Can Conjuration *really* replace Evocation's blasting? [3.5]

[FMArthur]

I should just mention at the start that I know Conjuration's deadly, debilitating and versatile effects already make it strategically more powerful by leaps and bounds to not care about blasting. I don't think it's worth debating that Conjuration is better than Evocation.

But part of the claim is often that Conjuration straight-up outclasses Evocation in its own job. Whenever I am told specifically that Conjuration also does pure straight up *blasting* better than Evocation, all I've ever heard to back it up are the Orbs. Single target touch attack blasting, which are great for ignoring Spell Resistance. But where are Conjuration's Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, etc? Not clouds that hurt people over time, tentacles that grab people, or anything like that. I am talking about instantaneous bursts of wide AOE damage, or at least multi-target instant damage. What can a Conjurer who's banned Evocation do to replicate those moves?

Let's keep in mind we're a normal Wizard who hasn't cheesed out Shadow effects to the point where they become worthwhile alternatives, because without them, Shadow Evocation and its Greater counterpart suck.

[Lateral]

Yeah, this is true. Conjuration's direct damage spells *do* outclass Evocation's, but Conjuration doesn't actually have enough DD spells to eliminate the occasional need for Evocation.

[randomhero00]

Well at higher levels they can often summon things that do those wide AOEs.

[Psyren]

But where are Conjuration's Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, etc? Not clouds that hurt people over time, tentacles that grab people, or anything like that. I am talking about instantaneous bursts of wide AOE damage, or at least multi-target instant damage. What can a Conjurer who's banned Evocation do to replicate those moves?

Blast of Flame
Blast of Sand
Acid Breath
Firestride Exhalation
Arc Lightning
Vitriolic Sphere
Acid Storm
Deadly Lahar
Snowball Swarm
Hail of Stone

...shall I continue?

EDIT 1: Note that many of the above are SR: No, and will work through AMF. No evocations can do both of these things.
EDIT 2: Conjurers can also summon creatures to use the blasty evocations for them.

[Jack_Simth]

Spell Compendium:
Acid Breath (15 foot cone of acid, 1d6/level, 3rd level spell, caps at 10d6)
Acid Storm (20 foot cylinder of acid, 1d6/level, 6th level spell, caps at 15d6)
Arc of Lightning (Line between two targets, 1d6/level, 5th level spell, caps at 15d6)
Blast of Flame (60 foot cone of fire, 1d6/level, 4th level spell, caps at 10d6)

I stopped looking at that point. Sufficient?

[Khatoblepas]

Melf's Unicorn Arrow for multi target blasting with a nice effect, Acid Breath is a 1d6/level acid blasting spell, and don't forget Summon Monster for other creatures casting spells on their actions, not yours!

Well, I've been ninjaed a bit, but I gotta ask. What do you need to be blasting for? If you can pin down the enemy in Solid Fog + Cloudkill, why do you need to then do 10d6 damage afterward? That's what the Big Stupid Fighter is for. Mopping up.

[molten_dragon]

When it comes to AoE blasting, evocation beats conjuration, because it has access to wings of flurry.

[Halae]

I've always been a fan of doing two things that essentially make evocation obsolete: Divination, and summoning up creatures. With divination you just set up the field in such a way that they can't escape or get away in the exact way that you saw the creatures would arrive. of course, notfoolproof as they can trick said divination, but still. Then, with summons, you sit back and watch as your beasty begins to tear things apart, or, better yet, create those evocation effects for you, as has been stated already

When it comes to AoE blasting, evocation beats conjuration, because it has access to wings of flurry.

I'll give you that one

[Jack_Simth]

When it comes to AoE blasting, evocation beats conjuration, because it has access to wings of flurry.

That is, however, Sorcerer-only, and Sorcerers don't really have the option of banning schools for more raw power.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

When it comes to AoE blasting, evocation beats conjuration, because it has access to wings of flurry.

Only if you're a sorcerer. And generally, if you're specializing in conjuration you're also grabbing standard action summons or sweet, sweet "I'm 10 ft. that way!" for AC.

[Zaydos]

Well, I've been ninjaed a bit, but I gotta ask. What do you need to be blasting for? If you can pin down the enemy in Solid Fog + Cloudkill, why do you need to then do 10d6 damage afterward? That's what the Big Stupid Fighter is for. Mopping up.

Because explosions are fun
I like playing wizards but I hate just sitting there as other people "mop up". I've had characters that did, and by which I mean they let their pixie familiar fire a bow at things while they sipped tea (or at least they were supposed to; I played them twice, once as a test run for three characters when I was still working out kinks in spells known/prepared and once when the DM used my list of 'things that give him the most trouble' as the entire adventure)*, but it remains fun to blow things up.

*Out of three encounters he still managed to pull as much as or more weight than any other character on two (big ass dragon immune to the majority of his offensive spells, and area where magic didn't work normally and he couldn't use his offensive spells), and still quite up there in the third (incorporeal creatures which I had purposefully not given him anything more effective than 50% chance against) and that was because two of the party members were built to specialize in fighting that type of encounter.

[FMArthur]

Interesting. I was looking at just Core because it isn't as daunting as searching through the Spell Compendium, Complete Mage and PHII for more spells (what else isn't in the Spell Compendium, by the way?) and had gotten the idea that it would provide a sample of what sort of things to expect from the school in general. This is obviously not the case. Well, the point has certainly been proven to my satisfaction and now I know where to look for spells doing that particular job. Thanks, guys.

[ericgrau]

Ya you can't match the AoE with orb spells, which is the best way to use blasting. What orbs really bust open is high level blasting. No SR, works in an anti-magic field, and decent damage on the less often resisted energy types. At low level you'd be better off with poor single target scorching ray even. The main thing is that the orb spells provide a workable substitute for what's supposed to be an evocation effect. While it doesn't cover everything it still makes it one step easier to ditch evocation, giving you extra spells over a generalist wizard with a minor drawback. Though there are other awesome, unbeatable non-damaging evocations, the more books you have the more passable substitutes you can find for spells which makes it more worth it to ban a couple schools for the sake of extra spells. Rather than, y'know, an actual drawback. Welcome to min-maxing 101.

Btw, the original purpose for the orb spells according to a major WotC author speaking on a podcast is to provide damage with a little bit of a side effect, as kind of a test case before adding it to 4e. Having not yet checked spell compendium, I didn't even know the side effect existed until that podcast. No one ever mentions it. Instead they always say "conjuration, ranged touch, no save, no SR, works in an antimagic field <drool>..." Thanks for carelessly busting the game to get your test case Wizards .

[Pigkappa]

If we had infinite rulebooks, there would likely be even some necromancy spell to teleport or divination spell to resurrect. Conjuration was not intended to be as good as evocation at blasting, but they added to that school a few blasting spells each time and now we can blast with conjuration. If the DM accepts non-core spells, which is a bad idea.

[ericgrau]

If the DM accepts non-core spells, which is a bad idea.

I can see this line quickly gaining heat so I'd like to say that the DM should accept non-core spells after looking at them first for bustedness as they do open up more creative options and interesting variations in the game. And even then only a handful of spells / spell types showing up daily on forums need banning; the rest might be adjusted. Carelessly accepting everything is what's a bad idea.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I can see this line quickly gaining heat so I'd like to say that the DM should accept non-core spells after looking at them first for bustedness as they do open up more creative options and interesting variations in the game. And even then only a handful of spells / spell types showing up daily on forums need banning; the rest might be adjusted. Carelessly accepting everything is what's a bad idea.

And on the opposite end of the spectrum, carelessly banning all non-core or even just entire books is generally a bad idea, too. Most of the crazy stuff is in core, anyhow.

[Psyren]

Conjuration was not intended to be as good as evocation at blasting

If they really intended that, why did they create Spell Resistance?

[Halae]

If they really intended that, why did they create Spell Resistance?

Because they were making a poor attempt to balance magic alongside fighting characters, but left a blatant hole because they didn't want to make SR creatures insanely powerful

[FMArthur]

It wasn't made as a tripline for inexperienced players, if that's what you're implying. They just forgot that it was made as an arbitrary balancing effect and started trying to apply logic to it by thinking too hard about the magic-mundane status of firebolts at the point of impact. More simulation vs game developer confusion.

[Pigkappa]

Yeah, ok, but the equilibrium point is near to banning everything. A lot of spells aren't apparently broken but they can make the game much easier for he wizard (orbs or earth reaver ---> losing evocation is easier, for example).
O course the DM should also ask the players to use core spells in a fair way (e.g. abusing polymorph any object is bad).

[ericgrau]

Because they were making a poor attempt to balance magic alongside fighting characters, but left a blatant hole because they didn't want to make SR creatures insanely powerful

That's the gist of it. Remember SR was before the orb spells. Almost every core spell that directly affects a creature has SR, and often a save or attack roll too. The handful that don't either work indirectly by beefing allies or etc., or they do piddly damage. See ice storm (no save) and acid fog (no SR). If the orb spells did lousy damage but bypassed SR and stuck to non-magical energy types that actually make sense like acid, then they might be ok.

Then ya it seems they totally forgot why they did things earlier on. Maybe in part because everyone who worked on 3e either quit or was fired.

[Psyren]

O course the DM should also ask the players to use core spells in a fair way (e.g. abusing polymorph any object is bad).

But if your players are the sort that will abuse spells, they'll do so even if you enforce core-only. Conversely, if your players are the sort who restrain themselves, they'll do so no matter which splats you allow. Either way, banning books does nothing but constrain the game.

Remember SR was before the orb spells.

Actually, the first orb spell is Core.

[ericgrau]

Agreed there. I noticed the things that appear 95% of the time in forums are about 2% of what's in books, whether splat or core. People that don't browse forums often don't even notice these 98% of the time, let alone seek them out so that they may break the game.

Actually, the first orb spell is Core.

And it's a low damage acid spell which is totally fine.

[Roland St. Jude]

Yeah, ok, but the equilibrium point is near to banning everything. A lot of spells aren't apparently broken but they can make the game much easier for he wizard (orbs or earth reaver ---> losing evocation is easier, for example).
O course the DM should also ask the players to use core spells in a fair way (e.g. abusing polymorph any object is bad).

Of course, if asking players to do that works (as it would in pretty much any game I've been in in recent memory), then you can ask the same for non-core as well and have many more options to play (fairly) with.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Yeah, ok, but the equilibrium point is near to banning everything.

Then why is Core the stuff that should stay unbanned? They were made at the beginning of the development cycle and often created just to maintain continuity with old editions, as opposed to splatbook spells which were created with more experience and with 3.5 in mind. Some fundamental spells are core-only, yeah, but there's not much reason to consider core more balanced except for cultural conditioning.

[Pigkappa]

Of course, if asking players to do that works (as it would in pretty much any game I've been in in recent memory), then you can ask the same for non-core as well and have many more options to play (fairly) with.

Not really because there are many non-core spells which aren't clearly broken as polymorph any object (the orbs again are a good example) but make the wizard's life easier (because he can lose evocation without much trouble).

Reasons for banning non-core spells: it is much simpler to say "core only and please don't break the game" than "you can use these 122 spells from core and these 198 from other sources and please don't try to use them to break he game".

Of course if a player has good in-game reasons to research a single out-of-core spell the DM should be reasonable...

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Yeah, ok, but the equilibrium point is near to banning everything. A lot of spells aren't apparently broken but they can make the game much easier for he wizard (orbs or earth reaver ---> losing evocation is easier, for example).
O course the DM should also ask the players to use core spells in a fair way (e.g. abusing polymorph any object is bad).

Yeah, no. I would rather play a game where core was banned save for its mundane and most of the magical items than play a game where I can't even use all of the complete books. Hell, looking through the complete books there is probably about one broken thing per book. Complete Arcane gave us the Though Bottle. Complete Warrior gave us Hulking Hurler. Complete Adventurer gave us... leap attack, I guess. Nothing really stands out from that book as ZOMGBANNZORED! Complete Divine gave us Ur-Cheese. The later series books, though are largely balanced except for maybe, maybe the pouncing barbarians and a cleric spell that can be popped as an immediate action for a natural 20 on a roll. And those two things are both from Complete Champion - and both are minor and/or easy to change. While homebrew, some people just switch the pounce from the Lion-Totem Barbarian for whatever it gains at 6 HD and that one spell is easy to ignore.

When you branch out into other, non-campaign setting stuffs, you get the wonders of Incarnum, Psionics, and the two Tome books.


EDIT:

Not really because there are many non-core spells which aren't clearly broken as polymorph any object (the orbs again are a good example) but make the wizard's life easier (because he can lose evocation without much trouble).

You do know there are pains like the calling spells, all of the summoning spells and more than just "RAWR I'm a monster-spells" from core, right?

Reasons for banning non-core spells: it is much simpler to say "core only and please don't break the game" than "you can use these 122 spells from core and these 198 from other sources and please don't try to use them to break he game".

Of course if a player has good in-game reasons to research a single out-of-core spell the DM should be reasonable...

Easier yes, but that doesn't mean that core isn't not the most broken thing about 3.5. Hell, it'd be easier to go to a message board like here ask what is so broken about X this or Y that and just patch something like Shivering Touch out of existence than simply say "no." I for one won't play in a core-only game. It's too hard to be melee and too limiting in what I can do.

[JKTrickster]

I disagree that the equilibrium is established by banning nearly everything.

I mean if you really want to play balance and fun you could go straight for Tier 3, which is mostly Splats anyway but still balanced, varied, and fun!

So while keeping to core is simpler, I disagree that it solves the problem or retains "fun" because it...too limited.

[ericgrau]

It is easier for inexperienced DMs to stick to core though, then branch out when they feel ready. And really most of the broken stuff in core is so obvious no one ever actually tries it, whereas some of the later books get hazy and may even have some forms of power creep which some DMs may allow and others not allow. While bad for reasons discussed including the thread title, the orbs are hardly the worst thing out there.

[FMArthur]

Eh, Core spells in general actually seem to require DM adjudication in general a bit more and have more complex effects. Spells and class features where you have to read the Monster Manual to get any effect are the worst offenders IMO. So despite this never happening due to core containing most of the gameplay rules, I think a small selection of noncore books would offer the simplest, easiest and most balanced games. Like just ToB + Expanded Psionics Handbook.