Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="irdeggman" data-source="post: 2373979" data-attributes="member: 16285">The problem was that in 2nd ed the "rules" were very fast and loose rgarding schools and shperes.  In 3.5 they are a whole lot more definitive, whether or not we agree with them (e.g., healing being conjuration (healing) vice necromancy).Now the orb spells (finally checked out my copy of Complete Arcane) look very much like a glaring mistake.  In every other WotC 3.5 product that I've checked (I don't ahve a lot of the FR stuff) it appears they have been very consistent with using evocation (elemental descriptor) for these types of spells (fire and ice) while using conjuration for things like acid. Heck in T&B they were classified correctly.Hmm they also didn't include this fairly obvious error in the CA errata nor have I found any mention of it in Sage Advice (i.e., FAQs).  Looks like it deserves an e-mail to the powers that be (I don't really trust the cust-serv).But overall WotC has been very consistent with their usage (barring this one example) in the use of schools for spells. When one looks at the sheer volume of spells that they have published for 3.5 (almost every book ahs new spells, feats and prestige classes) it is amazing that this is the only thing we've found so far that is inconsistent in the 3.5 usage.Remember that one can be consistently wrong but remain consistent.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification