On the futility of Illusion and Enchantment

[Yair]

[rant]
I have a player playing a character based around Enchnatment effects (charm, dominate, that sort of thing). She cannot affect Constructs, Oozes, Plants, Undead, or Vermin. What foe that can be effected need only don a protection from good spell to ward off about half of the school. Mind blank provides protection from any Divination and.... Enchantment effect; yes, the ugly stepsister of divination has been found.
Then there is illusion. It's nice. But a simple detect magic can foil it. And then comes true seeing, and wrecks just about every illusion spell out there.There goes the illusionist character concept. Bye bye.

Yes, there are a few spells that aren't affected in those schools. But why do the main applications of the school need be totally thwarted by a 1st level spell? Why must high-level game totally negate these character concepts?
Mind blank is too neat; what if I had an 8th level spell that made the character immune to any energy-based effect? True seeing is too good; what if I had a sixth level spell that allowed the character to undo any transmutation spell in a 60' radius?

Divination is supposed to be weak. I can live with that, even if I find it rediculous. But enchantment or illusion? They aren't the equal of other schools. And if anyone thinks they are, I recommend he let high-level casters acceess to a spell providing immunity from say all energy-based damage and transmutations; let's call it Body Blank. I have a feeling it will be very popular.

[/rant]

 

[Egres]

Mmhh..then Feeblemind and Greater Invisibility,as Enchantment and Illusion spells,are weak and/or uselss.....

 

[milo]

I don't have my book with me, but true seeing will negate the greater invis and I think mind blank will negate feeblemind.
Another issue I have is the hold spells offering a save every round, makes them too weak.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Dispel magic then dominate monster tell dominated critter to kill his friends.
I don't have time right now to talk about what else you said, maybe later.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I agree whole heartedly. That's why I, as a DM, would encourage players to make custom feats, spells, magic items, etc., to counter the counter spells.

Illusion and enchantment, IMO, are better suited to experienced gamers or campaigns with an emphasis on role-playing. I've seen illusionists played by old veterans who were awesome. It really takes a creative mind and some fore planning though. It also depends on your DM, who is often required to adjudicate illusion and enchantment effects. This is one of those situations where it helps to get the DM on side before you spring something unusual, b/c that's when the scepticism usually creeps in.

I ran a game where the party had NO IDEA they were even fighting an illusionist until the very end. Then they were like, "Oh yeah! That's why X happened the way it did...". It took a lot of advance planning though.

 

[Yair]

Mmhh..then Feeblemind and Greater Invisibility,as Enchantment and Illusion spells,are weak and/or uselss.....

Feeblemind will arguably be negated by mind blank (falls into "thoughts"), but even if not, that's not the point. Yes, there are a few spells that fall through the cracks. But show me another school whose main forte is blocked by a 1st level spell.
As for greater invisibility - again, true seeing will foil it and detect magic will void much of its applications (no longer allowing you to truly be "not there", just "impricisely located", really). And again, the point is not the specific spell, but rather the vast damage done to almost all illusion spells by just a few, mostly low-level, spells (detect magic, arcane sight, and true seeing).

 

[Pyrex]

Don't forget that Detect Magic is completely thwarted by a 2nd level Misdirection and/or Magic Aura

 

[Lord Pendragon]

It may be that you're looking at an Enchanter/Illusionist in the wrong light. Once discovered, all of your arguments are valid. There are many spells that foil enchantments and illusions. This is the weakness of the two schools. They are weak in direct confrontations, and more easily countered if the potential target is aware of what he faces, and has time to prepare.

The strength of the class lies in guile, subterfuge, and misdirection. In this kind of conflict, an illusionist/enchanter will be far more powerful than an evoker. Consider a political campaign. Or largely city-based campaign, where the PCs know who the BBEG is, but cannot directly assault him. These are the sorts of campaigns where the illusionist/enchanter shines.

I think the problem you are having is that your campaign is based on direct confrontations more often than not, and the illusionist/enchanter is not suited for that type of game. No more than the sneak-attack focused rogue is suited for a campaign designed around battling the undead.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You're going WAY too far by claiming that Detect Magic ruins illusion. It can reveal the presence of image spells. However, if an image spell is done properly, opponents shouldn't think to use detect magic. Detect Magic doesn't do much against Invisibility and Greater Invisibility (wohoo, I can tell there's magic in this 60' cone. Give me two more rounds and I'll know where it is--gah! my spleen!) and does nothing at all against Shadow Evocation, Shadow Conjuration, Wierd, Phanstasmal Killer, False Vision, Blur, Displacement, and a lot of other nifty illusion spells. True Seeing is a generally effective counter to illusion magic but, aside from high CR demons, the Avoral Guardinal, and the Erynies devil, it is expensive and doesn't last very long.

Enchantment is more vulnerable to mind blank. However, you are discounting several very good enchantment spells like Heroism and Greater Heroism. If you use Tome and Blood, Indifference is also a good enchantment spell. (I agree, however, that the duration change on the hold spells nerfed them into non-usefulness and that the changes to sleep were way too much as well).

That doesn't ruin either the enchanter or the illusionist character class however--only the concept that "I'm a wizard who does nothing but XYZ." And since that concept wasn't viable to begin with (I'm a wizard who only does evocations. . . it's a golem; I'm a wizard who only does summonings. . . protection from evil; I'm a wizard who only does transmutations. . . halfway decent fort save; etc). An enchanter or illusionist can pretty easily work with one or two spells per level sunk into enchantments or illusions--maybe three if the character has all the spell focus tricks up his sleeve--and use glitterdust, gate, planar binding, waves of exhaustion, ray of enfeeblement, magic missile, fireball, enervation, summon monster, evard's black tentacles, magic jar, etc the rest of the time. Such a character can still be recognizable as an enchanter or illusionist because of the options he always has available to him just like a diviner can easily be recognizable as a diviner by always having detect thoughts, scrying, analyze dweomer, etc available to cast in addition to his fingers of death, feebleminds, magic jars, and monster summonings.

Just because you specialize in a school of magic doesn't mean that every problem will be solvable by using magic from that school. That, however, ruins neither the concept nor the execution of diviners, enchanters, or illusionists.

 

[Benben]

Mindblank may block most of the lower level enchantment spells, but the higher level enchantment spells aren't all mind effecting (at least in 3.5). Also enchantment is nice enough to give a spell that gives a -10 to will saves, Mind Fog. For a school that is highly dependent on will save this is a nice boon.

Is it completely fair, no. But then not all schools of magic are made equally for the standard D&D campaign. In a lower magic setting, or one lacking in the standard dungeon delving adventures Illusion and Enchantment are incredibly powerful.