Is there a guide for how to select spells in 3.5?

[jmax]

There are tons of handbooks for how to optimize specific classes, and there are lots of threads debating which spells are the best, but does anyone know of a guide or handbook for simply how to choose a good list of spells? It's something I'm fairly good at, but lots of players aren't. The closest I've seen is (I think) a passing comment in Treantmonk's Wizard handbook.

I've been toying with the idea of writing such a guide, but before I go through the trouble, I want to make sure it doesn't exist already.

[Zanos]

Treantmonks wizard guide linked to handbooks on every spell school, some of which he wrote. I'm not sure if they're still up at the original, but a quick search shows a mirror on these forums (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?569912-Treantmonk-s-Guide-to-Wizard-Spells-(as-seen-on-BGO-restored-by-Uvexar)).

I don't generally use them because they're outdated and I disagree with a lot of the spell choices. For example, he recommends dawnburst as a solid pick, which I would generally disagree with because it's a 10ft burst that reveals invisible creatures, which while situationally useful, the situation is not very common. Or bloodwind, which while a good buff spell, only functions at all in certain parties, and therefore is also not a good generic pick. He gives seeking ray his highest possible recommendation, but the spell is very mediocre if you aren't spamming rays on the same target every turn. He also recommends you drop Necromancy and Enchantment as a specialist, something I wholeheartedly disagree with because those schools are some of the biggest force multipliers in the game, with some of the cheesiest spells in the game.

So even if such guides already exist it's probably worth writing one anyway since it will come from a different and more modern perspective.

[pabelfly]

If you're doing this handbook, I'd suggest a section on the best ways to add otherwise exclusive spells from other lists. I've got a pretty thorough handbook in my signature on all sorts of ways to add spells but I've made no value distinction for the quality of spells gained or how good various fears and PrCs are that add spells, domains, etc

[Gruftzwerg]

So even if such guides already exist it's probably worth writing one anyway since it will come from a different and more modern perspective.

I totally agree on this. I really like most 3.5 handbooks, but you should always take em with care. Some are really outdated and not all information/suggestions has been "checked by the hivemind called internet" (and are thus very questionable) (as seen in Zanos arguments).
So it never hurts if you can bring in some new point of view on the topic "spell selection" (which means: lil or no copy pasting from other handbooks^^).

Finally, if you are really up to hard work, there are Dragon Magazine spells that are barely in any list.
So if you really wanna go nuts on this, there is enough work waiting for you..^^

[jmax]

I think I didn't explain myself very well. Treantmonk includes lots of evaluations of individual spells, but he doesn't actually explain how to pick a solid overall list of what spells to learn or prepare to be able to handle a broad variety of circumstances. It would be entirely possible to pick a list consisting exclusively of spells Treantmonk (or anyone else) rates as Awesome and still have a terrible spell list for functional purposes - for example by having all battlefield control spells that do nothing against any foe with Freedom of Movement. He touches on this a little by talking about the various spellcasting roles, but that still doesn't help you pick a well-rounded list capable of handling a broad variety of situations in a broad variety of parties. His examples are tactical rather than strategic.

I'm thinking more along the lines of evaluating what challenges might present themselves on a regular basis and picking a coherent list of solid spells that, taken together, create a broad menu of options to handle almost any situation.

For example, one might group enemies into clusters based on their offensive and defensive properties and determine that one should always have the following:


A strong debuff or battlefield control spell that works well against targets with good Fort saves
A strong debuff or battlefield control spell that works well against targets with good Will saves
A spell that reliably impedes enemies with high spell resistance
A means of rearranging party members on the battlefield for strong tactical advantage
A buff that makes the Big Stupid Fighter nigh-unstoppable
A means of actually finishing off enemies in case the BSF and glass cannon are both down
A way to escape if everything goes to hell


A strong spell list provides all of those and more. For spontaneous casters, every spell has to fill a vital role and there has to be minimal redundancy - they don't have enough spells known to suffer any dead weight. For prepared casters, there's a lot more flexibility, but even if you think you know what you're going to face in a given day, you need to be prepared for surprises and should always have a few staples up your sleeve. It's not enough to pick all good spells - you have to pick spells that work well together to make you effective overall.

Not only that, but what constitutes a strong spell list changes from low levels to high levels and from game to game. I'm not looking for a list of what spells to take but rather a teaching tool for making them all fit together.

[Rleonardh]

A strong debuff or battlefield control spell that works well against targets with good Fort saves
A strong debuff or battlefield control spell that works well against targets with good Will saves
A spell that reliably impedes enemies with high spell resistance
A means of rearranging party members on the battlefield for strong tactical advantage
A buff that makes the Big Stupid Fighter nigh-unstoppable
A means of actually finishing off enemies in case the BSF and glass cannon are both down
A way to escape if everything goes to hell



Go with this though the eyes of a sorcerer, picking top 5 spells also when to trade in spells for others.
Example: sleep for x spell at level x

This way the wizard and other arcane users can have a core list than add in additional spells when need arise.

I would definitely look for a divine also list.
Druid and cleric.

Matter of fact looking at 5th level spells is where I'm usually saying not to many impressive ones and look towards the internet for help.

[Troacctid]

Play a warmage. Then you have all the spells and you don't need to worry about it. That's my philosophy.

[Max Caysey]

There are tons of handbooks for how to optimize specific classes, and there are lots of threads debating which spells are the best, but does anyone know of a guide or handbook for simply how to choose a good list of spells? It's something I'm fairly good at, but lots of players aren't. The closest I've seen is (I think) a passing comment in Treantmonk's Wizard handbook.

I've been toying with the idea of writing such a guide, but before I go through the trouble, I want to make sure it doesn't exist already.

Search for: Being Batman!

[Troacctid]

Okay, serious answer, you need to have a main combat strategy, and, as a prepared caster, you need to dedicate enough spell slots to be able to execute that strategy multiple times a day. I would say plan for at least 3 combats lasting 3 rounds each, on average. Ideally you'll have the ability to cast your main combat spells spontaneously—that's a big deal, because it makes you so much more flexible. It also helps a lot to have a good wand or staff or other similar magic item to fall back on.

You might also have some secondary combat spells. Things that are intended to be used in combat, but maybe won't be good in every combat because they're more situational, and will only be used against certain types of encounters. These spells typically don't need to be prepared multiple times; just once is probably okay.

In addition to your main combat strategy, you may want some pre-buffs, which should be long-duration effects, usually lasting at least, like, half an hour, minimum. Mainly 10 min/level and hour/level spells. Most of the time, I would expect to prepare these spells only once, unless you need multiple castings to cast them on multiple people. If you have too many of these effects, you'll be vulnerable to dispels, so consider implementing basic anti-dispel countermeasures if you can afford to do so. But if you have too few of these effects, you're going to miss out on the action economy they can provide. Having a buff effect that's just already on and active without needing to spend an action—that can be a big advantage.

For utility spells, often you can save on slots by getting the spell in a scroll, since you won't need the spell every day, and you won't care about the caster level or save DC. There's also some consideration for leaving a couple slots empty to fill with utility spells on the fly.

Finally, after preparing your spells, you should always make sure you've covered the three D's: Damage, Dispelling, and Dimension Door. These are the three most versatile categories of spells that an adventuring mage can prepare. Damage effects (including direct damage spells as well as effects like polymorph that just turn you into a beatstick) are a reliably useful way to contribute to almost every combat encounter, even if your usual strategy fails. Dispel effects are vital for defeating magical traps and obstacles and breaking down the defenses of buffed-up enemies. Dimension door (and similar teleportation effects) will offer you cheat codes to get past obstacles and allow you to escape from almost any situation. As long as you have a supply of all of the three D's, you'll never be unable to contribute. 😎👍

[Akal Saris]

I don't think there is a dedicated guide to the topic. Most guides are written by expert players, and sometimes that leads to a blind spot about what is actually useful to new players, so you end up with a review of every possible race and feat under the sun, but little to no guidance at the end how it all fits together. The Cleric handbook is one of the worst offenders here, with no information at all about what its recommended spells do or why they are good.

Personally, in addition to a mix of capabilities, I try to organize my spellcasters around action economy. Standard actions are easy to come by, but I try to make sure that the spell list helps the character to use swift action for something every round, even if it's a minor boost, and (if possible) there are some immediate action spells prepared as well.

Some spells which are excellent for filling out the swift action in the low-to-mid level slots include:
Bard: Inspirational Boost
Cleric: Close Wounds, Necrotic Skull Bomb
Druid: Entangling Staff, Lion's Charge, Nature's Favor
Gish (melee/ranger characters using Sor/wiz spells): Critical Strike, Guided Shot, Wraithstrike
Paladin: Rhino's Rush, Knight's Move
Ranger: Arrowsplit, Hunter's Eye, Guided Shot, Nature's Favor
Sor/Wiz: Nerveskitter, Distract Assailant, Assay Spell Resistance, Instant Search, Necrotic Skull Bomb

[jmax]

Search for: Being Batman!

Logic Ninja's guide is definitely the best of the bunch in terms of setting you up with a whole list - for one thing, he actually gives you a list. But it still doesn't tell you how to pick which of those spells to prepare/learn, and it's only in the context of wizards.


Go with this though the eyes of a sorcerer, picking top 5 spells also when to trade in spells for others.
Example: sleep for x spell at level x

This way the wizard and other arcane users can have a core list than add in additional spells when need arise.

I would definitely look for a divine also list.
Druid and cleric.


Sorcerer is a great example, and I expect a sorcerer's overall spell list to look a lot like a wizard's core spell list every day. I would also be including, as a practical measure, guidance on how prepared casters should compile lists for different sorts of adventuring days to use as their go-tos so they don't have to grind the game to a halt deciding what to prepare on the fly. Just because preparing spells takes an hour in-game doesn't mean it should take an hour out-of-game :-P


Okay, serious answer, you need to have a main combat strategy, and, as a prepared caster, you need to dedicate enough spell slots to be able to execute that strategy multiple times a day. I would say plan for at least 3 combats lasting 3 rounds each, on average. Ideally you'll have the ability to cast your main combat spells spontaneously—that's a big deal, because it makes you so much more flexible. It also helps a lot to have a good wand or staff or other similar magic item to fall back on.

You might also have some secondary combat spells. Things that are intended to be used in combat, but maybe won't be good in every combat because they're more situational, and will only be used against certain types of encounters. These spells typically don't need to be prepared multiple times; just once is probably okay.

In addition to your main combat strategy, you may want some pre-buffs, which should be long-duration effects, usually lasting at least, like, half an hour, minimum. Mainly 10 min/level and hour/level spells. Most of the time, I would expect to prepare these spells only once, unless you need multiple castings to cast them on multiple people. If you have too many of these effects, you'll be vulnerable to dispels, so consider implementing basic anti-dispel countermeasures if you can afford to do so. But if you have too few of these effects, you're going to miss out on the action economy they can provide. Having a buff effect that's just already on and active without needing to spend an action—that can be a big advantage.

For utility spells, often you can save on slots by getting the spell in a scroll, since you won't need the spell every day, and you won't care about the caster level or save DC. There's also some consideration for leaving a couple slots empty to fill with utility spells on the fly.

Finally, after preparing your spells, you should always make sure you've covered the three D's: Damage, Dispelling, and Dimension Door. These are the three most versatile categories of spells that an adventuring mage can prepare. Damage effects (including direct damage spells as well as effects like polymorph that just turn you into a beatstick) are a reliably useful way to contribute to almost every combat encounter, even if your usual strategy fails. Dispel effects are vital for defeating magical traps and obstacles and breaking down the defenses of buffed-up enemies. Dimension door (and similar teleportation effects) will offer you cheat codes to get past obstacles and allow you to escape from almost any situation. As long as you have a supply of all of the three D's, you'll never be unable to contribute. 😎👍

Right general idea. I do like the Three Ds.


I don't think there is a dedicated guide to the topic. Most guides are written by expert players, and sometimes that leads to a blind spot about what is actually useful to new players, so you end up with a review of every possible race and feat under the sun, but little to no guidance at the end how it all fits together. The Cleric handbook is one of the worst offenders here, with no information at all about what its recommended spells do or why they are good.


That's exactly the problem I'm trying to fix.



Personally, in addition to a mix of capabilities, I try to organize my spellcasters around action economy. Standard actions are easy to come by, but I try to make sure that the spell list helps the character to use swift action for something every round, even if it's a minor boost, and (if possible) there are some immediate action spells prepared as well.

Some spells which are excellent for filling out the swift action in the low-to-mid level slots include:
Bard: Inspirational Boost
Cleric: Close Wounds, Necrotic Skull Bomb
Druid: Entangling Staff, Lion's Charge, Nature's Favor
Gish (melee/ranger characters using Sor/wiz spells): Critical Strike, Guided Shot, Wraithstrike
Paladin: Rhino's Rush, Knight's Move
Ranger: Arrowsplit, Hunter's Eye, Guided Shot, Nature's Favor
Sor/Wiz: Nerveskitter, Distract Assailant, Assay Spell Resistance, Instant Search, Necrotic Skull Bomb

I do like the action economy point, since it allows getting off more of your spells every day. I'll probably put in a section for that.


I think the consensus at this point is that no such guide exists. There's a smattering of handbooks with a little bit of good advice in them, but nothing anywhere close to comprehensive, and the focus tends to be on individual classes.

As a starting point, I've put together a rough outline of what I'd probably write.

Spellcasting 101
-What Spellcasting Is and Isn’t
-Spellcasting Systems
--Vancian Magic (Spell Slots)
--Energy/Mana (Power Points)
-Types of Spellcasters
--Prepared (full access)
--Prepared (pay-to-play)
--Spontaneous
--Hybrid
-Anatomy of a Spell
-“Types” of Spells
--Attacks
--Boosts
--Buffs
--Control
--Debuffs
--Healing
--Intelligence
--Summoning
--Utility
-Defenses Against Spells
--Saving Throws
--Armor Class
--Spell Resistance
--Immunities
-Making Your Spells Stick

Party Roles
-Roles in Combat
--Beat-Stick/Tank
--Glass Cannon
--Support
--God/Batman
-Roles outside Combat
--Social/Face
--Sneak
--Healer
--God/Batman
-Spellcasting Roles
--Primary Caster
--Battlefield Control
--Debuffing
--Buffing
--Gambling
--Grinding
-Support Caster
--Buffing
--Debuffing
--Intelligence
-Gish

Gameplay at Different Levels

Finding Your Niche

Choosing Spells
-Do I want this spell? Do I need this spell? Will I use this spell?
-Action Economy
-Scenario-Based Spell Planning
-Building a Potent Spell List
-Keeping Things Moving

[Anthrowhale]

Go for it.

[RexDart]

There are tons of handbooks for how to optimize specific classes, and there are lots of threads debating which spells are the best, but does anyone know of a guide or handbook for simply how to choose a good list of spells? It's something I'm fairly good at, but lots of players aren't. The closest I've seen is (I think) a passing comment in Treantmonk's Wizard handbook.

I've been toying with the idea of writing such a guide, but before I go through the trouble, I want to make sure it doesn't exist already.

Solo's Sorcerer Guide (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=487.0) has some good advice on this. While (naturally) tailored for sorcerers, many of the principles are more widely applicable (even a Wizard can't have all the spells, every day.)

[jmax]

Solo's Sorcerer Guide (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=487.0) has some good advice on this. While (naturally) tailored for sorcerers, many of the principles are more widely applicable (even a Wizard can't have all the spells, every day.)

Thanks for the link. There's a little bit in there on how to choose spells (Appendix C), but it's light on details, especially for determining what makes a spell worth choosing. Definitely up there with LogicNinja on being the best available yet though.

[RandomPeasant]

In a well-built party, your primary arcane spellcaster should not be dedicating significant numbers of spell slots to direct damage. Battlefield control is substantially more effective, and killing controlled enemies is better accomplished by a buffed-up divine caster or long-term minions. This list (https://dungeons.fandom.com/wiki/Spells_that_Fvcking_Kill_People_(3.5e_Other)) is a pretty good place to pull offensive spells from, and you'll notice that very few of them do direct damage (and some of the ones that do, like power word pain, don't really belong on the list IMO).


He also recommends you drop Necromancy and Enchantment as a specialist, something I wholeheartedly disagree with because those schools are some of the biggest force multipliers in the game, with some of the cheesiest spells in the game.

I only disagree with those picks insofar as your first banned school should always be Evocation. It is true that Necromancy and Enchantment have some powerful tools, but they're not really uniquely powerful. You can get your save-or-dies elsewhere, and planar binding is going to be fine for minionmancy (if it's not, the game you're playing in is at an extreme of power that general advice probably won't apply to). It is, interestingly, also true that those schools have enough good stuff in them to justify specializing, though you should probably be a Dread Necromancer or Beguiler instead if that's what you're looking to do. The only real hard advice I would give for specializing (beyond "ditch Evocation first") is that you need a school that gives you good 1st level offensive spells (roughly Illusion, Enchantment, and Conjuration), and that you probably shouldn't ban all the minionmancy schools. Beyond that you can really ban whatever, though if you ditch Abjuration you should make sure your party has a Cleric.


Sorcerer is a great example, and I expect a sorcerer's overall spell list to look a lot like a wizard's core spell list every day.

In some ways, but not in others. The biggest direct effect of prepared (rather than Sorcerer-style spontaneous) spellcasting is that it is far easier to make effective use of utility spells. By the time a Sorcerer gets one 4th level spell, which he will probably need to use for a direct offensive spell, a Wizard can have that spell plus dimension door, animate dead, and scrying. By the time a Sorcerer has that broad an assortment of 4th level spells, the Wizard is casting 7th level spells. The other issue is that the extremely limited number of spell swaps the Sorcerer gets make it very difficult for them to evolve their low-level spell selection from primary offense to support and utility. color spray and sleep are incredible spells to cast at 1st level, but they're not great even at 6th level. A Wizard can simply prepare different spells (and a Beguiler simply cast different ones), but a Sorcerer will only learn two new 1st level spells (and swap an existing one) after getting 2nd level spells.

[Troacctid]

In a well-built party, your primary arcane spellcaster should not be dedicating significant numbers of spell slots to direct damage. Battlefield control is substantially more effective, and killing controlled enemies is better accomplished by a buffed-up divine caster or long-term minions. This list (https://dungeons.fandom.com/wiki/Spells_that_Fvcking_Kill_People_(3.5e_Other)) is a pretty good place to pull offensive spells from, and you'll notice that very few of them do direct damage (and some of the ones that do, like power word pain, don't really belong on the list IMO).
This is a common misconception. Direct damage effects are generally more versatile and reliable than battlefield control effects, largely because they stack with the damage everyone else is dealing, but also because they're less likely to simply be ignored by an enemy who passes the save or has a free movement effect or a teleport effect etc. BFC also tends to be weak in single-enemy fights where dividing and conquering is off the table.

[RandomPeasant]

Direct damage spells have basically zero versatility. Your fireball can deal fire damage or it can... deal fire damage. Your major image can no-save eliminate mindless enemies, take actions off regular enemies, avoid combats entirely, and has non-combat utility. It is true that they reliably deal damage, but they are far less reliable in dealing relevant amounts of damage. 1d6/level doesn't do a whole lot in terms of killing people. If you need to deal damage, you cast animate dead the day before. If you really feel the need to cast spells in combat to deal damage, you cast haste. fireball's niche is that it has long enough range that you can throw it at people you are not meaningfully "in combat" with. But casting blasting spells in a battle is a suckers bet unless you stack metamagic to the high heavens, and even then you're left asking why the Ubercharger's at-will damage isn't better than you.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It's not exactly difficult.
- Look at what a spell does when it succeeds:
Stinking Cloud means (possibly several) of your enemies can't attack you for several rounds. It's guaranteed to block LoS and provide concealment.
Magic Missile means one enemy takes a small amount of damage

- Look at what a spell does when it fails:
Stinking Cloud blocks sight as Fog Cloud and forces everyone in it to save again every round for 1 round/level. Magic Missile does nothing.

- Look at how likely the spell is to fail:
Stinking Cloud is an area effect with SR:no that targets fortitude. Some creatures (notably undead and constructs) are immune to being nauseated. Blindsight and similar senses can see through the fog.
A lot of enemies have decent fort saves, but just as many don't. If you wizard learn what type has which saves as good saves, there's no way around that. Knowledge checks can help too.

Magic Missile is an autohitting force effect that allows SR but has no save. Few enemies are immune to force, but many higher level enemies have SR.

- Draw your conclusion:
Stinking Cloud is very reliable on a large subset of enemies. It has a powerful effect when it succeeds and a still useful effect when it fails, with a repeating chance for success over a duration. That sounds pretty good.
Magic Missile is extremely reliable on a large subset of enemies. It has a minor effect when it succeeds, no effect when it fails and only happens once. Considering that your spell slots are limited that doesn't sound very impressive.


This is a common misconception. Direct damage effects are generally more versatile and reliable than battlefield control effects, largely because they stack with the damage everyone else is dealing, but also because they're less likely to simply be ignored by an enemy who passes the save or has a free movement effect or a teleport effect etc. BFC also tends to be weak in single-enemy fights where dividing and conquering is off the table.

It's overblown, but it's not wrong.
Unless we're talking about some serious optimization blasting is mostly reliable in NOT affecting the enemy, because hp damage only matters once it kills. Which the base spells are rather bad at.
Unoptimized blasting means blowing most of your daily slots just to kill a CR-appropriate enemy. And almost every monster has some resistance against something.

Even if you want to do hp damage minions do it better for less spell slots. A lot of the good BFC effects also either don't allow a save or still have an effect even if the enemy succeeds.

Not that you can't play an effective blaster if you want to, but unlike BFC it actually requires some optimization to do well.
For BFC you just need to pick the right handful of core spells and you're already covered for most fights the game will throw at you.

[Zanos]

This is a common misconception. Direct damage effects are generally more versatile and reliable than battlefield control effects, largely because they stack with the damage everyone else is dealing, but also because they're less likely to simply be ignored by an enemy who passes the save or has a free movement effect or a teleport effect etc. BFC also tends to be weak in single-enemy fights where dividing and conquering is off the table.
It depends on the types of encounters your DM runs. Direct damage spells are pretty bad if your DM favors small numbers of high CR enemies. But if your DM often has encounters with hordes of weaker enemies, stuff like fireball suddenly becomes very good. I've seen casters toss one into a blob and get 5 or more kills.

I do think the vast majority of single target direct damage spells are bad, though.


I only disagree with those picks insofar as your first banned school should always be Evocation. It is true that Necromancy and Enchantment have some powerful tools, but they're not really uniquely powerful. You can get your save-or-dies elsewhere, and planar binding is going to be fine for minionmancy (if it's not, the game you're playing in is at an extreme of power that general advice probably won't apply to). It is, interestingly, also true that those schools have enough good stuff in them to justify specializing, though you should probably be a Dread Necromancer or Beguiler instead if that's what you're looking to do. The only real hard advice I would give for specializing (beyond "ditch Evocation first") is that you need a school that gives you good 1st level offensive spells (roughly Illusion, Enchantment, and Conjuration), and that you probably shouldn't ban all the minionmancy schools. Beyond that you can really ban whatever, though if you ditch Abjuration you should make sure your party has a Cleric.
Necromancy is underrated. Animate Dead provides a cheap pool of renewable and disposable minions that will never betray you. Skeletons and Zombies are not bad at all if intelligently chosen, whether from reanimated outsiders, or giants, or trolls, or ogres. Really, anything with lots of RHD and a big str score is fine. I could probably fill a book with the number of traps I've sprung and ambushes I've foiled by just blocking hallways with zombie ogres. Command Undead turns any encounter with a mindless undead creature into a new minion, no save. Magic Jar is one of the most broken spells in the game, allowing the caster to completely replace all of his physical stats with any body he can find or make, while also preventing him from dying while he is killed, while also providing a save or die attack that you can use once per round. And all that for 1hr/level. The various fear spells are area of effect, smart-targeting save or lose effects, although it can be annoying to chase down your victims. The necromancy debuff rays generally have no saves and can cripple a targets ability to fight. At high levels, clone provides contingent resurrection, and astral projection is even more not ever dying and also widely agreed to be broken. Extract gift can be used to setup a massive telepathic network for free. There are more, but I'd actually have to open one of my wizards spell lists and remember why I picked the spells.

As for enchantment, I agree it's replaceable, but it's not at no loss. Charm and Dominate are the basic tools, and are fairly hard to replicate. You can eventually get cyst spells if you want to burn a feat, or use voice of the dragon for a suggestion, but no other spell school is as good from 1-20 at making NPCs do what you want, which is very powerful. Remember, you can dominate person on a guy and just force him to truthfully tell you everything he knows. With enchantment, every (humanoid) enemy is another potential minion with class levels, complete with a free telepathic bond. It's going to be DM dependent how common these are, but the idea that Leadership is busted, but completely unlimited Leadership from a single 5th level spell is a school you can lose without any pain is just crazy to me.

Even Evocation has stuff that's very hard to replace, but for that one, it's mostly force spells and contingency.

Really, just play an Elven generalist. The extra slot per level per day isn't worth losing two schools.

[Troacctid]

Direct damage spells have basically zero versatility. Your fireball can deal fire damage or it can... deal fire damage. Your major image can no-save eliminate mindless enemies, take actions off regular enemies, avoid combats entirely, and has non-combat utility.
Almost every enemy in the Monster Manual dies to damage, with very few exceptions. And the argument that major image is more versatile than polymorph sounds highly dubious to me, personally.


1d6/level doesn't do a whole lot in terms of killing people. If you need to deal damage, you cast animate dead the day before. If you really feel the need to cast spells in combat to deal damage, you cast haste. fireball's niche is that it has long enough range that you can throw it at people you are not meaningfully "in combat" with. But casting blasting spells in a battle is a suckers bet unless you stack metamagic to the high heavens, and even then you're left asking why the Ubercharger's at-will damage isn't better than you.
Damage effects stack with each other and with the damage dealt by every other party member. If other people can do damage too, that just makes damage spells even better. In the case of fireball, it's actually a great complement to a charger, because the charger excels at bringing down single targets while the fireball excels at bringing down groups, so you cover each other's weaknesses.


It's not exactly difficult.
- Look at what a spell does when it succeeds:
Stinking Cloud means (possibly several) of your enemies can't attack you for several rounds. It's guaranteed to block LoS and provide concealment.
Magic Missile means one enemy takes a small amount of damage

- Look at what a spell does when it fails:
Stinking Cloud blocks sight as Fog Cloud and forces everyone in it to save again every round for 1 round/level. Magic Missile does nothing.

- Look at how likely the spell is to fail:
Stinking Cloud is an area effect with SR:no that targets fortitude. Some creatures (notably undead and constructs) are immune to being nauseated. Blindsight and similar senses can see through the fog.
A lot of enemies have decent fort saves, but just as many don't. If you wizard learn what type has which saves as good saves, there's no way around that. Knowledge checks can help too.

Magic Missile is an autohitting force effect that allows SR but has no save. Few enemies are immune to force, but many higher level enemies have SR.

- Draw your conclusion:
Stinking Cloud is very reliable on a large subset of enemies. It has a powerful effect when it succeeds and a still useful effect when it fails, with a repeating chance for success over a duration. That sounds pretty good.
Magic Missile is extremely reliable on a large subset of enemies. It has a minor effect when it succeeds, no effect when it fails and only happens once. Considering that your spell slots are limited that doesn't sound very impressive.
Stinking cloud is actually really miserable when it fails, since the enemies can walk out of the cloud and be no worse for wear. And there are huge swaths of potential encounters where it's basically worthless, either because of flat immunities or because the enemy just has good Fortitude and doesn't care much about fog (e.g. most melee beatsticks). And in a lot of the encounters that it does solve, a basic fireball could have done just as well, since low Fort happens to be correlated with low max HP, and low max HP is strongly correlated with dying to damage. That's why stinking cloud falls under the situational combat spell category and not the primary combat spell category. I will, however, concede that the 3rd level spell is more powerful overall than the 1st level spell.


It's overblown, but it's not wrong.
Unless we're talking about some serious optimization blasting is mostly reliable in NOT affecting the enemy, because hp damage only matters once it kills. Which the base spells are rather bad at.
Unoptimized blasting means blowing most of your daily slots just to kill a CR-appropriate enemy. And almost every monster has some resistance against something.

Even if you want to do hp damage minions do it better for less spell slots. A lot of the good BFC effects also either don't allow a save or still have an effect even if the enemy succeeds.
Minion spells are a type of damage spell. What's the difference between summon nature's ally and spiritual weapon? Not that much, when you get down to it. As is often the case, the damage-over-time effect is more slot-efficient than comparable burst damage effects, but slower at actually killing enemies. The same is true for other damage spells such as polymorph and flame sands, or damaging reserve feats such as Fiery Burst and Acidic Splatter. Some damage spells are good at dealing damage quickly, some are good at dealing damage cheaply, some are good against groups, some are good against single targets, some are good at disrupting the enemies they damage, some are high-risk and high-reward, some have utility beyond dealing damage. There's a lot of spells in this game. Pick the ones that are right for you. Just don't get stuck without any way of dealing damage at all.


Really, just play an Elven generalist. The extra slot per level per day isn't worth losing two schools.
Elven generalist is just a worse version of a domain wizard IMO.

[RandomPeasant]

Blasting also scales quite poorly because of HP bloat. It's true that throwing a fireball at a pack of gnolls as a 5th level character is extremely lethal without any additional investment, even on a successful save. But if you scale that up to cone of cold on a comparable number of trolls at 9th level, you don't get kills even if you roll all 6s. Conversely, BFC and SoD spells still kill people who fail their saves regardless of whether you've sunk a bunch of feats or additional spells into making them go.

There are times when you will cast blasting spells. I would probably learn fireball at some point as a Wizard. I could quite easily see picking up some blasting as a backup for my Beguiler or Dread Necromancer. But like in-combat summoning, it is not a reliable strategy unless you invest in it significantly, and I'm not confident that investment holds up to comparably optimized casters with other specialties (especially in cases where your party cooperatively optimizes their builds).


Necromancy is underrated. Animate Dead provides a cheap pool of renewable and disposable minions that will never betray you. Skeletons and Zombies are not bad at all if intelligently chosen, whether from reanimated outsiders, or giants, or trolls, or ogres.

But that "intelligently chosen" is the issue, isn't it? It's true that animate dead carries no betray risk. But it carries considerable "everything you fight is classed NPCs that turn into 1-HD skeletons" risk. You also have the issue that Clerics and Dread Necromancers are significantly better at your game than you are, which can make a Necromancy-focused Wizard a suboptimal division of labor. It's not a huge problem if you have a free flow of corpses as all the skeletons stack, but if you're working with a limited supply, you'd way rather the guy who makes objectively better skeletons make them into skeletons.


Magic Jar is one of the most broken spells in the game, allowing the caster to completely replace all of his physical stats with any body he can find or make, while also preventing him from dying while he is killed, while also providing a save or die attack that you can use once per round. And all that for 1hr/level.

Sure, magic jar is very abusable. Totally true. But it's not like you're at a loss for very abusable spells if you happen to ban Necromancy. I promise you can make your DM cry as much as you want with planar binding if you feel the need. Is it better to have access to both? Sure. But the percentage of games where it's in any sense necessary is pretty tiny. The best schools to ban are probably Evocation and Abjuration, but it's not some crippling mistake to ban Necromancy instead.


The various fear spells are area of effect, smart-targeting save or lose effects, although it can be annoying to chase down your victims.

Again, sure. Good offensive spells, absolutely. But you're not at a loss for good offensive spells as a Wizard who banned Necromancy. If you want a 4th level spell that hoses a bunch of dudes, black tentacles is right there for you. I can easily imagine an effective Wizard who never casts cause fear or fear or scare, and whether that's because he simply likes color spray, charm monster, and glitterdust more or just because he can't seems entirely irrelevant to me.


astral projection is even more not ever dying and also widely agreed to be broken.

But again, so are gate and shapechange and ice assassin. It is true that banning schools causes you to lose some number of broken tricks. But you only really need one broken trick if you want to do broken things.


Charm and Dominate are the basic tools, and are fairly hard to replicate.

Depends what you mean. It's true that it's hard to go around Pokemastering things without Enchantment, but you can do just fine with Called minions if you want, or even with letting someone else (like a Cleric or a Druid or a Dread Necromancer or even a Bard) show up with minions and buffing those. My view is that, in the overwhelming majority of games, whatever minionmancy you opt to do will be limited by gentleman's agreement rather than RAW limits, and as such I'm not terribly concerned about putting yourself in the position of needing to hit the limit of that gentleman's agreement with one set of spells rather than another.


Even Evocation has stuff that's very hard to replace, but for that one, it's mostly force spells and contingency.

You can always go Craft Contingent Spell if you really feel the need for contingencies. Plus shadow evocation does a pretty good job of replacing Evocation.


Really, just play an Elven generalist. The extra slot per level per day isn't worth losing two schools.

I think Elven Generalist is the best pick at relatively high levels of optimization. But almost any specialist (bar maybe Evocation and Abjuration) is reasonable in most games, as are Focused Conjurers. Focused Necromancers, Illusionists, and Enchanters are fine power-wise, but generally if you want to do that you'll get to do more of what you want as a Dread Necromancer or Beguiler.


Almost every enemy in the Monster Manual dies to damage, with very few exceptions. And the argument that major image is more versatile than polymorph sounds highly dubious to me, personally.

Conflating polymorph and direct damage is basically admitting that you don't have an argument for direct damage. And, yes, things die to damage. They also lose actions to major image, and in many cases can be bypassed entirely by it. I know which of those is a unique capability that's worth investing resources in.


Damage effects stack with each other and with the damage dealt by every other party member.

And they overkill by some margin. If you deal 15 damage with a fireball and the Warblade kills by 20, your fireball didn't do anything.


That's why stinking cloud falls under the situational combat spell category and not the primary combat spell category.

"The spell that takes an entire side out of commission is situational, but the spell that does less damage than enemies have HP is super great" and other hilarious jokes you can tell your friends.


Minion spells are a type of damage spell.

How do you think this is a useful position? If I say "blasting spells aren't good" and you say "wow, this guy thinks planar binding sucks", how does that not sound like a total non sequitur to you? Do you think anyone looks at summon monster V and says "wow this is a powerful damage spell, that is a useful category to put it in"?

[Troacctid]

Conflating polymorph and direct damage is basically admitting that you don't have an argument for direct damage. And, yes, things die to damage. They also lose actions to major image, and in many cases can be bypassed entirely by it. I know which of those is a unique capability that's worth investing resources in.
Go back and read my earlier post again, I guess? Polymorph is actually the spell I gave as an example of a way to deal damage, not fireball. I said that the Damage category includes both direct damage spells as well as spells that turn you into a beatstick.


And they overkill by some margin. If you deal 15 damage with a fireball and the Warblade kills by 20, your fireball didn't do anything.
Sure, but in that same scenario of "there is only one enemy, they pass their save, and your melee friend takes them out without needing your help," stinking cloud didn't do anything either, so if that's the comparison, it's kind of a wash. If anything, the cloud may hurt have more than it helped if it got in your melee friend's way. That's a common problem with BFC effects.


How do you think this is a useful position? If I say "blasting spells aren't good" and you say "wow, this guy thinks planar binding sucks", how does that not sound like a total non sequitur to you? Do you think anyone looks at summon monster V and says "wow this is a powerful damage spell, that is a useful category to put it in"?
Are minion spells better at dealing damage than blasting spells are? Or do minion spells not count as damage-dealing spells? Because you can't have both.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There are times when you will cast blasting spells. I would probably learn fireball at some point as a Wizard. I could quite easily see picking up some blasting as a backup for my Beguiler or Dread Necromancer. But like in-combat summoning, it is not a reliable strategy unless you invest in it significantly, and I'm not confident that investment holds up to comparably optimized casters with other specialties (especially in cases where your party cooperatively optimizes their builds).
It does hold up, if you do it right. An optimized blaster works perfectly well even at high levels and high-op.
It's just expecting blasting to function as well as BFC without investment that's a problem and the source of the "blasting sucks" meme.
When your spells kill most enemies in one hit (possibly even on a save or with no save) - and increased reliablity you are in fact better off than a traditional BFCer - dead is the best status condition after all.

It's just not a situation that's likely to occur with someone who needs a guide for picking his spells.:smalltongue:

I mean obviously you take your build into account when selecting spells.
Someone who does triple-digit damage with his fireballs, pierces resistance and immunity with Searing Spell and auto-succeeds SR checks with Arcane Mastery obviously rates it higher than someone who has none of those things and gets ~35 damage maybe half the time, if that.


But that "intelligently chosen" is the issue, isn't it? It's true that animate dead carries no betray risk. But it carries considerable "everything you fight is classed NPCs that turn into 1-HD skeletons" risk. You also have the issue that Clerics and Dread Necromancers are significantly better at your game than you are, which can make a Necromancy-focused Wizard a suboptimal division of labor. It's not a huge problem if you have a free flow of corpses as all the skeletons stack, but if you're working with a limited supply, you'd way rather the guy who makes objectively better skeletons make them into skeletons.
Again a question of optimization. Wizards also get Animate Dread Warrior after all, and getting access to Desecrate isn't that hard.
You're also assuming your party even has a dread necro or a cleric who can cast evil spells which is hardly a given.

That aside Animate Dead is a single spell known, not the entirety of the necromancy specialization - necromancer wizards have a massive arsenal of buffs and debuffs too that a cleric or dread necro get at best limited access to. In addition to all the spells from schools they didn't ban.

The latter applies equally to beguilers and enchanters - not only does the enchanter get several enchantment spells the beguiler doesn't, he also gets most of the rest of the wizard spell list.


Sure, magic jar is very abusable. Totally true. But it's not like you're at a loss for very abusable spells if you happen to ban Necromancy. I promise you can make your DM cry as much as you want with planar binding if you feel the need. Is it better to have access to both? Sure. But the percentage of games where it's in any sense necessary is pretty tiny. The best schools to ban are probably Evocation and Abjuration, but it's not some crippling mistake to ban Necromancy instead.
You can make do with banning any school. You can even make do with a focused specialist red wizard incantatrix who bans 5 schools.
That doesn't mean you're not paying a painful price for it, just that wizards are good enough to take the hit.

Mostly what hurts when banning aren't the abusive spells but the small day to day ones.
Losing False Life hurts. Losing Heroism and Hesitate hurts. Losing Resilient Sphere hurts. Losing Dispel Magic and Resist Energy definitely hurts a lot (personally i'd never ban abjuration on any caster).
You can manage without any of them but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be useful to have.
How much you value that compared to extra slots and possibly specialist ACFs is a matter of taste, really. I wouldn't call either position wrong.


Conflating polymorph and direct damage is basically admitting that you don't have an argument for direct damage. And, yes, things die to damage. They also lose actions to major image, and in many cases can be bypassed entirely by it. I know which of those is a unique capability that's worth investing resources in.
Took the words right out of my mouth.

[RandomPeasant]

Go back and read my earlier post again, I guess?

Yes, conflating them was bad then too.


Sure, but in that same scenario of "there is only one enemy, they pass their save, and your melee friend takes them out without needing your help,"

15 damage is a totally plausible amount of damage for a fireball to deal on a failed save. Average damage at 5th level is only 17.5, it's not exactly ridiculous to suggest that you might roll two points below that. And overkilling doesn't necessarily mean the Warblade didn't need your help. Maybe he took a hit he wouldn't have if you'd disabled the enemy with stinking cloud. The scenario is actually somewhat favorable for the fireball Wizard, as we're assuming there is only a single other damage dealer. Things look even worse if you assume that there's a Rogue and a Cleric and maybe some minions that are also capable of dealing damage.


Are minion spells better at dealing damage than blasting spells are? Or do minion spells not count as damage-dealing spells? Because you can't have both.

Sure I can. A damage-dealing spell is a spell that deals damage. planar binding deals exactly zero damage to anything, and is therefore not a damage-dealing spell. You might as well say that stun ray is a "damage-dealing spell" because you can deal damage to someone really easily while they're stunned and can't take any action to protect themselves.


It does hold up, if you do it right. An optimized blaster works perfectly well even at high levels and high-op.

Sort of? I agree that you can do relevant (i.e. lethal) amounts of damage as a Mailman. But I'm not convinced that sort of build is better than comparably optimized builds. Your Twinned Empowered Split Maximized Admixtured scorching ray does a whole bunch of damage. But is "a whole bunch of damage" really better than a Twice Betrayer or a planar binding-based minionmancy build?


Again a question of optimization. Wizards also get Animate Dread Warrior after all, and getting access to Desecrate isn't that hard.

Some of it is. But Dread Necromancers do get their unique ability to be arbitrarily better at animating dead than anyone else. And, of course, while you optimize the other guy optimizes too.


The latter applies equally to beguilers and enchanters - not only does the enchanter get several enchantment spells the beguiler doesn't, he also gets most of the rest of the wizard spell list.

And the Beguiler gets to cast spontaneously, and has a very favorable way of adding new spells to his list. But my point is less about power and more about player preference. If you want to be a mind mage, you are probably better off doing that as a Beguiler, because Beguilers are better at being mind mages. You might want to be a Wizard if you want specific bits of mind magic, or if you want to be a mind/X mage in a way Beguiler doesn't support very well, but as a general rule character concepts serviced by specialist Illusionists or Enchanters are better served by Beguilers. For example, the Uttercold Assault build is a good reason to build a necromancer Wizard, because it relies on something that the Dread Necromancer can't easily replicate. But if you just want to cast animate dead and magic jar, you should probably just be a Dread Necromancer.


Losing False Life hurts. Losing Heroism and Hesitate hurts. Losing Resilient Sphere hurts.

Sure, you get some minor utility from various schools. But you can get minor utility from other schools too. I'm sure I can find a Transmutation buff I like as much as ~15 HP, or whatever other neat trick you might find in a banned school.


Losing Dispel Magic and Resist Energy definitely hurts a lot (personally i'd never ban abjuration on any caster).

You're not really losing those. The party Cleric is perfectly capable of casting them, and since she is better than you are at everything that isn't casting, you're kind of a sucker if you focus on casting spells she can also use.

[Zanos]

Elven generalist is just a worse version of a domain wizard IMO.
Which is a worse version of combining both, if your DM is amenable to that argument. I've found few DMs that were okay with domain wizard that wouldn't let me stack them, but obviously YMMV.



But that "intelligently chosen" is the issue, isn't it? It's true that animate dead carries no betray risk. But it carries considerable "everything you fight is classed NPCs that turn into 1-HD skeletons" risk. You also have the issue that Clerics and Dread Necromancers are significantly better at your game than you are, which can make a Necromancy-focused Wizard a suboptimal division of labor. It's not a huge problem if you have a free flow of corpses as all the skeletons stack, but if you're working with a limited supply, you'd way rather the guy who makes objectively better skeletons make them into skeletons.
There are undead that are still usable if your DM loves enemies with class levels and rarely runs monsters. Namely bloodhulks. If you're fine with murdering stuff that hasn't done you wrong you can also use the halaster's fetch line of spells. And you can always use planar binding, because most of the time I prefer a completely lobotomized and slightly weaker demon to one that's going to tattle on me.

Clerics are marginally better at it before level 7 due to getting animate dead earlier, but worse after as they lack command undead and got less support for necromancy in splatbooks. Dread Necromancers are better at it only, again, if you ignore that they received no spell list expansion in splatbooks. They get animate dead later than even the wizard, their ability to bypass hit dice caps are mostly irrelevant because of command undead, and their strength bonuses to animate dead don't stack with corpescrafter. They get rebuking, which is nice, but the real problem is that if you play a Dread Necromancer, you're, well, playing a Dread Necromancer. You exchange a marginal and sometimes irrelevant advantage in reanimating undead for the entire rest of the wizard spell list. The wizard does the Dread Necromancers schtick about 90% as well most of the time, 110% as well some of the time, and then he's still a wizard.

The true king of necromancy is the Death Master, who gets fully fledged animate dead at level 3, or the scummy artificer abusing that fact to make animate dead scrolls at level 1.



Sure, magic jar is very abusable. Totally true. But it's not like you're at a loss for very abusable spells if you happen to ban Necromancy. I promise you can make your DM cry as much as you want with planar binding if you feel the need. Is it better to have access to both? Sure. But the percentage of games where it's in any sense necessary is pretty tiny. The best schools to ban are probably Evocation and Abjuration, but it's not some crippling mistake to ban Necromancy instead.
Ah, but when I use planar binding I'm still a squishy wizard. When I use magic jar, I am now a squishy wizard, living inside of a planar bound demon's flesh, with all of his immunities, spell resistance, and ability scores, and when his body dies hilariously, I just calmly peace out back to my regular body, which i carry in a steel case or whatever. And then every round I'm forcing someone to make a save or I steal their body, which I can then also run into the ground by attacking their allies or whatever. Magic Jar is very good even if you aren't doing sandwhich shenanigans. I think it might be the best spell in the game at that level other than having a DM who is okay with you summoning an entire army of demons to do your bidding. Unfortunately you don't usually get XP when you order your horde to sack a town while you sit safely on your throne of broken dreams. So unfair!

I feel like abjuration is a rough ban just because dispel magic is the ultimate debuff at high levels, as well as being able to suppress magic traps, bypass magic locks, etc. But again, depends on DM. If they never really run encounters with enemies with stacks of prebuffs or magic items, losing dispel doesn't really matter at all. But I think most parties need at least one guy who can dispel pretty well to function at double digit levels.



Again, sure. Good offensive spells, absolutely. But you're not at a loss for good offensive spells as a Wizard who banned Necromancy. If you want a 4th level spell that hoses a bunch of dudes, black tentacles is right there for you. I can easily imagine an effective Wizard who never casts cause fear or fear or scare, and whether that's because he simply likes color spray, charm monster, and glitterdust more or just because he can't seems entirely irrelevant to me.
Spells can't be taken in a vacuum. Black tentacles and fear spells both disable enemies, yes. But you don't want to cast black tentacles on the same targets you want to cast fear spells on, because enemies with poor will saves are going to have good grapple checks, and the same is typically true the other way around. And being frightened is a much worse debuff than being grappled.

Are there alternatives for will save targeted spells to disable guys? Sure. Are they not as good as completely removing them from the fight by forcing them to x4 movement speed run away every turn for CL rounds? I'd say so. I don't think banning any one school, even transmutation or conjuration, can make a wizard ineffective. But you're definitely not as effective as a generalist.

And for the record, I think scare is actually the best fear spell at the levels it's relevant. Good range, two targets, will save or lose. Hard to complain. Funnily enough imperious glare is a spell Treantmonk rates badly because it requires setup, but I'd argue it's probably one of the only spells in the game worth a round of setup, since it's a 6th level spell that makes 1 target per caster level cower, which is incredible.



But again, so are gate and shapechange and ice assassin. It is true that banning schools causes you to lose some number of broken tricks. But you only really need one broken trick if you want to do broken things.
It depends on what broken things you want to do. But if you want to abuse gate, shapechange, and ice assassin to exploit monster statblocks, necromancy was doing that at level 11 by using create undead to make juju zombies that retain all their features. You need a corpse, sure. We can make some of those by just not banning transmutation.



Depends what you mean. It's true that it's hard to go around Pokemastering things without Enchantment, but you can do just fine with Called minions if you want, or even with letting someone else (like a Cleric or a Druid or a Dread Necromancer or even a Bard) show up with minions and buffing those. My view is that, in the overwhelming majority of games, whatever minionmancy you opt to do will be limited by gentleman's agreement rather than RAW limits, and as such I'm not terribly concerned about putting yourself in the position of needing to hit the limit of that gentleman's agreement with one set of spells rather than another.
I agree with that. A Dread Necromancer that shows up with 400HD worth of 1hd war skeletons is probably not going to be in the game for very long. I try to limit the undead to 2-4 of the same type to run them easily, with maybe one utility monster. I rarely actually fill my control pool, even on a wizard, with undead that I actually want to participate in combat. I've only run more than ten individual undead in one game I can think of, but only because that specific game tended to have encounters with 40+ enemies. Not to say I don't leverage them outside of combat, I also press them into service as labor, guards, lookouts, mounts, beasts of burden, etc. Fun fact, a party with skeleton horses moves 192 miles a day.

The reason I bring up the pokemastering aspect of enchantment is because, while there are other sources of minionmancy, most people will agree that minions with class levels are superior, and are very difficult to acquire without enchantment or specific necromancy spells, unless your DM doesn't mind simulacrums. I like enchantment because you can knock out the level 10 psion or whatever your DM throws against you, and then dominate him...and now your wizard is also a level 10 psion. Maybe you don't bring him to every combat, but he can do other stuff for you too, and now if you need any psionic stuff done, you have a guy for that. Although now that I'm talking about it, it sure is weird that there's such a huge bias against necromancers in the books, but almost none about mind enslavers that don't have tentacles coming out of their face. Hm.



You can always go Craft Contingent Spell if you really feel the need for contingencies. Plus shadow evocation does a pretty good job of replacing Evocation.
Craft Contingent Spell has costs with every use, the spell is mostly free. Shadow Evocation works fine if your DM lets you believe your own shadow spells. So I generally agree that evocation hurts the least to ban, but it's still a decrease in power.



I think Elven Generalist is the best pick at relatively high levels of optimization. But almost any specialist (bar maybe Evocation and Abjuration) is reasonable in most games, as are Focused Conjurers. Focused Necromancers, Illusionists, and Enchanters are fine power-wise, but generally if you want to do that you'll get to do more of what you want as a Dread Necromancer or Beguiler.
No disagreements on generalists vs. specialists. I still think a FS specialist in any of the those three schools is more powerful than the associated spontaneous casters, though.

To clarify all around, if you must ban a school, necromancy and enchantment are better candidates than transmutation or conjuration. It's just important to actually take stock of the many powerful effects you lose access to when you ban any school, and not just write them off, as is often done in the context of specialist wizards.

Just one last thing...

You're not really losing those. The party Cleric is perfectly capable of casting them, and since she is better than you are at everything that isn't casting, you're kind of a sucker if you focus on casting spells she can also use.
It sure would be nice playing in a party where someone actually makes a cleric. Or really, anyone with access to divine spells. :smallfrown: I've actually played in many groups where I was the only full progression spellcaster who had a good understanding of how to play. So that might be influencing my bias some.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Sort of? I agree that you can do relevant (i.e. lethal) amounts of damage as a Mailman. But I'm not convinced that sort of build is better than comparably optimized builds. Your Twinned Empowered Split Maximized Admixtured scorching ray does a whole bunch of damage. But is "a whole bunch of damage" really better than a Twice Betrayer or a planar binding-based minionmancy build?
A whole bunch of damage may not be strictly better, but it's enough. It's also a whole lot of fun, which is the point of playing a blaster.
You just need to do enough damage for your spells to have a meaningful impact on battle, according to your tables optimization level.
With the cap being "everything dies in one spell 95% of the time" - which is likely quite a bit higher than most tables are comfortable with - blasting is perfectly acceptable at pretty much any practical level of optimization, you just have to actually optimize.


Some of it is. But Dread Necromancers do get their unique ability to be arbitrarily better at animating dead than anyone else. And, of course, while you optimize the other guy optimizes too.
Yes, but necromancer wizards and clerics do it good enough. The things you give up for that small advantage aren't worth it unless you're deliberately limiting yourself.



And the Beguiler gets to cast spontaneously, and has a very favorable way of adding new spells to his list. But my point is less about power and more about player preference. If you want to be a mind mage, you are probably better off doing that as a Beguiler, because Beguilers are better at being mind mages. You might want to be a Wizard if you want specific bits of mind magic, or if you want to be a mind/X mage in a way Beguiler doesn't support very well, but as a general rule character concepts serviced by specialist Illusionists or Enchanters are better served by Beguilers. For example, the Uttercold Assault build is a good reason to build a necromancer Wizard, because it relies on something that the Dread Necromancer can't easily replicate. But if you just want to cast animate dead and magic jar, you should probably just be a Dread Necromancer.
Beguiler and Dread Necro force the player into certain archetypes, but that doesn't mean they're better at them than a wizard. They're not.
Both of them get their spells a level late, both of them don't even get all the wizard spells in their specializations and both of them only give abilities that in no way make up for the loss of most of the wizard spell list or the delayed spell access.
They're playable for their archetypes, but they're measurably inferior to just being a specialist wizard.


Sure, you get some minor utility from various schools. But you can get minor utility from other schools too. I'm sure I can find a Transmutation buff I like as much as ~15 HP, or whatever other neat trick you might find in a banned school.
And if you had both you could stack them. As i said a matter of taste.


You're not really losing those. The party Cleric is perfectly capable of casting them, and since she is better than you are at everything that isn't casting, you're kind of a sucker if you focus on casting spells she can also use.
Assuming your party even has a cleric it depends on your respective builds.
Someone should invest into dispelling enough to make it reliable, and a cleric quite possible has other things to spend his feats on, just as you might.

The view that "casting anything the cleric could cast is pointless" is also rather short sighted. The party cleric doesn't have unlimited spell slots after all.
Every Dispel Magic he casts is one less Mass Conviction or Magic Vestment. Maybe you didn't need that morale bonus to saves or the extra AC, but they'd sure be nice to have.
Or the cleric did cast them and now has no more 3rd level slots to dispel with. Or the cleric is the reason you need a dispel.

Even if the cleric is perfectly capable of dispelling you're still losing the ability to counterspell.
Given how you can do that with minimal investment via Battlemagic Perception or Spellcaster's Bane that's a not inconsiderable loss even if your cleric can do it too.

It's just such an essential and versatile tool that i don't want to lose the option even if another party member can cover it.

[Troacctid]

It does hold up, if you do it right. An optimized blaster works perfectly well even at high levels and high-op.
It's just expecting blasting to function as well as BFC without investment that's a problem and the source of the "blasting sucks" meme.
When your spells kill most enemies in one hit (possibly even on a save or with no save) - and increased reliablity you are in fact better off than a traditional BFCer - dead is the best status condition after all.

It's just not a situation that's likely to occur with someone who needs a guide for picking his spells.:smalltongue:

I mean obviously you take your build into account when selecting spells.
Someone who does triple-digit damage with his fireballs, pierces resistance and immunity with Searing Spell and auto-succeeds SR checks with Arcane Mastery obviously rates it higher than someone who has none of those things and gets ~35 damage maybe half the time, if that.
I think your math here is a little shaky. First off, expecting a single 3rd-level spell to OHKO every enemy in the encounter is a wildly unrealistic standard, no matter what spell you're talking about, blasting or otherwise. Second, it doesn't take an optimization genius to figure out that casting an area spell against a single enemy is probably suboptimal, which leads to: third, you forgot to multiply that 35 damage by the number of enemies. If you hit 5 enemies for 35 damage each, that's 175 damage, which is considerably more impressive for the cost of a 3rd level slot and a standard action.

Now, for my part, I think fireball is a perfectly good spell, and I'm perfectly willing to say that it is a better spell overall than stinking cloud, which I have always found to be grossly overrated compared to other, better BFC options like web, black tentacles, and solid fog, as well as other, better save-or-suck options like glitterdust. But please don't oversimplify my already-simple rule of thumb. The first D is Damage, not Fireballs. That's not even a D. It would be the two D's and the one F. Much less catchy. Damage is a broad category encompassing more than just blasting. And even if it were just blasting, that would still be a broader category than just fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold.


Yes, conflating them was bad then too.
Agree to disagree.


15 damage is a totally plausible amount of damage for a fireball to deal on a failed save. Average damage at 5th level is only 17.5, it's not exactly ridiculous to suggest that you might roll two points below that. And overkilling doesn't necessarily mean the Warblade didn't need your help. Maybe he took a hit he wouldn't have if you'd disabled the enemy with stinking cloud. The scenario is actually somewhat favorable for the fireball Wizard, as we're assuming there is only a single other damage dealer. Things look even worse if you assume that there's a Rogue and a Cleric and maybe some minions that are also capable of dealing damage.
Or maybe the warblade misses, and now instead of starting over from square one, you have an easy kill with your second blasting spell against a low-HP enemy. Or maybe the warblade's damage roll would have been 10 points short instead of 20 points over, and your extra damage made the difference. Plus, if this party has a rogue in it, the cloud looks worse and worse. You just gave the enemy concealment and turned off the rogue's ability to sneak attack. Nice teamwork. Maybe more importantly, if it's just one dork, with low enough HP that the warblade can reliably one-shot it with 20 damage to spare...why waste a 3rd-level slot at all? You might as well be casting daze or color spray.

[RandomPeasant]

Which is a worse version of combining both, if your DM is amenable to that argument. I've found few DMs that were okay with domain wizard that wouldn't let me stack them, but obviously YMMV.

Domain Wizard is also from Unearthed Arcana, which is (IME) a bit dicey for asserting "and I'll just take this". Moreso than other books, it tends to be treated as DM's option, because a lot of stuff in it is really obviously DM's option (no one assumes they can just be a Recharge Magic Bard). Elven Generalist also gets you an extra +4 to initiative from a hummingbird familiar, which isn't nothing.


And you can always use planar binding, because most of the time I prefer a completely lobotomized and slightly weaker demon to one that's going to tattle on me.

A demon skeleton is substantially weaker than a living demon.


Dread Necromancers are better at it only, again, if you ignore that they received no spell list expansion in splatbooks.

Dread Necromancers get no explicit list expansion (technically there's some "teleport to near an undead" spell out there which was added as an Advanced Learning option you can argue counts). But they get plenty of implicit list expansion because being a fixed-list caster works great with Prestige Domains.


You exchange a marginal and sometimes irrelevant advantage in reanimating undead for the entire rest of the wizard spell list.

That makes it sound a lot worse than it is. The Dread Necromancer's 4th level spells include minionmancy (animate dead), a bunch of different bad touch spells, battlefield control (black tentacles), an AoE save-or-lose (fear), summoning (summon undead IV), a ranged debuff (enervation), and a bunch of other stuff. The big disadvantage the Dread Necromancer has is that it's stuck on the delayed progression of spontaneous casters, not that its spell list is unacceptably bad. I honestly think the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer would be T1 (low T1, but T1) if they got their new spells at odd levels. Spontaneous casting is good when your selection of spells isn't crippled, and their spell lists are much better than people realize.


Ah, but when I use planar binding I'm still a squishy wizard.

And when you cast magic jar, you only get one set of actions. And, yes, you can do both. And you can also have an army of zombies and dominated minions and some Persistent buffs and some kind of infinite spell slot trick. But at a certain point your DM is going to tell you to knock it off, and you don't need magic jar to hit that point.


Spells can't be taken in a vacuum. Black tentacles and fear spells both disable enemies, yes. But you don't want to cast black tentacles on the same targets you want to cast fear spells on, because enemies with poor will saves are going to have good grapple checks, and the same is typically true the other way around. And being frightened is a much worse debuff than being grappled.

Sure, different spells do different things. But you ultimately prepare only a limited number of them, and it is entirely possible to make defensible lists that don't include fear. You also have limited information, and you can easily imagine situations where someone might decide that black tentacles was a better response to the information they had when they prepared spells.


It depends on what broken things you want to do. But if you want to abuse gate, shapechange, and ice assassin to exploit monster statblocks, necromancy was doing that at level 11 by using create undead to make juju zombies that retain all their features. You need a corpse, sure. We can make some of those by just not banning transmutation.

planar binding is pretty good for abusing stuff out of the MM at 11th level.


It sure would be nice playing in a party where someone actually makes a cleric. Or really, anyone with access to divine spells. :smallfrown: I've actually played in many groups where I was the only full progression spellcaster who had a good understanding of how to play. So that might be influencing my bias some.

That is certainly fair. Party composition and cooperative optimization absolutely influence spell selection, much as they influence all aspects of play. If your Wizard can't rely on other people to do their jobs effectively, that will push you very strongly towards generalist builds.


Yes, but necromancer wizards and clerics do it good enough. The things you give up for that small advantage aren't worth it unless you're deliberately limiting yourself.

If your goal is to be a necromancer, it is entirely reasonable to give up your non-necromancy power to be better at that. If your goal is to cast some Necromancy spells while doing Wizard things, you shouldn't be a Focused Specialist Necromancer.


And if you had both you could stack them.

At some point you run out of spell slots. That point is before you need to be causing spells from a specific school.


The view that "casting anything the cleric could cast is pointless" is also rather short sighted. The party cleric doesn't have unlimited spell slots after all.

It's not pointless. But you should make an effort to avoid relying on it. Because if your Wizard is casting primarily Cleric spells, you could jolly well just be a Cleric, and enjoy such perks as "knowing all your spells automatically" and "casting in full plate".


Every Dispel Magic he casts is one less Mass Conviction or Magic Vestment. Maybe you didn't need that morale bonus to saves or the extra AC, but they'd sure be nice to have.

And every one you cast is one less major image or stinking cloud.


Agree to disagree.

I really like how you're willing to expound on your definitions in a way that brings other people around to your side when people challenge you. It's what makes arguing with you so productive.


Or maybe the warblade misses, and now instead of starting over from square one, you have an easy kill with your second blasting spell against a low-HP enemy.

Or maybe the enemy makes their save against that spell, lives another round, and does enough damage to down the Warblade. Then you have to spend a third slot, and you're out the money for a raise dead. Whereas if you had disabled it with stinking cloud (recalling the supposition that the enemy failed their 1st-round save) the Warblade could've taken it apart at leisure and you'd only be out one spell slot.


Or maybe the warblade's damage roll would have been 10 points short instead of 20 points over, and your extra damage made the difference.

Or maybe the Warblade would've been 30 points over instead of 20.


Plus, if this party has a rogue in it, the cloud looks worse and worse. You just gave the enemy concealment and turned off the rogue's ability to sneak attack.

That seems like a compelling case for casting major image instead of stinking cloud. What it has to do with fireball I can't imagine. Your job as a Wizard is to arrange circumstances that allow your side to triumph, not burn precious spell slots on damage.


Maybe more importantly, if it's just one dork, with low enough HP that the warblade can reliably one-shot it with 20 damage to spare...why waste a 3rd-level slot at all?

Who said he one-shotted it? Imagine a case where you are fighting something with 130 HP. The Warblade does 70 damage. He kills the enemy in two rounds on his own. Your powerful blasting spell does 50 damage. Meaning that together you and the Warblade kill the enemy in... two rounds. You've taken zero actions off the enemy, doing nothing to contribute to your party's victory. But if you cast a major image the enemy spends a round attacking before making its save, or a stinking cloud they fail a save against, you've stopped them from doing something that might have hurt or killed a party member. Maybe the damaging spell wasn't the best plan.

[D+1]

Take damage spells. Which ones? The more popular ones. Nobody is ever going to give you grief for just doing as much damage as you can. Don't get fancy - JUST KILL STUFF. Win by attrition.

Want something more creative? Take some defensive spells (once you have a spell slot or two to actually WASTE without seeming like you're skimping on raw death points - spells that other players like getting cast on their PC's without having to, you know, bother doing that for themselves. Or cast defenses that you know will help save YOUR glass-cannon arse.

Beyond that? Well, if you have to ask other people beyond that then you're denying yourself the fun of experimenting. Honestly that's the truth. ANYONE can just hand you a list and say, "DO THIS", but in the end how much fun is that? True, it will likely save you from the guy sitting next to you giving you massive rations of crap for not playing the way HE wants you to play, but you haven't lived until you stand up at a table, lean over into someone's face, and at the highest volume you can manage tell them to stfu and play their own damn PC, not yours. Then do likewise to the DM for being a weak-willed little snot for not having told that same player to stfu before he drives you to the point where you find it necessary to do it yourself.

All you ever need to know right there. :)

[Anthrowhale]

I suspect successful save-or-lose combat require more optimization than a damage strategy, particularly as you shift towards higher levels.

For example, an Abomination (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/abomination.htm)'s immunity to form-altering attacks, energy drain, ability damage, ability drain, mind-affecting, illusions (vie true seeing + blindsight 500'), and high spell resistance all come into play. The shift from 'defeat many ways' at low levels to 'solve a puzzle to defeat' at higher levels progresses steadily, often obsoleting a sequence of Save-or-lose strategies. The plan of 'just have a large array of spells and choose the right one to solve the puzzle' is a fairly significant form of optimization as well as incomplete, since you also need to defeat SR (via optimized caster level or various spells to enhance SR penetration), and saves (via cranking up save DC optimization).

In contrast, a minimal mailman (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628874-A-Minimal-Mailman) damage based approach doesn't look that optimized, using just 4 or 5 feats and spells known. Saves are irrelevant. Spell resistance is irrelevant. AC is nearly irrelevant since touch AC doesn't scale. And, it tends to be cumulative with other party members as mentioned.

So, is it possible to make a battlefield control or save-or-lose sorcerer (as examples) that defeats an average SRD monster (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J7KongPAMxJCKuSlDFIyRKj7YPWsTP2fJUh_tuS16Qs/edit#gid=1854430337) of CR = ECL? Since saves are non-cumulative perhaps 75% odds of success would be good. And can it be done in a manner which requires only 10-or-so choices of spell, feat, or other resources?

[Troacctid]

Domain Wizard is also from Unearthed Arcana, which is (IME) a bit dicey for asserting "and I'll just take this". Moreso than other books, it tends to be treated as DM's option, because a lot of stuff in it is really obviously DM's option (no one assumes they can just be a Recharge Magic Bard). Elven Generalist also gets you an extra +4 to initiative from a hummingbird familiar, which isn't nothing.
Isn't the hummingbird a specialist familiar? So for a generalist, it would have to be the little dino that gives +3 initiative instead of +4. Close enough, I suppose.


I really like how you're willing to expound on your definitions in a way that brings other people around to your side when people challenge you. It's what makes arguing with you so productive.
Look, you think spells only count as damage effects if they deal damage directly as part of the effect, sleepyphoenixx and I think that they also count as damage if they provide you with a new and/or improved attack to use round after round. When you get down to it, what is Tenser's transformation but a more showboaty version of call lightning storm? (And I would say that Con damage effects, death effects, and energy drain effects all count as damage as well.) Not much to say on either side here AFAICT; it's just a premise that we disagree on. You can come up with your own "three D's" if you like.


Who said he one-shotted it? Imagine a case where you are fighting something with 130 HP. The Warblade does 70 damage. He kills the enemy in two rounds on his own. Your powerful blasting spell does 50 damage. Meaning that together you and the Warblade kill the enemy in... two rounds. You've taken zero actions off the enemy, doing nothing to contribute to your party's victory. But if you cast a major image the enemy spends a round attacking before making its save, or a stinking cloud they fail a save against, you've stopped them from doing something that might have hurt or killed a party member. Maybe the damaging spell wasn't the best plan.
But in order to make this argument, you have to accept the basic general premise that damage dealt to an enemy matters even if it doesn't insta-kill them. Otherwise, the warblade's first 70 damage is useless because the 130 HP enemy just survives it and doesn't suffer any debuffs as a result (unless you spent build resources adding rider effects to your damage, which can be done for both spells and weapons, so we can call that a wash). As we can see in this example, the initial chunk of damage mattered a lot because it allowed the second chunk of damage to finish them off. And that was one of my points, so I think this one is a win for me.

[jmax]

"I leave you people alone for five sodding minutes..." - The Assassin, JourneyQuest

I appreciate the enthusiastic discussion, and there's plenty of fodder in it for content to go in the guidebook itself, but please try to keep this thread to discussion of how to pick spells effectively and resources to learn the same. Even within the spheres of "blasting is good" and "blasting is bad", there are still wildly different levels of effectiveness in blasting spells of similar levels, and employing them wisely makes all the difference in the world.

I will absolutely include a section on when blasting makes more sense than buffing/debuffing/battlefield control. An in-depth discussion on the merits of blasting is valuable and useful, but it probably belongs in its own thread so future forum-goers can find it easily.

[Jay R]

One idea that nobody has touched on yet: It's worth having a few spells that you never memorize when you're planning a generic adventuring day.

Amanuensis, mage craft, ancient knowledge, insidious insight, and the like won't be among the first few you pick up at any level, but are useful in downtime.

Since they are going to be used rarely, you might just pick them up on scrolls and save them that way. But they add to your ability to investigate something before going out to pursue it.

There's no point taking a combat spell that you will never prepare in the morning. Once you've learned all the ones you actually expect to prepare, the next few you pick up at that level can be reserved for non-adventuring days.

[Saintheart]

EDIT: Never mind, it's covered. :smallsmile:

[RandomPeasant]

I suspect successful save-or-lose combat require more optimization than a damage strategy, particularly as you shift towards higher levels.

I think that if your example of this is a collection of Epic-level monsters, I am less than impressed by your point. Sure, the game goes crazy at 24th level. I don't really care, because people have had Epic Spellcasting for three levels and shapechange for seven. Monsters that are merely high level, like a Trumpet Archon or a Greater Stone Golem are perfectly vulnerable to non-damaging spells.


The plan of 'just have a large array of spells and choose the right one to solve the puzzle' is a fairly significant form of optimization

This is only really true as a Sorcerer. A Wizard is capable of covering their bases with minimal expenditure of resources. Sorcerers are genuinely difficult to build at high character levels and high levels of optimization, but "the system hoses Sorcerers" is nothing new.


Look, you think spells only count as damage effects if they deal damage directly as part of the effect, sleepyphoenixx and I think that they also count as damage if they provide you with a new and/or improved attack to use round after round.

Yes, I understand what your position is. It is, however, entirely indefensible. A "damaging effect" is an effect that does damage. polymorph does not do damage. It gives you some buffs. It is a buff spell, not a damage spell, and a system of classification that says otherwise is useless, regardless of whether you personally approve of it because it lets you sneak fireball into a category with good spells. There is no logical bright line between "polymorph is a damaging effect because it gives you better stats" and "stun ray is a damaging effect because it makes it easier to attack enemies" or "wall of salt is a damaging effect because it lets you make money which buys better gear which improves your damage".


You can come up with your own "three D's" if you like.

I'll stick with the list of spells that makes your side win. Good advice beats snappy branding any day.


But in order to make this argument, you have to accept the basic general premise that damage dealt to an enemy matters even if it doesn't insta-kill them.

I never claimed fireball is useless. But spending scarce spell slots for a worse version of something the Warblade can do all day is just a bad investment of resources. Your fireball doesn't do as much as one full attack from a hasted Rogue, and that Rogue can make way more than one full attack in a combat. You can cast fireball, and sometimes it will do enough damage that an enemy will get less actions than they would otherwise. But that won't happen very often. On the other hand, stinking cloud can take multiple actions off an enemy, and major image takes one before it even grants a save. There are simply better things to do with your 3rd level spell slots than direct damage.


One idea that nobody has touched on yet: It's worth having a few spells that you never memorize when you're planning a generic adventuring day.

I did gesture at that as one of the big advantages of the Wizard over the Sorcerer. The ability to learn utility spells is very useful.

[Fizban]

Play a warmage. Then you have all the spells and you don't need to worry about it. That's my philosophy.
. . . But where's the joke?

---
Aha, I was wondering where I'd left this!

This is a quote I saved from someone on I think the WotC boards waaaaay back in. . . 2007 is what the file says. Before I'd started keeping little things like names and links around.


How to play a sorceror well:

One good will save spell.
One good fort save spell.
One good reflex save spell.
Heighten Metamagic feat.
Make sure that for the rest of your sorceror career, you cast the spell which targets the enemy's weak save.

One good spell with no save.
One good spell with persistant effects, like Evard's Black Tentacles.
Vampiric Touch, because its functionally a healing spell.
Polymorph.
Consider all bases covered.

As you level up, replace your attack spells with higher level spells, and move the lower level slot into something based around utility.
Remember to take generically useful buffs, like polymorph, then cast them on the entire party. Lots of problems can be solved by casting polymorph four times in rapid repetition.
Bloodline feats are not a bad idea, they give you many more spells known, and add flavor to your character.
Keep an eye out for spells which scale on their own better than normal. Evard's Black Tentacles grapple check scales by caster level, for example.

Remember that you get more out of metamagic than a wizard, because you always have it when you need it.
Still Spell means you need never fear grappling again, just remember which spells have no material component.

Naturally, the basic advice has been around since forever, but it's also simple enough that yeah come to think of it a lot of guides probably don't even bother stating it upfront (particularly when they're Wizard guides that think you're guaranteed as many spells as you could ever want, or Cleric/Druid guides where you of course already "know" everything). As I recall, even Dungeons and Dragons for Dummies says something to the same effect.

Basically for the arcanist/offensive caster, just make sure you have one of everything. At least one spell for each save, a spell with no save, a spell that deals damage, a spell that ignores Spell Resistance, and a spell that creates some sort of barrier or impedance. I'd also think that a spell which hits multiple foes and a spell which does not rely on attack rolls would happen naturally, but make sure you hit those too.

You can use metamagic to shore up the effects of lower level spells, which often become more powerful than the adjusted level anyway, and if you're really short you can use Heighten (but it might be more efficient to use other no-cost save boosters for those spells), and naturally those categories will overlap on many spells. Once you've got the basics covered you can move on to anything you wanted that didn't fit in there, and/or keep filling in gaps, such as with more energy types/more status effects so you're not shut down by a single immunity.



The Cleric role of course has an entirely different need, the question of what spells to *prepare* each day. Thanks to spontaneous Cures you don't generally need to prepare those (unless you're Evil, but then hey the only things that ever take damage are you undead minions right?), but you basically do the same thing: at least one of everything. At least one Shield of Faith or the Mass version, one copy of Shield Other, a Close Wounds, Lesser Restoration or better, Resist Energy or the Mass version, Dispel Magic if it's that kind of game, Stone Shape or at least Fog Cloud, Death Ward, Delay Death, Revivify, etc. The difference is that the Cleric has a ton more "basic" things to be worried about- where the offense mostly just worries about three saves and SR, the Cleric has an ever-expanding list of status removal, prevention, and rescue spells that can easily overwhelm. A lot of these can be shifted to scrolls for emergencies with extra preparations only used when you know you'll need them, but if you don't know what you're facing then it's best to bring everything you can.

[Troacctid]

I never claimed fireball is useless. But spending scarce spell slots for a worse version of something the Warblade can do all day is just a bad investment of resources. Your fireball doesn't do as much as one full attack from a hasted Rogue, and that Rogue can make way more than one full attack in a combat. You can cast fireball, and sometimes it will do enough damage that an enemy will get less actions than they would otherwise. But that won't happen very often. On the other hand, stinking cloud can take multiple actions off an enemy, and major image takes one before it even grants a save. There are simply better things to do with your 3rd level spell slots than direct damage.
Again, that's just shoddy math. Fireball regularly does more damage than a full attack from a melee character because it deals damage to all the enemies at the same time. An empowered fireball for 50 damage will actually deal double that much or more because of the multiplication factor. If you're looking at single-enemy fights, the blasting spells you want are more along the lines of orb of fire, Dalamar's lightning lance, storm touch, fire seeds.

[Rleonardh]

You know this starts me to wonder about something

Op

Will you add scroll, wands and staffs to the list?
Like when is it more appropriate to have said items.
Few scroll or 10 charge wand things like this??

[Akal Saris]

Somebody mentioned it earlier, but another sound planning technique is to plan around doing your main trick at least 3 combats a day.

For example, a 5th level conjurer focused on summoning monsters might plan to have the following spells on hand (core only):

3rd: Summon Monster III x3
2nd: Glitterdust, Web, Mirror Image, Levitate
1st: Grease, Enlarge Person, Magic Missile x2, Silent Image

This way, every combat you have your core game plan (get a summoned monster onto the field), and a small number of utility/control/buff/damage spells for the following rounds, or for non-combat situations.

[tiercel]

Y’know, this thread is probably a pretty good explanation for why there isn’t much in the way of (especially widely accepted) spell-choosing guides :tongue:

I agree in principle with the general guideline of “take spells from all major food groups,” but it is also aimed at… generalists. It’s still not a bad idea for specialists, but specialists should also play to their strengths, presumably. I mean, you can leave some roles — even spell roles — to other members of the party, if nothing else.

[Fizban]

I mean, if you're a "specialist," you've already decided what spells you want anyway. It's like asking "what feats should I take to build an ubercharger?" You've already made the choice: the feats that make up the ubercharger build- the only question is how all-in you want to go, where you draw the line for sufficient ubercharging vs other stuff. If you've decided to make a summoner, or a pyromancer, or a mind-controller, or a necromancer, etc, you already know what spells you're taking. There's likely a whole guide with them all ranked.

People call it a game of specialists, but specializing doesn't involve that many decisions. You take as much stuff as you can find that stacks as well as possible, until you push past the limit the game can handle and/or run into something your specialization can't handle and hope someone else in the party can/die and whine about X being broken for beating you.

It's a general party of generalist characters that can actually make the claim that they make up an "average" that can fight any monster and play any adventure of appropriate level. And unlike a one-track character, it might not be immediately obvious what the basics that you should be covering actually are. It's not so complicated I would say it needs a whole guide, but I saved that quote I used above for a reason: a relatively succinct summary of spell selection goals. And as the OP has noted, even the general class guides that rank every spell in the game and say you can do anything and everything all at once, that doesn't mean they actually tell you how to make that generalist.

And if you've got room on your specialist after picking your priority spells, what should you take? Well you could try to take a "minor" in something else, or revert to covering your general basics. Which you might still be able to fill out depending on the breadth of your original shtick.

[jmax]

Aha, I was wondering where I'd left this!

This is a quote I saved from someone on I think the WotC boards waaaaay back in. . . 2007 is what the file says. Before I'd started keeping little things like names and links around.



Naturally, the basic advice has been around since forever, but it's also simple enough that yeah come to think of it a lot of guides probably don't even bother stating it upfront (particularly when they're Wizard guides that think you're guaranteed as many spells as you could ever want, or Cleric/Druid guides where you of course already "know" everything). As I recall, even Dungeons and Dragons for Dummies says something to the same effect.

Basically for the arcanist/offensive caster, just make sure you have one of everything. At least one spell for each save, a spell with no save, a spell that deals damage, a spell that ignores Spell Resistance, and a spell that creates some sort of barrier or impedance. I'd also think that a spell which hits multiple foes and a spell which does not rely on attack rolls would happen naturally, but make sure you hit those too.

You can use metamagic to shore up the effects of lower level spells, which often become more powerful than the adjusted level anyway, and if you're really short you can use Heighten (but it might be more efficient to use other no-cost save boosters for those spells), and naturally those categories will overlap on many spells. Once you've got the basics covered you can move on to anything you wanted that didn't fit in there, and/or keep filling in gaps, such as with more energy types/more status effects so you're not shut down by a single immunity.



How to play a sorceror well:

One good will save spell.
One good fort save spell.
One good reflex save spell.
Heighten Metamagic feat.
Make sure that for the rest of your sorceror career, you cast the spell which targets the enemy's weak save.

One good spell with no save.
One good spell with persistant effects, like Evard's Black Tentacles.
Vampiric Touch, because its functionally a healing spell.
Polymorph.
Consider all bases covered.

As you level up, replace your attack spells with higher level spells, and move the lower level slot into something based around utility.
Remember to take generically useful buffs, like polymorph, then cast them on the entire party. Lots of problems can be solved by casting polymorph four times in rapid repetition.
Bloodline feats are not a bad idea, they give you many more spells known, and add flavor to your character.
Keep an eye out for spells which scale on their own better than normal. Evard's Black Tentacles grapple check scales by caster level, for example.

Remember that you get more out of metamagic than a wizard, because you always have it when you need it.
Still Spell means you need never fear grappling again, just remember which spells have no material component.


The Cleric role of course has an entirely different need, the question of what spells to *prepare* each day. Thanks to spontaneous Cures you don't generally need to prepare those (unless you're Evil, but then hey the only things that ever take damage are you undead minions right?), but you basically do the same thing: at least one of everything. At least one Shield of Faith or the Mass version, one copy of Shield Other, a Close Wounds, Lesser Restoration or better, Resist Energy or the Mass version, Dispel Magic if it's that kind of game, Stone Shape or at least Fog Cloud, Death Ward, Delay Death, Revivify, etc. The difference is that the Cleric has a ton more "basic" things to be worried about- where the offense mostly just worries about three saves and SR, the Cleric has an ever-expanding list of status removal, prevention, and rescue spells that can easily overwhelm. A lot of these can be shifted to scrolls for emergencies with extra preparations only used when you know you'll need them, but if you don't know what you're facing then it's best to bring everything you can.

Thank you - this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. The basic concept is straightforward, but applying it in various party roles still takes some finesse, and as you point out it varies wildly depending on class (and therefore also role). It still doesn't help people evaluate which spells are actually good within those categories, but it's a good start. I'll include the recipe verbatim.



You know this starts me to wonder about something

Op

Will you add scroll, wands and staffs to the list?
Like when is it more appropriate to have said items.
Few scroll or 10 charge wand things like this??

Yes - part of this will be which things to relegate to wands, scrolls, runestaffs, and the like.


Somebody mentioned it earlier, but another sound planning technique is to plan around doing your main trick at least 3 combats a day.

For example, a 5th level conjurer focused on summoning monsters might plan to have the following spells on hand (core only):

3rd: Summon Monster III x3
2nd: Glitterdust, Web, Mirror Image, Levitate
1st: Grease, Enlarge Person, Magic Missile x2, Silent Image

This way, every combat you have your core game plan (get a summoned monster onto the field), and a small number of utility/control/buff/damage spells for the following rounds, or for non-combat situations.

That is a particularly noteworthy difference in the approach needed for prepared vs. spontaneous casters. A spontaneous caster need not worry about how many of each flavor to bring so long as she makes sure everything she knows is useful.


Y’know, this thread is probably a pretty good explanation for why there isn’t much in the way of (especially widely accepted) spell-choosing guides :tongue:

In hind-sight, I really should have expected this, shouldn't I?

I don't expect I'm going to produce something that everyone agrees with 100%, but I think I can at least get major principles and have people grumbling over nuance.


I agree in principle with the general guideline of “take spells from all major food groups,” but it is also aimed at… generalists. It’s still not a bad idea for specialists, but specialists should also play to their strengths, presumably. I mean, you can leave some roles — even spell roles — to other members of the party, if nothing else.

That's still a narrower focus than what I'm thinking, though. There are different kinds of spellcaster roles. A primary caster, a support caster, and a gish all have very different needs, and within each of those categories, there can be a lot of tactical nuance. And again, "all the major food groups" still doesn't help you determine in advance which foods will turn out to be delicious and which taste terrible.

[RandomPeasant]

I mean, if you're a "specialist," you've already decided what spells you want anyway.

Depends what you mean by "specialist". Certainly as a Warmage you don't have terribly many spell selections, and a Focused Specialist Conjurer probably has a good idea of what they'd like to be doing. But you don't become a Divination specialist because you are super committed to Divination. You do it because you can find a Divination spell to prepare at every level and could plausibly go a whole campaign without casting an Evocation spell. Standard Specialist Wizard is pretty close to a power-for-nothing trade in most campaigns, and it leaves you with all the resources you had previously to allocate as you see fit.

Even as a Warmage, you have plenty of opportunities to expand your list with PrCs or Runestaves or Arcane Disciple, and doing that strategically is an important part of playing effectively. I suppose it's true that if you have decided your plan is to cast blasting spells every round forever, the only choice left is which blasting spells to learn. But that's a very narrow characterization of "specialist".


Again, that's just shoddy math. Fireball regularly does more damage than a full attack from a melee character because it deals damage to all the enemies at the same time. An empowered fireball for 50 damage will actually deal double that much or more because of the multiplication factor. If you're looking at single-enemy fights, the blasting spells you want are more along the lines of orb of fire, Dalamar's lightning lance, storm touch, fire seeds.

"You can't just use fireball numbers for single-target fights, you have to use orb of fire, a spell with the exact same damage scaling as fireball."

Also, you'll note that none of those are 3rd level spells, so I will continue to use fireball as the reference point for blasting at the level where fireball is the top-level blasting spell.


That is a particularly noteworthy difference in the approach needed for prepared vs. spontaneous casters. A spontaneous caster need not worry about how many of each flavor to bring so long as she makes sure everything she knows is useful.

"Spontaneous caster" is too broad a category. You really need to talk separately about Sorcerers and Favored Souls (who have to do very careful spell selection on a lot of axes), Spirit Shamans (who are really a weird flavor of prepared caster), and Warmage-types (who have the ability to expand their spell lists dramatically, but mostly by adding sets of spells rather than individual ones, which is a different dynamic from the Sorcerer).

[tiercel]

I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but


"You can't just use fireball numbers for single-target fights, you have to use orb of fire, a spell with the exact same damage scaling as fireball."

…only orb of fire also sports a few extras:

a higher damage cap
replacing a Ref save vs damage with a touch attack
natively available in different energy flavors without Energy Substitution or the like
forcing a saving throw against being dazed (in fire flavor)
oh, and SR: No for… reasons


I mean, there’s a reason that this line of spells is a base for the Mailman build and also thank you :tongue: for putting me in a position to actually defend this spell which is a pet peeve of mine, mostly due to the “no SR, magical nonmagic ball of pure fire” type shenanigans.


Also, you'll note that none of those are 3rd level spells, so I will continue to use fireball as the reference point for blasting at the level where fireball is the top-level blasting spell.

To be fair, “along the lines of” such spells doesn’t necessarily mean “higher level than fireball”, just that orb of X is a particularly egregious example, perhaps. Empowered lesser orb of X doesn’t offer as many advantages but is still a touch-attack, multiply-flavored, no-SR damage delivery vehicle, and in a 3rd level slot (without metamagic reduction) — and yes it requires Empower, but if a caster is actually interested in delivering damage, single-target or otherwise, that is pretty reasonably in their wheelhouse.


—

Look, I’m not trying to make the case that mages should be aiming for single-target damage, especially when that’s much of the combat (or entire) schtick of other classes, but it’s not really assessing fireball accurately to consider it as a single-target spell when that’s probably not how you want to use it.

[RandomPeasant]

I mean, there’s a reason that this line of spells is a base for the Mailman build and also thank you :tongue: for putting me in a position to actually defend this spell which is a pet peeve of mine, mostly due to the “no SR, magical nonmagic ball of pure fire” type shenanigans.

Sure. But we're not talking about a mailman. We're talking about whether general casters should be taking damage spells. So you're not doing the Twinned Maximized Empowered thing, you're just casting a spell that has a different offensive profile (which doesn't matter because we were already basically ignoring the save on fireball) and scales slightly longer (which also doesn't matter much, because at the point where orb of fire is a top-level spell, neither it nor fireball have hit the cap). I have already admitted that an optimized damage-dealer is capable of dealing meaningful damage. But since major image and stinking cloud do their jobs without any need for optimization, it seems to be quite difficult to justify selecting spells that require extra work to, well, work.


Empowered lesser orb of X doesn’t offer as many advantages but is still a touch-attack, multiply-flavored, no-SR damage delivery vehicle, and in a 3rd level slot (without metamagic reduction) — and yes it requires Empower, but if a caster is actually interested in delivering damage, single-target or otherwise, that is pretty reasonably in their wheelhouse.

Sure. Let's imagine you are a 5th level Wizard who has decided to prepare an Empowered lesser orb of fire. It deals roughly 20 damage on a hit, slightly less than three points more than the fireball does. So, sure, it's better. But it doesn't seem terribly meaningfully better to me.

And I would dispute the "multiply-flavored" thing. A Wizard has to prepare their spells in advance, so realistically you're likely to just prepare whichever type is best on average. If you know enough to say "I should really prepare a cold orb today" you probably know enough to prepare a silver bullet that is even better than 20 points of the right sort of damage. A Sorcerer absolutely cannot afford to learn multiple flavors of orb. It works for a Warmage, but then you're playing a Warmage, which while workable is not exactly ideal.


when that’s probably not how you want to use it.

But that may well be how you need to use it. Again, unless you are a Warmage, you are going to end up in situations where you need to cast fireball in a single-target fight. Maybe your Wizard blew his Empowered lesser orb of fire in the last fight and now fireball is what you've got. Maybe your Sorcerer has only fireball as a 3rd level spell and decided that color spray was a better choice for 1st level combat than lesser orb of fire.

[jmax]

Y’know, this thread is probably a pretty good explanation for why there isn’t much in the way of (especially widely accepted) spell-choosing guides :tongue:

Well, now there is. Or at least a draft.

Being Useful: A Guide to Spellcasting (D&D 3.5) (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tHs5OdG1xzZ6yHi2sqVHcjnuyXZdlMFDbHvZiYbosA8/edit#heading=h.acanzv8xltpy)

I actually got about 80% of this written up the same week, but you all know how it is with tweaking things.

Bits I think are missing or need more attention:

Needs more for gishes
How to pick a spellcasting class to start with. I touch on this a little in the opposite direction, saying what it's like to play each of the core spellcasting classes at a high level. But new players really need a starting point, too.
Links to handbooks for specific classes

[Anthrowhale]

I'm not sure how comprehensive you want to be with spells, but the set of action manipulation spells also includes (Greater) Arcane Fusion, Arcane Spellsurge, and Celerity which are 'great spells' in my mind even if used with no enhancing feats / abilities.

It may also be worth mentioning Surge of Fortune, as it effectively eliminates a roll between spell (or an attack) and effect like True Cast / True Strike / Assay Spell Resistance while additionally doubling damage for a weaponlike spell when a crit is confirmed (which Sense Weakness automates). A great spell on a gish.

[zlefin]

I'm probably repeating some stuff that's been said; since I read this over the course of a couple hours. But let me try to at least add a little.

One basic question when selecting spells is "How flexible is this spell?"

One common feature of some of the games better spells is that they offer a high amount of flexibility. They can be used in a wide variety of ways based on the situation; and thus taking up a spell prepared or a spell known slot is less of an imposition.


This is because the spell has parts that are not chosen until you actually cast it. For example, with the summon monster spells; you could choose something that's good for scouting a particular terrain type (eg earth elemental to go through the ground, or a flyer), or something generically good at fighting, or maybe something with a poison attack, or a useful utility ability. The basic point being that you don't choose which monster to summon until you cast the spell; so all the options are available to you.

Note that for this to be useful, you also need to be familiar with the lists. Having 10 options to choose from isn't so helpful if you have to stop the game to look up the stats for each of these monsters, or to figure out the right one for the situation.



Some other notes on spell selection:

Know your campaign.
Many campaigns feature a wide variety of opponents; in which case there's nothing particular to take. But some campaigns tend to focus on certain types of monsters, or have a lack of certain types of monsters. If the campaign has a lot of undead, then anti-undead spells will be good; but if the campaign has no undead, anti-undead spells are useless. One particular factor is that certain monster types have immunity to mind-affecting, which makes much of the enchantment school, and some of the illusion school, useless.


Know your DM.
While most spells are fairly straightforward, some involve a significant amount of DM adjudication as to what actually happens. This can significantly affect how useful such spells are. This most commonly affects Illusion spells; where there are issues about how much interaction is required for a monster to make a save, and about how the monsters respond to the illusion in general.


Identifying brokenly powerful spells:
One common feature of some of the games most powerful spells for their level; the kind of spells which often get nerfed by DMs, is that their exact effect is hard to pin down, and hence it's harder for the game designers to have balanced them correctly. One common reason is because the spell allows you a wide variety of possible choices. Note that choices don't necessarily make such a spell broken, it just means there's a higher risk.

Some examples to better clarify the sides of this:
Most blasting spells are quite straightforward, they do a certain amount of damage, and few have additional effects beyond that; so most blasting spells are fairly well balanced, as comparing damage numbers to each other is easy.

Polymorph on the other hand has a lot of choice; you could turn into a wide variety of monsters, and the exact benefits of doing so will vary substantially. The amount of 'buff' benefit you get thus covers a huge range; and it's much harder for the designers to have accounted for it.

Another way of looking at it is that something with a specified a numerical effect (eg 8 damage, or +3 to some number) is easier to balance than something that has some effect which is more variable based on the situation (eg +X to a stat, based on which monster race you found, or the issues with Illusions discussed before)

[RexDart]

Looking good! I'm already finding interesting stuff that I either didn't know or hadn't thought about much. Still reading through it, but:



"On average—but not universally—targeting Fort saves is more effective at low levels, and targeting Reflex saves is more effective at high levels. Targeting Will saves is a mixed bag throughout."


I'd be interested in seeing more detail on the reasoning behind this point. It sounds intuitively correct, but I'm not sure why.

[jmax]

I'm not sure how comprehensive you want to be with spells...


I'm probably repeating some stuff that's been said; since I read this over the course of a couple hours. But let me try to at least add a little

Good points. I've taken some notes and will incorporate those.



"On average—but not universally—targeting Fort saves is more effective at low levels, and targeting Reflex saves is more effective at high levels. Targeting Will saves is a mixed bag throughout."I'd be interested in seeing more detail on the reasoning behind this point. It sounds intuitively correct, but I'm not sure why.

... Hmm. You know, I think I got that from Treantmonklvl20's wizard guide and just didn't question it. I feel like I vaguely remember someone digging through the monster indexes and plotting out average attributes by CR, but of course that assumes all monsters are present uniformly in all games.

I'm going to make a new top-level post asking this. It's worthwhile to pin that down.

[Saintheart]

... Hmm. You know, I think I got that from Treantmonklvl20's wizard guide and just didn't question it. I feel like I vaguely remember someone digging through the monster indexes and plotting out average attributes by CR, but of course that assumes all monsters are present uniformly in all games.

If it assists, someone tabulated the average monster stats of all MM creatures here. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623578-3-5-Average-Monster-Stats-UPDATED-TABLE&highlight=average+monster+AC+BAB) CR 1 to CR 20.

Based on the average saving throws only, there's a dumb statistical rationale for targeting Fort saves at low level and Reflex at high: at high levels monsters tend to have Fort saves above their CR, but Reflex tends to lag behind CR. Hence why you'd target Fort at low levels but Reflex at high. (Possibly because spell DCs are "meant" by design to be targeting a percentage chance that's in some way tracking CR.)

Added to that would be that high level monsters on average don't tend to have high DEX ... given the average CR 20 monster has a flatfooted AC of 34 and a touch AC of nine. On the other hand, as the ludicrous number of hitpoints of the higher CR monsters indicates, they have CON out the wazoo which raises the Fort save.

EDIT: It may also be a reflection of monster saving throw advancement: of all the monster types (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm), only five have Reflex as a good saving throw, and eight have Fort. (And only 6-7 have Will as a good save, it might be noted. Will saves I would guess are a mixed bag because it keys off WIS, which is really only a significant stat in monsters with divine casting.)

[jmax]

If it assists, someone tabulated the average monster stats of all MM creatures here. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623578-3-5-Average-Monster-Stats-UPDATED-TABLE&highlight=average+monster+AC+BAB) CR 1 to CR 20.

Based on the average saving throws only, there's a dumb statistical rationale for targeting Fort saves at low level and Reflex at high: at high levels monsters tend to have Fort saves above their CR, but Reflex tends to lag behind CR. Hence why you'd target Fort at low levels but Reflex at high. (Possibly because spell DCs are "meant" by design to be targetng a percentage chance that's in some way tracking CR.) Will saves I would guess are a mixed bag because it keys off WIS, which is really only a consideration for monsters with divine casting.

Added to that would be that high level monsters on average don't tend to have high DEX ... given the average CR 20 monster has a flatfooted AC of 34 and a touch AC of nine. On the other hand, as the ludicrous number of hitpoints of the higher CR monsters indicates, they have CON out the wazoo which raises the Fort save.

EDIT: It may also be a reflection of monster saving throw advancement: of all the monster types (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm), only five have Reflex as a good saving throw, and eight have Fort.

Oooh, nifty. Bookmarked. Thanks!

The ludicrous hit points of high-CR monsters have another implication when it comes to targeting their weak saves. Reflex saves overwhelmingly reduce damage more than negating whole effects - which means that if you use a blasting spell targeting Reflex, it's still not necessarily very effective because you're also targeting HP, which is very much a strength with some of those monsters. Save-or-sucks/save-or-loses targeting Reflex bypass that backstop.

[Saintheart]

The ludicrous hit points of high-CR monsters have another implication when it comes to targeting their weak saves. Reflex saves overwhelmingly reduce damage more than negating whole effects - which means that if you use a blasting spell targeting Reflex, it's still not necessarily very effective because you're also targeting HP, which is very much a strength with some of those monsters. Save-or-sucks/save-or-loses targeting Reflex bypass that backstop.

Reading tea leaves, but maybe the insane hitpoint counts are why the designers decided to let Reflex saving throws lag behind: "Generally Reflex saves under our system mitigate direct damage effects. But if a creature has a massive hitpoint count, it doesn't need a high Reflex saving throw, it can just tank the damage and keep on smashing the weedy mage, hur hur hur." That would be in keeping with their initial (mis)conception that multiple d6s of damage dice were more significant than controlling the action economy or similar.

[jmax]

Reading tea leaves, but maybe the insane hitpoint counts are why the designers decided to let Reflex saving throws lag behind: "Generally Reflex saves under our system mitigate direct damage effects. But if a creature has a massive hitpoint count, it doesn't need a high Reflex saving throw, it can just tank the damage and keep on smashing the weedy mage, hur hur hur." That would be in keeping with their initial (mis)conception that multiple d6s of damage dice were more significant than controlling the action economy or similar.

That seems plausible. But I think it's more likely that it's an unplanned artifact of other design decisions. Regardless, it certainly makes Reflex-targeting battlefield control handy - and those rare Reflex-save-or-suck spells. (Anybody know of a Reflex-save-or-lose? If so, please share!)

[Saintheart]

That seems plausible. But I think it's more likely that it's an unplanned artifact of other design decisions. Regardless, it certainly makes Reflex-targeting battlefield control handy - and those rare Reflex-save-or-suck spells. (Anybody know of a Reflex-save-or-lose? If so, please share!)

Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, sort of; allows you to tie up a big monster for several minutes so you have time to buff or retreat.
Reverse Gravity
Transmute Mud to Rock
Earthquake, kind of

[jmax]

Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, sort of; allows you to tie up a big monster for several minutes so you have time to buff or retreat.
Reverse Gravity
Transmute Mud to Rock
Earthquake, kind of

Eh, kind of. I consider the first three to be battlefield control. In order for something to qualify as a save-or-lose, I generally think of it as having to severely limit actions, which none of those do. They limit what a subject can do with those actions while still in the area of effect, but they still can make choices like using tactical teleportation (even with mental-action items) to escape. My usual minimum bar for save-or-lose are Nauseated or Panicked. Which I should spell out in my guide.

I'd forgotten about Reverse Gravity - that's nice battlefield control, because making the save doesn't actually help much. Clinging to something to prevent falling is just as limiting as the falling, at least for anything with two or fewer appendages. More so, really - a creature floating at the balance point can still fire a bow or manipulate large objects.

Earthquake makes me sad except when used to collapse structures (preferably with enemies inside). Details in my guide :-P

[Anthrowhale]

Wall of Stone also has a reflex-or-entrap clause.