In a world with no abjuration spells...

[Thealtruistorc]

So I was talking about Harry Potter with somebody today and it popped into my head that the series has little to no spells that coincide with the abjuration school's abilities (I think it had something to do with when he mentioned how ludicrous the idea of an Anti-Magic Field is). Reflecting further, I now realize how few fantasy worlds have the sort of defensive and dispelling spells that players use so commonly in DnD.

Which gets me thinking: how would gameplay be different if casters didn't have access to many of the cushions absorbing threats coming in from all over? What would life for casters be like without stoneskin, shield, energy protection spells, dispel magic, or even remove curse? I envision the consequences would be much more dire for screwing up, and that everybody would have to watch their backs a lot more.

The premise itself sorta scares me.

[Blackhawk748]

It not only sucks for casters, it sucks for their buddies too. Usually the Fighter or the Barbarian are getting that Stonskin spell.

[Anlashok]

Not sure why it's "scary".

Casters would shift to using non-abjuration defenses and permanent magic because dramatically more useful.

[Droopy McCool]

All that casters have to do in this world would be to improvise, adapt, and overcome. Not all spells that provide protection (in any form) are from the Abjuration school. For example: Mage Armor is Conjuration.

Either way, offense has always been the best defense, even with all the Abj. spells.

[J-H]

Finit Incantum?

All of the Wards of Hogwarts, and the "hide a house with a secret keeper" thing, are abjurations.

[Âmesang]

…one wizard will dispel his foes — with his wit!

"You fight like a dairy farmer!"

C'mon, I had to finish that would-be trailer. :smalltongue: The loss of abjuration would certainly be annoying… 'cause now I have to think of suitable replacements. No shield, no protection from energy, or dimensional anchor (kill it faster?), or greater dispel magic. Well, stone to flesh would serve as a kind of replacement for break enchantment until polymorph any object comes into play. Damn it, thinking is for wizards, not sorcerers! Can't I just counterspell my enemies by batting my eyes?

Also the topic made me think less Harry Potter, and more Final Fantasy VIII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fhGS0tAcQg&t=4m11s)…

[nedz]

Magic is supposed to be countered by magic.
For each measure there is a counter-measure, and to that a further counter measure.
It sort of worked like that in earlier editions, but in 3.5 the cult of the offensive is written into the rules.

It's part of the imbalance really. If magic really was countered by magic then there would be more space for the mundane characters to act.

Removing abjuration spells therefore would worsen the system for mundane characters by not only removing their defences, but by making their existence even more unnecessary.

[Werephilosopher]

One way magic-users actually become weaker, if only a bit, without abjuration: no magic circles, which means no planar binding shenanigans.

[martixy]

All that casters have to do in this world would be to improvise, adapt, and overcome. Not all spells that provide protection (in any form) are from the Abjuration school. For example: Mage Armor is Conjuration.

Either way, offense has always been the best defense, even with all the Abj. spells.

And yet, the Abjurant Champion is based on that spell.
Talk about messing up!

But as brought up already the original premise is rather shaky to begin with.

Disregarding that however, it surmise it will not be unlike today's warfare.
We have vast destructive potential, against which there very rarely exists direct defences.
It's more about avoiding its effects or preventing effective deployment than directly counteracting said weapon.

In fact D&D is probably as fun precisely because there exist direct counters to things, which allows for more immediate and prolonged back-and-forth exchanges of power.
Otherwise, balanced head-on encounters will result in unacceptable losses even from the winning side.

[dspeyer]

Sounds like Earthsea. No Dispell Magic. If a low-level hedge wizard casts something he shouldn't, it may take a desperate quest by the greatest mage in the world to put matters right.

[paranoidbox]

The Harry Potter magic system never made sense anyway. It's always been a pet peeve of mine as far as that series goes.

But let's say there's no abjuration... There are at least some replacements that can serve, such as using Shieldbearer (transmutation) instead of Shield.

[Bullet06320]

But let's say there's no abjuration... There are at least some replacements that can serve, such as using Shieldbearer (transmutation) instead of Shield.

why not use an actual sheildbearer, isn't that what leadership and hirelings are for?

more mundane defenses would be more in demand such as armor cut specially for wearing by wizards

scry and die from inside bank like vaults of security

I've never read or seen any the books or movies, so I cant comment on the specifics of the magic rules of the harry potter universe

[Mystral]

So I was talking about Harry Potter with somebody today and it popped into my head that the series has little to no spells that coincide with the abjuration school's abilities (I think it had something to do with when he mentioned how ludicrous the idea of an Anti-Magic Field is). Reflecting further, I now realize how few fantasy worlds have the sort of defensive and dispelling spells that players use so commonly in DnD.

Which gets me thinking: how would gameplay be different if casters didn't have access to many of the cushions absorbing threats coming in from all over? What would life for casters be like without stoneskin, shield, energy protection spells, dispel magic, or even remove curse? I envision the consequences would be much more dire for screwing up, and that everybody would have to watch their backs a lot more.

The premise itself sorta scares me.

Don't know if it's right to point this out, but there were plenty enough spells that were abjuration-like in HP, including dimensional anchors, protection spells and many magic dispelling spells.

[paranoidbox]

why not use an actual sheildbearer, isn't that what leadership and hirelings are for?

While I'm sure there is at least one or more feats for this (such as Shieldmate) and maybe even a PrC, but in general a shieldbearing dude doesn't give you a shield AC, while the Shieldbearer spell does.

[Bullet06320]

I'm sure there are ways to optimize a shield bearer, it might be an interesting build even, the OP did ask for ways gameplay might be different, and that's a possible way it may be different.
maybe see more use aid another in combat, a wizard surrounded by 9 bodyguards pumping his defense, lol
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#aidAnother

[Andezzar]

It not only sucks for casters, it sucks for their buddies too. Usually the Fighter or the Barbarian are getting that Stonskin spell.Well stoneskin and many other abjuration spells needn't be in that school. Just research a spell that does the same thing but is transmutation for example.

Many categorizations don't make sense. Fire trap and explosive runes for example don't concern themselves with mitigating or blocking other magical effect, which is what abjurations should do.

If you mean removing the ability to counter or mitigate magical effects, the game will only further favor offense.