Opposition Schools

[zinycor]

So, me and my friends started to notice that most of the time whenever someone plays a wizard they pick many of the same spells, regrdless of how different the characters may be, now, my group got started on AD&D and on that whenever a wizard picked a school to be a specialist on, you also had 2 schools of magic, opposed to the one you picked, and were banned to casting spells fro those schools.

We are cosidering bringing that mechanic back. What do you think about it?

[Honest Tiefling]

If it got dropped, it probably got dropped for a reason. Now, that reason could very well be that it's a whole lot cheaper to print fewer good spells if no one has banned schools.

But if certain utility spells get locked behind opposition schools, such as mage armor, invisibility, or even see invisibility, your survival went way down. The game wasn't really designed for wizards to lose access to 2 different schools, so I would imagine that it would affect the class greatly since they can no longer pull off their sillier shenanigans from previous editions.

It might also cause just a worse problem, where everyone bans the same darn schools and picks the same spells anyway.

Have you checked out what Pathfinder did instead, where you could learn the spells, but they used twice the spell slots? So if you really needed to, you could use the spell but it came at a cost.

[Droodicus]

If I was going to do anything I'd set opposing schools that cost double the gold and time to learn. Reverse the school benefit. Slightly more effort but not crippling

[Aett_Thorn]

If I was going to do anything I'd set opposing schools that cost double the gold and time to learn. Reverse the school benefit. Slightly more effort but not crippling

Either this, or maybe make it so that spells from those opposition schools can’t be learned on level up, but can be learned if found.

[Brookshw]

So, me and my friends started to notice that most of the time whenever someone plays a wizard they pick many of the same spells, regrdless of how different the characters may be, now, my group got started on AD&D and on that whenever a wizard picked a school to be a specialist on, you also had 2 schools of magic, opposed to the one you picked, and were banned to casting spells fro those schools.

We are cosidering bringing that mechanic back. What do you think about it?

Having spent copious amounts of time in 2e I have no problem with this, though the design philosophy is very different now. Specifically, character abilities/races/feats/etc, are largely additive rather than substitutive (i.e., now you just get the +2 to dex without having the -2 con tradeoff). I can guarantee that the 2e philosophy won't be everyone's cup of tea.

Though, honestly, wizards can take the hit and still be perfectly strong and playable as a specialist.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm somewhat in favor, though I'd also say that a lot can be done with spell availability... while chosen spells can't be controlled nearly as much, stop making the favorite spells quite so available.

[sophontteks]

There are two things that could happen here.

1. Players pick more uncommon spells to build around their school.
2. Players don't pick the schools that lack access to the best spells.

I think the later is going to be the case. It will have a huge impact on the archtype balance. Any school without access to abjuration, for example, probably won't see any play. Playing a wizard with no survival spells is going to be very rough.

[Spriteless]

2e also had the non-specialist mage, whose special ability was to cast all the spells, though fewer per day. And a 'minor divination school' with detect magic and the spells that you would need to hunt down spells in ruins, because spells and spellcasters were so rare that it would be the easiest way to increase your spellbook. Also, I believe Wish was universal, because it's a trap.

So, just a few things to keep in mind for what changes you make.

[Waazraath]

So, me and my friends started to notice that most of the time whenever someone plays a wizard they pick many of the same spells, regrdless of how different the characters may be, now, my group got started on AD&D and on that whenever a wizard picked a school to be a specialist on, you also had 2 schools of magic, opposed to the one you picked, and were banned to casting spells fro those schools.

We are cosidering bringing that mechanic back. What do you think about it?

I think it's a very good idea, and it's one of the few things that dissapoints me a bit in this edition. I'd personally would have liked it to see followed through even more strictly. For example by allowing wizards to take the spells known they gain from levelling only from their own school, to have a few opposing schools from which they cannot learn any spells, and maybe have a secondary specialization - and only have spells of 5,6, and 7th level from primary and secondary specialization, and 8 an 9th level spells only from their primary specialization.

However: the game is balanced against 'know all spells', so: if you want to introduce it, it stands to reason to give wizards something else in return.

[Tanarii]

Personally I find many players focus fairly heavily on their school's spells when picking their level up spells, which means that wizards from the same specialization tend to look similar, but not different school wizards.

Otoh if Scrolls were more commonly available I can see where a Wizard might just pick the 'best' spells, relying on their cheaper scribing to get school spells.

Of course, not all players care about matching spells to school. Sometimes they're just in it for the independent-from-spells features, and the 'best' spells. I find that's far more common in official play, which attracts a large number of online-presence folks who focus on optimization & builds.

[Nagog]

If it got dropped, it probably got dropped for a reason. Now, that reason could very well be that it's a whole lot cheaper to print fewer good spells if no one has banned schools.

But if certain utility spells get locked behind opposition schools, such as mage armor, invisibility, or even see invisibility, your survival went way down. The game wasn't really designed for wizards to lose access to 2 different schools, so I would imagine that it would affect the class greatly since they can no longer pull off their sillier shenanigans from previous editions.

It might also cause just a worse problem, where everyone bans the same darn schools and picks the same spells anyway.

Have you checked out what Pathfinder did instead, where you could learn the spells, but they used twice the spell slots? So if you really needed to, you could use the spell but it came at a cost.

Having played a Pathfinder Wizard and DMed quite a few of them as well, this idea is not as great as it sounds, to the point that when I jumped to 5e, that was a major point for me to never go back.
Wizards are different from Sorcerers because they have a slightly larger spell list, and they're more versatile with the spells they can pick up and cast when needed (prepared lists vs. locked in spell lists). Banning an entire school of magic or increasing the cost of casting with it leads to some, less immediately useful spell (particularly Necromancy and Divination) never being used, and any school that had Evocation as an opposition school was seen as a terrible school because you have to sacrifice so much more to cast signature spells such as Fireball and Lightening Bolt. 5e has a wonderful system in place with the Schools of Wizardry giving the wizard bonuses that involve the focus of their school of choice that arent accessible elsewhere, rather than ultimately hindering other spells. Choosing a school to focus in is a buff, rather than a handicap, as it was in Pathfinder. Hence why 90% of the wizards I ever heard about in Pathfinder were the Universalist school.

[LibraryOgre]

So, something I wanted to play with for 2e wizards and their opposition schools was not an outright ban, but something stolen from Shaman... namely, make opposition school spells one level higher. Still castable... but maybe not worth it. (The converse was to also make specialty school spells one level lower).

So, if your opposition school was Alteration, you could still learn Enlarge... but it would be a 2nd level spell. Fireball is 4th level if you're Evocation-opposed. In 5e, you'd set the floor differently, and have upcasting be different (so, if you had fireball as a 4th level spell, it would only be upcast if you used a 5th+ slot)

[Dalebert]

However: the game is balanced against 'know all spells', so: if you want to introduce it, it stands to reason to give wizards something else in return.

This, for sure.

Honestly though, I don't think this idea was ever balanced. They didn't didn't plan the spells out with this in mind and some specialisations were vastly superior in terms of their versatility, e.g. conjuration and transmutation. Of course previous editions didn't really care about balance. This edition also didn't attempt to balance the spells in different schools.

[Keravath]

I think the issue is that the selection of spells from each school has never been balanced and never will be balanced.

Some schools have more spells, some have better spells, and some more useful spells. The result is that when spells from "opposition" schools get excluded as choices that there are certain schools that become literally the "best" choice unless you have a role play reason for nerfing your character.

As mentioned, the schools that would exclude evocation significantly reduce the direct damage options of the wizard. Yes, you can play without those spells and build a perfectly fine character but it makes the wizard significantly weaker.

Similarly, the schools that exclude abjuration spells also make the wizard significantly weaker - no shield, absorb elements, dispel magic or counterspell - which can be almost essential at times.

There is a reason why many wizard characters in previous editions were not specialists and even when they were specialists, there were usually a limited number of schools that were considered worthwhile.

Personally, I like the 5e approach of making the spells of your school more useful to you through the use of class features rather than making the spells of opposing schools impossible to cast or more challenging to use.

[Honest Tiefling]

Some schools have more spells, some have better spells, and some more useful spells. The result is that when spells from "opposition" schools get excluded as choices that there are certain schools that become literally the "best" choice unless you have a role play reason for nerfing your character.

I think another problem is that the Wizard is like Batman, and the Sorcerer is like Flash. Flash is always going to try to use his superspeed to solve the problem, because when the world looks like a nail and you only have one hammer, well...You're going to use super speed. Batman on the other hand has a lot of gadgets and with sufficient resources will make one just for the job.

Some spells for the wizard are going to be super niche, because how they handle rituals. They are the master of having the right tool for the right job in a pinch instead of trying to find ways to make their one spell do everything, which is more of a warlock or sorcerer thing.

So you're not going to need gentle repose very often, but when you need it...Yeah, your friendly wizard has your back.

[Tanarii]

so you're not going to need gentle repose very often, but when you need it...Yeah, your friendly wizard has your back.I dont think I've ever seen a Wizard take Gentle Repose. You only get 2 spells / class level, or about 4 per spell level. That limits how toolbox flexible they really can be.

[RedMage125]

I had an idea a while back, more of a thought exercise, and I posted it as it's own thread a few months back. It had to do with assigning the schools to the 4 elements. 4 schools were single-element, the other four were dual-element.

Here's the main body of the post:

So...I have this idea I was tossing around in my head for a story, and it involves magic being tied to the classic 4 elements. And I wanted to classify the 8 schools as being considered "air/water/fire/earth magic", in terms of how the characters' talents lie. So, I've decided to post this, because I like to share my ideas, and if anyone likes this, they're welcome to cherry pick or steal wholesale.

First, the list, and then I'll give my reasoning:

Divination: Air
Transmutation: Water
Evocation: Fire
Abjuration: Earth
Enchantment: Air/Water
Illusion: Air/Fire
Conjuration: Earth/Fire
Necromancy: Earth/Water

Air Magic: Air is often times (with Astrology, Tarot, etc) associated with the mind, mental faculties and the like. Air Signs, for example, tend to be "in their head", and be more prone to cold logic over emotional responses. Divination is thus purely Air, as it reveals/provides knowledge and insight, generally without creating anything of substance.

Water Magic: Water is change. Pure and simple. Going again with Astrological signs, Water Signs tend towards emotion, which can-at times-be very volatile and subject to swift change. Transmutation, in this regard, is the quintessential school of magic for change. Water is also often associated with Life, which will be addressed further below.

Fire Magic: This one should be obvious. Fire is the element most easily associated with "energy". In Astrology, Fire Signs are enthusiastic, passionate, and creative. Evocation is the creation and manipulation of raw energy, be it fire, electricity, etc.

Earth Magic: This one was honestly the hardest of the elements to codify. Where I went with this is that Earth represents stability, solidity, and to a small extent, protection. In Astrology, Earth Signs are solid, dependable, and practical. Abjuration is the school where one finds a great deal of protection spells, wards, and the removal of other magical effects, such as dispelling magic or antimagic fields.

Air/Water: The combination of Air and Water leaves us with things that change or alter the mind. Thus, Enchantment fits in nicely.

Air/Fire: Air and Fire combined give us things that are made of created energy, but lack substance. So Illusion is perfect.

Earth/Fire: Conversely, to use energy to create things that DO have substance, thus blending Fire and Earth, we have Conjuration.

Earth/Water: Now, we are left with Necromancy. Why is it Earth and Water? Necromancy involves changes to something's life. As mentioned above, Water is often associated with Life, and manipulation of the life energies of a creature (i.e. Necromancy)* is therefore a blend of Earth and Water.

*It should be noted, that for this to work, healing magic needs to be reclassified as Necromancy, like it used to be in older editions.

Like I said, this was created more for a story, to be used narratively. The character with a penchant for Air magic has a talent for Divination, Enchantment and Illusion, but his Abjuration, Conjuration, and Necromancy spells are not as strong, and he has moderate or average strength in Evocation and Transmutation. The story in question is not for a "D&D world", and does not have Vancian Magic or Prohibited Schools, but since I was using the D&D codified Schools of magic, I thought the Playground might enjoy and maybe get something out of it.

I don't know if anyone would find this helpful, or useful as a story element or roleplaying tool, but I wanted to share it anyway.

I welcome any comments/criticisms/questions. And like I said in the beginning, if anyone would like to adopt or cherry-pick from this, I welcome it. Plagiarism is, after all, the Sincerest Form of Flattery.

Basically, I would consider Air and Earth opposed, and Water opposed to Fire. So, corresponding specialists for the dual-element schools as well. Basically, an Illusionist (Air/Fire) would have Necromancy (Water/Earth) as an opposed school. A Transmuter (Water) would have Evocation (Fire) as an opposed school, and so on.

[DeadMech]

Pretty sure I went out of my way in 3.5 to play a generalist wizard and even now that's something I aim for. Magic in DnD is a real thing. It's a studied thing. Like geology or chemistry or biology are in reality. Someone might not go out of their way to learn things outside their field simply because there is only so much time in a day but they also wouldn't outright reject or refuse to learn something from another field if it were helpful.

[Cikomyr]

Taking away something from the player goes against the ideology behind 5e's ruleset.

You will notice that there isn't much, if any, customization option that will *remove* something from a players' plate.

All races only give stat bonuses, no maluses
No subclass takes away a class feature, only adds on top of them
No one is every handicaped by multiclassing (in 3.5, even if you were a fighter/wizard, you couldn't wear plate armor unless you mitigated the spell % failure )

Taking away a spellcasting school would go against that philosophy

[No brains]

Doesn't this sort of go against the Snobluff axiom of making things more of a pain in the ass for the sake of balance?

The ideal would be to make subclass abilities and schools mesh in a way that's fun for each pick.

Also the DM does have the ability to railroad in some spells through treasure drops. Maybe Melf's Minute Meteors is more fun than fireball. Here, why don't you find out?

[Malbrack]

In AD&D, mage (intelligence-based) was the premier spellcaster. In 5e charisma spellcasters fill a lot of games to the point that I wouldn't want to nerf wizards for fear they would disappear. There would need to be a pretty big benefit to the trade-off of eliminating certain schools of magic for wizards.

[Waazraath]

Taking away something from the player goes against the ideology behind 5e's ruleset.

You will notice that there isn't much, if any, customization option that will *remove* something from a players' plate.

All races only give stat bonuses, no maluses
No subclass takes away a class feature, only adds on top of them
No one is every handicaped by multiclassing (in 3.5, even if you were a fighter/wizard, you couldn't wear plate armor unless you mitigated the spell % failure )

Taking away a spellcasting school would go against that philosophy

Isn't that just a question of words? "As a wizard, you can choose one school in which you specialize, and five secondary schools." Done, you don't take away anything, but give a player six choices. So it could have been done, I guess, but it's too late for that now. Maybe in 6e (may it take decades before it shows up).

[Cikomyr]

Isn't that just a question of words? "As a wizard, you can choose one school in which you specialize, and five secondary schools." Done, you don't take away anything, but give a player six choices. So it could have been done, I guess, but it's too late for that now. Maybe in 6e (may it take decades before it shows up).

Well, it would mean the base wizard class would have access to *no* schools by default, and they get their magic ability only when they pick their subclass?

All non specialist subclass automatically get access to all schools?

I think it's a bit clumsy. I get the point behind the flavor of specialization and opposite schools and whatnot. It's not a bad thematic, and might make wizzy less of a top-tier class. It's just that I kind of really like the philosophy behind 5e designs.

I mean, think about it. Even Life Cleric get access to the Harm spell nowadays. No one ever feel they aren't getting their base class's money's worth.

[Sigreid]

I never thought school specialization was a good idea and when it was a thing always went generalist.

[Waazraath]

Well, it would mean the base wizard class would have access to *no* schools by default, and they get their magic ability only when they pick their subclass?

All non specialist subclass automatically get access to all schools?

I think it's a bit clumsy. I get the point behind the flavor of specialization and opposite schools and whatnot. It's not a bad thematic, and might make wizzy less of a top-tier class. It's just that I kind of really like the philosophy behind 5e designs.

I mean, think about it. Even Life Cleric get access to the Harm spell nowadays. No one ever feel they aren't getting their base class's money's worth.

Good points. I really like the thematics though; I don't really see the point of distiniguishing a necromancer from an enchanter when in play, they often use 90% of the same spells. While in literature, movies, games, and whatnot, these different types of wizard are really different types, cast different spells, use different abilities.

As for Clerics: in my experience its a good example on how subclasses can be more meaningful. In my experience, the War cleric really plays different from other types, at least in the early levels (walks in the fray and hits people), where tempest clerics cast shatter, booming blade (when available), call lightning, and thunder wave, and heal clerics heal more efficiently (and therefore, more often choose to spend their action on a healing spell). But ymmv of course.

[Cikomyr]

Good points. I really like the thematics though; I don't really see the point of distiniguishing a necromancer from an enchanter when in play, they often use 90% of the same spells. While in literature, movies, games, and whatnot, these different types of wizard are really different types, cast different spells, use different abilities.

As for Clerics: in my experience its a good example on how subclasses can be more meaningful. In my experience, the War cleric really plays different from other types, at least in the early levels (walks in the fray and hits people), where tempest clerics cast shatter, booming blade (when available), call lightning, and thunder wave, and heal clerics heal more efficiently (and therefore, more often choose to spend their action on a healing spell). But ymmv of course.

I get your point, but I think the specialization features are pretty dope. I love the Diviner and the Necromancer's special feature, and kind think they make up for lack of spell specificity.

But to each their own, eh?

[Zobo]

There's also the possibility of not being so digital.

Instead of forbidding some schools, you could:
(pick one or more)

Spells of that school are cast with -1 caster level. (half caster level?)
Spells of that school have the save dc lowered by 1. (or more)
Spells of that school have their duration, range and area reduced to half.
Spells of that school have the transcription time and cost doubled. And cannot be picked at level-up.
Spells of that school need 2 slots to cast (or 2 slots to cast at full strength, ignoring the other negatives shown above.)

Individual spells might also get some effect related reductions, like mage armor that gives less ac.

I'm not personally going to use these, but if you feel like it, go for it!

Z.

Edit: incorporating Tanarii's suggestion

[Tanarii]

Spells of that school have the transcription time and cost doubled.
Combine with spells of that school can't be picked when leveling up.

Of course, if your DM is using the treasure tables that might be effective forbidding the schools. Scrolls finds are fairly low. And if they randomly determine spells on scrolls ...

[Dr. Cliché]

I can understand wizards specialising but the idea of not being able to learn magic from certain, other schools if they did always seemed odd to me. If anything, it seems like something that should be a self-inflicted roleplaying restriction (e.g. a wizard who refuses to learn Necromancy or Enchantment as he believes they're unethical), rather than an actual class mechanic.

If anything, I'd expect this to be a mechanical restriction for more innate casters. e.g. a sorcerer might not be able to cast certain schools or elements of spell if they're antithetical to his bloodline. I could see a Divine Soul sorcerer being unable to cast Necromancy spells or a fire-based dragon-sorcerer being unable to manifest Cold spells.

(Not saying this is necessary, just that it would make a lot more sense to be than the restrictions on wizards.)

[xroads]

I say since your group is interested in the idea, just give it a shot. See what happens. Necessity is the mother of invention. So you guys may come up with some fun new builds.

I recommend making it part of the campaign setting and not a system mechanics. For example, maybe in your world Merlin's School of Conjuration does not teach evocation and necromancy. But nothing stops a student from pursuing her own studies in evocation later on.

That way you can test the "ban" out. And if you guys find you don't like it, then the wizard can conveniently learn any spell she wants without worrying about game balance or mechanics.

[Zobo]

Combine with spells of that school can't be picked when leveling up.

Of course, if your DM is using the treasure tables that might be effective forbidding the schools. Scrolls finds are fairly low. And if they randomly determine spells on scrolls ...

Good point. I'll edit this in the previoust post.