D&D 5E Abjuration vs. Illusion - Which one should I pick?

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=6982228]J Neto[/MENTION]

I think everyone is looking at this backwards. A few considerations:

1. Counterspelling can be just as DM dependent as Illusions as there is no real or mechanism that by RAW allows you to know what spell is being cast on an enemies turn. Some DM's will tell you outright. Some will give you a check for a reaction (eliminating your ability to counterspell). Some will give you a check for free. Some will refuse you any way of determining what spell the enemy is casting while it's their turn. Without knowing what spell is being cast counterspelling becomes a lot less efficient.

2. Abjuration wizards can use illusions and Illusion wizards can use counterspell. Some DM's will make counterspelling ineffective, some will make illusions ineffective. The nice thing is you are a wizard and have a huge selection of spells. You don't have to use illusions against DM's that make illusions ineffective. You don't have to use counterspell against DM's that make counterspelling ineffective. You have a whole slew of other options you can use in those instances.

3. Everyone is to focused on the negatives. Some DM's will make illusions ineffective. Other DM's will make them super effective. That means at least some of the games you are in you will have a DM that makes your illusions features very strong. As long as you are okay adapting your spell casting to the DM in question then the illusion school may very well be super powerful in enough adventures to justify it being taken.

So honestly, I'd pick abjuration if you seem to be having trouble surviving and I'd pick illusion if you aren't.

 

[Mistwell]

If you are going to higher levels I have to admit malleable illusions can be a very powerful ability. Using a 6th level slot you can make an illusion permanent and use Malleable Illusions to change it’s nature, have it follow you around and turn it into whatever you need when you need it without using spell slots. Probably have an illusionary ring as your staple. It can even work with lower level spells, like for example Illusory Script becomes semi-psychic paper. The Illusion school is definitely a good school.

 

[5ekyu]

While abjuration is likely more reliable - shields always help - it comes down to what you want more of. If you want more shields, counters, saving allies, blocking dmg - go for abjur.

If you want a lot of circumstantial trickery on the fly - go illusion.

 

[Gadget]

No question that Illusion requires more adjudication, but that is partially WOTC fault. I see a lot of complaints online about DMs that "nerf" illusions; and while I have no doubt that is certainly true in many cases, I also see a lot online about with so-called Illusionists decrying that they are not allowed to use minor illusion or such to "win" D&D. A careful reading of the spell in question, combined with a comparison to other affects of the level can reveal that the 'creative' use of the spell was beyond the effects described in the spell description. I've found that using illusions subtly to enhance or tweak the situation is usually met with more DM acceptance than trying to outright dominate the encounter with it.

On the other side, I've never seen it even implied that you are supposed to know exactly what spell is being cast at what level for counterspell; it has always involved some risk. This has been clarified in Sage Advice and Xanthanar's. Can you get a "Bad" DM, who, when faced with a PC counterspell, meta-games and says: "oh, he was just casting the Ray of Frost cantrip?" Sure, but that's just blatant DM cheating.

 

[cmad1977]

This. Abjurer is one of the more powerful schools mechanically (if not the most powerful). But Illusion can offer a lot more creative options for clever play and role playing opportunities / shenanigans. However, it relies a lot more on DM fiat, and so can be very frustrating if your DM is not on board with giving you leeway on how your illusions interact with others. For example, if your DM always allows for the chance to see through the illusions, or is always like "they attempt to disbelieve" even if there would not necessarily be logical reason for the targets to disbelieve the illusion, it would not be as fun.

That’s a table I’d leave. Even if I were an evoker.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[mikebr99]

[MENTION=6982228]J Neto[/MENTION]

I think everyone is looking at this backwards. A few considerations:

1. Counterspelling can be just as DM dependent as Illusions as there is no real or mechanism that by RAW allows you to know what spell is being cast on an enemies turn. Some DM's will tell you outright. Some will give you a check for a reaction (eliminating your ability to counterspell). Some will give you a check for free. Some will refuse you any way of determining what spell the enemy is casting while it's their turn. Without knowing what spell is being cast counterspelling becomes a lot less efficient.
<snip>

Well the 10th level abjurer ability mitigates that... a lot! Once you have Improved Abjuration, you should be able to trust that your high INT and proficiency bonus will counter only using 3rd level slots.

Mike

 

[FrogReaver]

Well the 10th level abjurer ability mitigates that... a lot! Once you have Improved Abjuration, you should be able to trust that your high INT and proficiency bonus will counter only using 3rd level slots.

Mike

That’s assuming you aren’t wasting the counterspell on a level 1 magic missle...

 

[mikebr99]

That’s assuming you aren’t wasting the counterspell on a level 1 magic missle...

I would say that your memorized Shield spell would be telling you that you have been targeted by MM before you have to decide whether to counterspell or not.

YMMV

Mike

 

[FrogReaver]

I would say that your memorized Shield spell would be telling you that you have been targeted by MM before you have to decide whether to counterspell or not.

YMMV

Mike

How so?