| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I already provided the definitions.Actually, that's invocation. Different word.Sorry but, Evoke is actually the word for it. Moreso than Invoke.
The definition you provided for invoke supports Ashiel's statements. To invoke is to call out to something or make an appeal. To evoke is to conjure or bind. It's the difference between asking and demanding, in a sense.
Funny enough, evoke = conjure is in the Merriam-Webster definition.
I already provided the definitions.Actually, that's invocation. Different word.Sorry but, Evoke is actually the word for it. Moreso than Invoke.The definition you provided for invoke supports Ashiel's statements. To invoke is to call out to something or make an appeal. To evoke is to conjure or bind. It's the difference between asking and demanding, in a sense.
Funny enough, evoke = conjure is in the Merriam-Webster definition.
Invoke:
1
a : to petition for help or support
b : to appeal to or cite as authority
2
: to call forth by incantation : conjure
3
: to make an earnest request for : solicit
4
: to put into effect or operation : implement
5
: bring about, cause
He invoked the memory of his predecessor.
She invoked history to prove her point.
He invoked his Fifth Amendment privileges.
The suspect invoked his right to an attorney.
invoke the authority of the court
Nietzsche is so complex that he can be invoked in support of many outlooks, some of them brutal or nihilistic. —Thomas Nagel, New Republic, 14 Jan. 2002
evoke:
1
: to call forth or up: as
a : conjure 2a <evoke evil spirits>
b : to cite especially with approval or for support : invoke
c : to bring to mind or recollection <this place evokes memories>
2
: to re-create imaginatively
Examples of EVOKE
The old house evoked memories of his childhood.
His photographs evoke the isolation and solitude of the desert.
I generally don't care for these kinds of arguments, but it is what it is. Read it all.
Invoke: implies appeal to authority, prayer, etc. Evoke: conjure, inspire, such as an evocative artwork. Particularly in modern usage.
I already provided the definitions.Actually, that's invocation. Different word.Sorry but, Evoke is actually the word for it. Moreso than Invoke.The definition you provided for invoke supports Ashiel's statements. To invoke is to call out to something or make an appeal. To evoke is to conjure or bind. It's the difference between asking and demanding, in a sense.
Funny enough, evoke = conjure is in the Merriam-Webster definition.
+1. (^-^)
+1. (^-^)I already provided the definitions.Actually, that's invocation. Different word.Sorry but, Evoke is actually the word for it. Moreso than Invoke.The definition you provided for invoke supports Ashiel's statements. To invoke is to call out to something or make an appeal. To evoke is to conjure or bind. It's the difference between asking and demanding, in a sense.
Funny enough, evoke = conjure is in the Merriam-Webster definition.
Don't post so fast. You missed it, too. READ. What's there, not what you want it to say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't post so fast. You missed it, too. READ. What's there, not what you want it to say.+1. (^-^)I already provided the definitions.Actually, that's invocation. Different word.Sorry but, Evoke is actually the word for it. Moreso than Invoke.The definition you provided for invoke supports Ashiel's statements. To invoke is to call out to something or make an appeal. To evoke is to conjure or bind. It's the difference between asking and demanding, in a sense.
Funny enough, evoke = conjure is in the Merriam-Webster definition.
I did read it. Your most recent post supported what I already said. See, look.
Invoke:
1
a : to petition for help or support
b : to appeal to or cite as authority
2
: to call forth by incantation : conjure
3
: to make an earnest request for : solicit
4
: to put into effect or operation : implement
5
: bring about, causeevoke:
1
: to call forth or up: as
a : conjure 2a <evoke evil spirits>
b : to cite especially with approval or for support : invoke
c : to bring to mind or recollection <this place evokes memories>
2
: to re-create imaginativelyInvoke: implies appeal to authority, prayer, etc. Evoke: conjure, inspire, such as an evocative artwork. Particularly in modern usage.
Compare to the shorthand I used.
Invocation is the petitioning of, and may be a practice involve with Evocation (such as if you invoke the name of a spirit in an attempt to evoke said spirit), which is generally what Conjurers in D&D do (if you cast planar binding you invoke the creature desired and then evoke them). Evoke is to summon or call forth. When discussing magic(k), Evocation is the actual term used to define the summoning and binding of spirits, while invoking them is generally used to acquire their attention or to assert your authority through ritual {don't hold my familiarity of such things against me}.
...
An invocation is like a prayer. An evocation is a summon.
If you're arguing semantics, then ... well, you might be a lawyer, in which case proceed as planned.
I just like to watch 'em dance. LOL
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not a reason, it's a fallacy. Which school a spell is in doesn't result in said spell being OP.
Is Conjuration more powerful than Evocation? Yep, because blasting sucks as a strategy; not because of what spells are in what school. Moving Snowball to Evo is not going to make Evo equal, nor will switching every other damage spell in the game.
Setting aside the issue of conjuration and spell resistance, which school a spell is in may not make the spell OP but it can certainly make the school OP. An overpowered school is just as important (if not more so) to game balance as an overpowered spell. Thus the school of a spell is relevant in determining it's brokeness.
Doess blasting currently "suck as a strategy"? Sure in alot of cases it's sub optimal but for me personaly I want all my characters to at least have the option of doing damage sometimes. Because at the end of the day harassing enemies with conrol spells can be a great strategy but damage is what kills them.
Would moving snowball over to evocation make evocation "equal". Not in my opinion, but it would certainly make it better. While at the same time not buffing what is already considered to be the best school in the game.
Everyone else in the thread, including the OP considers the balance between conjuration and evocation to be relevant to the discussion. You've made your arguement and no one agrees with you. It's time to take your (snow)ball and go home.
- Torger
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, if we had a clear 'breaking point' between the two schools it would help.
If Evocation meant 'creating from nothing' and Conjuration meant 'calling from somewhere' that would help.
So for our friend the snowball. short form would be evocation (even if it conjures the snow from the crown of the world, it 'creates from nothing' the energy to turn it into a super cooled projectile).
Long form would be that it would do 1d6 cold damage/level (max 5d6) and one point of bludgeoning. The cold damage would be subject to SR but the one point of bludgoening wouldn't. (It's the rock in the snow ball Sebastian mentioned above.) So it would be *both* schools.
Psionic characters did. 3.5 Psionics was one of the best most balanced books produced in the entire 3.x lineAh, that explains it. My groups never even looked at those books. Psionics just didn't fit in our world. I've been thinking of changing to a power point system for casters, guess I'll have to check out 3.5 psions. How does the PF psion stuff hold up against it?
d20pfsrd has the updated rules from Dreamscarred, and I think they hold up pretty well. So much so I wish Pathfinder would make it the "official" rules for psionics for their game.
As far as the snowball is concerned, if it was 2nd level I'd be less worried, even if it was conjuration (cf Frigid Touch). My biggest issue with the spell at first level is a sorcerer who took magicial linage (Snowball) and rime spell. no save entangle for one round, plus a save vs staggered is pretty powerful at level 1.
I don't think that Snowball is broken in the sense that this spell is going to destroy your game and make your GM quit GMing Pathfinder forever, but it is indeed a poorly designed spell. Before Snowball, Shocking Grasp was the single-target 1st level spell that did the most damage, and Shocking Grasp has a range of ''touch'' and allows SR. Even then, it was not considered a good spell, but at least it was the way to go if your goal was to deal maximum damage to a single creature with a 1st-level spell until level 9, where Magic Missile becomes stronger. Now, Snowball does as much damage as Shocking Grasp, has a superior range, can stagger the target AND ignores SR, making Shocking Graps even less useful than it was (and Snowball is not even an evocation spell, which only adds salt to the wound). Furthermore, Snowball doesn't even follow the guidelines given by the devs for creating new spell.
There's plenty of ways to fix the Snowball spell:
-Decreasing it's damage output (it could deal 1d6+1d6/for every odd-numbered levels after level 1, maximum 5d6 at level 9);
-Making it an evocation spell that doesn't ignore SR (but it would still make Shocking Grasp obsolete, except for the Magus);
-Making it a 2nd level spell, because it is ''roughly'' comparable to another 2nd level spell from the conjuration school (Acid Arrow). Snowball does more damage than Acid Arrow on the spot, but has an inferior range, doesn't negate regeneration and doesn't disrupt spellcasting the way Acid Arrow does. Now, if someone spends feats to increase the effectiveness of Snowball, that's allright, this is what metamagic feats are for.
There's plenty of ways to fix the Snowball spell:
-Decreasing it's damage output (it could deal 1d6+1d6/for every odd-numbered levels after level 1, maximum 5d6 at level 9);
Making it deal 1 less damage/die than the Lesser Orbs (they did 1d8 +1d8/odd levels after 1st); but it has a side effecr so I'd call that even.
-Making it an evocation spell that doesn't ignore SR (but it would still make Shocking Grasp obsolete, except for the Magus);
Doesn't fit to me.
-Making it a 2nd level spell, because it is ''roughly'' comparable to another 2nd level spell from the conjuration school (Acid Arrow).
Snowball does more damage than Acid Arrow on the spot, but has an inferior range, doesn't negate regeneration and doesn't disrupt spellcasting the way Acid Arrow does.
Only if they increase the Damage die to 1d8/level (max 5d8); that is in line with second level spells (2d4 like acid arrow =1d8)
Making it deal 1 less damage/die than the Lesser Orbs (they did 1d8 +1d8/odd levels after 1st); but it has a side effecr so I'd call that even.
Which shows us how much powerful Snowball is in its actual form, dealing nearly twice as much damage as the ''Lesser Orb'' spells with a chance to stagger your opponent on top of that. By the way, except maybe for Lesser Orb of Sound, I don't think that the ''Lesser Orb'' spells were too much annoying in my experience GMing 3.5. It was the ''Orb of X'' spells that were really annoying, because they inflicted a debilitating effect on the target while doing better damage than an evocation spell.
Doesn't fit to me.
You mean fluff-wise? Because if that's what you mean, just change the name of the spell for ''Ray of Ice'' or something like that.
Only if they increase the Damage die to 1d8/level (max 5d8); that is in line with second level spells (2d4 like acid arrow =1d8)
Acid Arrow
School conjuration (creation) [acid]; Level sorcerer/wizard 2Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (rhubarb leaf and an adder's stomach), F (a dart)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect one arrow of acid
Duration 1 round + 1 round per three levels
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
''An arrow of acid springs from your hand and speeds to its target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The arrow deals 2d4 points of acid damage with no splash damage. For every three caster levels you possess, the acid, unless neutralized, lasts for another round (to a maximum of 6 additional rounds at 18th level), dealing another 2d4 points of damage in each round.''
So Acid Arrow deals 2d4+2d4/3 levels, which means that it doesn't scale as fast as Snowball (but has a higher maximum damage). At level 3, Acid Arrow deals 4d4 acid damage (mean=10) while Snowball deals 3d6 cold damage (mean=10,5). At level 6 Acid Arrow deals 6d4 acid damage (mean=15) while Snowball deals 5d6 cold damage (mean=17,5). Thus, as it is, Snowball deals more damage than Acid Arrow until level 9 AND it deals all its damage in a single round while the damage of Acid Arrow his spread over time (which is, most of the time, a bad thing). So I don't think it would be necessary to increase the damage of Snowball.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So, for example, Evocation fireball doing (say) d8s to deal with increased hit points. A Conjuration 'fireball' is going to be limited to at most D6s, maybe with less range since you're conjuring 'normal' fire. TRansmutation might be able to do a Fuel Air explosive kind of fireball, etc.
So for a 'blast of cold' from Conjuration for example, you're conjuring cold from somewhere else, but the evocation is more immediate/damaging.
This is exactly what I'd like to see and is what I mean when I complain about the flavor-text based schools of magic. Given that we're stuck with the legacy schools at this point in the game, we should make the best of it and give the schools their own mechanical identities. Evocation spells should do the most damage. I don't mind conjuration getting spells that bypass SR (well, okay, I kinda mind because conjuration already has all sorts of goodies), but those spells should require an attack roll and do significantly less damage (so, if evocation is the school of d8 damage dice, other schools get a d6, and conjuration spells that bypass SR get a d4).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Warning, Shower thoughts ahead...
I've been trying to figure out where Abjuration fits in my thoughts on redefining the schools. IT's likely my M:TA fan boy, but I'm thinking Abjuration might be the 'entropy' school. Its effects manifest as dampening energy, unravelling things and the like. Possibly strengthing things, but that might step on transmuation's toes.
So shield and mage armor belong in evocation (solely) since 'force' is an energy type. Not in abjuration and conjuration.
An abjuration shield like spell would be like this.
Entropic Shield
School abjuration; Level magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 min/level (D)
Entropic shield creates a field around you, decreasing energy around you and hampering attacks aimed at you. For the duration of the spell, you gain a +2 deflection bonus to armor class.
Amusingly, if you look at abjuration as an entropy/unravelling school, disintigrate might actually fit there better. (or make an abjurant disintrigrate need a will save as the target is basically forcing himself to stay together.)
|
I think you're making an elephant out of a mosquito.
The point isn't that the conjurer doesn't have better options...the point is that the conjurer now has one MORE option...and the fact that he oppose school evocation is even more of moot point as when he DOES need damage (because sometimes you do just need to pile on those damage spells) he has the snowball spell.
Well if you think an issue that was one of the major contributing force to a game system dying off as a mosquito of an issue...you and I have a VASTLY different definition of the term. If you REFUSE to believe what happened in 3.5 in the end days don't matter now, your just being willfully ignorant of the past to propagate your agenda and as such, further discussion is of absolutely no use as you won't listen to what is being discussed in the least. If you refuse to believe that the conjuration bloat was not an issue in 3.5 and eventually lead to it's demise...well I just don't even know what to say to that.
An abjuration shield like spell would be like this.
** spoiler omitted **Amusingly, if you look at abjuration as an entropy/unravelling school, disintigrate might actually fit there better. (or make an abjurant disintrigrate need a will save as the target is basically forcing himself to stay together.)
Entropic Shield exists already: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/entropic-shield
You should rename yours to something like Entropic Armor or Entropic Barrier or Entropic Protection (since you seem to mimicing a Ring of Protection)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh* Conjuration better at dealing damage than evocation? It was a bad idea when WotC did it, and it's a bad idea now.
|
|
So got a look at the book that this spell is from today at my local game shop. There is a 2nd level evocation spell in the same book that does 4d6 damage in a 30 ft cone with SR no. So really, they are willing to give evocation a giveme with a no SR spell...just on a 2nd level blast spell that is worse then what 1st level conjuration spell does it seems. Seriously...WTF?!?
hey, it's insurance: if they break all the rules, you can't complain about consistency any more.
So got a look at the book that this spell is from today at my local game shop. There is a 2nd level evocation spell in the same book that does 4d6 damage in a 30 ft cone with SR no. So really, they are willing to give evocation a giveme with a no SR spell...just on a 2nd level blast spell that is worse then what 1st level conjuration spell does it seems. Seriously...WTF?!?
So, it's better than a ranged attack scorching ray at that level.
Power creep started with the summoner.
Apparently, the devs have as little regard for what broke 3.5 as WOTC did.
Sad, really.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
hey, it's insurance: if they break all the rules, you can't complain about consistency any more.
One would think that that if they have NO consistency, it would be even a bigger reason to complain about the lack of consistency. Seriously, this kind of willy nilly publishing is what killed 3.5 and I hate to say it, but I see paizo heading towards the cliff of pathfinder 1.5 or 2.0 with this sort of thing very quickly. Seriously, when shadowsoul is the voice of reason over JJ...you KNOW you have an issue.
Is there much left in Evocation after moving these sorts of spells around to schools they make more (or as much) sense in?Ultimately, you're right. There really doesn't need to be 9 schools of magic. There's so much mechanical overlap and it really doesn't add much thematically to the game, imo.
But that's what we have, and it's not going to change any time soon (I doubt ever). And it really wouldn't take that much to make evocation a desirable school-- First, don't give other schools better blasts. Second, errata the sorc bloodlines to not work for wizards(It's cheesy as all hell that the best blaster in the game is a sorc 1/wiz X), and lastly give evocation a minor buff. It really wouldn't take much. +1/die would have been good, but copying sorcs is kinda lame. Shifting all evocation dice one size larger for evokers only (d4->d6->d8, etc) is something I've thought about doing in my game, and would probably be enough to make evokers an attractive option. Players would stop feeling they must use all the control spells that everyone gripes about so much, and maybe wizard hate in general would decline a bit, lol.
This thread got me thinking about the schools of magic and how I would redesign them if I had the chance. It's always seemed rather odd to me that wizards would focus on a particular "type" of spell vs specializing in whatever spells helped them in their chosen line of work or area that they live. If a character is planning on playing a sneaky magic assassin I would expect him to choose spells that focus on stealth and bypassing guards and traps. If instead they are playing the shaman from the frozen north I would expect them to have spells focusing on protecting themselves from the cold and using it to their advantage.
I would take a few staple spells from each level (maybe 5-10) and declare that these are common knowledge, so useful that any mage who could have would have learned them and passed them on to their apprentices. After that I would break up the spells thematically and create new schools based on region and roles. If you want to learn snowball and protection from cold than you head up to the frozen north. If you want to learn vanish or invisibility than you find a master of the hidden blade or one of the daughters of Sivanah to teach you, etc..
At first level each wizard would choose one school and they would be considered an "initiate" of that school. At 5th and 10th level they would pick a second and third. At 10th and 15th level they would chose choose one of their initiate schools and become a "Journeyman" in it, at 20th they would pick one journeyman school and become a "Master" in it. Each "level" in the schools would provide some sort of boon similar the current school powers. Since you would have 3 initiate, 2 journeyman and 1 master powers over your career each would probably have to be slightly weaker than the current powers but it shouldn't be too hard to balance them ie instead of 3+ int bonus uses change it to 3 + 1/2 int bonus, or 1 damage per 2 levels it becomes 1 damage per 3 levels etc. However the changes below would provide a slight nerf to the bonus feats and spell learning so the school abilities wouldn't need too much in the way of nerfing to keep the same total power level for the wizard.
I would also tie in the wizard bonus item creation and metamagic feats to the schools that you pick. A student of the war mages could learn to create magic arms and armor or intensify a spell but they wouldn't have a clue how to make a spell merciful.
Finally learning spells; your 2 free spells per level would have to come from your known school lists. I would increase the DC for learning spells from a school that you don't know to either 20 or 25 + the spell level. It's not just that each school knows different spells, it's that their whole approach to magic is different and that makes learning rare spells harder.
I think these changes would give individual wizards more built in role playing flavor and it also would create more unique wizards due to the ability to combine schools and their powers in different ways. This would be nice since there are so few archetypes for wizards. Certain spells and feats would be more rare if only a few schools offered them so this would help reduce power creep and broken combos.
Those are nice ideas. I could see a rewrite working really well that way. Maybe they'll refine or redefine the types of spells and how to specialize in them.
For now, we got what we got, and once again, conjuration, one of the strongest, if not the strongest school, gets a better blast spell than the blasty school.
Summoners get this? Really? They're not powerful enough, yet?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Snowball is better than Scorching Ray. At 5th level, Snowball does 5d6 while Scorching Ray only does 4d6. At 10th level, Intensified Snowball does 10d6 and Scorching Ray does 8d6, but requires two attack rolls. Of course, Snowball's cold damage is more useful and it staggers. A 1st level spell, doing more damage and having more utility than a benchmark 2nd-level spell.
My head hurts how this slipped through. I trust that Paizo erratas the heck out of this.
One can only hope errata is forthcoming.
Two damage rolls is a disadvantage in the case that your target has energy resistance (quite common) but that's really missing the point.
Snowball deals the same or more damage than the Scorching Ray at level 4-6 AND has an excellent bonus effect on a failed save AND no SR AND it's a level lower AND it's a less resisted element.
If you have Intensified Spell it's strictly better for a few more levels on top of that.
Two damage rolls is a disadvantage in the case that your target has energy resistance (quite common) but that's really missing the point.
Snowball deals the same or more damage than the Scorching Ray at level 4-6 AND has an excellent bonus effect on a failed save AND no SR AND it's a level lower AND it's a less resisted element.
If you have Intensified Spell it's strictly better for a few more levels on top of that.
It's hard to imagine many characters NOT taking it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two damage rolls is a disadvantage in the case that your target has energy resistance (quite common) but that's really missing the point.
Snowball deals the same or more damage than the Scorching Ray at level 4-6 AND has an excellent bonus effect on a failed save AND no SR AND it's a level lower AND it's a less resisted element.
If you have Intensified Spell it's strictly better for a few more levels on top of that.
And, again, it's a druid spell, which does not get fixed by just changing the school. "Oh, hey, we're going to give druids a better blast spell at first level than the benchmark 2nd-level wiz/sorc blast." Seriously?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think having it as a summoner and patronless witch spell is even worse, considering the druids have always been decent blasters.
I personally would like to see a decent blast ray spell at 1st level. I like the idea of ray specialists who pride themselves of being a crackerjack shot with a spell. But Snowball is way too much.
|
My 2 cp:
1. Above analysis has convinced me Snowball is overpowered.
2. However, the easiest change would be to require it to have a 1 (entire) round casting time.
3. This puts snowball in line with the Summon Monster spells, and serves to differentiate Conjuration and Evocation school spells.
4. Sleep is roughly as powerful/useful, and is a first level spell with a 1 round casting time.
5. Changing the spell to second level also works, of course, but isn’t as elegant.