So I just finished my bazillion´th run through Oddworld:Abe´s Exodus(what a great game) and I thought to myself how great it would be to play a controller Wizard. But after a short while of contemplating I came to the conclusion, "nope probably not". You can´t really control anything with enchantment.
It´s not just that more than 50% of the bestiary is basically "unenchatable", it´s the spells.
A charmed Opponent
does not have to do what you say to him, hell depending on how he´s wrapped he could still be a danger.A dominated one gets saving throws for every action thats against his nature and that´s where it breaks,it gets even more problematic the more intelligent the dudes get,a GM has every right to declare all kinds of stuff is against an intelligent NPC´s or Monsters nature.
All this while the friendly neighbourhood Necromancer can cast Magic Jar or Marionette Posession and assume complete control over anything.He could posses some guy and jump into a meatgrinder ,no extra save ,nothing he can do.
So why has enchantment to be so bad?
It's too narrow and focused on mind control and mind rape. It could benefit considerably in use and appeal if it plundered spells from other schools, preferably non mind-affecting ones to pad out its roster.
The entire phantasms subschool of illusion could be argued either way where it should go. Many buff spells could be reflavored as magical encouragement, mind over matter, magic-induced adrenaline surges, and so forth.
Also, any "control" spell that effects specific creatures normally immune to enchantments (like say... Command Undead) should be moved to enchantment.
I do think the save-or-lose compulsions like dominate need some sort of nerfing as well, though. They seldom work, but when they do, MAN do they work!
If a GM wants to nerf anything there is not much that can be done, but most GM's are fair.
I use Charm spells to get someone to not attack me.
I use dominate spells to get someone to attack to party, well depending on the situation anyway. If the bad guy know the PC's are very close he might just tell the PC to do <insert random task>?
Enchantment spells and necromancy spells often have monster that are flat out immune to them or the monsters have high will and fort saves because those 2 schools can end encounters, and that makes for anticlimactic boss fights. That is why I never really use them as a PC.
Enchantment is so restricted as a way to counter the power it has if it works. Dominate spells take an ally from the other team, and give you one. IIRC it last for days.
Well I think it´s not powerfull enough. I would want the charm spells to do what the dominate spells do now, and the dominate spells should let you assume complete control no matter what your order is.
Also immunity against mind affecting spells is waaay to common,everything that has some kind of reasoning of his own ,rudimentary as it might be should be a viable tatget for mind control.
How would you handle boss fights? Would you be ok with one spell basically ending an encounter, even at high levels?
Charm= Dominate sounds great until your party uses it on a few choice giants. Their perma-buddies just destroyed your campaign, unless you (in turn) start taking extravant tactics to stop it (oh *wow* yet another Circle against Evil zone! what a coincidence! and man thats the 27th Greater Dispel magic trap we've seen today!)
While its true that enchantment could use some love- the very fact that it takes control of a person away from that person is why it remains a nerfed-into-the-ground school of magic.
-S
How would you handle boss fights? Would you be ok with one spell basically ending an encounter, even at high levels?
Sure, why not? It´s not the only way to end a fight with one spell, and it´s always a will save ,so if pumping the use of that kind of spells let´s you end a fight quick here and there.....them´s the breaks.
How would you handle boss fights? Would you be ok with one spell basically ending an encounter, even at high levels?Sure, why not? It´s not the only way to end a fight with one spell, and it´s always a will save ,so if pumping the use of that kind of spells let´s you end a fight quick here and there.....them´s the breaks.
Would you mind the DM using it on the party like that?
Yes I would, I would also mind him using Flesh to Stone, but there are ways to deal with both spells.
Yes I would, I would also mind him using Flesh to Stone, but there are ways to deal with both spells.
If a player(group) did not mind it going both ways I would probably allow it, but I don't have PC only options in my games, and many other GM's don't either. I think that is why the spells are written the way they are.
PS:Well I don't Sunder or Coup de Grace, but other than those everyone is treated the same for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The buff enchantment spells are actually pretty good, but there needs to be more of them.
This makes me want to start a Down with Transmutation thread.
I know I'm a minority here, but I much preferred when many of the (presently filed under) Transmutation spells were part of the Enchantment school.
Give something an inherent magical quality: Enchantment
Use magic to change that thing's (mundane) quality: Transmutation
'findel
What Transumation spells were Enchantment spells?
Fly, levitate, magic weapon, and similar enchantments taken in a more fairytale-ish definition of the term.
[edit] It should be noted that quite a few spells belonged to two schools, perhaps including the two mentioned above (haven't opened my AD&D books in years)
Didn't 3.0 have a 9th level thrall spell?
Levitate was in the Alteration school which is probably what we call Transmutation now.
|
I dunno. So many enchantment spells are dangerously effective and great favorites of mine. Yes, most MONSTERS are immune to them. So what? No humanoid creature is. What that essentially translates to is that enchantment is a potent but VERY narrow school, like necromancy. I'd totally play an Enchanter if my GM was kind enough to tell me ahead of time that, for example, we were playing a political campaign ala Kingmaker or some-such, where a vast majority of enemies are just random shlubs that are quite susceptible to Hideous Laughter, Suggestion, Unnatural List, etc.
Thing about enchantment spells is that if you succeed in casting them (and there are ways to make yourself very likely to so succeed, such as playing a kitsune, taking the Spell Focus feat, certain other complimentary spells, witch hexes, etc.), you essentially remove a threat from an encounter. Even Charm Person can make someone "friendly." In combat, this translates to the fact that even though they're on the opposing party and they won't fight for you and you can't tell them what to do, they certainly won't be attacking you. Cast it on their damager or tank (which have low will saves, btw, usually), and now you can just breeze past them with a whistle and a tune and carve up the squishy wizard behind them like a Thanksgiving Turkey, then, once they're the only enemy left standing, dismiss the spell and gut them too. Narrow and limited, yes. Underpowered...gods no.
I think the basic problem of enchantment is that it has no settings between "high" and "off."