Spells and spell schools.

SionIV

Alright so while familiar with DnD I'm not all knowing and have a few questions about spells and spell schools. I've been looking at some other sites about the DnD spells and then at the ones we have in Baldur's Gate, and wondering which is wrong and if it has anything to do with editions.

Baldur's Gate :

Power Word Blind - Conjuration
Power Word Stun - Conjuration
Power Word Silence - Conjuration
Power Word Sleep - Conjuration
Power Word Kill - Conjuration

Symbol Death - Conjuration
Symbol Fear - Conjuration
Symbol Stun - Conjuration

Flame Arrow - Conjuration

DnD sites :

Power Word Blind - Enchantment
Power Word Stun - Enchantment
Power Word Silence - Enchantment
Power Word Sleep - Enchantment
Power Word Kill - Enchantment

Symbol Death - Necromancy
Symbol Fear - Necromancy
Symbol Stun - Enchantment

Flame Arrow - Transmutation

I'm sure there are other spells too that will be different, so i'm curious here, who is right? I've been looking at mage specializations and some (Conjuration) seem to have a lot of spells that don't really belong there in my opinion.

Jarrakul

My second edition player's handbook is in a box somewhere, so I can't readily check it, but that's the one BG is theoretically following. Is that the edition you checked against?

SionIV

Jarrakul said:

My second edition player's handbook is in a box somewhere, so I can't readily check it, but that's the one BG is theoretically following. Is that the edition you checked against?

I found a few 2.0 and 2.5 sites online that i cross checked with Baldur's Gate. And it kind of does make sense at least with the ones i listed, I don't see how a power word silence would be conjuration, or a symbol of death.

I sadly don't have any second edition books so i can't check there.

Sertorius

Just checked the spells against the 1995 version of Player's Handbook. The schools you listed under Baldur's Gate match, so I'm guessing some changes were made for the 3rd edition or possibly later.

However, I did notice some spells not being of the same level in Baldur's Gate as the were in Player's Handbook.

lunar

The schools in baldurs gate are correct, according to 2nd edition lore. In 2e, all power words are conjuration. However, in pnp conjurers miss out another spell school (invocation?) so they needed some direct, single target attack spells instead of conjuring monsters or affecting the battlefield indirectly,

Symbols do not make much sense as conjuration, but you may be conjuring special magical forces to be stored in the symbol until triggered. You may make any spell a conjuration spell by that logic, however.

In 3rd edition and beyond, power words become enchantment and symbols are a mixed bag.

SionIV

Thank you all for clearing this up for me

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

semiticgoddess

I wouldn't say the spell schools are balanced, but I wouldn't say Conjurers and Illusionists are necessarily the best mages and Diviners and Enchanters are "screwed."

Conjurers lose out on Divination, which costs us True Seeing. Clerics, druids, and thieves can dispel illusions instead, but that requires 5th-level divine spells, which include the critical spell slots for Chaotic Commands, Ironskins, and Insect Plague, or four entire thief levels dedicated to Detect Illusions. Same goes for Farsight, which costs a 4th-levels spell slot that the party's divine spellcaster could spend on Death Ward, Free Action, or Summon Nature's Ally. There are ways of getting around the Conjurer's weaknesses, but the same holds for the weaknesses of virtually any character, and they still carry opportunity costs. Illusionists, likewise, miss out on Vampiric Touch, which does a LOT to improve a mage's durability, and Horrid Wilting, not to mention Animate Dead.

Meanwhile, Diviners lose out on Maze and Limited Wish. But the extra spell slots are still worth more, just like with Conjurers and Illusionists. Would you rather have one casting of Maze with a generalist or two castings of Horrid Wilting with a Diviner? Enchanters don't have high-level enchanting spells, but then, neither does a Conjurer. Nor does an Enchanter have any fewer high-level conjuration spells than a Conjurer.

And if you want an example of a truly weaker specialist mage, that's probably a Transmuter, with its complete lack of access to spell protections, weapon immunities, or even Breach. But even a Transmuter is a viable character. As I recall, Alesia has done a solo run with a Transmuter, despite the lack of the best arcane defensive spells.

For every spell you use, there's either a decent alternative for that spell slot, or another spell that can help accomplish the same objective.

Can't learn Breach? Memorize Sunfire.
Can't learn Mordenkainen's Sword? Memorize Animate Dead.
Can't learn Horrid Wilting? Memorize Maze.
Can't learn Symbol: Stun? Memorize Chaos.
Can't learn Confusion? Memorize Teleport Field.
Can't use Improved Haste? Memorize Protection from Magical Weapons.

lunar

Abjurers are a lot worse than transmuters. No stoneskin=dead mage. Funny how a specialised protector can not protect himself properly. (Yeah pro from magical weapons are good but it is an emergency spell. Nothing beats good ol stoneskin. The quintessential mage buff.)

semiticgoddess

Between Vampiric Touch, Mirror Image, invisibility spells, summons, and running away when not casting spells, an Abjurer is perfectly capable of blocking enemy melee attacks. But a Transmuter will have almost no defenses against enemy spell attacks. It can turn invisible, but cannot cast Spell Immunity to ward off True Seeing. Also no Spell Immunity to protect the caster from Chaos, Meteor Swarm, Wail of the Banshee, etc. The closest thing a Transmuter gets to spell defenses is Polymorph Self, which prevents spellcasting except through scrolls and sequencers.

Plus, Stoneskin can be taken down with Dispel or Remove Magic. The Transmuter won't have SI: Abjuration to block that. But an Abjurer can maintain PFMW and avoid getting it dispelled. The Transmuter can, however, use Teleport Field if Stoneskin is liable to be dispelled.

lunar

semiticgod said:

Between Vampiric Touch, Mirror Image, invisibility spells, summons, and running away when not casting spells, an Abjurer is perfectly capable of blocking enemy melee attacks. But a Transmuter will have almost no defenses against enemy spell attacks. It can turn invisible, but cannot cast Spell Immunity to ward off True Seeing. Also no Spell Immunity to protect the caster from Chaos, Meteor Swarm, Wail of the Banshee, etc. The closest thing a Transmuter gets to spell defenses is Polymorph Self, which prevents spellcasting except through scrolls and sequencers.

Plus, Stoneskin can be taken down with Dispel or Remove Magic. The Transmuter won't have SI: Abjuration to block that. But an Abjurer can maintain PFMW and avoid getting it dispelled. The Transmuter can, however, use Teleport Field if Stoneskin is liable to be dispelled.

Valid points. But running a mage without stoneskin scares me. Transmuter can use wand of spellstriking to debuff enemies, also. Really, missing spell immunity is big, because spell immunity is a grossly, unbelievably powerful spell in bg, and high lvl mage fights revolve around that spell.

A transmuter can also time stop and suck the brains of any enemy via shapechange. Though you have noted no xp will be awarded in that case. By that logic an abjurer can cast absolute immunity to protect himself and cast imprisonment to get rid of any enemy. And it even rewards xp, correct? Hmm well maybe an abjurer is not that bad. You convinced me.

But still I would like to lose another school instead of abjuration or transmutation anyway, they are just too vital to lose. Losing conjuration may be bad but doable, not a single vital spell. Losing invoc. is doable as well, best damage spells are necromantic. Losing necromancy hurts as you lose some good aoe damage, but doable. Losing illusion is doable if you are not used to abuse mislead/project image/simulacrum shenenigans. Losing enchantment is very doable especially in high lvls where they don't work against many enemies. Divination is the easiest to replace.

semiticgoddess

I would also like to see a more diverse set of spell schools represented in BG2. Higher-level divination and enchantment spells, strong but not so exploitable illusion spells, and conjuration spells competitive with Mordenkainen's Sword and Animate Dead, if not Summon Planetar. Maybe tweak the demon summoning spells so they can be controlled, and therefore give XP when they kill stuff. Mass Dominate. Foresight. An area-effect Mislead spell.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

semiticgoddess

@subtledoctor: I wasn't trying to argue, for the record. We are actually in agreement.

-You said,
"I argued "BG2's assignments are imperfect and could/should be improved" and you responded with "well, but you can manage." The latter doesn't necessarily argue against the former. They're both right!"
This is true. And incidentally, I never said they weren't "both right." In fact, I agreed with both.

I said
"I wouldn't say the spell schools are balanced"
and
"I would also like to see a more diverse set of spell schools represented in BG2."
Both of these phrases agree with your statement, "BG2's assignments are imperfect and could/should be improved." So we are in agreement.

-You said "Diviners and Enghanters [sic] are screwed," and I responded with "they're not screwed." I merely objected to the word "screwed," which implies that they CAN'T manage. If you can manage, then you aren't screwed. This is the only place our statements conflict.

-You also say,
"it's a pretty poor state of affairs when someone brags about how powerful their Enchanter is because of all the great Necromancy spells he can cast!"
I did not say the Enchanter is powerful. I just pointed out it has other options, hence my claim that they are not "screwed." So we are in agreement.

The reason I replied was to change your initial phrase
"Diviners and Enghanters [sic] are screwed"
to your new phrases,
"you can manage" and "no specialist is totally dead in the water."

So we are in agreement, yes.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

DJKajuru

I'd like to state that specialist mages were created for roleplaying reasons, and while they do possess limitations, these should be taken into consideration as roleplaying opportunities. For instance:

- An invoker who can blast all enemies with magical firepower but can't cast a single charm spell probably means that he is enthralled by the shapes, colors and destructive power of magic itself , and has little interest in manipulating minds or enchanting items.

- An abjurer who has access to all kinds of protections and knows how to dispel them is surely someone who worries about his party members , and is probably a great strategist ( since he knows when or how to protect allies or dispel the enemy's magic )

Once you start roleplaying the advantages of your specialist , his limitations won't be such a bother.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.