent the past 2 months for nothing?

[Troacctid]

Do enchantment spells suck?

No.

Next question please!

[Masakan]

No.

Next question please!

Ok then,why people get on it for being bad because of the whole thing with mind affecting?

[Seto]

I know they are generally considered a poor or situational choice because of that blanket immunity so many monsters have. But it depends on context : in a humanoid-heavy campaign, or in a social campaign, they're really great. Because when they do work, they're really rather powerful.

As for ways to bypass the immunity, I can't tell you because I've never looked up this topic specifically, but I'm interested in what other posters may have to offer.

[Troacctid]

Ok then,why people get on it for being bad because of the whole thing with mind affecting?

It's not bad, it's just not reliable. If enchantments are your only line of attack, you'll roll over and die to the first golem you see. Have a backup plan.

[Masakan]

It's not bad, it's just not reliable. If enchantments are your only line of attack, you'll roll over and die to the first golem you see. Have a backup plan.

Oh of course being a one trick pony is almost always a bad idea and the reason why many mundane classes are considered mediocre at best. You usually want to incorporate illusion and stuff to make you more versatile and generally just be hard to pin down.

Also is it ok if I PM you? I wanna ask you something in private.

[Troacctid]

Illusions are a stalling tactic. They can get a mindless enemy off your back for a while, but they aren't going to defeat it.


Also is it ok if I PM you? I wanna ask you something in private.

Yeah, it's fine.

[Rubik]

The trick with enchantment spells is to find really powerful opponents that are subject to being Dominated and using those against the tricky ones with immunities.

Unfortunately, the former become more and more rare later on, so it might behoove you to find a lower level mook, Dominate it, and level it up to the point where you now have a properly leveled mind-slave. Just make sure to command it to keep failing its saves against your Dominates.

[legomaster00156]

Ironically, enchantment is weak because it is strong. You see, controlling enemies trivializes encounters. The devs realized this. So, they gave immunity to mind-affecting spells to a buttload of enemies, resulting in enchantment being so situational as to be near-useless in combat situations, and difficult to use elsewhere.

[Darth Ultron]

Do enchantment spells suck?

No.


A DM can counter any character or build. Though one of the unwritten rules of D&D is that the DM's don't do that.

Plenty of creatures are immune to fireballs, melee attacks or anything else. And there are plenty of ways to gain immunity to things too.

[ExLibrisMortis]

There are precious few ways to overcome immunity to mind-affecting spells. There are no spells equivalent to grave strike and vine strike for enchantments (you can bypass type-based immunities with polymorph, however), and the only relevant class abilities and feats I can think of are Requiem (bardic music affects undead), and the Dread Witch's fourth level ability (fear spells affect creatures otherwise immune, max HD equal to CL + 3).

Even the Master Specialist for Enchantment doesn't get to bypass immunity.

[Rubik]

Dominate the tarrasque and force-feed it a shrink collar so it can come with you on your adventures? Doable at really low level, as it doesn't have anything but a Will save and its type (Magical Beast) to protect it.

[martixy]

The trick with enchantment spells is to find really powerful opponents that are subject to being Dominated and using those against the tricky ones with immunities.

Unfortunately, the former become more and more rare later on, so it might behoove you to find a lower level mook, Dominate it, and level it up to the point where you now have a properly leveled mind-slave. Just make sure to command it to keep failing its saves against your Dominates.

And then the permanent version in the form of that one infamous spell - Mindrape.


I actually asked this question a while back, so here's the link so we don't reiterate:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?432424-Piercing-Immunity-to-Mind-Affecting

[Masakan]

Ironically, enchantment is weak because it is strong. You see, controlling enemies trivializes encounters. The devs realized this. So, they gave immunity to mind-affecting spells to a buttload of enemies, resulting in enchantment being so situational as to be near-useless in combat situations, and difficult to use elsewhere.

And what about all those enchantment spells that are ALSO Mind-effecting but serve more as debuffs than anything else.

Like loves lament, not mind controller in anyway, but makes your enemies so depressed they become borderline suicidal.

Like just imagine the bard singing "All out of love - I'm so lost without you" And then the enemies are like "OMG oh this song gets me every time. (Sobs)" By that point your teammates are like "Got you now jackass!" Slice.

If anything that sounds funny as hell not broken.

[Rubik]

And then the permanent version in the form of that one infamous spell - Mindrape.Dominate first, followed by an order not to resist in any way, and to take whatever actions it needs to in order to do so.

[Pex]

Ok then,why people get on it for being bad because of the whole thing with mind affecting?

Because they see the number of creatures in the monster manual immune to mind affecting features and assume from that enchantment sucks because it never works. They say the same thing about fire damage effects.

They're wrong. They're wrong because of faulty thinking. Just because a monster exists in the monster manual does not mean it must appear in the campaign. Even if it does appear in the campaign it does not mean it appears in every encounter all the time every time. It does behoove a player not to have his character only do mind-affecting effects. The DM is not being a horrible person by having mind-affecting immune creatures appear in the campaign. The player's character should be able to handle such encounters by doing something else. Not using mind-affecting effects for that particular encounter is just a thing. It is not a judgment on mind affecting effects.

If the party is always or almost always facing opponents who are immune to mind-affecting effects, the problem is not mind-affecting effects. The problem is the DM being a donkey cavity purposely shutting down a player's character, preventing the player from having the fun he wanted. It is the DM, not the monster manual, who determines what opponents exist, so it is the DM's fault if the player never gets to use his mind-affecting effects. By contrast, if the DM knew from before the game started that the campaign would heavily feature opponents immune to mind-affecting effects, then he should have informed his players to let them know not to create characters using mind-affecting effects. In this unique case mind-affecting effects are useless, no one uses them, and no one is unhappy. Mind-affecting effects are still good to have and do stuff, just not for that particular unique campaign. It's just a thing, not a judgement on the effectiveness of mind-affecting effects.

[Necroticplague]

Kinda, but not compltetely. It's too situational for my tastes. A lot of enchantments are actually fairly potent (confusion, mindrape, insanity, dominate). Unfortunately, past the early levels, immunity to mind effecting becomes incredibly common. It's only two feats away for any evil character. Additionally, most allow SR on top of that. And a Will save on top of that. So while they may be powerful, there's too many avenues for failure for me to consider them worth it. Necromancery for the Necrotic Cyst spells gets me a lot of the mind-control goodies without the mind-effecting tag.

[Malroth]

If you don't mind being [Evil] take the Mother Cyst feat to add a non mind affecting version of dominate to your arsenal.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If the party is always or almost always facing opponents who are immune to mind-affecting effects, the problem is not mind-affecting effects. The problem is the DM being a donkey cavity purposely shutting down a player's character, preventing the player from having the fun he wanted. It is the DM, not the monster manual, who determines what opponents exist, so it is the DM's fault if the player never gets to use his mind-affecting effects. By contrast, if the DM knew from before the game started that the campaign would heavily feature opponents immune to mind-affecting effects, then he should have informed his players to let them know not to create characters using mind-affecting effects. In this unique case mind-affecting effects are useless, no one uses them, and no one is unhappy. Mind-affecting effects are still good to have and do stuff, just not for that particular unique campaign. It's just a thing, not a judgement on the effectiveness of mind-affecting effects.

So the DM can't use undead, constructs, plants, oozes or vermin because you want to get your minions, or he's the bad guy? That doesn't really look like sound logic to me.
Undead in particular are probably the most represented monster type in the game, and they're a staple of the genre. Constructs come right in second place.

Nobody is saying that enchantment can't be useful. What people are saying is that it's a bad idea to focus your build around it, because chances are that a good chunk of enemies are going to be immune in a normal campaign.
That means that a specialist wizard is best off banning enchantment, because chances are it's going to be the school that would hurt the least to lose.
It doesn't mean that a generalist wizard shouldn't pick up charm or dominate spells. Just that he shouldn't build his entire character around them.

If you're playing a game that only has humanoids as enemies go ahead and build an enchanter, but you have to realize that that situation is the exception, not the rule.
You implying that it's the other way around and that such enemies showing up is something unusual the players need to be informed about is ridiculous.

[martixy]

Ok, let me pre-empt any arguments about what a DM can, must, will, won't, should or shouldn't do:

Just by virtue of the rule of equal distribution of monsters, Enchantment spell are going to be less effective, due to the prevalence of creatures that possess immunity to mind-affecting.
And by less effective I mean, you are going to have disproportionately less opportunities to make something cool happen with them.

It's like how global warming is - we're not gonna stop having cold winters or cold days or whatever - they're just going to become less and less frequent, while the hot extremes are going to become more prevalent.

It's a global trend, presence or lack of local expression is not an confirmation or contradiction of the overall concept.

[Pex]

So the DM can't use undead, constructs, plants, oozes or vermin because you want to get your minions, or he's the bad guy? That doesn't really look like sound logic to me.
Undead in particular are probably the most represented monster type in the game, and they're a staple of the genre. Constructs come right in second place.

Nobody is saying that enchantment can't be useful. What people are saying is that it's a bad idea to focus your build around it, because chances are that a good chunk of enemies are going to be immune in a normal campaign.
That means that a specialist wizard is best off banning enchantment, because chances are it's going to be the school that would hurt the least to lose.
It doesn't mean that a generalist wizard shouldn't pick up charm or dominate spells. Just that he shouldn't build his entire character around them.

If you're playing a game that only has humanoids as enemies go ahead and build an enchanter, but you have to realize that that situation is the exception, not the rule.
You implying that it's the other way around and that such enemies showing up is something unusual the players need to be informed about is ridiculous.

Please reread what I wrote.

[eggynack]

Enchantment is just about the worst school of magic out there. It's one of the easiest to defend against schools, and one of the most narrow, and it doesn't do much that cannot be done about as well by other schools. But, in the end, the worst school of magic is still going to be a school of magic, and will therefore be at least pretty good. You get the charm/dominate line, which is one of the more unique effects you get, enabling some broader than usual minionmancy, and there're occasional gems like mind rape and freezing glance. You'd be better off focusing on any other school, at least with a wizard (which is the context in which the topic is usually brought up, because they're the class for whom spell school actually matters), but an enchantment focused wizard can still do some work. Enchantment spells do suck, relative to spells of other schools, but they don't necessarily suck, relative to the doings of, say, a fighter.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And what about all those enchantment spells that are ALSO Mind-effecting but serve more as debuffs than anything else.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but all enchantments are mind-affecting. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#enchantment)

As a few others have pointed out, the trick to being an enchanter (or similar) lies in using your magic to garner a permanent minion or two for when you face foes that are highly resistant or outright immune to mind-affecting trickery. If you don't mind being a little dark, the master/slave rings from BoVD are good for compelling compliance should your minion break free of your bewitching.

You're on the right track with illusions though. They're great for both staying out of harms way and confounding foes if enchantment is off the table in a given encounter. A few good buffs for your minion don't hurt either.

[Masakan]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but all enchantments are mind-affecting. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#enchantment)

As a few others have pointed out, the trick to being an enchanter (or similar) lies in using your magic to garner a permanent minion or two for when you face foes that are highly resistant or outright immune to mind-affecting trickery. If you don't mind being a little dark, the master/slave rings from BoVD are good for compelling compliance should your minion break free of your bewitching.

You're on the right track with illusions though. They're great for both staying out of harms way and confounding foes if enchantment is off the table in a given encounter. A few good buffs for your minion don't hurt either.

Sadly when I think enchanting, I think of something a little more flighty, Seductive and whimsical.
Not anything necessarily will ripping.
Besides, that would also mean Bards are kinda screwed in that regard since as far as I can tell they get nothing even remotely close to mindrape. Almost all their enchantment spells are either social augmenters or debuffs.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sadly when I think enchanting, I think of something a little more flighty, Seductive and whimsical.
Not anything necessarily will ripping.
Besides, that would also mean Bards are kinda screwed in that regard since as far as I can tell they get nothing even remotely close to mindrape. Almost all their enchantment spells are either social augmenters or debuffs.

Sublime chord is a thing. Get all the enchantments and some other nice abilities besides.

You can play enchantment with a delicate touch. It's usually better to do so, in fact. Willing minions are harder to turn against you after all. Sometimes, though, you have to compel behavior magically. It's never pretty but if it's that or have your face ripped off, it's not exactly a difficult choice.

[Thanatosia]

So the DM can't use undead, constructs, plants, oozes or vermin because you want to get your minions, or he's the bad guy? That doesn't really look like sound logic to me.
Undead in particular are probably the most represented monster type in the game, and they're a staple of the genre. Constructs come right in second place.
False Dichotomy much? Of course the DM can use those creature types, it only becomes an issue when he uses those creature types exclusively or nearly so. I could see Undead being a contender for most represented monster type (Tho I think humanoid has a pretty solid lockdown on the top slot), but no way is Construct anywhere near 2nd place unless you playing a very specific and unusual campaign setting (I have never played Eberron, but I get the impression it has way more constructs then most).

As others have mentioned, it's ok to run into monsters with immunities to mind effecting spells as enchanter because your whole thing is to mindcontrol other monsters that you can target and making them fight the immune ones for you. It's only an issue when the DM is so stacking the deck unfairly with immunities that you never have a chance to get minions.

[Pluto!]

Enchantment spells don't suck. They do something very powerful against targets susceptible to them, which is about as much as you can ask from an offensive/utility spell.

But the Enchantment school sucks. It basically has 3-5 unique effects, all subject to the same saves and immunities. Every level is some arrangement of Mind-Affecting mass save-or-lose and mind control with slightly-varying limitations, and every couple levels a minor numeric buff is thrown in. Plus there's Ray of Stupidity, which deserves its own mention.

Compare with Transmutation, Conjuration and Necromancy - all have really nasty effects targeting both Fortitude and Will, all have a wide array of distinct effects with differences substantially broader than number of targets or duration.

Compare with Abjuration or Illusion - they both have a lot of unique effects available to them, even in core. They're more limited than the previous 3, but they can both effectively contribute against any enemy and provide whole toolboxes outside combat.

Evocation and Divination are the closest in terms of their narrow breadths of abilities, but Divination is unbannable, and while Evocation has enough overlap with Conjuration, Transmutation and Illusion that it's a pretty easy ban, it's still probably a bit broader on its own than Enchantment.

[eggynack]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but all enchantments are mind-affecting. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#enchantment)
Maybe. I've never been entirely sure whether that quote is descriptive, giving the true information that all enchantment spells that existed at that time were mind-affecting, or prescriptive, giving the descriptor to all spells that don't have it naturally. Still, they're really close to the same thing, as nearly every enchantment spell has the descriptor anyway. The descriptive reading does give leave for that rare enchantment spell, like freezing glance, to work in broader fashion, however.

[Curmudgeon]

You don't have to attack all the time. Buffing your allies with Heroism, Battle Hymn, Rage, and similar spells is perfectly fine when you're facing enemies immune to your [Mind-Affecting] spells. Or you can buff yourself and put that dusty old crossbow to use!

[chaos_redefined]

Because they see the number of creatures in the monster manual immune to mind affecting features and assume from that enchantment sucks because it never works. They say the same thing about fire damage effects.

They're wrong. They're wrong because of faulty thinking. Just because a monster exists in the monster manual does not mean it must appear in the campaign. Even if it does appear in the campaign it does not mean it appears in every encounter all the time every time. It does behoove a player not to have his character only do mind-affecting effects. The DM is not being a horrible person by having mind-affecting immune creatures appear in the campaign. The player's character should be able to handle such encounters by doing something else. Not using mind-affecting effects for that particular encounter is just a thing. It is not a judgment on mind affecting effects.

If the party is always or almost always facing opponents who are immune to mind-affecting effects, the problem is not mind-affecting effects. The problem is the DM being a donkey cavity purposely shutting down a player's character, preventing the player from having the fun he wanted. It is the DM, not the monster manual, who determines what opponents exist, so it is the DM's fault if the player never gets to use his mind-affecting effects. By contrast, if the DM knew from before the game started that the campaign would heavily feature opponents immune to mind-affecting effects, then he should have informed his players to let them know not to create characters using mind-affecting effects. In this unique case mind-affecting effects are useless, no one uses them, and no one is unhappy. Mind-affecting effects are still good to have and do stuff, just not for that particular unique campaign. It's just a thing, not a judgement on the effectiveness of mind-affecting effects.

The problem with this sentiment is that, if there is only a small minority of monsters at a given CR that are not immune to an effect, your viewpoint forces the DM to use the same monsters over and over again. A similar viewpoint occurs with flight. If a player at level 20 doesn't have ways of handling flying enemies, the DM is restricted to one base monster to pit the party (the Tarresque) as every other creature flies and has ranged attacks. As a result, flight is necessary at that level, or a way to negate enemy flight, or a way to handle enemy ranged attacks. This is not negotiable. The DM shouldn't be forced to customize every monster just because one player can't handle enemies with flight.

Similarly, if the majority of monsters in the monster manual are immune to enchantment by being mindless, undead, oozes, plants, etc... then it's reasonable that, if you expect to see a diverse array of monsters from the monster manual, the majority of them will be immune to enchantment. If the majority of monsters in the monster manual are resistant or immune to fire, then it's reasonable that you would see more monsters resistant or immune to fire.

As a result of this, enchantment spells are going to be worthless in more fights, unless your DM goes out of his way to cater to you. And if I'm DMing, I'm probably gonna suggest that you start looking into some spells to use when all the enemies are immune to mind-affecting, since so many monsters are.

Oh, and ignoring that, there is the fact that most enchantment spells target will, and allow spell resistance. At high levels, there are a few spells that don't allow a save (Irresistable Dance, Power Word: Kill), but these are few and far between. This means that even if you cut out the monsters with flat out immunity to mind-affecting, we are still left with creatures with insurmountable will saves and insurmountable spell resistance. So, that lowers the number of monsters that we can use again. But wait, that's not all.

As someone else already pointed out, most of enchantment is save-or-lose. So, when you cast a spell from this school, there are a bunch of possibilities:
1) The enemy makes their save. You just wasted your turn.
2) The enemy succumbs to your effect, and is the only enemy remaining. You just won the encounter on your own. This means that the rest of the players don't get to play. Fun for all!
3) The enemy succumbs to your effect, and is one of a large number of enemies remaining. You were mostly ineffectual. Meh.
4) The enemy succumbs to your effect, and there are a few enemies remaining. This is the best case scenario, but requires both luck and circumstances to be on your side.

[Necroticplague]

You don't have to attack all the time. Buffing your allies with Heroism, Battle Hymn, Rage, and similar spells is perfectly fine when you're facing enemies immune to your [Mind-Affecting] spells. Or you can buff yourself and put that dusty old crossbow to use!

Problem with this is I find PCs typically look for ways to become immune to mind effecting things pretty quickly as well (especially if they have poor will saves). Mind blank, protection from X, being undead (possibly with human heritage), willing deformity (madness)....all else fails, magic items are also used.

[Masakan]

Problem with this is I find PCs typically look for ways to become immune to mind effecting things pretty quickly as well (especially if they have poor will saves). Mind blank, protection from X, being undead (possibly with human heritage), willing deformity (madness)....all else fails, magic items are also used.

Is it just me, or are all the more ridiculous stuff in the game tend to be more Evil aligned?

[Necroticplague]

Is it just me, or are all the more ridiculous stuff in the game tend to be more Evil aligned?

What else would you expect? On of the defining traits of Evil is not having as many limits as Good, a willingness to cross lines for power's sake. It seems sensible that they'd have found better ways of doing things.

[chaos_redefined]

How is immunity to "stop playing and hand your character sheet over to me" ridiculous? It's necessary. The game isn't fun if you aren't playing.

[eggynack]

Is it just me, or are all the more ridiculous stuff in the game tend to be more Evil aligned?
There's some neat stuff on the other side of the alignment spectrum too. Sanctified spells are, by and large, superior to corrupt spells, for example. Lotta versatility to those on a non-evil caster. Couple of the exalted feats are pretty good too, with stuff like exalted wild shape and words of creation. I do think it tends to be a more simple and practical sort of power though.

[ryu]

What else would you expect? On of the defining traits of Evil is not having as many limits as Good, a willingness to cross lines for power's sake. It seems sensible that they'd have found better ways of doing things.

Which good will then proceed to copy and replace evil tags with good ones. See ravages, programmed amnesia, and that one spell that forces your existence into a gem for like a year and leaves brainwashed good afterwards.

[Masakan]

Which good will then proceed to copy and replace evil tags with good ones. See ravages, programmed amnesia, and that one spell that forces your existence into a gem for like a year and leaves brainwashed good afterwards.

Are you kidding me? Ravages are just good aligned poisons?! And find the name of that gem one.

[Necroticplague]

Which good will then proceed to copy and replace evil tags with good ones. See ravages, programmed amnesia, and that one spell that forces your existence into a gem for like a year and leaves brainwashed good afterwards.

Two of which are questionably good (literally the page before it shows Ravages, it says poisons that cause ability damage are Evil because ability damage is unnecessarily painful. Guess what Ravages do? And let's not even open the can of worms that is Sanctify the Wicked), and one of which is flat-out inferior to it's Evil equivalent (Mindrape has a shorter casting time, longer range, and is Instantaneous instead of Permanent, so it doesn't go poof in an AMF and can't be dispelled). And Good doesn't have any real equivalent to the minionmancery of undead-making (since making undead is inherently evil, and I don't know of any way to make Deathless).

Are you kidding me? Ravages are just good aligned poisons?! And find the name of that gem one.
Yep, both are from BoED. The gem one is called Sanctify the Wicked.

[Seto]

Are you kidding me? Ravages are just good aligned poisons?! And find the name of that gem one.

Yup, they are. Although if I'm not mistaken, contrary to poisons, they work only on evil creatures. The gem spell is called "Sanctify the Wicked".

[ryu]

Are you kidding me? Ravages are just good aligned poisons?! And find the name of that gem one.

Poison is supposed to be evil for what it does not who it can target. The fact that you saw the connection without me even mentioning the other half only helps the argument. Alignment in D&D is an objectively stupid thing on so many levels.

[Ger. Bessa]

Is it just me, or are all the more ridiculous stuff in the game tend to be more Evil aligned?

Look at the vows, the saint template, the ancestral relic feat, the emissary of barachiel and search for the redeemery on this forum. BoVD is only equal in ridiculousness to BoED.

Enchantment is not weak in absolute, but you must first discard the idea that the wizard schools are balanced. Abjuration is as specific as enchantment in that it nearly only works on magic users. Everybody tell you to never drop abjuration for the dispels, but you could very well dominate a caster to dispel for you. You have a few blasty options (maws of chaos/ray of stupidity) and silver bullets (banishment/hold person).

Enchantment is a playstyle.To optimize melee, you have to search in ten different books for the good weapon (spiked chain/kukris/spiked gauntlet/natural weapons), equipment, class abilities (weapon aptitude/shadow pounce/sneak attack), class (ToB, FR prc),acf or variant (lion totem/hit and run/snake style...), gimmick (swift intimidation/bluff/iaijutsu/teleport) and race/template. Enchantment only needs the spells, without metamagic.

It's not number crunching, or dice rolling. Your character just needs to understand what he can do and always keep a minion for that possibility. Troll-kun can deal with those ghouls. Adept-chan will cast fly for the party. The enchantment school is around the same power as the leadership feat, and that's scary power since it gives a lv14 paladin the power of a lv12 tier1 caster.

It will be campaign dependant, and you will have to interact with your DM, but would you really have been happy crunching numbers and telling them to the DM ?

TL,DR : just read Complete Mage's entry with the chick in leather and her pet lizardman. Not perfect, but good start for an answer.

Rule of Cool answer : just watch Code Geass. (Occular spell is in Lords of Madness iirc, but can't be used with geass alas)

[Masakan]

Poison is supposed to be evil for what it does not who it can target. The fact that you saw the connection without me even mentioning the other half only helps the argument. Alignment in D&D is an objectively stupid thing on so many levels.

Idk personally i feel the alignment thing is actually quite brilliant, Both on a social and scientific standpoint, you can honestly put that alignment on someone in the real world and it will usually stick, You can call BS on that all you want Besides, I like being genuinely good guy, I can barely stomach playing neutral let alone evil.

[eggynack]

Idk personally i feel the alignment thing is actually quite brilliant, Both ono a social and scientific standpoint, you can honestly put that alignment on someone in the real world and it will usually stick, You can call BS on that all you want Besides, I like being genuinely good guy, I can barely stomach playing neutral let alone evil.
I think he mostly means evil from a mechanical perspective. Like how poison is evil while the spell poison is not, and while ravages are actively good, or how deathwatch is evil despite being primarily useful for goody two shoes healers, or how undead creation is evil while golem creation is not, despite the fact that the latter involves the binding of an unwilling elemental spirit. There's tons of examples of that kinda thing, of the division between good things and evil things being ultimately arbitrary.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Idk personally i feel the alignment thing is actually quite brilliant, Both on a social and scientific standpoint, you can honestly put that alignment on someone in the real world and it will usually stick, You can call BS on that all you want Besides, I like being genuinely good guy, I can barely stomach playing neutral let alone evil.

Okay seriously, I am one of the most staunch defenders of BoED and BoVD and the alignment system as a whole you're likely to find around these parts.

Even I say with absolutely no hint of jest or irony that trying to apply alignment to real life is an absolutely horrible idea. The nuance is too easily lost and average people are rarely so consistent as to stay in any alignment category for any length of time. In real life, forget that alignment is even a thing.

As a game mechanic it's great. It gives a whole pool of stories to the game that would otherwise be difficult (though not impossible) to pull off but as anything to make RL judgements on, it's a rapid road to ruin. Especially if you give voice to those judgements.

[Masakan]

I think he mostly means evil from a mechanical perspective. Like how poison is evil while the spell poison is not, and while ravages are actively good, or how deathwatch is evil despite being primarily useful for goody two shoes healers, or how undead creation is evil while golem creation is not, despite the fact that the latter involves the binding of an unwilling elemental spirit. There's tons of examples of that kinda thing, of the division between good things and evil things being ultimately arbitrary.

That's more bad design and a lack of forethought than anything else.


Okay seriously, I am one of the most staunch defenders of BoED and BoVD and the alignment system as a whole you're likely to find around these parts.

Even I say with absolutely no hint of jest or irony that trying to apply alignment to real life is an absolutely horrible idea. The nuance is too easily lost and average people are rarely so consistent as to stay in any alignment category for any length of time. In real life, forget that alignment is even a thing.

As a game mechanic it's great. It gives a whole pool of stories to the game that would otherwise be difficult (though not impossible) to pull off but as anything to make RL judgements on, it's a rapid road to ruin. Especially if you give voice to those judgements.

Are they? while it's true that it's a bad idea to limit people to one particular alignment, it becomes more relevant when you consider tendencies. Like no one person can be one alignment all the time same with DnD. You could be considered neutral good and then shift between lawful and chaotic when the time arises.

On the other hand you can't just be Lawful good and then become Chaotic evil either in game or in the real world unless you got a lobotomy or something. It's more accurate than one would think upon closer examination. Of course it's not something you would actively voice, but it's worth pondering all the same.

[Necroticplague]

I think he mostly means evil from a mechanical perspective. Like how poison is evil while the spell poison is not, and while ravages are actively good,

Actually, using the spell Poison is an Evil act, the spell just lacks the [Evil] tag because it doesn't make use of infernal energy. It's still Evil on its own merits. Still never figured out how Ravages are Good, given BoED's stance that paying evil unto evil is still paying evil.

EDIT: The fact it's arbitrary is actuallly kinda the point. In-game, it's divine fiat. Out of game, it's an issue caused by a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters fiating it in different directions.

[eggynack]

That's more bad design and a lack of forethought than anything else.
Well, yeah. That's basically the point. There's probably some theoretical world where alignment wasn't done stupid in this game, but this world is not that world.

[ryu]

Well, yeah. That's basically the point. There's probably some theoretical world where alignment wasn't done stupid in this game, but this world is not that world.

Creating undead is evil because negative energy, but literally shooting bursts of it at people for the sake of violence isn't. The entire plane made out of the stuff is neutral. So is summoning beings made from it despite the fact they obviously spread more of it than undead. It's just so.... ugh.

[Emperor Tippy]

Do Enchantment spells suck? No. In point of fact they are some of the most potentially powerful spells in the game and in the hands of a master you can dominate an entire world with ease using pretty much nothing by Enchantment spells.

That being said, there is no such thing as a decent combat Enchanter in D&D. Too many things are resistant or out right immune, too many of the spells lack immediately useful effects relevant to the encounter even if they work; just not worth it.

Combat is for the entire army of thralls that you keep constantly at your beck and call.

[Rubik]

(you can read it on *** *****).We don't talk about that here.

[Seto]

We don't talk about that here.

Sorry, didn't know.

[ericgrau]

Simple question, simple answer.
I've been trying to perfect an enchantment based character(Base Class Bard) for a while, only to find out that there are a plethora of different monsters immune to it.
Is there anyway around it?
Are enchantment spells more useful for out of combat?
Or have I just been chasing a massive goose egg and spent the past 2 months for nothing?
It is an easy school to ban. You can do just fine without it and it is a difficult school to use.

However enchantment spells do not suck at all. They are amazing. Charm and dominate some new friends. Use them to fight foes that are immune to mind affecting spells. Have some other spells to use against foes that are immune to mind affecting to contribute alongside your friends. Heck pick up command undead and make some more friends.

Charm monster is your best bet. However it grants the enemy a pesky +5 to his save in combat. You have to coordinate well with your party to let you scout ahead with invisibility so that you can charm in the surprise round and build your army. Ask allies to deal subdual damage when practical so you can capture and charm foes. For charm person you better make sure your DM doesn't hate to use humanoids, or you're SOOL and you're going to suck at enchantment levels 3-6. Basically if your allies and DM both aren't on board you're SOOL, so talk to them first.

Other enchantments are pretty bad, so you have to be careful. Sure they're wonderful when they work, but often they don't work. Stay away from the less reliable ones; they're a trap. Even the "almighty" suggestion and so forth. Too many immunities, only 1 target, no ongoing benefit (the one huge thing that saves charm from sucking). Try the spells below, or else try spells from other schools (even on your enchantment focused build):


0:
Daze. After you run out of spells 2-3 of these are better than a crossbow at low levels. Again, make sure your DM doesn't hate humanoid foes.

1:
Shock and Awe (SpC). Scroll this one. Like super nerveskitter but only for surprise rounds.
Charm Person of course.
Sleep at low levels.

2:
Ray of Stupidity (SpC). Cheesy way to take out animals.

3:
Ray of Dizziness. Single target no save just sack, SR yes, mind affecting.
Rage. Good mass buff for your minions and maybe fellow PCs. The amazing part is the special duration. It lets you hold up the spell for a while when you travel. Which means you can do something else when combat begins. Best to get at level 6 or 9, not 5.
Heroism. Good buff if you are in dungeons a lot because you can cast it at the entrance. Lousy otherwise. Good on wizards who can swap it in only for dungeons.

4:
Charm Monster of course.
Confusion is nice because it not only takes out a foe, but can hurt his allies too if well placed. But due to poor reliability make sure you have other non-mind affecting combat spells before you take this one.

5:
Mind Fog: Surprise round charm. Round 1 mind fog if there are multiple foes not immune to mind affecting. Round 2-3 you can charm again without worrying so much about the penalties. Foes will have a hard time saving against mind fog but if your charm fails you can be almost certain that the foe passed his mind fog save and that you should switch targets next round. Amazing spell because it lets you build your army of minions far more reliably. As always do have other non-mind affecting combat spells before you take this one.
Dominate Person: Pretty meh unless your DM likes high level humanoids, which is uncommon.
Symbol of Sleep: Amazing spell if you can set up stationary traps in a way that the DM won't see as cheesy. Too hard to pull off otherwise. So usually it's far better in the hands of a mean DM.

Once you get mind fog you're in the clear and it's smooth sailing from here. So I'll stop now.

[Masakan]

It is an easy school to ban. You can do just fine without it and it is a difficult school to use.

However enchantment spells do not suck at all. They are amazing. Charm and dominate some new friends. Use them to fight foes that are immune to mind affecting spells. Have some other spells to use against foes that are immune to mind affecting to contribute alongside your friends. Heck pick up command undead and make some more friends.

Charm monster is your best bet. However it grants the enemy a pesky +5 to his save in combat. You have to coordinate well with your party to let you scout ahead with invisibility so that you can charm in the surprise round and build your army. Ask allies to deal subdual damage when practical so you can capture and charm foes. For charm person you better make sure your DM doesn't hate to use humanoids, or you're SOOL and you're going to suck at enchantment levels 3-6. Basically if your allies and DM both aren't on board you're SOOL, so talk to them first.

Other enchantments are pretty bad, so you have to be careful. Sure they're wonderful when they work, but often they don't work. Stay away from the less reliable ones; they're a trap. Even the "almighty" suggestion and so forth. Too many immunities, only 1 target, no ongoing benefit (the one huge thing that saves charm from sucking). Try the spells below, or else try spells from other schools (even on your enchantment focused build):


0:
Daze. After you run out of spells 2-3 of these are better than a crossbow at low levels. Again, make sure your DM doesn't hate humanoid foes.

1:
Shock and Awe (SpC). Scroll this one. Like super nerveskitter but only for surprise rounds.
Charm Person of course.
Sleep at low levels.

2:
Ray of Stupidity (SpC). Cheesy way to take out animals.

3:
Ray of Dizziness. Single target no save just sack, SR yes, mind affecting.
Rage. Good mass buff for your minions and maybe fellow PCs. The amazing part is the special duration. It lets you hold up the spell for a while when you travel. Which means you can do something else when combat begins. Best to get at level 6 or 9, not 5.
Heroism. Good buff if you are in dungeons a lot because you can cast it at the entrance. Lousy otherwise. Good on wizards who can swap it in only for dungeons.

4:
Charm Monster of course.
Confusion is nice because it not only takes out a foe, but can hurt his allies too if well placed. But due to poor reliability make sure you have other non-mind affecting combat spells before you take this one.

5:
Mind Fog: Surprise round charm. Round 1 mind fog if there are multiple foes not immune to mind affecting. Round 2-3 you can charm again without worrying so much about the penalties. Foes will have a hard time saving against mind fog but if your charm fails you can be almost certain that the foe passed his mind fog save and that you should switch targets next round. Amazing spell because it lets you build your army of minions far more reliably. As always do have other non-mind affecting combat spells before you take this one.
Dominate Person: Pretty meh unless your DM likes high level humanoids, which is uncommon.
Symbol of Sleep: Amazing spell if you can set up stationary traps in a way that the DM won't see as cheesy. Too hard to pull off otherwise. So usually it's far better in the hands of a mean DM.

Once you get mind fog you're in the clear and it's smooth sailing from here. So I'll stop now.


....So are we just gonna completely ignore the bard options?

[ericgrau]

....So are we just gonna completely ignore the bard options?

Knock yourself out and give some bard tips. I blew too much time online already. Bards do get charm monster at the same level as wizards.

[Masakan]

Knock yourself out and give some bard tips. I blew too much time online already. Bards do get charm monster at the same level as wizards.

Well there's Tasha's Hideous Laughter Which they can get a level earlier than a pure wizard or sorcerer for what it does it isnt bad.

Caterwaul A level 2 Spell which is pretty much a mini of a later spell Nauseated people for one round and sickens
them even if they succeed

Loves Lamant Basically the upgrade of caterwaul Deals 1d6 wisdom damage and leaves them nauseated for 1d4 rounds

Cone of Euphoria:Decidedly smaller Cone, but leaves them dazed for 1d6 rounds

Otto's Imperative Ambulation:Must move at least 10 feet per round or Be dazed for 1 round, This is really good for Warrior types as they basically can't full attack.

Celebration: OH! This one's fun. You can chose to go over the course of 3 rounds and each round had a different effect. Taking a standard action for each.
1st round —2 penalty to Dexterity, Intelligence, and Wisdom
2nd round nauseated
3rd Round unconscious and helpless

Bolts of Bedevilment:Allows you to make a ray attack once per round for the duration of the spell, they are then dazed for 1d3 rounds. Hate that it takes a standard action, but makes for some nice long range support fire

Song of Discord:Basically gives the best result of confusion Right out the gate.

And that's all the ones I thought were worth mentioning.

[eggynack]

The thing is, I don't think anyone's ever talking about bards when they discuss whether enchantment spells suck, whether they may suck or not. Without the promises of specialization and related ACF's, the question of what school a spell is from doesn't make all that much difference. From an optimization perspective, you should just be judging individual spells on their own merits, largely school independent. Sure, there are corner cases where an enchantment spell will be substantially different from a conjuration spell, predicated solely on the school used rather than on any difference in spell impact, but it's not typically going to be a major guiding force in spell selection.

[Pex]

The problem with this sentiment is that, if there is only a small minority of monsters at a given CR that are not immune to an effect, your viewpoint forces the DM to use the same monsters over and over again. A similar viewpoint occurs with flight. If a player at level 20 doesn't have ways of handling flying enemies, the DM is restricted to one base monster to pit the party (the Tarresque) as every other creature flies and has ranged attacks. As a result, flight is necessary at that level, or a way to negate enemy flight, or a way to handle enemy ranged attacks. This is not negotiable. The DM shouldn't be forced to customize every monster just because one player can't handle enemies with flight.

Similarly, if the majority of monsters in the monster manual are immune to enchantment by being mindless, undead, oozes, plants, etc... then it's reasonable that, if you expect to see a diverse array of monsters from the monster manual, the majority of them will be immune to enchantment. If the majority of monsters in the monster manual are resistant or immune to fire, then it's reasonable that you would see more monsters resistant or immune to fire.

As a result of this, enchantment spells are going to be worthless in more fights, unless your DM goes out of his way to cater to you. And if I'm DMing, I'm probably gonna suggest that you start looking into some spells to use when all the enemies are immune to mind-affecting, since so many monsters are.

Oh, and ignoring that, there is the fact that most enchantment spells target will, and allow spell resistance. At high levels, there are a few spells that don't allow a save (Irresistable Dance, Power Word: Kill), but these are few and far between. This means that even if you cut out the monsters with flat out immunity to mind-affecting, we are still left with creatures with insurmountable will saves and insurmountable spell resistance. So, that lowers the number of monsters that we can use again. But wait, that's not all.

As someone else already pointed out, most of enchantment is save-or-lose. So, when you cast a spell from this school, there are a bunch of possibilities:
1) The enemy makes their save. You just wasted your turn.
2) The enemy succumbs to your effect, and is the only enemy remaining. You just won the encounter on your own. This means that the rest of the players don't get to play. Fun for all!
3) The enemy succumbs to your effect, and is one of a large number of enemies remaining. You were mostly ineffectual. Meh.
4) The enemy succumbs to your effect, and there are a few enemies remaining. This is the best case scenario, but requires both luck and circumstances to be on your side.

The majority of the monsters are not immune to mind-affecting effects. The DM can still use those that are. The player's character should be able to do other stuff. I stand by statement the DM would be wrong to only use such monsters forever unless he told the players at campaign start. Enchantment is not the only school with save or negate. If it's the only enemy remaining the other players got their fun wheedling down the opponents to make the enemy the only one remaining. If there are still more enemies, you made your contribution in the combat by eliminating one enemy. The other players get their fun eliminating the rest.

[eggynack]

The majority of the monsters are not immune to mind-affecting effects. The DM can still use those that are. The player's character should be able to do other stuff. I stand by statement the DM would be wrong to only use such monsters forever unless he told the players at campaign start. Enchantment is not the only school with save or negate. If it's the only enemy remaining the other players got their fun wheedling down the opponents to make the enemy the only one remaining. If there are still more enemies, you made your contribution in the combat by eliminating one enemy. The other players get their fun eliminating the rest.
The problem with enchantment isn't that every enemy is somehow immune to your tricks. The problem is that a good amount are immune, and that acts as a modifier on the power level of your spells. Charm and dominate are your big unique effects, and they tend to act as a save or lose with a minionmancy rider, where that rider is balanced against the fact that you're significantly limited in the scope of possible opponents. The end result is a school of magic where possibly your best trick is just pretty good. And, while enchantment isn't the only school with save or negate spells, I'm pretty sure it's the only school where all of your best stuff, along with most of your not-best stuff, falls into that category, and it's definitely the only one where all of that stuff targets a single save instead of targeting more variable defenses. It's just a very limited school, one somewhat worse than all other schools.

[Psyren]

@OP: It's more useful in Pathfinder where some of the magical counters were nerfed. Mind Blank no longer gives flat immunity, protection from X only protects from aligned compulsions and charms so you can circumvent all of them by being TN, plus there are Threnodic Spell and Coaxing Spell (and rods of same) etc.

But generally illusion is better in combat - you can mess with weak-willed enemies almost as easily, while also not being caught with your breeches down against strong-willed foes, either through clever illusion use (no interaction = no save) or relying on shadow illusions.


Just make sure to command it to keep failing its saves against your Dominates.

You know, I see this strategy a lot, yet it seems to me that a command like this would just force another save instantly. If it were in someone's nature to automatically accept magical compulsion, they wouldn't get a saving throw to begin with and their entry would reflect that.

[ericgrau]

Also, even if the foe is not immune, he might save. Single target SoL are horrible. I think I once ran some numbers and found that direct damage was better. Saves are too high on anything that matters. On anything that doesn't matter it has less hp and your damage stacks with ally damage. And while everyone thinks the big dumb things have low will saves, actually they have ok will saves and poor reflex saves. Resilient sphere is awesome, SR no, and little is immune. Suggestion and so forth actually not so much. If you have enchantment you better be keeping your allies or using multi-target or ongoing effects, because 1 target SoL SR yes will just plain sucks. You hear a lot of stories about "It rolled a 1 and that encounter was pretty anti-climatic", but that's the unlucky exception not the norm.

[Masakan]

Also, even if the foe is not immune, he might save. Single target SoL are horrible. I think I once ran some numbers and found that direct damage was better. Saves are too high on anything that matters. On anything that doesn't matter it has less hp and your damage stacks with ally damage. And while everyone thinks the big dumb things have low will saves, actually they have ok will saves and poor reflex saves. Resilient sphere is awesome, SR no, and little is immune. Suggestion and so forth actually not so much. If you have enchantment you better be keeping your allies or using multi-target or ongoing effects, because 1 target SoL SR yes will just plain sucks. You hear a lot of stories about "It rolled a 1 and that encounter was pretty anti-climatic", but that's the unlucky exception not the norm.

Which is why a lot of the ones I mentioned are in fact AoE's

[Threadnaught]

No.

The School Enchantment sucks, not because the individual Spells suck, or because they are weak or useless.

Enchantment sucks, because it is so easily blockable. Literally anyone who has tried to debate this point in favour of Enchantment being unblockable with me, did not mention any way it could pierce immunity, but attempted to declare that all Enchantment Spells were infallibly capable of granting Leadership for free, with followers who could beat down anything with enough brute force.
This is a false assumption, Necromancy isn't powerful because you can become Undead. Commoner isn't a Tier 1 Class because they can have unlimited wealth.
Even if Charm Person + Diplomacy = Permanent Undispellable/Undisjoinable Dominate Person, there's no reason to expect that the army built this way would be the be all and end all of power.

Okay, so first of all, no Casting allowed from Cohorts or Followers, only the Beguiler and Wizard may Cast Spells, let's Specialize in Necromancy while banning Enchantment and Illusion too, just so we lose those abilities.
Venerable Raptoran Beguiler sound fair? Elite Array for the Beguiler and Lich should keep things fair.
As for the Lich, just Human. Can't be bothered to come up with anything special here.

All Followers Warriors ripped from the Monster Manual and advanced when necessary. Cohort a PC non-caster Class. I'll build a Dragonborn Water Orc Barbarian just to give the Beguiler an edge. Links to characters later, then I'll fill in the details for why the Lich cannot be brute forced.
The Beguiler is supposed to be a challenge enough alone for the Lich, right?

Lich.
Beguiler.
Cohort.
Level 5 Follower.
Level 4 Follower.
Level 3 Follower.
Level 2 Follower.
Level 1 Follower.

Enchantments are at their most effective in games of politics and intrigue, they are brokenly overpowered to a point that any form of protection is invaluable, the lack of protection on anyone opens up the game to ways players can tear apart the campaign.

[Pex]

The problem with enchantment isn't that every enemy is somehow immune to your tricks. The problem is that a good amount are immune, and that acts as a modifier on the power level of your spells. Charm and dominate are your big unique effects, and they tend to act as a save or lose with a minionmancy rider, where that rider is balanced against the fact that you're significantly limited in the scope of possible opponents. The end result is a school of magic where possibly your best trick is just pretty good. And, while enchantment isn't the only school with save or negate spells, I'm pretty sure it's the only school where all of your best stuff, along with most of your not-best stuff, falls into that category, and it's definitely the only one where all of that stuff targets a single save instead of targeting more variable defenses. It's just a very limited school, one somewhat worse than all other schools.

I won't argue against considering Enchantment a weaker school than others as that's personal opinion, but I will argue against it "sucks" and not worth using at all as it's my personal opinion that it's fine to use.

[137beth]

Enchantment spells do not suck, no.
However, they are all situational. Moreover, they are mostly useful in the same kinds of situations. Making enchantment the sole focus of your character leaves your options fairly limited. However, if you are building a sorcerer, it's often a good idea to have at least some enchantment spells.

[eggynack]

I won't argue against considering Enchantment a weaker school than others as that's personal opinion, but I will argue against it "sucks" and not worth using at all as it's my personal opinion that it's fine to use.
I dunno that it's a personal opinion thing. I think the big comparison schools here are evocation and necromancy, and both schools have been found in the past to likely have superior unique utility as compared to enchantment. There are two questions core to this side of specialization. First, which schools to ban assuming you specialize, and second, whether your value added from specialization is greater than the versatility lost from banning schools. I think the clear answer to the first question is enchantment, along with probably necromancy or enchantment. The second question I don't think has such a clear answer, though the existence of domain wizard and elven generalist means that the generalist is probably better off in high op environments. The competition gets somewhat closer if you eliminate the possibility of one or both of those things. Both of these claims are arguable, and arguable on the basis of fact rather than opinion, but I think that the latter claim has a more open ended question attached to it.

[Psyren]

I think it's more accurate to say that enchantment does "suck" if you compare it to other schools of magic (again, particularly in 3.5) - but even so, a wizard with a comparatively sucky focus is still a wizard.

[Troacctid]

Specialist Enchanters do get to get friggin' Leadership instead of a familiar, so you have to admit that's pretty solid.

[eggynack]

Specialist Enchanters do get to get friggin' Leadership instead of a familiar, so you have to admit that's pretty solid.
It is solid, but it's in a weird spot. After all, if you're in a game that would let you take this, you're presumably in a game that would let you take leadership, and if you're in a game that would let you take leadership, why not just take the somewhat superior leadership, which doesn't stack all that well with this ability? So, from there the core assumption becomes that, despite the fact that leadership could plausibly cost a number of feats and still be worth it, this ability is worth only a feat at most, and probably less. So then, the question is whether other possible trades are worth more or less than a feat, and while in some cases it's definitely less, I think that rapid summoning and abrupt jaunt are worth more than a feat, or maybe just about as much as a feat. Granted, those are at the top of the totem pole, but the point is that the cohort ability is only in a good spot as specialist ACF's go, rather than at the top of the heap, and moreover, it doesn't really act as a good incentive to pick enchantment specialization over the classically great conjuration specialization.

[chaos_redefined]

The majority of the monsters are not immune to mind-affecting effects. The DM can still use those that are. The player's character should be able to do other stuff. I stand by statement the DM would be wrong to only use such monsters forever unless he told the players at campaign start. Enchantment is not the only school with save or negate. If it's the only enemy remaining the other players got their fun wheedling down the opponents to make the enemy the only one remaining. If there are still more enemies, you made your contribution in the combat by eliminating one enemy. The other players get their fun eliminating the rest.

No, the majority of high-level monsters have one of three defenses against enchantment: flat out immunity, high will saves, or spell resistance. Any one of those gives an enchanter a hard time.

Enchantment is not the only school with save or sucks, however it is the school consisting almost exclusively of save or sucks. And the enemy is either weak, in which case... meh. Or the enemy is strong, in which case, you just ruined everyone's fun.

The problem with enchantment isn't just that there are a lot of creatures with a good defense against it, or that it has save or sucks. It's that most monsters past a certain point have a good defense against it, and it's almost nothing but save or sucks.

A lot of people say you should ban evocation and enchantment, so let's consider the diviner for a moment. You have to ban one school. So, let's say you are choosing between evocation and enchantment. For every unique spell effect in enchantment, I can find at least 2 in evocation. And a lot of those aren't as easily replicated. So, I'd end up keeping evocation over enchantment.

The most commonly banned school, and it's better to keep than enchantment. Take from that what you will.

[eggynack]

I actually think that, since Tippy's arguments on the topic, the real competition is between enchantment and necromancy. The contest between those two schools is a bit closer, I think, though enchantment still likely loses.

[ryu]

I actually think that, since Tippy's arguments on the topic, the real competition is between enchantment and necromancy. The contest between those two schools is a bit closer, I think, though enchantment still likely loses.

Indeed. Hide life, enervation, entire lines of undead creation spells, most cyst for controlling people, and countless other tasty debuffs. Oh and lets not forget spells to invalidate low level undead encounters. No contest.

[tadkins]

Was actually thinking about this the other day. I think I'd like to play an enchanter/manipulator at some point in the future.

I know about the blanket immunities that a lot of monsters have against enchantment, but I have a question regarding that. Wouldn't it be a feasible plan for an enchanter to have an army of charmed mindslaves to handle those types of situations? Coming up against some undead? An enchanter can take control of some clerics or paladins. Constructs? Enslave a demolitionist. That sort of thing.

I figure the most insidious enchanter villain would never fight the protagonists themselves; they would send their poor mind-controlled slaves to die instead. Bonus points if its the helpless friends of the protagonists and there's some big emotional "Come on, fight his/her control, I know you're in there!" moments.

[ryu]

Was actually thinking about this the other day. I think I'd like to play an enchanter/manipulator at some point in the future.

I know about the blanket immunities that a lot of monsters have against enchantment, but I have a question regarding that. Wouldn't it be a feasible plan for an enchanter to have an army of charmed mindslaves to handle those types of situations? Coming up against some undead? An enchanter can take control of some clerics or paladins. Constructs? Enslave a demolitionist. That sort of thing.

I figure the most insidious enchanter villain would never fight the protagonists themselves; they would send their poor mind-controlled slaves to die instead. Bonus points if its the helpless friends of the protagonists and there's some big emotional "Come on, fight his/her control, I know you're in there!" moments.

The problem with that plan is that any PC who understands magic will also have access to circle of protection spells in item form if nothing else. There's a cheap one in the books that projects an area of protection from evil around the holder. Suddenly those friends are decidedly not helpless no matter what you did to them. Incidentally this is why enchantment is the fighter of schools of magic Most of the spells can be rendered irrelevant by items available several levels earlier.

[Masakan]

The problem with that plan is that any PC who understands magic will also have access to circle of protection spells in item form if nothing else. There's a cheap one in the books that projects an area of protection from evil around the holder. Suddenly those friends are decidedly not helpless no matter what you did to them. Incidentally this is why enchantment is the fighter of schools of magic Most of the spells can be rendered irrelevant by items available several levels earlier.

Is that why people think bards are good for nothing but inspiring courage all day?

[eggynack]

Is that why people think bards are good for nothing but inspiring courage all day?
I dunno why the former would imply the latter. Bards have tons of spells that are not enchantments, spells often of high quality. If people think that bards are mere inspire courage engines, then they are mistaken.

[Masakan]

I dunno why the former would imply the latter. Bards have tons of spells that are not enchantments, spells often of high quality. If people think that bards are mere inspire courage engines, then they are mistaken.

I see this a lot sadly

[ryu]

I dunno why the former would imply the latter. Bards have tons of spells that are not enchantments, spells often of high quality. If people think that bards are mere inspire courage engines, then they are mistaken.

While bards do have a lot of great stuff most of enchantment isn't where you find it. I mean not having access to most wizard spells makes it less awful to have some enchantment prepped, but it's not why you're there by any means.

[eggynack]

I see this a lot sadly
I think the underlying reasoning of it has a lot more to do with comparisons to other classes than to any particular failing on the part of bards. The bard's greatest asset in core is almost certainly its broad and rather powerful casting, but said casting is significantly worse than that of the major casters in the same book. This outclassing, as well as the separate outclassing in skill use and combat, leaves you with just inspire courage as far as special levels of power go. Of course, this ignores the fact that the casting on its own is more powerful than lower tiered classes, which means that the only outclassing happening is coming from casters that were already outclassing everything else anyway, but it's a logical enough thought process on the surface. Because, really, how far off track can you go when you're casting silent image, alter self, and glibness?

[tadkins]

The problem with that plan is that any PC who understands magic will also have access to circle of protection spells in item form if nothing else. There's a cheap one in the books that projects an area of protection from evil around the holder. Suddenly those friends are decidedly not helpless no matter what you did to them. Incidentally this is why enchantment is the fighter of schools of magic Most of the spells can be rendered irrelevant by items available several levels earlier.

Ah, that's a pity. A whole archetype of villainy can be negated by one spell?

[eggynack]

Ah, that's a pity. A whole archetype of villainy can be negated by one spell?
Worse. As was alluded to, a whole archetype of villainy can be negated by one item. Specifically, the banner of law (HoB, 133), which gives a 30 ft. radius of protection from chaos for 8,000 GP.

[tadkins]

Worse. As was alluded to, a whole archetype of villainy can be negated by one item. Specifically, the banner of law (HoB, 133), which gives a 30 ft. radius of protection from chaos for 8,000 GP.

That makes me genuinely sad.

One of my plans for a game one day was unleashing a fey-blooded sorceress with a focus on charm spells as one of my chief villains.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I see this a lot sadly

You misunderstand. It's not that bards are only good for inspire courage. It's that inspire courage (when pushed to its limit) is a very powerful ability. It has the potential to give all allied warriors +10 to attack and damage as well as +10d6 energy damage to every attack. Unique abilities are common enough but -good- unique abilities are not and the bard has one.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I see this a lot sadly

It's not that that's the only thing they're good for, it's just the thing unique to them that other casters can't do.
Bards are pretty competent spellcasters in their own right, but if your character concept is "spellcaster" you're not going to make a bard.

Inspire Courage and Inspire Greatness on the other hand are things that you just don't get elsewhere (except with certain paladin substitution levels), and those abilities are crazy powerful if they're optimized for.
There's really not much point in optimizing your bard for more melee damage when you can get that with IC, and give it to the whole party at the same time.

And the only time enchantment sucks is when you're picking specialist schools for a wizard. Taking Charm or Dominate Monster as a spell known is a valid choice for any caster. There's still tons of situations where it's a solid option, and as far as SoD's go making something your minion is superior to just killing it in a lot of cases.

It's just not worth it for a wizard to ban any of the other schools over enchantment, because they have unique effects that are worth more.
And it's not worth it investing resources in a method of attack that is easily countered and that a big chunk of common enemies are outright immune to, which is why nobody takes feats or PrC's that specialize in enchantment.

[eggynack]

That makes me genuinely sad.

One of my plans for a game one day was unleashing a fey-blooded sorceress with a focus on charm spells as one of my chief villains.
To be fair, it's a really obscure item, so it's unlikely to come up unless you're working with high op players. To be less fair, it's a really not obscure spell, so it'd be reasonable to expect it to fly all over the place. Just about every caster is pulling some sorta protection from X or circle thereof.

[ryu]

To be fair, it's a really obscure item, so it's unlikely to come up unless you're working with high op players. To be less fair, it's a really not obscure spell, so it'd be reasonable to expect it to fly all over the place. Just about every caster is pulling some sorta protection from X or circle thereof.

And it doesn't have to be obscure. The only reason I bothered to mention the banner was to preclude people complaining about custom magic item rules. For those of you keeping track of easy mitigation the price for a purely personal but still always on form of the same protection was 1000 GP last I checked. Actually pretty easily cheaper than the banner unless you have a massive party for some odd reason. You also don't have to constantly be within thirty feet of each other.

[tadkins]

To be fair, it's a really obscure item, so it's unlikely to come up unless you're working with high op players. To be less fair, it's a really not obscure spell, so it'd be reasonable to expect it to fly all over the place. Just about every caster is pulling some sorta protection from X or circle thereof.

As a DM I could have some control over that, right?

Like, would there be ways around such protection? If I'm really, really determined to see certain people mind-controlled?

[eggynack]

As a DM I could have some control over that, right?

Like, would there be ways around such protection? If I'm really, really determined to see certain people mind-controlled?
There's some, depending on the source. Dispels of various kinds usually work, or if the source of the circle is some external creature, like a unicorn, then killing said creature would work alright. The worst case scenario would still likely allow disabling the opponent such that you can dominate at your leisure. Enchantment can work, but it either takes real effort or winds up risky.

[tadkins]

There's some, depending on the source. Dispels of various kinds usually work, or if the source of the circle is some external creature, like a unicorn, then killing said creature would work alright. The worst case scenario would still likely allow disabling the opponent such that you can dominate at your leisure. Enchantment can work, but it either takes real effort or winds up risky.

She'd just be one of many bad guys I plan to throw at my players, each with their own tactics and methods. Just want to make sure she'd pose some kind of threat is all. :)

Thanks for the advice!

[sleepyphoenixx]

As a DM I could have some control over that, right?

Like, would there be ways around such protection? If I'm really, really determined to see certain people mind-controlled?

If you want an effective mind-controlling villain you have to play her subtly. Dispelling can help, but PfE is a first level spell.
If your players know someone is mind controlled all they need is to succeed on that or cast a Magic Circle against X on themselves and move into range.

It doesn't even need specific preparation if your players have the right classes. Druids can just spontaneously summon a unicorn, clerics and wizards can summon any number of celestials with automatic circles and Coure Eladrin are one of the better improved familiars for good-aligned casters. All of those get Magic Circle against Evil and can reactivate it as a free action if it's somehow dispelled.

[Killer Angel]

IMO, enchantment spells are good, but you can't rely too much on them. Many things can screw that school.

[tadkins]

If you want an effective mind-controlling villain you have to play her subtly. Dispelling can help, but PfE is a first level spell.
If your players know someone is mind controlled all they need is to succeed on that or cast a Magic Circle against X on themselves and move into range.

It doesn't even need specific preparation if your players have the right classes. Druids can just spontaneously summon a unicorn, clerics and wizards can summon any number of celestials with automatic circles and Coure Eladrin are one of the better improved familiars for good-aligned casters. All of those get Magic Circle against Evil and can reactivate it as a free action if it's somehow dispelled.

It's definitely looking like an extremely fragile tactic more and more. I think the best course is to expand her arsenal; make charming just one of her "things".

[Masakan]

I think the main issue, is that enchantment spells only work on people who are Alive or can feel. If the thing in question is incapable of doing either, then it's useless.

[Necroticplague]

I think the main issue, is that enchantment spells only work on people who are Alive or can feel. If the thing in question is incapable of doing either, then it's useless.

And the fact that ALL enchantments have those weakness, and the vast majority allow a Will save and SR. There simply isn't the ability of better schools to say "Immune/highly resistant to my main trick? Time to use a different trick in the same school, then." Like how a necromancer can go "Immune to negative levels? Alright, eat fatigue and ability damage."

[Masakan]

And the fact that ALL enchantments have those weakness, and the vast majority allow a Will save and SR. There simply isn't the ability of better schools to say "Immune/highly resistant to my main trick? Time to use a different trick in the same school, then." Like how a necromancer can go "Immune to negative levels? Alright, eat fatigue and ability damage."

Sigh....I am sad. I spent 2 months working on a character who's schtick is Seduction, info gathering and infiltration(Effectively a Diplomat) And it turns out to be nothing more than a wild goose chase. Because in an actual fight she's gonna be completely useless.

[Pluto!]

How do you spend 2 months working on a character without playing it?

Anyway, Beguilers are perfectly playable, and they more or less work entirely around that concept.

[Masakan]

How do you spend 2 months working on a character without playing it?

Anyway, Beguilers are perfectly playable, and they more or less work entirely around that concept.

I like theory crafting ok? The entire idea was, what would happen if i took the personalities of Bayonetta, Shantae and Xiaomu, And mesh them into a single character?

And the main reason I don't like Beguilers is their spell list isn't REMOTELY as versed, It's like they just made the class and then forgot about it.

[Segev]

The key to Enchantment effects is realizing that they give you long-term tools which are applicable to situations where direct use of mind-affecting effects will not work.

To whit: if you come across a zombie ogre, it's a good thing you are best friends with some combat-loving orcs who've been itching for a good fight ever since they agreed to restrain themselves for their Enchanting friend.

In essence, you use your Enchantment powers on things that are vulnerable to them, and then bring those Enchanted friends with you to take care of things you can't handle directly.

Also, an Enchanter should, if possible, pick up at least command undead; it's not in the school, but its effects are similar and bring a normally-immune class of foes into "handleable" range.

[sleepyphoenixx]

In essence, you use your Enchantment powers on things that are vulnerable to them, and then bring those Enchanted friends with you to take care of things you can't handle directly.


The problem with this approach is that all it takes is a single enemy with an automatic Magic Circle ability to turn those friends into additional enemies.
Enemies who are going to be pissed specifically at your fragile wizard self and likely to vent their rage in a most unpleasant fashion.

It doesn't even have to be deliberate, plenty of monsters get abilities along that line. And that's not taking into account enemies who know or deduce you're an enchanter and bring those counters deliberately.

That is another big problem with enchanting. Not only are lots of things immune, if it's countered it's likely to bite you in the ass hard instead of just not working.

What enchantment is good for is intrigue. Controlling low level NPCs as spies, spreading misinformation, getting cheap labor, aquiring political influence... that's stuff that enchantment excels at, to a frightening degree.
It's just that those things are far beyond the scope of most campaigns.

[Masakan]

The problem with this approach is that all it takes is a single enemy with an automatic Magic Circle ability to turn those friends into additional enemies.
Enemies who are going to be pissed specifically at your fragile wizard self and likely to vent their rage in a most unpleasant fashion.

It doesn't even have to be deliberate, plenty of monsters get abilities along that line. And that's not taking into account enemies who know or deduce you're an enchanter and bring those counters deliberately.

That is another big problem with enchanting. Not only are lots of things immune, if it's countered it's likely to bite you in the ass hard instead of just not working.

What enchantment is good for is intrigue. Controlling low level NPCs as spies, spreading misinformation, getting cheap labor, aquiring political influence... that's stuff that enchantment excels at, to a frightening degree.
It's just that those things are far beyond the scope of most campaigns.

In which case your honestly just better off pumping the hell out of Charisma Skills.

[Segev]

Eh, all it takes to avoid them being pissed is making sure that you really act as much their friend as your spell tells them you are.

Even if that's not going to work, you just make sure that this doesn't happen too much. Those magic circles are only 10 feet in radius; that's not a lot of space to keep the mind-controlled minions in. If you see this happening, have your remaining mind-thralls attack at range, instead. And remember that those magic circles are just as vulnerable to dispel magic as your Enchantment effects! Take them out.

[Rubik]

Also, an Enchanter should, if possible, pick up at least command undead; it's not in the school, but its effects are similar and bring a normally-immune class of foes into "handleable" range.A rod of construct control (from the A&EG) can do the same for golems. Are there control spells for plants and vermin?

As far as those protected by Mind Blank and Protection and Magic Circle spells, definitely take some focus on utilizing Greater/Dispel Magic so you can knock down those defenses.

[Masakan]

Side tracking for a bit

How would a character with this particular spell set up be useful in a real fight?

Spells
Level 1
Charm Person
Improvisation
Disguise Self
Tasha's Hideous Laughter
Silent Image

Level 2
Celerity, Lesser
Mirror Image
BladeWeave
Caterwaul
Spymaster's Coin


Level 3
Charm Monster
Blink
Love's Lament
Listening Coin
Glibness

Level 4
Sirine's Grace
Greater Mirror Image
Ruin Delver's Fortune
Inner Beauty
Invisibility, Greater

Level 5
Mind Fog
Song of Discord
Greater Blink
Bolts of Bedevilment
Evacuation Rune

Level 6
Mass Charm Monster
Empyreal Ecstasy
Nixie's Grace
Geas/Quest

[Necroticplague]

How good one is in a fight is determined more by tactics then spells. What strategy would that character use?

[Masakan]

How good one is in a fight is determined more by tactics then spells. What strategy would that character use?

Well the original idea is fighting through the use of debilitation and misdirection, Flinging around Debuffing enchantment and Illusion spells, all the while darting around the battle field like a scantily clad comet.

Meaning something like travel devotion is recommended. She would never survive a head on fight so she would employ multiple hit and run tactics.

3 Core items to get would be
Veil of Allure
Slippers of BattleDancing
and
Gauntlet of heartfelt blows.

[Malroth]

Social variant Enchaner 5, Mindbender 1, Master Specalist 4 Red Wizard 10

Grab Able learner at 1 and keep up your social skills you're as good at the mundane Skill use as it's possible to be, act nice to your charmed foes and Discreetly diplomacy up to that level of friendship when they're not paying attention.
Spontaneous Divination at 5 Grab absurd amount of information about missions and targets in advance .
Mindsight at 6 Automaticly know for free if something is immune to mind affecting
Mind control some lower lv wizard followers or create half lv version of yourself with simulacrum.
Circle cast to give yourself a bunch of Chain Irresistible Mindrapes
Use Conjuration magic as your default Plan B.

[Pex]

No, the majority of high-level monsters have one of three defenses against enchantment: flat out immunity, high will saves, or spell resistance. Any one of those gives an enchanter a hard time.

Enchantment is not the only school with save or sucks, however it is the school consisting almost exclusively of save or sucks. And the enemy is either weak, in which case... meh. Or the enemy is strong, in which case, you just ruined everyone's fun.

The problem with enchantment isn't just that there are a lot of creatures with a good defense against it, or that it has save or sucks. It's that most monsters past a certain point have a good defense against it, and it's almost nothing but save or sucks.

A lot of people say you should ban evocation and enchantment, so let's consider the diviner for a moment. You have to ban one school. So, let's say you are choosing between evocation and enchantment. For every unique spell effect in enchantment, I can find at least 2 in evocation. And a lot of those aren't as easily replicated. So, I'd end up keeping evocation over enchantment.

The most commonly banned school, and it's better to keep than enchantment. Take from that what you will.

If I was playing a Diviner I would ban Necromancy without a second thought. I don't care how good a spell some people think Enervation or Vampiric Touch is. I know I would never cast the spells. I could count on one hand how many times playing an arcane caster since way back when in 2nd edition I've casted a Necromancy spell and I'd probably go over in estimating. Last time I did was Ray of Enfeeblement about three years ago. I also never, ever had cast Animate Dead. This doesn't mean I think Necromancy "sucks". It only means I just don't care for that school.

I don't need enchantment spells to be the optimal choice every time all the time. I don't resent those times it won't work. I just do something else. However, situations happen enough times they do work, even when playing a cleric/oracle and I cast Command. An ogre grappled a party member. A Command of "Drop" freed the party member. Sometimes, though, I just go for the "Hail Mary". I cast an enchantment spell even against an opponent I know has a high will save. I know I'm just going for the luck factor. Every once in a while it works. When it doesn't, oh shucks. I do something else next round, still not resenting the monster made his saving throw. They do that sometimes.

[NeverSleeps]

So, I don't know if you're super dedicated to the Bard thing but the Bard is really focused on team buffing and persistent support.

If you want heavy enchantment power and play Pathfinder, then you're in luck. They just released a new book that has this new class called the Mesmerist. Mesmerist is all about mind affecting stuff, and you can even making m-a hit Undead.

Otherwise it's more of a stealth/plan-focused school. You scout and plan ahead to deal with stuff like undead or mindless creatures. Sometimes you will probably have to outsource, eg, pull a Pokemon and go grab some tough minions from elsewhere to sling at your problems. Or I suppose you could use the obvious social applications of the magic to make NPCs do everything.

The problem was well stated very early in the thread, Enchantment magic is so insanely powerful that the devs had to give a lot of random stuff immunity just so you couldn't get a level five character commanding infinite legions.

[Kurald Galain]

Sigh....I am sad. I spent 2 months working on a character who's schtick is Seduction, info gathering and infiltration(Effectively a Diplomat) And it turns out to be nothing more than a wild goose chase. Because in an actual fight she's gonna be completely useless.

...why?

There's nothing stopping an enchanter from casting, say, Summon Monster III.

The point of making an effective character is not spending all your resources on a single trick. Because that'll just give you a one-trick pony which will be useless at times when their trick is ineffective. This goes for all kinds of characters, not just enchanters.

[Curmudgeon]

There's nothing stopping an enchanter from casting, say, Summon Monster III.
Unless of course they got to be an Enchanter by banning (among others) Conjuration school.

[Flickerdart]

Side tracking for a bit

How would a character with this particular spell set up be useful in a real fight?
Mirror Image and Bladeweave are great combat buffs. Daze is one of the best debuff conditions to inflict. The benefits of Greater Invisibility in combat are obvious, and Sirine's Grace is very solid. I recommend you dip one level of a Sneak Attack-granting class and take Craven, since you have many ways of ensuring a Sneak Attack and extra damage is nice.

[dascarletm]

Dominate the tarrasque and force-feed it a shrink collar so it can come with you on your adventures? Doable at really low level, as it doesn't have anything but a Will save and its type (Magical Beast) to protect it.

Also SR 32.

I'm not seeing this done at low levels at all.

You got to have a CL + Mod check to penetrate SR of at least 22, and a DC of 30 to get a base chance of 50% on each layer.

[Rubik]

Also SR 32.

I'm not seeing this done at low levels at all.

You got to have a CL + Mod check to penetrate SR of at least 22, and a DC of 30 to get a base chance of 50% on each layer.A telepath with Supernatural Transformation (Psionics), factotum 11, or anyone who can summon or otherwise control a blood fiend, formian taskmaster, ethergaunt, or adult neogi can bypass the SR check completely.

You can also use spells and other effects to reduce a creature's SR or give yourself a significant boost to your CL or SR-check. There are lots of ways to do this.

[Hal0Badger]

Enchantment spells "do not suck".

Those who rely on only Enchantment spells, yea they might suck when they are countered. But eventhough you are master specialist, you would still have at least 1 more school + divination. If you play your cards good, you are never out of options as an arcane caster.

[sleepyphoenixx]

A telepath with Supernatural Transformation (Psionics), factotum 11, or anyone who can summon or otherwise control a blood fiend, formian taskmaster, ethergaunt, or adult neogi can bypass the SR check completely.

You can also use spells and other effects to reduce a creature's SR or give yourself a significant boost to your CL or SR-check. There are lots of ways to do this.

I'm pretty sure that an ability acquired from levels in a class is not an innate ability, so psionics + Supernatural Transformation is out. At least i'd rule it that way.
And summoning something doesn't really work out because all of a summoned creatures spell effects end when the summon expires.

You can of course still get a Dominate Monster on the Tarrasque with a bit of optimization, but that isn't really that much of a benchmark.
You can kill the thing with a sufficient amount of first level archers and a few first level bards with non-fire DFI to get around the DR.

[Rubik]

I'm pretty sure that an ability acquired from levels in a class is not an innate ability, so psionics + Supernatural Transformation is out.Psionics is explicitly innate, RAW, and S.T. never mentions anything about "racial" abilities, so ruling against it (especially with the Magic Mantle in play) is houserules.


And summoning something doesn't really work out because all of a summoned creatures spell effects end when the summon expires.If you have Dominate Monster, you can easily dominate something with at-will (Su) Dominate.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Psionics is explicitly innate, RAW, and S.T. never mentions anything about "racial" abilities, so ruling against it (especially with the Magic Mantle in play) is houserules.
Can i get a source on that please?
And i really don't see how the Magic Mantle, or psionic-magic transparency in general, have anything to do with the question of whether class-acquired psionics qualify as "innate".
It stands to reason that there must be some kind of non-innate SLA if the feat description makes the distinction. If those from class levels aren't non-innate then what SLA's are?



If you have Dominate Monster, you can easily dominate something with at-will (Su) Dominate.

Sure you can, if your DM helpfully provides them for you or you can planar bind one. Then he just has to provide a Tarrasque for you to dominate.
I didn't say it's impossible. I just said that it doesn't work with summoning, so you'll have to shell out for planar binding or find a suitable creature to control the normal way.

[Threadnaught]

Side tracking for a bit

How would a character with this particular spell set up be useful in a real fight?

-Decent enough list-

Decent enough provided they were up against foes who weren't flat out immune to everything.

From that list alone, looks like something that debilitates enemies with Mind Affecting effects and uses defensive Illusion Spells to misdirect enemies and split apart the battlefield with falsehoods.


Your character isn't useless in a fight, she's just useless against Intelligent Undead and Constructs who have methods of defeating Illusions.

[Rubik]

Can i get a source on that please?Expanded Psionics Handbook, page 4:


WHAT IS PSIONICS?
Simply put, psionics is the art of tapping the mind’s potential.
A psionic character is blessed with a form of innate ability that
enables him or her to use mental power to achieve goals or
perform tasks that nonpsionic characters can accomplish—if
they’re even capable of doing them at all—only by using
gross physical skills such as brute strength or raw agility, or
by using intellect or force of will distinct from the natural
power of the mind itself.It defines psionics as an innate ability to manipulate the world using one's mind.


And i really don't see how the Magic Mantle, or psionic-magic transparency in general, have anything to do with the question of whether class-acquired psionics qualify as "innate".Psionic manifestations are a psi-like ability. The Magic Mantle equates them as spell-like abilities, which allows you to take Supernatural Transformation (Psionics) without issue.


It stands to reason that there must be some kind of non-innate SLA if the feat description makes the distinction. If those from class levels aren't non-innate then what SLA's are?It merely says "innate spell-like ability." It says nothing about class vs racial vs feat, so if something counts as innate regardless of being a class or racial ability, it counts, undeniably.


Sure you can, if your DM helpfully provides them for you or you can planar bind one.Or you could, you know, hunt one down.


Then he just has to provide a Tarrasque for you to dominate.Again, hunt it down. Be proactive.


I didn't say it's impossible. I just said that it doesn't work with summoning, so you'll have to shell out for planar binding or find a suitable creature to control the normal way.Right. But summoning something for long enough to hit the tarrasque with repeated Dominates so you can command your minion to encourage the tarrasque to lower its defenses "so he can help you" isn't out of the realm of possibility. The tarrasque is sentient, though only barely, but it has no way to determine that you're not actually healing the ability damage your party mates inflicted on it, or whatever.

[Krios]

Enchantment is situational.

But it's not situational because the DM might throw monsters that are immune at the party. If a single monster shows up that isn't immune, you've just doubled your combat effectiveness for this level and increased it substantially for the next couple of levels. And for most of the game, less than half of monsters are immune. Obviously, it's possible that you'll have to play an undead or robot apocalypse game, but those games are atypical and should not be taken seriously as arguments that a school is generally weak.

Enchantment is situational because the things that make it powerful are absurd. You do have the ability to turn people to your side, but it's both overpowered (you double your power every encounter) and abusive (you're cycling charm spells into diplomacy, which is likely to get banned on both ends). So the DM has a reasonably high chance to reasonably declare that things simply don't work that way and bar your attempts to get the real ultimate power to which you are entitled.

And if you can't do that, Enchantment is kind of meh. There are a couple of killer app spells like ray of idiocy (which kills all animals forever), but they are often sort of redundant (for example, phantom steed and a bow also kills all animals forever). It's similar to Illusion in that sense. There's a lot of power potential, but the DM is able to cap your power substantially without being particularly draconian. The difference is that actually getting to use Enchantment is much better (because holy crap everything is your minion), but getting nerfed on Illusion is much better (did someone say shadow conjuration?).

[eggynack]

While less than half of monsters may be immune to enchantment spells, far greater than half of enemies are immune to dominate person, and dominate person is what you're going to be running as your source of enchantment minionmancy for the vast majority of the game. It doesn't really matter whether giants are explicitly immune to your whole class of spells or not when you just can't target them. If you're just charming instead, then now we're less doubling combat effectiveness and more making a friend that will aid you in a limited set of ways.

Moreover, if you're trying to pick up minions, then enchantment isn't exactly unique for that sort of utility, and other methods of getting them are more reliable. Sure, dominating may be technically broader in scope than planar binding, but planar binding gives you the exact sort of creature you're seeking without much room for outside intervention. The end result is that, while these spells provide unique utility of some scale, I don't think they're oppressively potent relative to other options with a neutral DM.

[Solaris]

Mirror Image and Bladeweave are great combat buffs. Daze is one of the best debuff conditions to inflict. The benefits of Greater Invisibility in combat are obvious, and Sirine's Grace is very solid. I recommend you dip one level of a Sneak Attack-granting class and take Craven, since you have many ways of ensuring a Sneak Attack and extra damage is nice.

I've always been fond of doing this with rogue as the character's 1st level. It nets a pile of skill points, most of which are useful for an enchanter-type character.
Swiftblade and/or Unseen Seer might have some place in the build, too, depending on which way it goes from there.