Author Topic: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school  (Read 14479 times)

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
[3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« on: November 15, 2014, 09:33:06 AM »
Things like Orb of X spells being more appropriate for Evocation instead of Conjuration or Summon Undead belonging into Necromncy instead of (again) Conjuration.
I'm trying to do something with magic schools, but they need to be reasonably balanced with each other.
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline ketaro

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4243
  • I'm always new!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2014, 09:40:42 AM »
Except the Orb of X spells ARE Conjuring the element into a physical form. Something about why they're able to ignore AMF being in there with the reasoning.

Summon Undead is SUMMONING an Undead. You're not creating one from a corpse. That's Create Undead.
Instead, you're summoning an undead creature from somewhere else. It's not necromancy to teleport a creature just cause it happens to be undead :p
Thus, Conjuration.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2014, 10:16:45 AM »
Err, yeah, I know. :/ But they do that because they're in that school, not because it makes sense.
That's not really my point to argue about it. I'm talking about houseruling, so it doesn't really matter if Orb of X is technically conjuring or evoking, because I'm going to change it. Balancing is the point here.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2014, 10:18:35 AM by ImperatorK »
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline ketaro

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4243
  • I'm always new!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2014, 10:22:31 AM »
But they make sense because they do that, not because they're in that school?
There has to be SOMETHING that you can fall back on when somebody goes all AMF happy on you. And as that doesn't actually happen often at all, the fact that they are in that school so they CAN be the work-around to it is fairly moot, thus if you never really need to worry about shit like AMF, it doesn't really matter what school the Orb spells are in............Well, I just argued myself to your side. Evocationing them up is probably perfectly fine.

But I'm standing by my Summon Undead argument. It's not necromancy to teleport a creature just cause it happens to be undead :p

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2014, 10:27:15 AM »
Again, I'm going to houserule it, so it doesn't matter.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2014, 10:29:11 AM by ImperatorK »
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline ketaro

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4243
  • I'm always new!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2014, 10:59:23 AM »
So if some one casts Gate and ends up with an undead creature walking through the portal, it'd be a Necromancy spell all of a sudden?
Or casts Teleport on an Undead creature?

Just saying, it's kind of hilarious, doing it like that -_-'

[Force] spells.
The vast majority of Force spells are Evocation, but then weird ones like Mage Armor are Conjuration. Or Shield being Abjuration.
They should all just be Evocation. Those few exceptions don't really have a decent reason to be exceptions.

Offline Maat Mons

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1203
  • What is a smile but a grimace of happiness?
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2014, 11:32:42 AM »
I think the problem with spell schools is that they try to reflect imaginary technical details.  Honestly, it doesn't matter if I burn someone by changing the water vapor in the air into hydrogen and oxygen, then allowing it to react exothermically.  It doesn't matter if I burn someone by telekinetically increasing the vibration of the molecules in their body, thus raising their temperature.  It doesn't matter if I burn someone by opening a gateway to the elemental plane of fire next to them.  What matters is that I burn someone. 

Offline ketaro

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4243
  • I'm always new!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2014, 11:40:17 AM »
Yeah, the only point of Schools was to give specialization perks. Otherwise they're not really useful for the generalist wizard most people play.

Offline snakeman830

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1091
  • BG's resident furry min/maxer
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2014, 12:48:21 PM »
I would say the entire Healing subschool belongs better in Necromancy than Conjuration.  A case can be made for Resurrection or True Resurection when used without a corpse, though.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2014, 12:51:00 PM by snakeman830 »
"When life gives you lemons, fire them back at high velocity."

Offline Solo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Sorcelator Supreme
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2014, 02:36:07 PM »
Except the Orb of X spells ARE Conjuring the element into a physical form.
Ah yes, the element of fire, ice, sound (wind?), lightning, acid, and force.

What is this, Star Wars?
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline faeryn

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 816
  • Dedicated Spellthief: stealing all your spells
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2014, 08:41:23 PM »
If you open up Tome and Blood, you'll find the Orb spells moved to Evocation already...

Offline ketaro

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4243
  • I'm always new!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2014, 08:44:01 PM »
Isn't T&B 3.0?

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2014, 12:12:01 AM »
I've noticed teleportation spells in several schools, shouldn't they all be in one?
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2014, 01:20:07 AM »
If you open up Tome and Blood, you'll find the Orb spells moved to Evocation already...
Isn't T&B 3.0?

As noted, Tome and Blood is 3.0.  It was published in July 2001.  Orb of Acid et al were revised in Complete Arcane which was published in November 2004.

Offline Blightersbane

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2014, 05:45:15 PM »
Looking up Abjurant Champion as a first, ran across an interesting little design flaw. As you all well know the AC can add her class level, as a bonus, to any abjurant spell that offers a bonus to ac. The class shows mage armor, and later quotes same, but mage armor is not an abjuration. Shield and Luminous armor are, and are by far the 2 favs to pick...on prob is AbJ Champ was out some yrs prior to Luminous Armor, found in the BoED. So at the time of release Abj Champ could only used the shield spell?

sidebar question - magic circle vs evil fulfills criteria by being both abjuration and a bonus to AC, would the Ab Champs additional bonuses apply?

Blightersbane


Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2014, 05:48:44 PM »
Looking up Abjurant Champion as a first, ran across an interesting little design flaw. As you all well know the AC can add her class level, as a bonus, to any abjurant spell that offers a bonus to ac. The class shows mage armor, and later quotes same, but mage armor is not an abjuration. Shield and Luminous armor are, and are by far the 2 favs to pick...on prob is AbJ Champ was out some yrs prior to Luminous Armor, found in the BoED. So at the time of release Abj Champ could only used the shield spell?

sidebar question - magic circle vs evil fulfills criteria by being both abjuration and a bonus to AC, would the Ab Champs additional bonuses apply?

Blightersbane

The errata already made note of that little quirk.

Page 51 – Abjurant Champion
Class Features [Deletion]
Under the abjurant armor ability,
remove mention of “mage armor” at
the end of the paragraph. The abjurant
armor ability does not affect mage
armor, but the spell is still useful to an
abjurant champion.

And no, simply having an AC bonus does not qualify for the ability.  It must have either an Armor Bonus to AC or a Shield Bonus to AC.

Offline Blightersbane

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2014, 06:05:53 PM »
Now why couldn't they say "oops, mage armor is included". I found something thats been errated, therefor discussed already, thanks again
Mr jackrabbit.

Wait hold on!  So when 1st introduced the Abj Champ had only the shield spell? Should of been called shield master, maybe forceward or somesuch.

Blightersbane

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2014, 06:44:56 PM »
I would say the entire Healing subschool belongs better in Necromancy than Conjuration.  A case can be made for Resurrection or True Resurection when used without a corpse, though.

I do believe that they used to be. Too lazy to just check.

Yeah, the only point of Schools was to give specialization perks. Otherwise they're not really useful for the generalist wizard most people play.

Yeah, the specialising really helped the 'please blow stuff up school'. It's not like they went and put a ton of the best damage-dealing things in the game everywhere else. Not only can you bar evocation, you can do better direct force damage! :eh

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2014, 09:08:56 PM »
Things like Orb of X spells being more appropriate for Evocation instead of Conjuration or Summon Undead belonging into Necromncy instead of (again) Conjuration.
I'm trying to do something with magic schools, but they need to be reasonably balanced with each other.
Bust out some 2e books and compare schools of spells from there. (The indexes from the Spell Compendiums would be a great starting place.)  Plenty of spells moved into Conjuration and Transmutation between editions when they dropped the dual school thing.  (Shield used to be bloody Evocation!)  Incidentally increasing the power or the two most powerful schools.  Cross referencing would give you plenty of good ideas for spells to move.

Or bring back dual school spells as a positive thing, rather than the negative they were briefly introduced as if you simply want to shore up weaker schools.

Item creation feats gutted half of what Enchantment used to do.  Stealing back spells that make items magical would do much to make that school less handicapped.

Offline snakeman830

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1091
  • BG's resident furry min/maxer
    • View Profile
Re: [3.P] Spells that REALLY should be in a different school
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2014, 11:05:35 PM »
Looking up Abjurant Champion as a first, ran across an interesting little design flaw. As you all well know the AC can add her class level, as a bonus, to any abjurant spell that offers a bonus to ac. The class shows mage armor, and later quotes same, but mage armor is not an abjuration. Shield and Luminous armor are, and are by far the 2 favs to pick...on prob is AbJ Champ was out some yrs prior to Luminous Armor, found in the BoED. So at the time of release Abj Champ could only used the shield spell?

sidebar question - magic circle vs evil fulfills criteria by being both abjuration and a bonus to AC, would the Ab Champs additional bonuses apply?

Blightersbane
Book of Exalted Deeds was a late 3.0/early 3.5 book.  Complete Mage (where Abjurant Champion is first and only printed) was released late in 3.5.
"When life gives you lemons, fire them back at high velocity."