Evocation-Conjuration Rendundancy

Personally, I wouldnt mind if they combined things down to a smaller number of schools and had subcategories and that spells could have more than one of those. They are there partially in some places but not all of them.

After all, there are quite a few spells that could easily fit into several schools, or has multiple effects which are all from different schools.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Personally, I wouldnt mind if they combined things down to a smaller number of schools and had subcategories and that spells could have more than one of those. They are there partially in some places but not all of them.


That is true. However theres only really so much paring down one can do...and in particular you'd have to watch for Transmutation syndrome. Depending on how you look at it almost any magical effect is a change of some kind.

Evocation could easily be folded into Conjuration and Transmutation. And I suppose Necromancy could as well in many ways, but the concept of Necromancy is pretty universal. The other schools pretty much stand on their own. Theres some overlap between Enchantment and Illusion of course.


I'm fine with the number of schools and the way things are set up as far as that goes, I just ask that they be consistent with it, instead of ignoring their own rules, precedents and paradigms.
 

As others have noted, there's a lot of overlap between the various schools. Planar travel can be accomplished through no fewer than four schools, for example, and the various energy spells are as bad or worse.

Why should we care? First, there's really no point in having schools for spells unless those schools do distinctive things. But second -- and more importantly -- wizard specialization is predicated on the assumption that you give up substantial functionality when you surrender a school or two. Someone earlier in this thread said evocation has actually become redundant, and while I think that's overstating things a bit, it does shed some light on why specialists are so powerful in 3.5 compared to generalists. Need to charm somebody without knowing enchantment spells? No problem, just use illusion spells instead. Need to blast somebody without knowing evocation spells? No problem, just use conjuration spells instead. Need to do some planar traveling without knowing conjuration spells? No problem, just use illusion or necromancy or transmutation spells instead. And the list goes on and on.
 

Someone earlier in this thread said evocation has actually become redundant, and while I think that's overstating things a bit, it does shed some light on why specialists are so powerful in 3.5 compared to generalists


I agree with the idea that the redundancies are in part for specialization purposes, however 1) this is a very poor way both mechanically and especially in terms of theme, flavour and internal consistency. Whats the point of being an Evoker if the Conjurer can do the same things just as well? 2) Even given that, I disagree that specialists are "so powerful in 3.5 compared to generalists." Mechanically I think specialists are still giving up more than they get, especially in terms of core only. Thematically and conceptually specialization is still rather bland. All that however is a whole other thread.
 

My fear has been echoed here: Evokers are pointless now, the Conjurer does it better.

Blast of Flame is lower level than Cone of Cold, and other than capping out earlier (10d6 rather than 15), is better in that it ignores SR! What reason is there for it being a conjuration though?

The Orbs, some of them I can handle being a conjuration. Acid has always been a conjuration, and cold can be done by creating ice. Fire, well, a lump of white phosphorus will do for that. But lightning? Sonic? FORCE?! These are somehow conjurations, when Force has ALWAYS been an evocation effect, that's why Wall of Force is an Evocation, not an Abjuration.

About the only downside that these orbs have is that they require ranged touch attacks, but they are so laughably easy to make that it's not a real problem. They deal damage, without a save to prevent it, to the source, ignoring SR. Between them and Blast of flame, who needs an evoker?!

Whoever did the spells for Complete Arcane needs to examine the schools again. Arc of Lightning should also be an Evocation, and Backbiter is a frickin' Transmutation, not necromancy! Then again, Necromancy apparently isn't the school dealing with life energy and the like, it's the school of cackling evil. That's why the cure spells aren't necromancy, but things like Bestow Curse are. Grrr...
 

Blast of Flame is lower level than Cone of Cold, and other than capping out earlier (10d6 rather than 15), is better in that it ignores SR!

Cone of Cold is already at best a mediocre spell, at worst underpowered with little reason to take it aside that in core its the first real cold spell, and the only 5th level damage spell. But if you can take Blast of Flame as a 4th level spell theres even less reason to bother.


What reason is there for it being a conjuration though?

Because the designers have made another poor decision.

My guess is, they decided there needed to be more attack spells that bypass SR (which I dont mind at all) and that there needed to have some non-evocation deccent damage spells (which isnt inherently bad neccesarily, although its funny since in 3.5 they made such an effort to "balance" the schools by giving each one tight niches, including making just about every deccent-damage-up-front spell Evocation, but which they are going back on now). And instead of trying to do those things in a way that maintains consistency and in-game logic they just...do it.


and cold can be done by creating ice

The spell doesnt say anything about ice tho. In fact I cant think of very many ice spells.
A Conjuration that created ice and did some damage in the process would be fine, but it shoould be offensively inferior to similiar evocations.


Fire, well, a lump of white phosphorus will do for that


Eh...again, the spell says nothing about phosphorus. Its creating fire out of nothing which in Dnd is Evocation's thing. Once again, a spell that say conjured a ball of phosphrus that did minor damage on impact and some continuing fire damage would be fine as a Conjuration, but simply creating an orb of sourceless fire that does at the cap direct damage is an Evocation thing.


FORCE?! These are somehow conjurations, when Force has ALWAYS been an evocation effect, that's why Wall of Force is an Evocation, not an Abjuration.

Well, Mage Armor is a Conjuration. And there are many force Abjurations. And I think WOTC is (annoyingly) moving more and more towards Force as being a very physical designation, for some reason. I'd rather Force were just untyped, no strings attached magical energy.


From a general-logic standpoint, I could see many Force spells as Conjurations. Truthfully, from a logical and general-fantasy perspective, Evocation never really should have existed as such, since everything it does can fall well within the idea of Conjuration (and the rest go to Transmutation).
However, there is basis for it, it does work, and DnD had a pretty good paradigm going for Evocation/Conjuration (although theres always been spells in each that should've probably be switched, and they really could do more with Evocation to make it more distinct). I just dont get why *now* they decide to start putting it all under Conjuration which makes Evocation redundant and from a characters perspective, wrecks the whole logic of the schools of magic.
 

Merlion, when I was talking about the orb spells, I was reaching for some theory on how they could possibly be conjurations. I don't actually agree with the decision, as I point out near the end of my original post.

And yes, force should be a no strings attached energy, the only use for the descriptor being to indicate that it affects incorporeal and etheral critters.
 

The problem, in my opinion, is twofold.

1) Spell schools have never been clearly defined in what they do, though some (notably Divination, Abjuration, and Enchantment sort of) have more definition than others (notably in this case Evocation and Conjuration, as well as Transmutation).

2) The very nature of role-playing is about using the imagination. Thus, it's not hard to describe healing as Evocation, as Conjuration, as Necromancy, or as Transmutation. A case could even be made for Abjuration. It's the same for most spells, that they can easily fall under more than one category.

What really needs to be done is a clear defintion of the types of effects that each school does best. Then describe how each school can do each of the other school's effects to a lesser degree. For example, conjuration spells that do damage as evocation spells should either require a to-hit roll or do less damage than a comparable evocation spell.
 

Merlion, when I was talking about the orb spells, I was reaching for some theory on how they could possibly be conjurations. I don't actually agree with the decision, as I point out near the end of my original post.

I know, I wasnt saying you did. I was just reinforcing the fact that there really is no way, within the existing paradigm, to justify those spells as Conjuration.


What really needs to be done is a clear defintion of the types of effects that each school does best. Then describe how each school can do each of the other school's effects to a lesser degree. For example, conjuration spells that do damage as evocation spells should either require a to-hit roll or do less damage than a comparable evocation spell.


The scary thing is, the current descreption of Conjuration basically states that it can call energy. So if that descreption is taken broadly (as the designers apparently have in CA), Evocation becomes about 80% redundant.

The definitions of the schools need to be both clear and complete, and laid out so that each school has roles, and no school subsumes the role of another, at least not more than slightly.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top