Fireball vs. Ice Storm

[Human Paragon 3]

Fireball is level 3, Ice Storm is level 4, but Fireball deals more damage.

The increased range and one turn of difficult terrain don't make that much of an impact, IMO, and cold and bludgeoning damage aren't that much better than fire damage. Why is Ice Storm 4th level?

[Tanarii]

Better question is why does fireball do so much damage for a third level spell. FB and Lightning bolt are the outliers IIRC.

[Feuerphoenix]

om paper, the fireball looks better. And maybe he actually is. But first we have to compare them to each other:

Fireball (LV 4): Dealing 9D6 or 31.5 damage is pretty much. But what you have to keep in mind, that a lot of creatures are resistant or immune against fire. A LOT. And sadly they are usually the most nasty ones. 20 feet of radius is the same on the ice storm, but the storm is a cylinder, which I will come back later on. Also the fireball does not have that much range like the Ice storm, but using it on more than 150 feet is very unlikely.

Ice Storm: first it deals two different types of damage. As it is magical damage, the bluedoning passes through most of the creatures defences (except someone tells me, that this damage is not magical of course :P). Second: cold resistance is a lot more uncommon, especially most features that have this resistance are also in a very certain environment, which you don't encounter that much. Over all the spell deals 24 damage on lv 4, which is nice, but not great. What does make it nice though is the difficult terrain effect. Preventing casters from being attacked from enemies because they can't reach you, or slowing down your enemies so you land the first melee attack. slowing them down while running away. Or keep them in a dangerous environment, prevent them from spreading so your sorcerer may cast a fireball on them. slowing enemies down is GREAT! Also, the spell allows for limited air control, as it leaps up into the air, 40 feet high is an area where most flying combatants may wait to come down again, attack and retreat again. Keeping this in mind gives ice storm a great utility tool, enabling great combos, when you can use it with team work. :)

[Desamir]

Better question is why does fireball do so much damage for a third level spell. FB and Lightning bolt are the outliers IIRC.

Good question. I read somewhere (twitter?) that it was an intentional design, but I wonder what the rationale was. And why those two spells, specifically?

[Tanarii]

Good question. I read somewhere (twitter?) that it was an intentional design, but I wonder what the rationale was. And why those two spells, specifically?
That's the internet legend, that they were intentionally designed to be more powerful because they're "iconic". No clue if that's really true.

[StorytellerHero]

You really need to look at all the differences instead of some of them. Try not to think of spell design mainly in terms of damage.

1. Double the range. An extra 150 feet can make a huge difference in the right situations. In many campaigns, the difference in range can make a huge difference more often than not.

2. Two different types of damage, allowing Ice Storm to be more useful against enemies with resistance or immunity to one type of damage.

3. Difficult terrain. If your enemies can't teleport or fly, this can make a huge difference in area control and facilitation of escape. If you're dealing with fire-based creatures, they might hesitate to step anywhere near an ice-covered field.

4. The applications of ice. You can melt it into water for drinking or cause the ambient temperature to cool down.

5. 1d8 increase in damage per spell level versus 1d6. Damage evens out a bit as levels get higher, though this is a very minor advantage.

6. Avoidance of collateral damage. A fireball can be much more risky to use in the wrong places compared to Ice Storm.

7. Putting out fires. You can put out fires with Ice Storm because it's water ice.

It's the overall impact and scope of a spell (as a whole) across different styles of play that determines its spell level, not just its damage. Just because an aspect such as range may not have much impact in one adventure (such as a dungeon crawler) doesn't mean that it won't make a huge impact in another (such as an open combat defending a city from invasion).

[Tanarii]

4. The applications of ice. You can melt it into water for drinking or cause the ambient temperature to cool down.

7. Putting out fires. You can put out fires with Ice Storm because it's water ice.
Nothing in the spell says the hailstones can be melted for water, nor that they melt after the round of difficult terrain. It does damage, and leaves difficult terrain for one round. That's it.

And Ice Storm doesn't say it puts out fires. See Sleet Storm if that's what you want.

[StorytellerHero]

Nothing in the spell says the hailstones can be melted for water, nor that they melt after the round of difficult terrain. It does damage, and leaves difficult terrain for one round. That's it.

And Ice Storm doesn't say it puts out fires. See Sleet Storm if that's what you want.

Since it's evocation, and not conjuration, then it has to manipulate the ambient moisture in the environment, which is usually water. This means that the ice is water, and it melts. Since it's not a summoned material, it stays as water after casting.

Being water, the spell's effect will help put out fires. Not all fires, but at the very least weaker flames that are spread out.

You can argue RAW versus non-RAW but ultimately this is a roleplaying game with a certain amount of leeway for imaginative use of spells.

The spell can be used for water and putting out fires because it makes sense that it can by reasonable determination.

The rules text doesn't cover everything. This is one of those spells that has uses outside of what is mentioned.

[Pex]

Better question is why does fireball do so much damage for a third level spell. FB and Lightning bolt are the outliers IIRC.

I'll say just for the fun factor, the game part of being a roleplaying game. It's so much fun to say you're casting Fireball, hitting many bad guys at once, and rolling lots of d6s. It's a moment to shine and stereotypically feel like you're playing a spellcaster. There are good lower level spells that can do great things in many instances, but Fireball is one which doesn't take that much strategy, just optimal placement. It's showy. You're no longer a wimpy character.

[Tanarii]

You can argue RAW versus RAI but ultimately this is a roleplaying game with a certain amount of leeway for imaginative use of spells.
In other words, you're house-ruling the spell to do something it doesn't say it does. Because ... science? It makes "sense" to you? Not exactly clear why.

[JNAProductions]

In other words, you're house-ruling the spell to do something it doesn't say it does. Because ... science? It makes "sense" to you? Not exactly clear why.

It makes perfect sense to me. Sure, it's unorthodox and not explicitly covered by the rules, but it's smart, makes sense, and will overall make the game more fun and immersive, rather than less.

[Feuerphoenix]

In other words, you're house-ruling the spell to do something it doesn't say it does. Because ... science? It makes "sense" to you? Not exactly clear why.

I'd allow it as a dm. It is cool, creative and hell, if a player is sacrificing a lv 4 spell slot just for this side effect...well then do it!

[Misterwhisper]

It makes perfect sense to me. Sure, it's unorthodox and not explicitly covered by the rules, but it's smart, makes sense, and will overall make the game more fun and immersive, rather than less.

You know what else makes sense, people who get stabbed or shot bleed, so it is not covered in the rules so why not have each hit die someone loses cause them to bleed for 1 hp per round?

Or the fact that someone can go from deaths door to completely fine in an 8 hour nap, does not make sense so let's take that out

All are house rules, and all are completely pointless to the spell at hand because if an ability does not day it does something in the book it does not do it.

Flame bolt says it can set things on fire if it hits them, fireball does not, so it does not set fires.

[pwykersotz]

Uh oh...someone get a hose, the simulationists and the gamists are at it again! :smalltongue:

[Captain Morgan]

This is such a silly argument.

[StorytellerHero]

You know what else makes sense, people who get stabbed or shot bleed, so it is not covered in the rules so why not have each hit die someone loses cause them to bleed for 1 hp per round?

Or the fact that someone can go from deaths door to completely fine in an 8 hour nap, does not make sense so let's take that out

All are house rules, and all are completely pointless to the spell at hand because if an ability does not day it does something in the book it does not do it.

Flame bolt says it can set things on fire if it hits them, fireball does not, so it does not set fires.

I could point to a countless number of "Hit Points are not Meat Points" threads but that would be diverging from the arguments of this thread.

For the very fact that the rules don't cover everything, and the fact that DnD is a cooperative storytelling game with room for creative rulings (within reason), the use of imagination will never be completely pointless, especially when it comes to how spells are used.

Fireball's text actually does state that it sets flammable objects on fire.

[Blue Lantern]

This is such a silly argument.

This and 99.9% of the content of those forums.

[Contrast]

Since it's evocation, and not conjuration, then it has to manipulate the ambient moisture in the environment, which is usually water. This means that the ice is water, and it melts. Since it's not a summoned material, it stays as water after casting.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I cast Ice Storm and the DM explained how there was very low humidity that day so I was only going to be doing half damage. :smalltongue: I would totally be on board with players scavenging the ice for drinking water in a desert though.


Being water, the spell's effect will help put out fires. Not all fires, but at the very least weaker flames that are spread out.


The spell can be used for water and putting out fires because it makes sense that it can by reasonable determination.

Not sure I agree with this logic. Throwing a bucket of ice cubes on an open fire would be much much less effective than throwing a bucket of water (more akin to the effectiveness of throwing a bucket of pebbles on the fire). It would have an effect but I'm not sure it would be particularly effective.

[Cybren]

That's the internet legend, that they were intentionally designed to be more powerful because they're "iconic". No clue if that's really true.

It's probably very true and it makes a lot of sense, seeing as they are incredibly iconic, enough that the average D&D player really wants to cast them, so making them exciting to cast in the rules is Good.

[StorytellerHero]

Not sure I agree with this logic. Throwing a bucket of ice cubes on an open fire would be much much less effective than throwing a bucket of water (more akin to the effectiveness of throwing a bucket of pebbles on the fire). It would have an effect but I'm not sure it would be particularly effective.

Considering that the amount of hail has to be significant enough to cause potentially lethal cold damage on top of bludgeoning damage and create difficult terrain, i would presume that it's far more than a bucket of ice cubes. How much more would be hard to say, but enough to kill a person sounds like at least two buckets.

:smallbiggrin:

[Clistenes]

Better question is why does fireball do so much damage for a third level spell. FB and Lightning bolt are the outliers IIRC.

My guess is, Sorcerers and Bards won't learn many damage-dealing spells, so Fireball is intended to be the bread-and-butter most of them will learn and use most of the time, and they will maybe learn just another one to use against fire-immune critters.

So:
Fireball - Main damage-dealing spell.
Any other - Flavorful, varied spells, pick your choice as your spell againt fireproof critters.

[BurgerBeast]

In other words, you're house-ruling the spell to do something it doesn't say it does. Because ... science? It makes "sense" to you? Not exactly clear why.

I just don't see how you can take it this far. It's the equivalent of the "he's not on fire, he's taking ongoing fire damage argument." Ridiculous.

I'm fully aware that everyone has their own line, and will draw it wherever they think it best fits, but at some point you have to use common sense to decide what the oblique effects of a spell are.

Everyone, even you, ascribes properties to the objects beyond what the spell says.

"Goodberry says the berries appear in your hand. You can eat them and they heal 1 hp or they nourish. That's it. It doesn't say they have any taste, so therefore they don't. It doesn't say you can put them in your pocket, so therefore you can't..."

Seriously? They are berries. It is okay to ascribe the properties of berries to them. Likewise for hailstones. Likewise for fire.

* It's worth noting that I agree with your conclusions anyway (but not your reasons), since ice storm is instantaneous.

edit: I forgot my main reply:

I do recall reading somewhere, from the designers, that the design intent was for both fireball and lightning to be "best choices" for their level.

[Hawkstar]

Since it's evocation, and not conjuration, then it has to manipulate the ambient moisture in the environment, which is usually water. This means that the ice is water, and it melts. Since it's not a summoned material, it stays as water after casting.

It's Evocation, not Transmutation. It creates the ice and cold out of nothingness. Not dragged in from some other plane. Not twisted from the ambient area. Just "First there was no ice and cold and wind, and then there was lots of ice and cold and wind. Then there was no ice and cold and wind again."

[StorytellerHero]

It's Evocation, not Transmutation. It creates the ice and cold out of nothingness. Not dragged in from some other plane. Not twisted from the ambient area. Just "First there was no ice and cold and wind, and then there was lots of ice and cold and wind. Then there was no ice and cold and wind again."

The cold and energy needed to gather moisture is generated by the evocation, creating solid part out of nothingness would be conjuration. The cold created by the spell freezes the water after kinetic energy pushes it to one spot for dumping onto enemies.

Ice is not energy. It is a product of applying energy mechanics.

Water turns into ice when it is made colder. The heat is moved from the water to allow it to freeze. Kinetic energy gathers it in one spot.

Evocation is the manipulation of magical energy for a desired effect. In this case the magical energy is used to turn water into ice through the application of thermodynamic principles, rather than the reality-bending rearrangement of particles that is used in transmutation.

[Cybren]

Okay that just tickled my pedant gland because "kinetic energy" isn't like, a mystical energy field that causes things to move, it's just the property of a body having energy by virtue of being in motion. I'm reminded of how the writers for X-Men said Gambit can imbue things with "kinetic energy" which is a really fancy way of saying he throws them.

[BurgerBeast]

The cold and energy needed to gather moisture is generated by the evocation, creating solid part out of nothingness would be conjuration. The cold created by the spell freezes the water after kinetic energy pushes it to one spot for dumping onto enemies.

Ice is not energy. It is a product of applying energy mechanics.

Water turns into ice when it is made colder. The heat is moved from the water to allow it to freeze. Kinetic energy gathers it in one spot.

Evocation is the manipulation of magical energy for a desired effect. In this case the magical energy is used to turn water into ice through the application of thermodynamic principles, rather than the reality-bending rearrangement of particles that is used in transmutation.

Okay, it's great that you have this whole explanation that works for you and is more or less internally consistent, but... there's no reason to think you're right. You can attach whatever explanation you want, but that doesn't make it true. There's just no support for the level of precision you're attempting here. Sorry.

Beyond that, there is at least some support for opposing views, such as PHB 117, which states that evocation magic "creates powerful elemental effects such as bitter cold, searing flame, rolling thunder, crackling lightning, and burning acid." (edit: emphasis added)

There's no good reason to try to apply thermodynamic principles. Also, the mention that evocation can "create... burning acid" is about as good an example of "reality-bending rearrangement of particles" as you can get.

[StorytellerHero]

Okay, it's great that you have this whole explanation that works for you and is more or less internally consistent, but... there's no reason to think you're right. You can attach whatever explanation you want, but that doesn't make it true. There's just no support for the level of precision you're attempting here. Sorry.

Beyond that, there is at least some support for opposing views, such as PHB 117, which states that evocation magic "creates powerful elemental effects such as bitter cold, searing flame, rolling thunder, crackling lightning, and burning acid." (edit: emphasis added)

There's no good reason to try to apply thermodynamic principles. Also, the mention that evocation can "create... burning acid" is about as good an example of "reality-bending rearrangement of particles" as you can get.

Real world physics can support the explanation I've given.

Those powerful elemental effects can all be produced by manipulation of energy to provoke chemical reactions. Cold and ice are not the same thing. Ice is created by a [edit: endothermic/exothermic] reaction provoked by manipulating energy in the case of Ice Storm. The ice itself is not directly produced.

The same could be said for burning acid. By gathering already existing particulate matter, you can cause reactions to produce burning acid. Also, there are a number of spells that overlap schools of magic. Evocation happens to focus more on energy manipulation the most of the different classifications.

In case you're getting the wrong idea, I never said that my explanation is the only explanation, after all I did say that this is from an application of imagination. These ideas just so happen to be based on real world science, and the fact that Evocation is primarily described as the manipulation of energy under "Schools of Magic" (PHB chapter 10, p. 203).

I can say that it's plausible to declare that Ice Storm gathers ambient moisture to produce ice because it is from the school of evocation, which specializes in energy manipulation. Ice being matter rather than energy, would be in this case indirectly created rather than conjured; if it were created directly, then that would make the spell arguably more of a conjuration school spell than an evocation school spell.


EDIT: After further discussion, I've changed my perspective of how evocation works. It may be more accurate to focus on where the method begins for different schools.

Energy --> Matter or Energy --> Evocation


Matter --> Transported or Constructed Objects/Creatures --> Conjuration


Matter --> Transformed Objects/Creatures --> Transmutation


In this way, Evocation is still the manipulation of energy, but can be energy (that started as energy) converted to matter through manipulation.


The material for conjuration and transmutation could be matter that started as matter to begin with (not necessarily as whole objects, but at the very least particles of matter).

[BW022]

Yes... the difficult terrain makes the spell worth the extra level.

In 5e, effects are almost always better than pure damage. Spells rarely keep up with the hit points of creatures. An 8d6 (avg. 28) with a save for half, is almost pointless casting against a 105hp hill giant (CR 5), a trio of 85hp ettins (CR 4), or even a group of six 36hp ghasts (CR 2). In almost all cases, you'll be swarmed on their turn and take a ton of damage.

Ice storm does damage, but it also slows them by 20' or so. In many cases, that can easily mean the difference between getting another round in -- or at least some of your other party members getting their actions in before the group closes. Maybe another caster can get a spell off, a ranger can get an ensnaring strike in before the monster is next to you, or at least the fighter can move into position to block.

Ice storm is a multiplier type spell. It both does damage and buys you time for another spell or for others to get into position. It is a much better opening spell than fireball. In most 5e games, I've rarely seen wizards cast fireball... unless in really favorable conditions (i.e. the creatures couldn't otherwise get to them).

[Cybren]

It is worth noting that ice storm scales better than fireball as well, but I don't really find that people "rarely cast fireball". Fireball is a pretty fearsome spell at the levels it's first acquired, and even in high levels you can still encounter groups of enemies it will rough up

[OracleofWuffing]

I can say that it's plausible to declare that Ice Storm gathers ambient moisture to produce ice because it is from the school of evocation, which specializes in energy manipulation. Ice being matter rather than energy, would be in this case indirectly created rather than conjured; if it were created directly, then that would make the spell arguably more of a conjuration school spell than an evocation school spell.
Wait, so Ice Storm can possibly fizzle if I try to cast it in an environment without ambient moisture? That'll be a point for Fireball in my books. :smallwink:

[hymer]

Why is Ice Storm 4th level?

I think druids aren't supposed to deal as much instantaneous damage with their spells as the more blast-capable casters. Since ice storm is a druid spell (too), it can't be allowed to deal as much damage as more specialized kaboom spells, and in return it gets some other effects and advantages (as outlined in earlier posts). Other casters (wizards and sorcerers IIRC) can choose to pick it if they like, but can avoid it if they don't care for it.

In 2e, as I recall, Ice Storm did less damage than fireball, too, but it did so in a much larger area, giving it that specific niche.

[BurgerBeast]

Real world physics can support the explanation I've given.

So what?


Those powerful elemental effects can all be produced by manipulation of energy to provoke chemical reactions. Cold and ice are not the same thing. Ice is created by a chemical reaction provoked by manipulating energy in the case of Ice Storm. The ice itself is not directly produced.

Okay, ignoring the fact that ice is not produced by a chemical reaction, so what? Just because the effect could happen that way doesn't mean it does happen that way.


The same could be said for burning acid. By gathering already existing particulate matter, you can cause chemical reactions to produce burning acid.

But then someone who uses your logic consistently would have to say "this is not evocation, it's transmutation!"


Also, there are a number of spells that overlap schools of magic. Evocation happens to focus more on energy manipulation the most of the different classifications.

Yes, and evocation can also create. If it's a chemical reaction (by real-world understanding) then it intrudes on transmutation, if it calls forth energy form an elemental plane it intrudes on conjuration, etc. Anyway, this is mostly irrelevant. You don't get to invent fluff and then claim it's the right fluff, without support. And the real world physics doesn't necessarily enter into it.


In case you're getting the wrong idea, I never said that my explanation is the only explanation, after all I did say that this is from an application of imagination, from RAI.

I'm not sure about this. You said: "Ice is created by a chemical reaction provoked by manipulating energy in the case of Ice Storm." That strikes me as pretty matter-of-fact.


These ideas just so happen to be based on real world science, and the fact that Evocation is primarily described as the manipulation of energy under "Schools of Magic" (PHB chapter 10, p. 203).

Again, this is not the only explanation of Evocation. PHB p. 117 says evocation magic "...creates powerful elemental effects," which is quite different, so the correct answer needs to consider both.


I can say that it's plausible to declare that Ice Storm gathers ambient moisture to produce ice because it is from the school of evocation, which specializes in energy manipulation.

It's plausible. That's right. The problem is jumping from "it's plausible" to "it's what happens." It's also plausible that the hailstones are created. I would suggest that this is the better explanation because (1) evocation spells can create, which in this case is direct and more elegant, (2) it doesn't become contingent on other conditions and therefore DM fiat.


Ice being matter rather than energy, would be in this case indirectly created rather than conjured; if it were created directly, then that would make the spell arguably more of a conjuration school spell than an evocation school spell.

Only according to your arbitrary classifications. One of the reasons your logic doesn't hold is that it is more stringent than the logic provided in the text. As evidence, I point to the school of abjuration. More-or-less every abjuration spell belongs to a different school because abjuration spells are not classified by how they come about. They are classified by their purpose. So if you evoke a wall in order to protect yourself, it should belong to abjuration. Wait, it's a wall of ice, so it must be a conjuration. No wait, the ice didn't come from nowhere! It has to obey the laws of thermodynamics , so it must have been a transmutation. Bringing in real-world science only confuses the matter, because as Einstein showed us, via energy-matter equivalence, matter is more or less just concentrated energy. As a result, adding energy to a suitcase isn't much different than adding a handle to a suitcase, so the line between conjuration and transmutation just becomes more blurred.

I've been down this road before, and I even once (for a very short time) tried to come up with a more stringent system of magic, loosely based on the 2e Player's Option: Spells and Magic, where every spell could be classified by method, source, and philosophy, and these were not exclusive. It would be cool, but it would take a lot of work, and the end it wouldn't matter. The spells are more-or-less arbitrarily assigned, and don't follow the logic you are proposing.

In the end, whether we like it or not, we're forced to concede that the school of evocation produces effects that come about either as conjurations or transmutations, mostly (but not exclusively) of energy, and getting any more specific than that will lead to inconsistencies. Suggesting that one explanation is superior to another only works if it takes all of this into consideration.

[RSP]

Um...isn't the answer to this argument just "that's a houserule. Others can houserule differently, depending what's best for their table."

Not sure why people feel the need to defend their house rules as if they're RAW (though it clearly happens all the time).

[BurgerBeast]

Um...isn't the answer to this argument just "that's a houserule. Others can houserule differently, depending what's best for their table."

Not sure why people feel the need to defend their house rules as if they're RAW (though it clearly happens all the time).

Well, yes. But then sometimes we disagree on whether it is a houserule. I've been on both sides, in different contexts, and thought/still think I was right.

In this case there doesn't seem to be agreement that we're in house rule territory.

[Human Paragon 3]

What about Cone of Cold (level 5). It also deals less damage than Fireball cast out of the same slot. The only difference is that it's cold damage, comes in a cone shape, and creatures killed are "frozen sold" whatever that means in game terms.

[Squiddish]

What about Cone of Cold (level 5). It also deals less damage than Fireball cast out of the same slot. The only difference is that it's cold damage, comes in a cone shape, and creatures killed are "frozen sold" whatever that means in game terms.

Area of effect. 60-foot cone versus 20-foot sphere.
In other words, cone of cold hits an average of two more creatures.
~216 total damage vs ~140 total damage

Also, Cone of Cold deals more, but only because dice behave differently in larger quantities:
Cone of cold: ~36, 8-64
Fireball: ~35, 10-60

[Tetrasodium]

What about Cone of Cold (level 5). It also deals less damage than Fireball cast out of the same slot. The only difference is that it's cold damage, comes in a cone shape, and creatures killed are "frozen sold" whatever that means in game terms.

Someone else commented on the cone vrs burst thing, but you could also more realistically exclude some allies while still getting other targets if you position yourself right, There is also the lots of stuff will resist/ignore fire damage while very little can say the same for cold

[StorytellerHero]

So what?

Okay, ignoring the fact that ice is not produced by a chemical reaction, so what? Just because the effect could happen that way doesn't mean it does happen that way.

If you read the previous posts in the thread, you would know that I was arguing that RAI matters at game tables because the rules don't cover everything, for the relevance of the use of imagination when determining how good a spell can be compared to others. The original poster wasn't asking for any particular campaign with specific restrictions nor did he limit the discussion to RAW, leaving the discussion open to the inclusion of spells' value in home-brew campaigns.




But then someone who uses your logic consistently would have to say "this is not evocation, it's transmutation!"


Yes, and evocation can also create. If it's a chemical reaction (by real-world understanding) then it intrudes on transmutation, if it calls forth energy form an elemental plane it intrudes on conjuration, etc. Anyway, this is mostly irrelevant. You don't get to invent fluff and then claim it's the right fluff, without support. And the real world physics doesn't necessarily enter into it.


The argument is that the spell is not directly causing the [edit: change of state]. It is producing the energy that is instigating the [edit: change of state]. Skipping that step is where transmutation falls.




I'm not sure about this. You said: "Ice is created by a chemical reaction provoked by manipulating energy in the case of Ice Storm." That strikes me as pretty matter-of-fact.


Matter of fact in the real world, being used to support the plausibility of applying the reasoning in the game. That was the context of that statement.





Again, this is not the only explanation of Evocation. PHB p. 117 says evocation magic "...creates powerful elemental effects," which is quite different, so the correct answer needs to consider both.


Creating an effect is the end result. How it gets there is what the school of magic description in the later chapter describes.




It's plausible. That's right. The problem is jumping from "it's plausible" to "it's what happens." It's also plausible that the hailstones are created. I would suggest that this is the better explanation because (1) evocation spells can create, which in this case is direct and more elegant, (2) it doesn't become contingent on other conditions and therefore DM fiat.



All spells create effects. The method of creation is determined by the school of magic. In the case of evocation, the argument is that it creates ice indirectly through manipulation of energy, not a direct conjuration from nowhere or some elemental plane, based on how the description of the school's method is described in the actual text that describes the method.

You've been quoting a section of the text that describes the end result, not the method.




Only according to your arbitrary classifications. One of the reasons your logic doesn't hold is that it is more stringent than the logic provided in the text. As evidence, I point to the school of abjuration. More-or-less every abjuration spell belongs to a different school because abjuration spells are not classified by how they come about. They are classified by their purpose. So if you evoke a wall in order to protect yourself, it should belong to abjuration. Wait, it's a wall of ice, so it must be a conjuration. No wait, the ice didn't come from nowhere! It has to obey the laws of thermodynamics , so it must have been a transmutation. Bringing in real-world science only confuses the matter, because as Einstein showed us, via energy-matter equivalence, matter is more or less just concentrated energy. As a result, adding energy to a suitcase isn't much different than adding a handle to a suitcase, so the line between conjuration and transmutation just becomes more blurred.


The text describing Abjuration does not say that all protection spells are abjurations, only that abjuration itself is protective in nature. Schools are classified by method of magic not by purpose of magic. Although as I've mentioned before, there is going to be some overlapping, each school has a primary method by which it produces its magical effect. Abjuration is typically used as a catch-all for the manipulation of magic's foundation, the fabric of magic, etc. which usually produces but is not limited to protective effects.




I've been down this road before, and I even once (for a very short time) tried to come up with a more stringent system of magic, loosely based on the 2e Player's Option: Spells and Magic, where every spell could be classified by method, source, and philosophy, and these were not exclusive. It would be cool, but it would take a lot of work, and the end it wouldn't matter. The spells are more-or-less arbitrarily assigned, and don't follow the logic you are proposing.

In the end, whether we like it or not, we're forced to concede that the school of evocation produces effects that come about either as conjurations or transmutations, mostly (but not exclusively) of energy, and getting any more specific than that will lead to inconsistencies. Suggesting that one explanation is superior to another only works if it takes all of this into consideration.

My arguments were not for proving superiority of one explanation over another. The purpose was to prove the relevance of including the use of spells in creative ways not written in the spell's description when determining whether the level of one spell is justified when compared to another. Not necessarily of great relevance, but not something to be ignored either.

This was stressed in a prior comment on this thread. It was why I'd brought up ice being made from ambient moisture in the first place.

It is a fact that this is at least one of the ways that use of the spell can be explained. It is plausible because it takes into account the actual fluff description of the evocation school's method and marries it with scientific principles of the real world. And yes it IS a fantasy world that this reasoning is being applied to, however DnD is at least a partial simulation (in its own abstract fashion) of the real world, in order to preserve a level of immersion in the game play.

[War_lord]

...Except if you read the Elemental Evil players companion, it's very consistent. Conjuration lets you create Fire, Water, Wind and Earth. Transmutation lets you manipulate Fire, Water, Wind and Earth. Evocations imitate Fire, Water, Wind and Earth.

Ice Storm isn't a Conjuration spell, and it isn't a Transmutation spell, therefore it isn't summoning or forming actual ice.

[Dalebert]

In other words, you're house-ruling the spell to do something it doesn't say it does. Because ... science? It makes "sense" to you? Not exactly clear why.

I feel like most of the arguing over his interpretation would not be happening if he'd just prefaced it with "At my table, I would say that...". It's just that he presented his interpretations as if they are standard benefits of Ice Storm which is just not correct. I feel like his reasoning is fine and if a PC suggested to me that his Ice Storm might do some of those things, I'd probably say "sure", but it's definitely not a given.


As it is magical damage, the bluedoning passes through most of the creatures defences (except someone tells me, that this damage is not magical of course :P).

Who's telling you that? They're mistaken. It's direct dmg from a spell so of course it's magical bludgeoning. I think they may be getting direct dmg from a spell confused with indirect dmg from something like Animate Objects or Telekinesis. If the spell is moving around non-magical things and hitting people with them, and the objects being moved aren't magical, the dmg isn't magical. If the spell directly causes dmg or creates something that does dmg, it's magical dmg, e.g. Ice Storm, Spikestones, Mordenkainen's Sword, etc.

[Tanarii]

I feel like most of the arguing over his interpretation would not be happening if he'd just prefaced it with "At my table, I would say that...". It's just that he presented his interpretations as if they are standard benefits of Ice Storm which is just not correct. I feel like his reasoning is fine and if a PC suggested to me that his Ice Storm might do some of those things, I'd probably say "sure", but it's definitely not a given.Yeah, starting it off with "I would rule that" is definitely the way to go, in any interpretation discussion. However, that's often skipped in favor of "this is the correct ruling".

As such, calling it house-ruling on my part is necessarily antagonistic. I'm well aware that many DMs and players prefer to run magic as a kind of science, with rules that you can extrapolate a model from, and then use to predict other non-described effects not explicitly included in the spell. And that others even want them to work as an extension of actual science. As opposed to a cast spell, get exactly what's described, no more, no less.

Edit: Or, as pwykersotz put it ...

Uh oh...someone get a hose, the simulationists and the gamists are at it again! :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[NNescio]

Fireball is level 3, Ice Storm is level 4, but Fireball deals more damage.

The increased range and one turn of difficult terrain don't make that much of an impact, IMO, and cold and bludgeoning damage aren't that much better than fire damage. Why is Ice Storm 4th level?

Ice Storm sucks because the spell has always sucked in past editions of DnD. Cold damage was (and still is) a premium, I guess.

Ice Storm does have a better niche in 5e though, since Druids don't really get a lot of non-concentration blast options. They also have range issues on a lot of their spells, with some of them even requiring centering on ground in order to be cast (like Erupting Earth), limiting their options to hit aerial targets.


Ice Storm: first it deals two different types of damage. As it is magical damage, the bluedoning passes through most of the creatures defences (except someone tells me, that this damage is not magical of course :P). Second: cold resistance is a lot more uncommon, especially most features that have this resistance are also in a very certain environment, which you don't encounter that much. Over all the spell deals 24 damage on lv 4, which is nice, but not great. What does make it nice though is the difficult terrain effect. Preventing casters from being attacked from enemies because they can't reach you, or slowing down your enemies so you land the first melee attack. slowing them down while running away. Or keep them in a dangerous environment, prevent them from spreading so your sorcerer may cast a fireball on them. slowing enemies down is GREAT! Also, the spell allows for limited air control, as it leaps up into the air, 40 feet high is an area where most flying combatants may wait to come down again, attack and retreat again. Keeping this in mind gives ice storm a great utility tool, enabling great combos, when you can use it with team work. :)

You want battlefield control, cast Sleet Storm instead. One level lower too. Also murders Beholders if you forgot to prep Darkness or Fog Cloud.

Or a simple Entangle, if you're a Druid.

Ice Storm does jack for air control, unless by "air control" you mean AoE damage to aerial targets, in which case Fireball and Call Lightning are better options. Or Sleet Storm! Flying creatures without hover are knocked out of the sky if they fail the save and fall prone.


You really need to look at all the differences instead of some of them. Try not to think of spell design mainly in terms of damage.


3. Difficult terrain. If your enemies can't teleport or fly, this can make a huge difference in area control and facilitation of escape. If you're dealing with fire-based creatures, they might hesitate to step anywhere near an ice-covered field.

Ice Storm only creates difficult terrain on the ground. Remember, it is an instantaneous spell, the hailstones don't continue falling. Also, again, if you want area control, use Sleet Storm instead. It also scares away fire-based creatures more effectively, as unambiguously causes "freezing rain and sleet" to fall, which will definitely deal damage to Fire Elementals.




6. Avoidance of collateral damage. A fireball can be much more risky to use in the wrong places compared to Ice Storm.

Cast Hypnotic Pattern or some other BFC then.




7. Putting out fires. You can put out fires with Ice Storm because it's water ice.

Sleet Storm. Also Sleet Storm does it by RAW, instead of jumping through a few hoops. Ruling Ice Storm puts out fire that way is like ruling that any fire spell can set fires even if the spell doesn't have a specific provision for it (which is all fine and dandy for a DM to do, but this is less reliable for the player, as it has to be done on a case by case basis).[/QUOTE]


Since it's evocation, and not conjuration, then it has to manipulate the ambient moisture in the environment, which is usually water. This means that the ice is water, and it melts. Since it's not a summoned material, it stays as water after casting.

Being water, the spell's effect will help put out fires. Not all fires, but at the very least weaker flames that are spread out.

You can argue RAW versus RAI but ultimately this is a roleplaying game with a certain amount of leeway for imaginative use of spells.

The spell can be used for water and putting out fires because it makes sense that it can by reasonable determination.

The rules text doesn't cover everything. This is one of those spells that has uses outside of what is mentioned.

Your 'RAI' differs from mine and others. For me, drawing from past editions, Evocation spells would not create any water. As for the "ambient moisture" theory, there's simply not enough moisture in that area to form that many hailstones.

Creating (or summoning) something out of nothing is generally Conjuration. Evocation can generally only do so for force effects, as it chiefly deals with the direct manipulation of energy.

Different DMs rule differently, making this spell less reliable then others if you want to rely on its "non-RAW" use.

Also some DMs are bad at science, despite trying to shoehorn science in and killing some catgirls in the process. Interaction between electricity and water or metallic objects is a frequent mistake. Vacuum of space too, for that matter. Which brings us to the next point...



Real world physics can support the explanation I've given.

Those powerful elemental effects can all be produced by manipulation of energy to provoke chemical reactions. Cold and ice are not the same thing. Ice is created by a chemical reaction provoked by manipulating energy in the case of Ice Storm. The ice itself is not directly produced.

The same could be said for burning acid. By gathering already existing particulate matter, you can cause chemical reactions to produce burning acid. Also, there are a number of spells that overlap schools of magic. Evocation happens to focus more on energy manipulation the most of the different classifications.

In case you're getting the wrong idea, I never said that my explanation is the only explanation, after all I did say that this is from an application of imagination, from RAI. These ideas just so happen to be based on real world science, and the fact that Evocation is primarily described as the manipulation of energy under "Schools of Magic" (PHB chapter 10, p. 203).

I can say that it's plausible to declare that Ice Storm gathers ambient moisture to produce ice because it is from the school of evocation, which specializes in energy manipulation. Ice being matter rather than energy, would be in this case indirectly created rather than conjured; if it were created directly, then that would make the spell arguably more of a conjuration school spell than an evocation school spell.


Your argument is invalid. Freezing is not a chemical reaction.


If you read the previous posts in the thread, you would know that I was arguing that RAI matters at game tables because the rules don't cover everything, for the relevance of the use of imagination when determining how good a spell can be compared to others. The original poster wasn't asking for any particular campaign with specific restrictions nor did he limit the discussion to RAW, leaving the discussion open to the inclusion of spells' value in home-brew campaigns.




The argument is that the spell is not directly causing the chemical reaction. It is producing the energy that is instigating the chemical reaction. Skipping that step is where transmutation falls.

:smallfurious: FREEZING IS NOT A CHEMICAL REACTION. :smallfurious:

*cough* Excuse me for the outburst, but it is a pet peeve of mine when DMs use wonky Physics in campaigns to justify deviations from RAW and real life. Like massive lightning damage spreads in water, instantaneous kabooms in vacuums, and so on. The Coconut Effect is particularly annoying.

[StorytellerHero]

I feel like most of the arguing over his interpretation would not be happening if he'd just prefaced it with "At my table, I would say that...". It's just that he presented his interpretations as if they are standard benefits of Ice Storm which is just not correct. I feel like his reasoning is fine and if a PC suggested to me that his Ice Storm might do some of those things, I'd probably say "sure", but it's definitely not a given.



Yeah, starting it off with "I would rule that" is definitely the way to go, in any interpretation discussion. However, that's often skipped in favor of "this is the correct ruling".



I had thought that post #8 had made it clear enough that I was talking about an imaginative use of spell, not RAW, in terms of the relevance of using a spell outside of what is written when it comes to determining the appropriateness of its level.

I had thought that "imagination" and "home-brew" would have a strong enough association for posters to understand that I wasn't talking about anything official but rather how things could be at a table (in a plausible fashion) considering the nature of the game.

[jaappleton]

Good question. I read somewhere (twitter?) that it was an intentional design, but I wonder what the rationale was. And why those two spells, specifically?

I spoke with Crawford on this ages ago.

Fireball and Lightning Bolt are both 'iconic'. I guess that gets them special treatment. Cone of Cold is also iconic, I just REALLY wish it got a lv3 version. Waiting until 5th level for it really sucks.

[NNescio]

I had thought that post #8 had made it clear enough that I was talking about RAI, not RAW, in terms of the relevance of using a spell outside of what is written when it comes to determining the appropriateness of its level.

I had thought that "imagination" and "home-brew" would have a strong enough association for posters to understand that I wasn't talking about anything official but rather how things could be at a table (in a plausible fashion) considering the nature of the game.

RAI is "rules as intended". You purport to know what the Devs intend with that spell?

(Which is not to say you can't make an RAI argument, but that generally involves using quotes from the Devs or by looking for consistency within the ruleset, and not just "Rules of Physics as I Imagine Them to Be'".)

When you're invoking an RAI argument, you're arguing about how things should be at a table (as intended by the game designers), and not how things could be. It is not "Rules as Interpreted".

[Tanarii]

I had thought that post #8 had made it clear enough that I was talking about RAI, not RAW, in terms of the relevance of using a spell outside of what is written when it comes to determining the appropriateness of its level.

I had thought that "imagination" and "home-brew" would have a strong enough association for posters to understand that I wasn't talking about anything official but rather how things could be at a table (in a plausible fashion) considering the nature of the game.
That was more a reference to me and my position that you and yours.

[StorytellerHero]

Ice Storm only creates difficult terrain on the ground. Remember, it is an instantaneous spell, the hailstones don't continue falling. Also, again, if you want area control, use Sleet Storm instead. It also scares away fire-based creatures more effectively, as unambiguously causes "freezing rain and sleet" to fall, which will definitely deal damage to Fire Elementals.

Cast Hypnotic Pattern or some other BFC then.

Sleet Storm. Also Sleet Storm does it by RAW, instead of jumping through a few hoops. Ruling Ice Storm puts out fire that way is like ruling that any fire spell can set fires even if the spell doesn't have a specific provision for it (which is all fine and dandy for a DM to do, but this is less reliable for the player, as it has to be done on a case by case basis).


This isn't a thread about the usefulness of Ice Storm in certain situations compared to all other spells. Of course other spells are going to be better at the different things that Ice Storm can be used to a attempt, but that's not what is being argued for this thread.

It's about the overall appropriateness of placing it at 4th level while fireball is at 3rd level. Ice Storm may be less useful in the mentioned cases, but it's the fact that it has all those things over fireball.





Your 'RAI' differs from mine and others. For me, drawing from past editions, Evocation spells would not create any water. As for the "ambient moisture" theory, there's simply not enough moisture in that area to form that many hailstones.


It could be possible that a secondary force generated by the spell breaches into the elemental plane of Water, causing some spillage, which would overlap with conjuration, but keep it within the realm of evocation.

Or WAIT - the spell provokes a partial shift in a local region towards the elemental plane of Water by applying dimensional energy manipulation, temporarily altering the very forces that separate the planes. A temporary merger of the prime material plane and the plane of water in a small area...



Creating (or summoning) something out of nothing is generally Conjuration. Evocation can generally only do so for force effects.

Different DMs rule differently, making this spell less reliable then others if you want to rely on its "non-RAW" use.



I did mention in an earlier post that the RAI use was not necessarily very significant for the main argument of thread. It's just not something to be dismissed altogether.




Your argument is invalid. Freezing is not a chemical reaction.

:smallfurious: FREEZING IS NOT A GODDAMNED CHEMICAL REACTION!!!! :smallfurious:


I apologize. I got heated and used the wrong term. I'll edit the post to say endothermic/exothermic. EDIT: Corrected again. It's simply a change of state. endothermic/exothermic reaction was the wrong term to use.

It's still the manipulation of energy causing water to freeze though regardless of what one wants to call it.

Edit: This is of course, again, one possible but plausible interpretation. Again, stressing that this is a non-RAW statement. (See post #8 if anyone reads this thinking otherwise)

[BurgerBeast]

I apologize. I got heated and used the wrong term. I'll edit the post to say endothermic/exothermic.

Still wrong, sorry. Endothermic and exothermic refer to types of chemical reactions. Freezing is not a chemical reaction. It is a state-change.


It's still the manipulation of energy causing water to freeze though regardless of what one wants to call it.

Yes, what you're talking about is manipulation of energy, that is established. But the effect you are describing can be described in a number of alternate ways that are (more-or-less) equally coherent and plausible, so there's no reason to apply any extra credibility to your explanation. You have not shown it to be better from any perspective, and for me there are other explanations that are clearly better.

[StorytellerHero]

Still wrong, sorry. Endothermic and exothermic refer to types of chemical reactions. Freezing is not a chemical reaction. It is a state-change.


The endothermic/exothermic reaction is what is causing the state-change. You're just nitpicking at this point.

EDIT: I was wrong about the term usage. I admit defeat about that. I know better now. Thank you.




Yes, what you're talking about is manipulation of energy, that is established. But the effect you are describing can be described in a number of alternate ways that are (more-or-less) equally coherent and plausible, so there's no reason to apply any extra credibility to your explanation. You have not shown it to be better from any perspective, and for me there are other explanations that are clearly better.

The point was never to offer the "best" explanation. The point was to offer "at least one" plausible explanation.

[War_lord]

You're trying to offer a scientific explanation, for magic. Ice Storm doesn't produce or modify water. There are attacks that explicitly produce water as part of an attack in EE, they're conjuration, there are attacks that specifically work by bending existing water, they're transmutation. Ice Storm is an evocation, it does neither.

[StorytellerHero]

RAI is "rules as intended". You purport to know what the Devs intend with that spell?

(Which is not to say you can't make an RAI argument, but that generally involves using quotes from the Devs or by looking for consistency within the ruleset, and not just "Rules of Physics as I Imagine Them to Be'".)

When you're invoking an RAI argument, you're arguing about how things should be at a table (as intended by the game designers), and not how things could be. It is not "Rules as Interpreted".

Thank you. I corrected my statements. I didn't mean rules as intended.

I'm talking about the potential imaginative use of spells being a factor (not necessarily a large factor, just not one that can be ignored) in judging the level appropriateness of a spell, not the intended use.

[BurgerBeast]

The endothermic/exothermic reaction is what is causing the state-change. You're just nitpicking at this point.

I'm sorry, but I'm not. A change in temperature caused the state change. There's no reason to assume that a temperature change is the result of a chemical reaction.

A chemical reaction involves a change in chemical structure of molecules. If, when those molecules recombine, they give off energy or lose energy, then you have an exo- or endothermic reaction (respectively).

If water changes state, there is no chemical reaction at all. The molecules are not changing (they are still H2O). When something gets cold, that is not (necessarily) an endothermic reaction. That's just something getting cold.

[RickAllison]

I would point out that while I think Ice Storm has more to it than attacking with an essence of hail, that it still wouldn't help much with extinguishing a fire. Rain and Sleet Storm work because they cut off the supply of oxygen to the fire, and then wet any remaining fuel. Ice Storm drops hail which will melt, true, but the melt will also be evaporated without inundating the dry fuel. Even with magi-science, Ice Storm would not work to take out a fire. Cone of Cold could, I think, as I imagine it would be robbing the targeted area of thermal energy.

[Bladeyeoman]

Rain and Sleet Storm work because they cut off the supply of oxygen to the fire, and then wet any remaining fuel. Ice Storm drops hail which will melt, true, but the melt will also be evaporated without inundating the dry fuel. Even with magi-science, Ice Storm would not work to take out a fire. Cone of Cold could, I think, as I imagine it would be robbing the targeted area of thermal energy.

So, definitely not trying to weigh in on magic vs scientific magic, but curious about the actual science. Why is hail sumblimating when it lands on fire? And I would think melting and evaporating (or just sublimating) ice would be a very effective way of robbing an area of thermal energy. But then, I thought the main value of water as a fire retardent was from absorbing energy in the phase change to vapor, rather than blocking airflow.

I may need to read up on fire fighting.

[RickAllison]

So, definitely not trying to weigh in on magic vs scientific magic, but curious about the actual science. Why is hail sumblimating when it lands on fire? And I would think melting and evaporating (or just sublimating) ice would be a very effective way of robbing an area of thermal energy. But then, I thought the main value of water as a fire retardent was from absorbing energy in the phase change to vapor, rather than blocking airflow.

I may need to read up on fire fighting.

Generally, there are two ways to fight a fire. The most direct way is to extinguish it, cutting it off from oxygen and thus quelling the blaze without further burning. This is what Sleet Storm does as the liquid covers the fire by a sustained downpour. Ice Storm just plinks down and doesn't extinguish anything. It is no better than pebbles blowing in on some wind.

The other way is to cut off the fire from fuel. Sustained hail is good at this, actually, as the slower distribution leaves less flowing to the ground. But we don't have that here, just a single burst of hail and nothing more. Not to mention that such solutions don't actually end a fire, they just prevent them from growing.

[StorytellerHero]

I'm sorry, but I'm not. A change in temperature caused the state change. There's no reason to assume that a temperature change is the result of a chemical reaction.

A chemical reaction involves a change in chemical structure of molecules. If, when those molecules recombine, they give off energy or lose energy, then you have an exo- or endothermic reaction (respectively).

If water changes state, there is no chemical reaction at all. The molecules are not changing (they are still H2O). When something gets cold, that is not (necessarily) an endothermic reaction. That's just something getting cold.

Fine. Fine.

I'll correct my posts.

The point was that evocation was making water into ice according to a possible interpretation, although after further discussion in another thread about the differences between schools of magic, I've made some realizations about the differences between evocation, transmutation, and conjuration.

I believe that I was wrong about some things, right about others, and I've adopted a new perspective after reflecting on the discussions.

If we focus on where each method begins, we might be able to separate the schools as follows.

Energy --> Matter or Energy = Evocation


Matter --> Transported or Constructed Objects/Creatures = Conjuration


Matter --> Transformed Objects/Creatures = Transmutation


In this way, Evocation is still the manipulation of energy, but can be energy (that started as energy) converted to matter through manipulation.

The material for conjuration and transmutation could be matter that started as matter to begin with (not necessarily as whole objects, but at the very least particles of matter).

[BurgerBeast]

If you're into this stuff, I recommend the 2e Complete Wizard's Handbook and Player's Option: Spells and Magic. They do a good job of concisely explaining each school, the subsets of spells within each, and why they are categorized how they are.

In particular the PO:S&M shows how you can classify in other ways. It gives some cool insights, and opens up some cool doors for how to explain magic and build magical classes.

[StorytellerHero]

If you're into this stuff, I recommend the 2e Complete Wizard's Handbook and Player's Option: Spells and Magic. They do a good job of concisely explaining each school, the subsets of spells within each, and why they are categorized how they are.

In particular the PO:S&M shows how you can classify in other ways. It gives some cool insights, and opens up some cool doors for how to explain magic and build magical classes.

Thank you so much for the recommendations.

I've actually been trying to research what I can for a large magic/magic lore book project that I'm working on for DMsGuild. This thread discussion has really helped me figure out some things I'll need to include or revise for the book's fluff.

[JackPhoenix]

Fun facts:
Meteor Swarm is evocation spell that creates meteors (as in, chunks of rock falling from the sky) that cause bludgeoning and fire damage
Melf's Acid Arrow is evocation spell that creates acid (as in, actual acid) that persist for some time and continues damaging the target. That is a chemical reaction, nothing to do with energy.
Melf's Minute Meteors is evocation spell that, once again, creates meteors, though this ones are way smaller and weaker. No bludgeoning damage this time, though.
Wall of Sand, Wall of Water, Wall of Stone and Wall of Ice are all evocation spells that create wall of matter (as in, actual sand, water, stone or ice, respectively) for the duration. In case of Wall of Stone, the resulting stone may become permanent and non-magical if concentrated on long enough.

Your arguments how evocation magic is supposed to work or what it can or can't do is invalid.

[Cybren]

Fun facts:
Meteor Swarm is evocation spell that creates meteors (as in, chunks of rock falling from the sky) that cause bludgeoning and fire damage
Melf's Acid Arrow is evocation spell that creates acid (as in, actual acid) that persist for some time and continues damaging the target. That is a chemical reaction, nothing to do with energy.
Melf's Minute Meteors is evocation spell that, once again, creates meteors, though this ones are way smaller and weaker. No bludgeoning damage this time, though.
Wall of Sand, Wall of Water, Wall of Stone and Wall of Ice are all evocation spells that create wall of matter (as in, actual sand, water, stone or ice, respectively) for the duration. In case of Wall of Stone, the resulting stone may become permanent and non-magical if concentrated on long enough.

Your arguments how evocation magic is supposed to work or what it can or can't do is invalid.
I bolded a bit that I think you misspoke in.

[MeeposFire]

Fun facts:
Meteor Swarm is evocation spell that creates meteors (as in, chunks of rock falling from the sky) that cause bludgeoning and fire damage
Melf's Acid Arrow is evocation spell that creates acid (as in, actual acid) that persist for some time and continues damaging the target. That is a chemical reaction, nothing to do with energy.
Melf's Minute Meteors is evocation spell that, once again, creates meteors, though this ones are way smaller and weaker. No bludgeoning damage this time, though.
Wall of Sand, Wall of Water, Wall of Stone and Wall of Ice are all evocation spells that create wall of matter (as in, actual sand, water, stone or ice, respectively) for the duration. In case of Wall of Stone, the resulting stone may become permanent and non-magical if concentrated on long enough.

Your arguments how evocation magic is supposed to work or what it can or can't do is invalid.

Part of the problem I think is that some are suing rationalizations from before when many of these spells were not evocations but conjurations. Many people do not have new rationalizations yet for the spells now that they are evocations.

[War_lord]

Meteor Swarm is evocation spell that creates meteors (as in, chunks of rock falling from the sky) that cause bludgeoning and fire damage.
Melf's Acid Arrow is evocation spell that creates acid (as in, actual acid) that persist for some time and continues damaging the target. That is a chemical reaction, nothing to do with energy.
Melf's Minute Meteors is evocation spell that, once again, creates meteors, though this ones are way smaller and weaker. No bludgeoning damage this time, though.
Wall of Sand, Wall of Water, Wall of Stone and Wall of Ice are all evocation spells that create wall of matter (as in, actual sand, water, stone or ice, respectively) for the duration. In case of Wall of Stone, the resulting stone may become permanent and non-magical if concentrated on long enough.

Your arguments how evocation magic is supposed to work or what it can or can't do is invalid.

No, it creates a magical effect that evokes (Definition: bring or recall (a feeling, memory, or image) to the conscious mind.) those concepts.

Definition of Evocation:


noun
noun: evocation; plural noun: evocations

1.
the act of bringing or recalling a feeling, memory, or image to the conscious mind.
"the vivid evocation of stillness in the title poem"
an account or work of art that brings or recalls a feeling, memory, or image to the conscious mind.
"his 560-page epic is a detailed, moving evocation of childhood"
the action of eliciting a response.
"the mutual evocation of responses through body language"
2.
the action of invoking a spirit or deity.
"the evocation of wandering spirits"

Now, compare the description of the Conjuration spell "Tidal wave":


You conjure up a wave of water that crashes down on an area within range. The area can be up to 30 feet long, up to 10 feet wide, and up to 10 feet tall. Each creature in that area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failure, a creature takes 4d8 bludgeoning damage and is knocked prone. On a success, a creature takes half as much damage and isn’t knocked prone. The water then spreads out across the ground in all directions, extinguishing unprotected flames in its area and within 30 feet of it.

To that of the Evocation spell "Wall of Water":


You conjure up a wall of water on the ground at a point you can see within range. You can make the wall up to 30 feet long, 10 feet high, and 1 foot thick, or you can make a ringed wall up to 20 feet in diameter, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick. The wall vanishes when the spell ends. The wall’s space is difficult terrain. Any ranged weapon attack that enters the wall’s space has disadvantage on the attack roll, and fire damage is halved if the fire effect passes through the wall to reach its target. Spells that deal cold damage that pass through the wall cause the area of the wall they pass through to freeze solid (at least a 5-foot square section is frozen). Each 5-foot-square frozen section has AC 5 and 15 hit points. Reducing a frozen section to 0 hit points destroys it. When a section is destroyed, the wall’s water doesn’t fill it.

Note that Wall of Water, unlike Tidal Wave doesn't actually produce any physical water effects from the spell ending. It's a "Wall of Water", rather then a wall made of water.

[NNescio]

Note that Wall of Water, unlike Tidal Wave doesn't actually produce any physical water effects from the spell ending. It's a "Wall of Water", rather then a wall made of water.

Ah, Tidal Wave, one of favorite spells as a Conjurer, because of the flooding effects. Also can act as antiair in a pinch, 'though not as good as Sleet Storm.

It also instakills Fire Elementals. Moon Druids beware. (not that they have any reason to not pick Air or Earth Elemental anyway, but this pretty much puts a kibosh to using Fire Elemental forms even in the few rare cases where it would be useful, unless you are sure there aren't any casters around.)

[JackPhoenix]

I bolded a bit that I think you misspoke in.

All right, nothing to do with energy as D&D uses the term, as opposed to real life where pretty much everything has something do with energy.


Definition of Evocation:

Has nothing to do with how evocation is defined in the game


Note that Wall of Water, unlike Tidal Wave doesn't actually produce any physical water effects from the spell ending. It's a "Wall of Water", rather then a wall made of water.

What

Note that Wall of Water specifically says that the water vanishes when the spell ends, just like conjured creatures vanish when the summoning spell ends. To make the line even more blurry: Sleet Storm is conjuration while Ice Storm is evocation, Call Lightning is conjuration compared to Lightning Bolt evocation, Produce Flame is conjuration and Firebolt is evocation (though Wall of Fire would likely be a better comparison, as it has a duration unlike instant Firebolt), Acid Splash is also conjuration and Melf's Acid Arrow was already mentioned as evocation.

[War_lord]

There's no blurred lines, all the EE water Conjuration spells specifically have some variation on when the spell ends "The water then spreads out across the ground in all directions, extinguishing unprotected flames in its area and within 30 feet of it." So it's actual water that persists after being Conjured and can actually put out flames. Ice storm has no such line, meaning that it can't put out fires (which is the claim that started this massive argument.)

[Asmotherion]

Consider these:
-Hailstorm does 2d6 magical bludgeoning damage, a damage type that nothing is imune to and most things might have only resistance to.
-Fireball deals Fire type damage, the type with the most resistances and imunities.
-Dificult terain has a huge impact if you are focusing your character as a controler. Especially a 20 foot radius sphere meaning 40 feet of dificult terain.

[Beelzebubba]

To me, the fact that Sleet Storm specifically mentions the extra non-damaging effects like quenching fires means Ice Storm shouldn't have them.

If you add it here, then there's all sorts of other spells that can be argued to have those extra knock-on effects, and it becomes power creep to where the spells specifically created to have those effects - because of how useful those effects are - are made obsolete.

[Tanarii]

Note that Wall of Water specifically says that the water vanishes when the spell ends, just like conjured creatures vanish when the summoning spell ends. To make the line even more blurry: Sleet Storm is conjuration while Ice Storm is evocation, Call Lightning is conjuration compared to Lightning Bolt evocation, Produce Flame is conjuration and Firebolt is evocation (though Wall of Fire would likely be a better comparison, as it has a duration unlike instant Firebolt), Acid Splash is also conjuration and Melf's Acid Arrow was already mentioned as evocation.
What's interesting is all except the last case are examples of instantaneous burst of energy (evocation) vs creation of something that sticks around and produces an energy-related effect (conjuration). But, as you point out, the walls are evocation and acid splash / melfs is back to front on that.