# No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?



## Matrix Sorcica

Recently got the opprotunity to look in both Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium.

The various Orb of... spells ignores spell resistance? Anyone has any idea as to why? 
It can't be because it's a ranged touch - that's what makes it a no save spell. But no SR?

It means golems and such are vulnerable to Orb spells, right?


----------



## shilsen

Yes, they affect golems, as written. It seems that for a lot of the new spells, someone decided that all/most Conjuration spells should ignore SR. Which, IMO, is a little silly, since it makes an arbitrary distinction between elements created by evocation magic (e.g. Fireball, Cone of Cold) and conjuration magic (e.g. Orb of Fire, Orb of Cold).

I've house-ruled such Conjuration spells to give a bonus to penetrate SR = the spell level. That makes them helpful but not no-brainers vs. enemies with SR.


----------



## Shayuri

The -theory- of it is basically that the spell doesn't create a magical burst of energy, like evocation does. All of the magic is used to create a quantity of nonmagical energy, which then is no more subject to SR than, say, a flask of acid, or alchemist's fire.

This works okay for acid, I think...and maybe certain cold/ice effects. Those things can be said to have physical existences that can be called into being and that no longer require magic to sustain. Lightning is a bit iffier, I'd say. What exactly are you conjuring? Where is the lightning coming from? Fire is by far the worst, since a fire conjuration ought to simply result in a puff of flame that quickly dissipates. What holds an Orb of Flame together? What makes it fly straight and true?

Yeah yeah, I know. It's magic. But that's the problem. If it was magic, it'd be subject to SR. The whole idea is that it's NOT magic. But then it goes ahead and behaves -exactly like evocations-. I don't think you should be able to have your cake and eat it too, frankly. I'd allow acid orbs as written, since it's in line with Acid Arrow and Acid Cloud...and not too terribly hard to concieve of. I might also allow spells that pelt people with rocks, or hurl sharp ice spikes...that KIND of thing...to be SR immune. It makes a certain degree of sense.

But I took some issue with Conjuration muscling in on Evocation's turf. A real energy blasty thrower ought to be an Evoker. That means YOU, Orb of Force!

Thank you.


----------



## IcyCool

Here is the reason there is no spell resistance vs. the orb spells:

The opposing individual is so confounded by the complete idiocy of a non-magical globe of force, that he forgets to put up his spell resistance.

Or maybe it's this:

Some poor conjurer was tired of the evokers getting to have all the fun.  So he created the orb spells.  The evokers, being the arcane equivalent of the "all-muscles-and-no-brains-type" haven't figured out how to match these new, potent spells.

Hmmm, nah, it's not either of those, so it must be what Shayuri was talking about.

I'm just going to house rule all of them except Orb of Acid to be Evocation spells that allow spell resistance.


----------



## Nail

I've House Ruled that all "orb" spells are _[Evocation]_ spells.  That means these spells don't ignore SR.


----------



## Corsair

Orb of Force is especially silly when you read the rules on instantaneous duration conjuration (creation) spells.


Mechanically, in theory compared to higher level evocations, the trade off is considered thus:  Instead of having a saving throw, it has a ranged touch.  Ok, so there is one die roll involved, call that a wash.  In return for only affecting single targets vs many targets, it loses SR.


----------



## Deset Gled

Sorcica said:
			
		

> No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?




Because the Orb spells were designed by a powergamer with no understanding of how different schools of magic work.

Bad WotC! No cookie.


----------



## borc killer

I don’t have any issue with the other orbs not having saves or SR.  I understand the conjuration part and I like it for the most part.  But the Force Orb is just silly.  I think I am going to have to house rule that one… something I hate doing.  

Anyone come up with a reason why it shouldn’t be and Evocation spell?


----------



## Darklone

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Because the Orb spells were designed by a powergamer with no understanding of how different schools of magic work.
> 
> Bad WotC! No cookie.



Seconded.

I don't allow these spells. They are too weaponlike for my taste. And with their touch attack and no save too good against certain monsters. Or rogues.


----------



## Nifft

Yeah, no Orb spells in my games either, except maybe the _acid orb_.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Someone

What Shayuri said. Since it's a conjuration spell, and following the Acid Arrow example, they ignore spell resistance since they are supposed to be already existant matter, brought by the spell and launched towards the enemy, unlike "evocated" energy which is created on the spot. The above explanation being an example of why you never should try to apply much logic to spells, specially when it stands in the way of balance.


----------



## Notmousse

You may reconcile the orbs in this way.

The 'orb' itself is an extremely thin non-reactive material that bursts on contact, that may be filled with any kind of substance (Coldfire, Alchemist's Fire, Alchemic Acid, etc...).  The substance filled orb is conjured by the spell, and thrown with the help of a conjured wind much like a pellet gun.


----------



## Darklone

Nifft said:
			
		

> Yeah, no Orb spells in my games either, except maybe the _acid orb_.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



If there wasn't Melfs acid arrow (I'm kinda a small extreme traditionalist), I'd allow that one.


----------



## Machiavelli

My thought is that if you're creating a physical item, either with a forge or arcane power, and then hurling the item at someone, it should follow a consistent set of rules.  Ergo: ranged attack, none of this armor-bypassing, touch attack business.

Or, instead of trying to justify everything, just make the rules well-balanced, then come up with fluff _after_ you've succeeded.  Personally, I think the Orb spells are fine as-is until metamagic comes into play.  A Twinned, Empowered, Maximized Orb of Force is just... ugly.  Or whatever Energy Admixed, Born of Three Thunders (etc) metamagic fits your style.


----------



## IcyCool

Notmousse said:
			
		

> You may reconcile the orbs in this way.




So how do you reconcile Orbs of Force, or Sonic Orbs?


----------



## shilsen

Corsair said:
			
		

> Orb of Force is especially silly when you read the rules on instantaneous duration conjuration (creation) spells.




I especially like Arc of Lightning with that rule. After you zap someone, you need to cast Resist Energy (electric) on yourself, pick up that long stick of lightning and whack people with it.


----------



## James McMurray

Machiavelli said:
			
		

> Or, instead of trying to justify everything, just make the rules well-balanced, then come up with fluff _after_ you've succeeded.  Personally, I think the Orb spells are fine as-is until metamagic comes into play.  A Twinned, Empowered, Maximized Orb of Force is just... ugly.  Or whatever Energy Admixed, Born of Three Thunders (etc) metamagic fits your style.




Aren't there tons of spells that are ugly when Twinned, Maximized, and Empowered? Or Energy Admixtured and Born of Three Thundersededed?

Given that a twinned, maximized, and empowered orb of force is effectively a 13th level spell slot, havingit do ~150 damage on average seems kinda uninspiring, not broken.


----------



## evilbob

I just figured these spells were there to give anyone other than a druid an incentive to take Spell Focus (Conjuration).  Like:  this feat isn't _completely _useless other than a way to get Augment Summoning!  Really!


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Thanks for the answers. Seems a little house ruling is in order.


----------



## Darklone

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Aren't there tons of spells that are ugly when Twinned, Maximized, and Empowered? Or Energy Admixtured and Born of Three Thundersededed?
> 
> Given that a twinned, maximized, and empowered orb of force is effectively a 13th level spell slot, havingit do ~150 damage on average seems kinda uninspiring, not broken.



Sudden.... but yeah, that's a huge investment.

Still, I don't like the style of these spells.


----------



## Nifft

Darklone said:
			
		

> If there wasn't Melfs acid arrow (I'm kinda a small extreme traditionalist), I'd allow that one.




I meant the 4th level one; levels 0, 2 and 4 for acid spells seems appropriate, no?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Corsair

It's unfortunate that Melf's Acid Arrow is pretty terrible.  Now if the question is whether the spells should be CONJURATION or whether they should be EVOCATION for flavor / school balance reasons, then ok that is up to debate (considering how generally uninspiring evocations are for a specialist), but ignoring that for the moment, they seem otherwise mechanically balanced.

The only change I've made in my game is that Orb of Force is an Evocation that is SR: Yes.  In return though, its damage cap is 15d6 like the others.


----------



## DungeonMaester

1d8+x  isn't much to worry about for not allowing spell resistance. Its better then Magic missile at lower levels, but not as great in higher. Great first level usage spell. 


---Rusty


----------



## IcyCool

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> 1d8+x  isn't much to worry about for not allowing spell resistance. Its better then Magic missile at lower levels, but not as great in higher. Great first level usage spell.
> 
> 
> ---Rusty




The 4th level orb spells are 1d6/level with a cap of 10d6 or 15d6.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Corsair said:
			
		

> Orb of Force is especially silly when you read the rules on instantaneous duration conjuration (creation) spells.




Well, what else is a sorcerer supposed to use when faced with an opponent in an AMF?  A crossbow?  Feh.

-Hyp.


----------



## Corsair

Hide behind the fighter?


----------



## Engilbrand

They really aren't that bad. Have you ever played in a game with them? They're ok, but not great. Think of the 4th level spells out there. Orbs are useful sometimes. If you need to change flavor, do so. Orb of Ice actually summons a solid block of Ice that flies at the enemy. Or a Lance, but that sounds more like Icelance. Orb of Fire conjures a ball of force that holds powerful fire inside. When it hits the target, only the ball disappears. The fire is still there, so it washes over the enemy. Orb of Acid? Duh. Sonic and Force are tricky, but I don't see why Sonic should ever allow Spell Resistance. A boom is still a boom. Maybe that tiny ball of force is conjuring the cacophony of a plane. Force is the only one that I can't actually make work with it all. Then again, it maxes at 10d6 and there are a lot of better spells out there.


----------



## Destil

Forthed. I love me some offensive conjuration, but these are just a mess.


----------



## DungeonMaester

IcyCool said:
			
		

> The 4th level orb spells are 1d6/level with a cap of 10d6 or 15d6.




Well, compared to Fireball which is 3rd level spell trades does a cap of 10d6 but as a area effect.  One level higher slot and hitting one target is a fair trade.

---Rusty


----------



## IcyCool

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> Well, compared to Fireball which is 3rd level spell trades does a cap of 10d6 but as a area effect.  One level higher slot and hitting one target is a fair trade.
> 
> ---Rusty




A fair trade for no spell resistance?  A fair trade for no defence at all in the case of Orb of Force?  I think you'll find that some folks disagree with you on that one.


----------



## James McMurray

IIRC it's only the Force Orb that caps at 10d6. Sonic might also. Losing area, losing SR, adding a ranged touch, and gaining [Force] definitely sounds like it's worth a spell level.

I haven't met a lot of people that dislike the spells based on their balance. Mostly it's the aesthetics people disagree with.


----------



## IcyCool

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I haven't met a lot of people that dislike the spells based on their balance. Mostly it's the aesthetics people disagree with.




I'd wager that those folks haven't had a golem reduced to mush by their sorceror player in a round or two.

But yes, my main complaint _IS_ with the aesthetics.  A non-magical orb of force?  Can I collect them after the spell has gone off?  Can I fill a ball pit with them?


----------



## James McMurray

So what if the golem is reduced to mush? If golems aren't a challenge for the party, use a different critter when you want to challenge the party. If I had a player with an Orb using sorcerer I'd make it a point to throw a golem in every now and then, just so he'd have a chance to shine.


----------



## Henry

James McMurray said:
			
		

> So what if the golem is reduced to mush? If golems aren't a challenge for the party, use a different critter when you want to challenge the party. If I had a player with an Orb using sorcerer I'd make it a point to throw a golem in every now and then, just so he'd have a chance to shine.




On the other hand, the Orb of Force is good vs. pretty much *everything*. The only things it's invalid against are creatures immune to force effects, which are pretty few. Anti-magic, spell resistant, energy resistant, high-AC, etc.? Orb of Force nails them all. I've rarely known an arcane caster player who hasn't picked up Orb of Force, as it's superior to the majority of damaging 4th level spells. Even with my house-ruling it to SR:Yes and Evocation, which I've done, players still have a hard time deciding between it and other 4th level spells.


----------



## James McMurray

The other 15d6 orbs are eventually better (especially acid) IMO as they do more damage and force a save for a secondary effect.


----------



## Notmousse

Force is pretty easy.  Force as far as I've seen has only had one quality universally applied to it, that being kinetic energy (usually applied against someone directly, though at times used to restrain said energy).  That being the case I freely assume that within the orb is ectoplasm contained under pressure.  Once it strikes it's target the ectoplasm goes boom leaving nothing behind.

Sonic's even easier as all that's required for the bubble to make a really big bang, which could be achieved with a tougher orb filled with nothing (or just too much of any common gas).  It pops upon impact causing a noise loud enough to inflict damage on target.


----------



## James McMurray

I just call it magic and carry on with my life.


----------



## Klaus

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I just call it magic and carry on with my life.



 QFT


----------



## Deset Gled

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I haven't met a lot of people that dislike the spells based on their balance. Mostly it's the aesthetics people disagree with.




Tell that to the Evoker.

Also, there is a wide area between broken and well-balanced.  While I would certainly not claim that the existence of the orb spells break the game, I think they leave the game a bit off center.



> I just call it magic and carry on with my life.




If that's what WotC wanted, they shouldn't have spent so much time giving us definitions of how the different schools work.


----------



## James McMurray

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Evoker.




Why, is he jealous that other people can hurt enemies with magic? A few orbs in no way makes up for the differences in nuking capabilities between the two.



> If that's what WotC wanted, they shouldn't have spent so much time giving us definitions of how the different schools work.




Who said anything about what WotC wants?


----------



## Allegro

I've always viewed them as flavored jazzed up summon alchemist fire spells.  Notice alchemist fire does not allow a saving throw on the initial damage.  I think I would be fine with the orb spell if they also shared the 10 foot range increment.  Let the wizard get nice and close to the heat of combat if they want to lob conjured elements.

Alchemist’s Fire: You can throw a flask of alchemist’s fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet.

A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 15 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire.


----------



## charlesatan

1) Flavor-wise, there will be arguments whether the orb spells work or not. "What makes sense" is relative especially when magic is involved. You can think of the orb spells as a spellcaster conjuring a virtual hand grenade of the appropriate element. Or you don't believe it should ignore SR, it's still a magical force. Suffice to say, if you want to believe in it enough, you'll find an explanation. If you don't want to, you'll find a counter-explanation.

2) Game mechanics-wise, I like the orbs. Mainly because it gives the mages something to do when facing magic immune creatures aside from the "hide behind the fighter argument". I'm a firm believer that the party should contribute something to every encounter no matter how big or small (and so I'm a fan of encounter traps as well as it gives the other party members aside from the Rogue something to do).

3) Contrary to what some of you might believe, the Orbs aren't intruding in the area of evokers. A) The orb spells aren't an auto-hit--you need to make a ranged touch attack roll. It's easier to hit than a normal ranged attack but it's far from an auto-hit. Also bear in mind that spellcasters tend to have crappy BAB bonuses. A 10th-level Wizard let's assume will have an attack bonus of +8 (+5 from BAB, +3 from Dex [+1 normal, +2 cat's grace]). A Rogue will probably have a touch AC of 18 (10 base, +1 deflection (ring of protection), +7 Dex [+5 normal, +2 cat's grace]). That's around a 45% miss chance. Of course less nimble classes will be easier to hit but then again, they will have more hit points. B) Game mechanics-wise, except in situations where the challenges your party is facing actually has SR or spell immunity, I'll most likely go for other spells, such as Lightning Bolt or Fireball. They're one level lower for one thing. For another they affect multiple targets. And they are auto-hits (except with people with Evasion). And occupy a lower spell slot (for metamagic goodness).

4) Orb of Force for me is different from the other "elemental" Orbs. Yes, it is quite good. But that's also why the damage cap has been lowered compared to the other orbs.

5) The orbs for me are a nice addition to the set of energy subtype spells. I mean aside from ray of frost and ice storm, how many other cold spells are there below 5th-level and pre-Spell Compedium? (Protection from Energy fits the bill but that's leaning more towards defense rather than offense.)


----------



## hong

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Game mechanics-wise, except in situations where the challenges your party is facing actually has SR or spell immunity,




Well, duh.


----------



## Squire James

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Why, is he jealous that other people can hurt enemies with magic? A few orbs in no way makes up for the differences in nuking capabilities between the two.




How about "jealous that another specialty can beat them at their own specialty, on top on what is actually supposed to be their specialty, oh and Teleport too"?  Yeah...


----------



## James McMurray

Orbs are far from "beat them at their own specialty." They're nice, but they're not the be-all end-all of nuking.


----------



## wildstarsreach

shilsen said:
			
		

> Yes, they affect golems, as written. It seems that for a lot of the new spells, someone decided that all/most Conjuration spells should ignore SR. Which, IMO, is a little silly, since it makes an arbitrary distinction between elements created by evocation magic (e.g. Fireball, Cone of Cold) and conjuration magic (e.g. Orb of Fire, Orb of Cold).
> 
> I've house-ruled such Conjuration spells to give a bonus to penetrate SR = the spell level. That makes them helpful but not no-brainers vs. enemies with SR.




That is an awesome change.  However, would a summoned creature have to go against SR as well then?


----------



## Nail

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Because the Orb spells were designed by a powergamer with no understanding of how different schools of magic work.
> 
> Bad WotC! No cookie.



Agreed.

The flavor (IMO, obviously!) is wrong, and the balance is "off center".  These spells aren't as abusable as Wraithstrike, but they are bad enough to be hit with the House Rules Stick in my game.

Biff!  Say hello to new entries in the _[Evocation]_ school.


----------



## shilsen

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> That is an awesome change.  However, would a summoned creature have to go against SR as well then?



 Glad you like it. And no, summoned creatures work as normal.


----------



## Voadam

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Orbs are far from "beat them at their own specialty." They're nice, but they're not the be-all end-all of nuking.




Lesser orbs are comparable to magic missile, except no SR.

Orbs do as much damage as a 4th level single target evocation would do by the spell damage guideline chart, but ignore SR.


----------



## charlesatan

Voadam said:
			
		

> Lesser orbs are comparable to magic missile, except no SR.
> 
> Orbs do as much damage as a 4th level single target evocation would do by the spell damage guideline chart, but ignore SR.




You're ignoring the area effect of evocations which the orbs can't quite replicate.


----------



## Henry

charlesatan said:
			
		

> You're ignoring the area effect of evocations which the orbs can't quite replicate.




That would be reserved for Arc of Lightning and Blast of Flame, which do cover areas with no SR listed. The Orbs aren't the end-all and be-all, but they do step on the evoker's toes in a way that makes the Conjurer specialist probably now the best specialist in the game. If I were playing a specialist I'd easily pick Conjurer over evoker, because they get not only summonings, but a wide variety of damage and area spells, and Teleportations/dimdoors/plane shifts, and quite a few defensive spells as well (such as the wall spells, obscuring mist, and mage armor).


----------



## Plane Sailing

Conjuration = no SR worked OK in the PHB, because they were careful to limit the damage which conjurations could do (typically doing damage over time, rather than all in an instant - c.f melfs acid arrow, acid fog, incendiary cloud).

I'd be happy with additional conjuration spells that did a small, 'natural' amount of damage with a continuing duration, and leave all 'instantaneous' spells to the evocation school. That keeps the schools balanced in my mind, and doesn't leave the Conjurer as the holy terror to Golems and SR creatures which were designed before the conjuration arms race started.

You could even do some realistic high level conjuration damage dealers too - I'd have no problem with a 9th level conjuration spell that conjured a pit of lava 10ft radius for 1r/level, doing natural lava damage to anyone in it and no SR applying.

In fact, perhaps even Ice Storm ought to move from evocation to conjuration - after all, it isn't doing much damage (5d6) but it is doing it over a duration - it seems like ideal for a conversion to Conjuration!

CHeers


----------



## KarinsDad

Nail said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> The flavor (IMO, obviously!) is wrong, and the balance is "off center".  These spells aren't as abusable as Wraithstrike, but they are bad enough to be hit with the House Rules Stick in my game.
> 
> Biff!  Say hello to new entries in the _[Evocation]_ school.




As can be seen by my signature, I'm not a big fan of Orb spells.

I like Nail's solution here because it solves the Insta-Bust Through the Antimagic Field problem which no other type of magic does with a mere ranged touch attack.

And, of course, Orbs can easily do double damage by rolling a 20 to hit.

As some people here know, I had a 20th level PC who was in an AMF wiped out in round one by two lower level sorcerers via: a) cast surprise round nasty area affect spells which do not work because the of AMF and effectively tell the Sorcerers that an AMF is there, b) win initiative and cast a Sudden Empowered Orb and a Sudden Maximized Orb for about 170 points of damage (remember in an AMF, the caster does not get Con hit points for bonus items), c) dead PC.

However, I also think that the Insta-Wipe Out the Golem problem exists even if one makes them Evocation spells. So, they should be Evocation spells plus have SR.

I think the designer of the Orb spells had his head up his butt with regard to how DND works.


----------



## Notmousse

You're mad at orbs because your character purposely stood in an AMF and died?


----------



## Nail

Notmousse said:
			
		

> You're mad at orbs because your character purposely stood in an AMF and died?



You don't find it...interesting.....that an AMF doesn't protect you from magically created energy?


----------



## KarinsDad

Notmousse said:
			
		

> You're mad at orbs because your character purposely stood in an AMF and died?




Did I say I was mad?  

I actually did not really care that my PC died because our group saved the Queen Regent and the Heir and that was effectively the end of the campaign anyway.

However, there are a lot of mundane ways to kill a PC in an AMF. Magic should not be one of those. The entire purpose of an AMF should be that it stops virtually all magic from affecting the caster. One of the most useful damaging spell in the game (and hence, one that many arcane casters would possess) should not blow through an AMF. YMMV.


In that campaign, I do think the DM used meta-game knowledge to kill my PC. The Sorcerers should not have been aware that while in an AMF, my PC could cast out of it and probably should have considered my PC less of a threat and targeted PCs outside the AMF first.

But be that as it may, I still think the Orb spells are broken in several different ways. This is just one of them.


----------



## James McMurray

Not when it's an instantaneous conjuration, and is therefor not being held together by magic once it's been created and thrown.


----------



## Notmousse

AMF wont protect you from a magically created anything.  It only protects against active magic, not magic that's come and gone.  Much the same way a golem can walk into an AMF.


----------



## Notmousse

Kill the mage first isn't meta-gaming, it's common sense, AMF or no AMF.

Though I do believe that the 'Sudden' metamagics should require that you first know the metamagic it's based off.  A sudden maximized, twinned, empowered _Magic Missile_ is a scarey thing to see your Wiz3 pull out.


----------



## SlagMortar

Would anyone care to point out a spell that could not be made into an instantaneous conjuration that ignores spell resistance and antimagic fields?

Here's some examples.

Protective energy sheen:  The caster is covered in a thin film that provides energy resistance.  Works exactly like energy resistance except can't be dispelled and functions inside an AMF.

Mind control blob:  A blob of non-magical mind control flies unerringly at the target.  Works exactly like dominate person but can't be dispelled and functions inside an AMF.

Conjure Polymorph:  Conjures a blob of non-magical polymorphite which changes the form of the target to the desired form.  Works exactly like polymorph but can't be dispelled and functions inside an AMF.

These are dumb, but I really think they make as much sense as a non-magical orb of anything that does damage based on the amount of magical power the caster can bring to bear.


----------



## Chiaroscuro23

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I just call it magic and carry on with my life.



 Which is exactly why it should be defeated by AMF and spell resistance, right? 

Simple, easy, magical.


----------



## IcyCool

Notmousse said:
			
		

> A sudden maximized, twinned, empowered _Magic Missile_ is a scarey thing to see your Wiz3 pull out.




Sure is, especially because I still can't figure out how a Wiz3 is casting a third level spell.


----------



## James McMurray

Chiaroscuro23 said:
			
		

> Which is exactly why it should be defeated by AMF and spell resistance, right?




Not at all. But it's pointless for me to try to explain my view. I follow the RAW. If something incredibly offends my sensibilities, I change it. I don't dig for engineering explanations to game problems.


----------



## Notmousse

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Sure is, especially because I still can't figure out how a Wiz3 is casting a third level spell.



 Last I checked Sudden metamagics didn't raise spell level, and _Magic Missile_ is AFAIK 1st level.


----------



## IcyCool

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Last I checked Sudden metamagics didn't raise spell level, and _Magic Missile_ is AFAIK 1st level.




Well, you only specified that the Maximized was Sudden.  As far as I know there isn't a Sudden Twinned metamagic, and it was unclear as to whether you were calling all three Sudden feats, or just Maximized.  If it was just Maximized, then the Twinned and Empowered feats take it above what a 3rd level wizard can normally cast.

Also, I can't remember off the top of my head what the spell level increase for Twinned is.  It's more than one, isn't it?


----------



## Notmousse

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> These are dumb




We agree there.

_Dominate_ and _Polymoph_ are not valid effects for conjuration because they are not matter or energy.

The other option might work as either an alchemical substance conjured, or as insulating material conjured.  Either way it would be limited resistance (roughly 2-5), and wear off once enough damage was negated (about 10-15).


----------



## Notmousse

All were Sudden feats, and I believe sudden twin was in CMage or CArcane.  If not then the player pulled a fast on on the GM.


----------



## Nail

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Kill the mage first isn't meta-gaming, it's common sense, AMF or no AMF.



His was the cleric, IIRC.  And if I remember his (more detailed) description of the events, there was significant meta-gaming going on from the DM's end.

That aside: AMF should negate magic, right?


----------



## KarinsDad

Notmousse said:
			
		

> AMF wont protect you from a magically created anything.  It only protects against active magic, not magic that's come and gone.  Much the same way a golem can walk into an AMF.




The problem is that as written, Orb spells last forever. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. As Instantaneous Conjuration Creation spells, they never go away. Eventually, the entire campaign world would be filled with them.

NPC Mom: "Johnny, didn't I tell you to stop playing with that Orb of Fire?"
NPC Boy: "But mom, it's so cool. It sets things on fire!"


This also means that a PC should be able to pick up an Orb of Fire and throw it back at the Sorcerer who created it.


----------



## James McMurray

Three feats and a first level spell slot to create 4 missiles that do ~7 damage each doesn't seem very scary to me at all.


----------



## KarinsDad

Notmousse said:
			
		

> _Dominate_ and _Polymoph_ are not valid effects for conjuration because they are not matter or energy.




Actually, to be technical: fire, force, acid, lightning, and cold are not valid effects for conjuration creation spells because they are not objects or creatures. They are effects.



> A creation spell manipulates matter to create an *object or creature* in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured *creature or object* vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created *object or creature* is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.




Course, that did not stop WotC with Acid Arrow or the Orb spells.


Like I said, Orb spells are broken on many levels.


----------



## Notmousse

If AMF negated anything that had ever been created through magic then beholders could just float through _Walls of Iron_, including some forts and possibly even some castle walls.


----------



## Notmousse

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The problem is that as written, Orb spells last forever.



By that logic _Walls of Iron_ never rust.  Once conjured they are no longer magical, and thus once the fire is out of fuel it goes out.


----------



## SlagMortar

> Dominate and Polymoph are not valid effects for conjuration because they are not matter or energy.



Dominate is valid if the conjuration effect creates a non-magical piece of matter that causes domination to occur.  How is this less valid than a non-magical ball of force?

Ditto for polymorph.



> The other option might work as either an alchemical substance conjured, or as insulating material conjured. Either way it would be limited resistance (roughly 2-5), and wear off once enough damage was negated (about 10-15).



Why would it be limited resistance?  Why would it wear off?  

If the created effect is completely non-magical, then a 4th level Orb of Fire should do 1d6 damage on impact with a 1d6 secondary effect if you catch on fire just like alchemist fire.

We know that RAW Orb spells create a non-magical energy that acts exactly like other forms of magical energy except for its interaction with spell resistance.  If the spell is creating non-magical energy, why does the damage scale with the level of the caster?


----------



## wildstarsreach

Chiaroscuro23 said:
			
		

> Which is exactly why it should be defeated by AMF and spell resistance, right?
> 
> Simple, easy, magical.



Here is the problem, a summoned creature is not subject to SR.  At the end of the duration it then goes back.  The thinking is because it is summoned into existance and then has to be tossed at the target, it is real and bypasses SR at the time of impact and damage.  A spell is still using its tie to magic at the time of damage and is therefore subject to SR.  Personally I see this as a way to get around SR by taking a minor limitation which is a ranged touch attack to get almost certain damage.  I would just house rule that you can't get around SR by making it a conjuration spell.  It is still magically created and therefore subject to SR.


----------



## James McMurray

Also, they're not listed as dealing continuous damage, so while there may be a puddle of leftovers from the Orb of Acid, it's inert and harmless.


----------



## wildstarsreach

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, to be technical: fire, force, acid, lightning, and cold are not valid effects for conjuration creation spells because they are not objects or creatures. They are effects.
> 
> 
> 
> Course, that did not stop WotC with Acid Arrow or the Orb spells.
> 
> 
> Like I said, Orb spells are broken on many levels.




I would also house rule that you have to either use them within 1/rd a level or if the cast another spell the orb disappates.


----------



## James McMurray

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I would also house rule that you have to either use them within 1/rd a level or if the cast another spell the orb disappates.




So you'd make them more powerful than they already are by adding a duration?


----------



## KarinsDad

Notmousse said:
			
		

> By that logic _Walls of Iron_ never rust.  Once conjured they are no longer magical, and thus once the fire is out of fuel it goes out.




Not according to the rules:



> It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.




There are no rules of conjuration creation fire needing fuel, or conjuration creation force needing fuel, etc. For that matter, since they are not objects (like a Wall of Iron), they have no hardness and no hit points and no listed way to destroy them.


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Also, they're not listed as dealing continuous damage, so while there may be a puddle of leftovers from the Orb of Acid, it's inert and harmless.




Rules quote?

The Instantaneous Conjuration Creation rules state that they last indefinitely and the Orb spells themselves state that they do x damage.

Where in either of these rules do they state that they ever stop doing the listed damage?

Either an Orb of Fire is fire, or it is not.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

James McMurray said:
			
		

> So you'd make them more powerful than they already are by adding a duration?




I'm guessing he means 1 rd/level or until the orb is used, whichever comes first.


----------



## James McMurray

LOL! Whatever, dude. If you want to hate them, be my guest. 

By the way: If it's fire, it requires fuel. Since it is definitely fire and you've said it doesn't require fuel, you've contradicted yourself. Try to get your feelings on the matter sorted out and we'll try this again later.


----------



## James McMurray

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I'm guessing he means 1 rd/level or until the orb is used, whichever comes first.




That's still more powerful, since the orbs as listed are conjured and hurled in the same action. There's no option to save them for later. Unless I'm misremembering of course, I don't have the book with me to make sure.


----------



## Notmousse

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Dominate is valid if the conjuration effect creates a non-magical piece of matter that causes domination to occur.  How is this less valid than a non-magical ball of force?




Because a non-magical ball of force can easily be explained with an already present substance.  There are no substances at present that _Dominate_ a creature.  Even if there was such a substance big deal, you're _Dominated_ by a blob of stuff, unless it can communicate orders you're just fine.



			
				SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Why would it be limited resistance?  Why would it wear off?




Because a 'sheen' that doesn't interfere with movement is going to be destroyed by the energy it protects you from, and/or simply overcome.



			
				SlagMortar said:
			
		

> If the spell is creating non-magical energy, why does the damage scale with the level of the caster?




Because as your caster level increases you know how to conjure more potent material.


----------



## Notmousse

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> There are no rules of conjuration creation fire needing fuel, or conjuration creation force needing fuel, etc. For that matter, since they are not objects (like a Wall of Iron), they have no hardness and no hit points and no listed way to destroy them.



Non-magical fire needs fuel.  The spell creates non-magical objects.


----------



## SlagMortar

> Because a non-magical ball of force can easily be explained with an already present substance.



I disagree with this statement.  If it is a substance, what is is made of?  How does the ball of force stay together?  Why doesn't it fly apart as soon as it comes into existance?  What causes it to fly toward your target instead of dropping straight to the ground?

Edit:  I see you've already mentioned this earlier.  I'm rereading your earlier posts.


----------



## drothgery

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Though I do believe that the 'Sudden' metamagics should require that you first know the metamagic it's based off.  A sudden maximized, twinned, empowered _Magic Missile_ is a scarey thing to see your Wiz3 pull out.




If they were 3/day or (casting stat modifier)/day, maybe. At 1/day, they're probably underpowered.


----------



## SlagMortar

Notmousse said:
			
		

> You may reconcile the orbs in this way.
> 
> The 'orb' itself is an extremely thin non-reactive material that bursts on contact, that may be filled with any kind of substance (Coldfire, Alchemist's Fire, Alchemic Acid, etc...). The substance filled orb is conjured by the spell, and thrown with the help of a conjured wind much like a pellet gun.






			
				Notmousse said:
			
		

> Force is pretty easy. Force as far as I've seen has only had one quality universally applied to it, that being kinetic energy (usually applied against someone directly, though at times used to restrain said energy). That being the case I freely assume that within the orb is ectoplasm contained under pressure. Once it strikes it's target the ectoplasm goes boom leaving nothing behind.
> 
> Sonic's even easier as all that's required for the bubble to make a really big bang, which could be achieved with a tougher orb filled with nothing (or just too much of any common gas). It pops upon impact causing a noise loud enough to inflict damage on target.



I don't think that ectoplasm can hit incorporeal creatures.  Astral Constructs say nothing of being able to hit incorporeal creatures.  I don't really see how any non-magical substance can strike an incorporeal creature.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Incorporeal Subtype
> An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. *It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms.*



(emphasis mine)
In fact all orb spells have a 50% chance to damage an incorporeal creature


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons).



I don't think it is going to be possible to come up with a RAW explanation for why orbs overcome spell resistance and also have a chance to affect incorporeal creatures.


----------



## Henry

James McMurray said:
			
		

> LOL! Whatever, dude. If you want to hate them, be my guest.
> 
> By the way: If it's fire, it requires fuel. Since it is definitely fire and you've said it doesn't require fuel, you've contradicted yourself. Try to get your feelings on the matter sorted out and we'll try this again later.




I think his point is that the spell itself is contradictory. It's non-magical fire, and doesn't require fuel. In other words, it sits around indefinitely not needing magic to sustain itself because of what kind of magic it is.

My personal qualms stem from my position that it makes conjurers a lot more powerful by virtue of their existance, as well as many other conjuration energy effects. If it were a big boulder that dropped on a target's head for 15d6 damage, that's be cool with me (in fact, Cometfall is one of my favorite spells!) But instead it's a series of spells that have their cake and eat it, too -- ranged touch, AMF-resistant, energy resistant, no save, and even has the potential for double damage on a target. It's a spell I'd be surprised if a caster didn't have it written in his spell slots in pen, to quote Ed Stark from a few years ago.


----------



## Nail

Notmousse said:
			
		

> If AMF negated anything that had ever been created through magic ....



I'm pretty confident no one has advocated that.  Objects created by magic (Conjuration-creation) are no longer magical, right?  Therefore AMF doesn't negate them.

A ball of fire is non-magical?  A ball of force?


----------



## Notmousse

With the exception of the _Orb of Force_ energy resistance applies to all the orb spells.  Natural or magical fire is resisted by Fire Resistance.


----------



## Nail

Notmousse said:
			
		

> With the exception of the _Orb of Force_ energy resistance applies to all the orb spells.  Natural or magical fire is resisted by Fire Resistance.



I'm not following you.  How is this germane to the issue at hand?


----------



## Notmousse

That was in response to Henry, not yourself.  Remember, I am debating several people.  I was at any rate, FF9 calls for me to finally beat it.  I shall return later.


----------



## James McMurray

Henry said:
			
		

> I think his point is that the spell itself is contradictory. It's non-magical fire, and doesn't require fuel. In other words, it sits around indefinitely not needing magic to sustain itself because of what kind of magic it is.




The spell states that the fire remains around indefinitely, not requiring fuel?


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> The spell states that the fire remains around indefinitely, not requiring fuel?




As a matter of fact, yes. It has an instantaneous duration and is a conjuration creation spell.



> If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It *lasts indefinitely* and does not depend on magic for its existence.




Now, if one states that this rule does not apply because the conjuration creation spell creates an effect instead of a creature or object, then the spell does not belong in the conjuration creation subschool of magic because conjuration creation spells only create creatures or objects by definition.

And, what kind of fuel is used for Force or Acid or Cold or Electricity? The concept of "fuel" is one that is not part of the Conjuration Creation subschool of magic.


In other words, WotC foobared on the Orb spells no matter how one looks at it.


----------



## James McMurray

That quote is in regards to conjured creatures and objects. "It" the pronoun, refers to the nouns in the prior sentence. 

Are you saying that fire is a creature or object?



> Now, if one states that this rule does not apply because the conjuration creation spell creates an effect instead of a creature or object, then the spell does not belong in the conjuration creation subschool of magic because conjuration creation spells only create creatures or objects by definition.




Really? I can think of at least 8 conjuration spells that create energy (fire, electrical, force, and sonic). It seems rather apparent that WotC feels that Conjuration spells can create energy.


----------



## Henry

Notmousse said:
			
		

> That was in response to Henry, not yourself.  Remember, I am debating several people.  I was at any rate, FF9 calls for me to finally beat it.  I shall return later.




While true, there is an orb (orb of Force, as noted) that does bypass that. Orb of Force is to me the most egregious offender, but the others, having previously been only evocation's province, still rankle me a bit. In fact, weren't these spells all Evocations when they originally appeared in Tome and Blood?


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Really? I can think of at least 8 conjuration spells that create energy (fire, electrical, force, and sonic). It seems rather apparent that WotC feels that Conjuration spells can create energy.




Indeed. Unfortunately, the Conjuration Creation subschool does not:



> A creation spell manipulates *matter* to create *an object or creature* in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured *creature or object* vanishes without a trace.
> 
> ...
> 
> Evocation spells manipulate *energy or tap an unseen source of power* to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage.




The problem is that WotC wrote rules concerning the Conjuration Creation subschool and the Evocation school of magic, and then ignored them when creating some spells.


If fire and force are objects, then the Conjuration Creation subschool works. Course, if they are objects, then they should follow the object rules such as having hardness and hit points.

Instead, magical fire and force are actually Evocation subschools in the game, natural fire is an effect, but none of these are objects.


----------



## James McMurray

So you don't follow the principal that specific rules override general ones? Or do you only follow it when you like the results?


----------



## Nail

Notmousse said:
			
		

> That was in response to Henry, not yourself.  Remember, I am debating several people.



Quote tags are your friend.


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Are you saying that fire is a creature or object?



You, sir, have stumbled upon the point.  Excellent work!


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Or do you only follow it when you like the results?



Like, for example, noting that conjured Orbs of Force stick around after they are created?


----------



## sukael

Nail said:
			
		

> I've House Ruled that all "orb" spells are _[Evocation]_ spells.  That means these spells don't ignore SR.




Interestingly enough, Orb of Force is reprinted in a sidebar with the Force Missile Mage prestige class in Dragon Compendium as an Evocation spell... but it still has a "Spell Resistance: No" line.


----------



## James McMurray

Nail said:
			
		

> Like, for example, noting that conjured Orbs of Force stick around after they are created?




I've already mentioned that I house rule Orb of Force for aesthetic reasons, but wouldn't freak out if a GM opted not to. HAving a tiny orb of force around with no listed damage won't do much good. I suppose if you could talk your GM into letting them be used as sling ammunition you might have a cheap source of low damage weapons to use against the ethereal and incorporeal, but even that relies on the GM being a nice guy.

Does the spell give dimensions for the orb itself, or just say "you create an orb."?


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I've already mentioned that I house rule Orb of Force for aesthetic reasons, but wouldn't freak out if a GM opted not to.



I'm not sure anyone's freaking out here....but I could be wrong.  



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> HAving a tiny orb of force around with no listed damage won't do much good.



You must realize what a silly precident that would set.   

"Dad, how did the Orb Desert get it's name?"

"Well son, mages have been casting Orbs of Force for millenia, and...."

 






			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> Does the spell give dimensions for the orb itself, or just say "you create an orb."?



Orbs "about 3 inches across".


----------



## charlesatan

Henry said:
			
		

> That would be reserved for Arc of Lightning and Blast of Flame, which do cover areas with no SR listed. The Orbs aren't the end-all and be-all, but they do step on the evoker's toes in a way that makes the Conjurer specialist probably now the best specialist in the game. If I were playing a specialist I'd easily pick Conjurer over evoker, because they get not only summonings, but a wide variety of damage and area spells, and Teleportations/dimdoors/plane shifts, and quite a few defensive spells as well (such as the wall spells, obscuring mist, and mage armor).




Just checked the two out. Their damage caps is lower for what their spell level should be. Of course that's meaningless at the level you get them but it stops scaling as you get higher.

Arc Lightning - 5th-level spell - 15d6 points of damage. Perhaps a bit more flexible in area covered but the range is also short.

Blast of Flame - 4th-level spell - 10d6 points of damage. Actually has a range that's quite good, a 60-foot cone.

P.S. I'd get Illusionist and conceivably get the best of both worlds. =)


----------



## James McMurray

Nail said:
			
		

> I'm not sure anyone's freaking out here....but I could be wrong.




Never said they were. you seem to have developed a habit of replying to things I haven't said in the last few threads. 



> You must realize what a silly precident that would set.
> 
> "Dad, how did the Orb Desert get it's name?"




Like I said, I house rule it. But if a GM wants an Orb Desert, that's fine with me so long as I either never go there or it's a fun place to go.



> Orbs "about 3 inches across".




That could cause problems then, but not in my games.


----------



## charlesatan

Henry said:
			
		

> While true, there is an orb (orb of Force, as noted) that does bypass that. Orb of Force is to me the most egregious offender, but the others, having previously been only evocation's province, still rankle me a bit. In fact, weren't these spells all Evocations when they originally appeared in Tome and Blood?




Yes they were. But they also suffered from the flaws of "Scorching Ray" at the time which is they both required a touch attack and a Fort save to negate half the damage.


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> So you don't follow the principal that specific rules override general ones? Or do you only follow it when you like the results?




Who said anything about what I follow or don't follow?

I have no problem with specific rules overriding general rules. I have a problem with blatant rules inconsistency.



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> Like I said, I house rule it.




The fact is, one shouldn't have to house rule it. The rules should be internally consistent. There is no reason to make rules internally inconsistent other than laziness.

The 3E designers used a lot of effort in an attempt to make the rules internally consistent and flow and give us a better product than we previous had, and then some later designer just blows off that hard work.

Energy = Evocation
Matter = Conjuration Creation
Teleportation = Conjuration Teleportation, etc.

There is absolutely no reason to cross the school boundaries in such a blatant fashion. Sure, sometimes a spell concept fits in multiple boundaries. In that case, the one that fits best should be used. Not one that does not fit at all.


A few years back, some Forgotten Realms designer created a 3E Conjuration Creation spell called Create Magic Tattoo. It had several cool effects in it: Transmutation, Abjuration, Necromancy, etc.

Unfortunately, it had no Conjuration effects in it whatsoever. Some people justified it by stating that the Tattoo was being conjured. In reality, the spell called for the tattoo itself to be crafted by the spell caster ahead of time: no conjuration involved.

If anything, it should have gone into the Universal school because it had effects from so many schools of magic in it. Or, it should have had one of the schools chosen that matched it best.

But, when some designer ignores the rules and just creates a spell that doesn't match the rules (no matter how cool), WotC should correct and errata it. IMO.


You appear to think that rules inconsistency is fine. I don't. YMMV.


----------



## noretoc

I always think of the orb spells this way.  Objects from the elemental planes or paraelemental planes, or quasi-elemental planes.  There are normal creatures made of fire in the fire plane.  Boats of fire in the fire plane, why not orbs.  Then the spell conjures them.  poof.  Elemental semi-sentience that dosen't mind being tossed.


----------



## James McMurray

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Who said anything about what I follow or don't follow?




Nobody. I made an inferrance I wasn't sure about, and so asked a question.



> The fact is, one shouldn't have to house rule it. The rules should be internally consistent. There is no reason to make rules internally inconsistent other than laziness.




One doesn't have to house rule. As I've said repeatedly, the spell works fine, I house rule for aesthetic purposes.



> The 3E designers used a lot of effort in an attempt to make the rules internally consistent and flow and give us a better product than we previous had, and then some later designer just blows off that hard work.




OMG! Things are chaning! Help!!!!! 



> A few years back, some Forgotten Realms designer created a 3E Conjuration Creation spell called Create Magic Tattoo. It had several cool effects in it: Transmutation, Abjuration, Necromancy, etc.
> 
> Unfortunately, it had no Conjuration effects in it whatsoever. Some people justified it by stating that the Tattoo was being conjured. In reality, the spell called for the tattoo itself to be crafted by the spell caster ahead of time: no conjuration involved.
> 
> If anything, it should have gone into the Universal school because it had effects from so many schools of magic in it. Or, it should have had one of the schools chosen that matched it best.




Never even noticed it's school, but it was definitely a cool spell. Universal is probably best, but so what?



> You appear to think that rules inconsistency is fine. I don't. YMMV.




I think balance is more important thatnflavor. Consistency between evocation = energy and conjuration = matter is flavor, not balance.


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I think balance is more important thatnflavor.




I do not disagree.

I just think that the Orb spells have several balance problems as well as flavor problems:

1) No SR for an energy damage spell. In addition to the other balance issues with this, it also means that they are the only energy damage spells that can affect Golems.

2) Ranged touch attack which almost always hits and can also do double damage.

3) No saving throw (exception for extra effects).

Effectively what these three mean at higher levels is a practically 95% chance autohit spell for fairly high damage. 

Standard defenses such as SR, Evasion, and saving throws do not help against it at all.

Sure, effects such as miss chances or energy resistance can avoid or lower the damage, but most characters (PCs or NPC creatures) in the game typically do not have these to a great extent.

When combined with metamagic, these spells can become autokill for the most part.

4) Evocation school of magic spell in Conjuration school of magic. Very few single target evocation spells come close to this level of power. The sole exception (I can think of) is Scorching Ray and even it has close range and SR. These spells make Specialized Wizard Conjurers better single target energy damaging casters than Specialized Wizard Evokers.

5) If a DM follows the Conjuration Creation object rules for the orb spells, then the Orb spells can bust through an antimagic field.


----------



## James McMurray

1) Not a balance issue in my book.

2) Not a balance issue either. It can also miss.

3) Not a balance issue. Except for very powerful spells like disintigrate, ranged touch damage spells should not allow a save.

At the levels where it's an auto hit, it's not "fairly high damage."

"When combined with metamagic they're autokill?" I'll need some proof of that.

4) Flavor, and it far from makes conjurers better at dealing damage than evokers.

5) Yes, if the DM declares that energy is an object, problems arise. Good news tough, there's nothing in the rules to indicate that energy is an object, and everything to indicate that it isn't. 

I don't have a problem with the AMF aspect of it though, because spellcasters need something to use against AMF besides run and hide, which while effective at surviving is generally a boring tactic.


----------



## Notmousse

Nail said:
			
		

> I'm pretty confident no one has advocated that.  Objects created by magic (Conjuration-creation) are no longer magical, right?  Therefore AMF doesn't negate them.
> 
> A ball of fire is non-magical?  A ball of force?



 As I posted earlier I believe the orbs conjured contain the fuel for such reactions which take place on contact.


----------



## Notmousse

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And, what kind of fuel is used for Force or Acid or Cold or Electricity? The concept of "fuel" is one that is not part of the Conjuration Creation subschool of magic.




Fuel is the only way you could conjure anything that has such a reaction, otherwise you're evoking.

Please note that the rule you quote states _indefinately_, not *infinately*.  An indefinate period of time by definition is not defined, so claiming that period of time to be infinite is foolish.  Fire requires fuel to survive, once gone the fire sputters and dies.


----------



## Notmousse

Nail said:
			
		

> Quote tags are your friend.



 Sure they are.  Just need to remember to tag the quote message button when I reply.


----------



## Kmart Kommando

Aside from Orb of Force, all the other Orb Spells make perfect sense, and balance.

Fire = Naphtha, or White Phosphorus no need for explanation with this one

Acid = obvious, and ditto for the above

Cold = any super-cooled liquid, such as liquid helium, nitrogen, ammonia  maybe a ball of carbon dioxide ice filled with liquid nitrogen.  how about a face full of that?

Electricity = ball lightning anyone?  maybe a chunk of a D&D scaled electric eel.  and there are plenty of chemicals that will create a spark.

Sound = concussion grenade, or any sort of mechanical explosion, a thin shelled ball with high pressure something packed into it.  remember those bam smacks you threw at your friends around the 4th of July?  now think of how big of one you could make if magic is making it for you.  maybe the wizard is creating a lit stick of dynamite

As for Force, I probably would make that one SR:yes  but the rest are fine as is.

If you want to complain about a spell for being overpowered, try Melf's Unicorn Arrow.  seriously.


----------



## KarinsDad

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Please note that the rule you quote states _indefinately_, not *infinately*.  An indefinate period of time by definition is not defined, so claiming that period of time to be infinite is foolish.




So is claiming that it disappears immediately after use. Indefinite means that something lasts until some other factor changes it. Unfortunately, that is not defined by the rules.


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> 1) Not a balance issue in my book.




Maybe not for you, but can you list a single target Evocation spell that does energy damage and does not have SR?

Balance is about consistency too.


----------



## charlesatan

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 1) No SR for an energy damage spell. In addition to the other balance issues with this, it also means that they are the only energy damage spells that can affect Golems.




There's a couple of PHB spells that do. Melf's Acid Arrow. Acid Fog.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 2) Ranged touch attack which almost always hits and can also do double damage.




As I pointed out, it's not an "almost always hits". It's a ranged touch attack. Any spell that is a touch attack or ranged touch attack usually has a chance to do double damage. It can be shocking grasp or scorching ray or melf's acid arrow.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 3) No saving throw (exception for extra effects).




It'd be pathetic if a damage spell required 1) an attack roll to hit and 2) save for half damage. No one would use it. That was the case with the original Flame Arrows before it got broken down into Scorching Ray. And the original text of the Orb spells. I mean you don't see Polar Ray making a save for half damage.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Standard defenses such as SR, Evasion, and saving throws do not help against it at all.
> 
> Sure, effects such as miss chances or energy resistance can avoid or lower the damage, but most characters (PCs or NPC creatures) in the game typically do not have these to a great extent.




If you're just going to use that train of logic, a not of PCs/NPCs don't have SR and Evasion either.

And I'd like to see a Wiz/Sor using the Orb spells hit a Monk.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> When combined with metamagic, these spells can become autokill for the most part.




A lot of spells, when combined with Metamagic, are "autokill". In fact, I'd simply go with the spells that don't require a touch attack but have a save for half damage. Half damage of 480  damage for example is still 240 damage.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 4) Evocation school of magic spell in Conjuration school of magic. Very few single target evocation spells come close to this level of power. The sole exception (I can think of) is Scorching Ray and even it has close range and SR. These spells make Specialized Wizard Conjurers better single target energy damaging casters than Specialized Wizard Evokers.




Force off, the Orb spells, with the exception of Orb of Force, have a range of close. Second, if I'm taking Evocation, it's usually because I want to target crowds. If I wanted to incapacitate single targets, I'd usually go for other schools: Enchantment to Charm them, Necromancy to weaken them (or outright kill them), etc. And no, the Orb spells aren't better. They just deal about the same damage as an Evocation spell (even less at higher levels).



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 5) If a DM follows the Conjuration Creation object rules for the orb spells, then the Orb spells can bust through an antimagic field.




Yes, that's true. But bear in mind the caster must first be outside of the anti-magic field to cast the spell. And second, what's the problem with that?


----------



## RigaMortus2

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Yes, that's true. But bear in mind the caster must first be outside of the anti-magic field to cast the spell. And second, what's the problem with that?




I think it is more of a problem with casting the orb INTO the AMF in order to damage the target.  The Orb spells just pass through the AMF when casting/firing from the outside in.


----------



## KarinsDad

charlesatan said:
			
		

> There's a couple of PHB spells that do. Melf's Acid Arrow. Acid Fog.




Ah yes.

Instead of a max of 15D6 for a 4th level spell, it's typically a max of 8D6 (and often less) for a 6th level spell.



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> It'd be pathetic if a damage spell required 1) an attack roll to hit and 2) save for half damage. No one would use it. That was the case with the original Flame Arrows before it got broken down into Scorching Ray. And the original text of the Orb spells. I mean you don't see Polar Ray making a save for half damage.




No, but it does have SR. At 15th level, a 4th level Orb spell does the same damage as *an 8th level* Polar Ray spell, but the Orb spell does not have SR and has a special condition if a save is failed. Granted, the Polar Ray does more damage at higher levels, but consider: at 15th level, the 4th spell is considerably better than the 8th level spell.

The conjurer is better with a 4th level spell than an evoker is with an 8th level spell for an energy damage spell which is the evoker's specialty.

That's just plain imbalanced.



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> If you're just going to use that train of logic, a not of PCs/NPCs don't have SR and Evasion either.




No, but they all have saves.



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> Yes, that's true. But bear in mind the caster must first be outside of the anti-magic field to cast the spell.




And this is important how? AMF has a radius of 10 feet. It is extremely rare when an enemy spell caster is within that range.



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> And second, what's the problem with that?




The problem is that Antimagic Field is a 6th level spell that is supposed to be the ultimate protection versus cast spells (at the cost of losing the caster's only spells and magic items) and a 1st or 4th level spell can blow through it.

That's a serious balance issue.


----------



## charlesatan

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I think it is more of a problem with casting the orb INTO the AMF in order to damage the target.  The Orb spells just pass through the AMF when casting/firing from the outside in.




Just clarifying. =) I think it's an entirely different situation when you're casting it from inside than when you're outside.

Also AMF blocks line of effect if I'm not mistaken. It makes casting anything into the anti-magic field impossible but if you want a ruling on it...


----------



## charlesatan

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Ah yes.
> 
> Instead of a max of 15D6 for a 4th level spell, it's typically a max of 8D6 (and often less) for a 6th level spell.




No, you simply asked for spells that could damage a golem. If you wanted spells that could deal significant damage to a golem, that's another matter. And Acid Fog for me has always been a tactical placement spell rather than a damaging one.




			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> No, but it does have SR. At 15th level, a 4th level Orb spell does the same damage as *an 8th level* Polar Ray spell, but the Orb spell does not have SR and has a special condition if a save is failed. Granted, the Polar Ray does more damage at higher levels, but consider: at 15th level, the 4th spell is considerably better than the 8th level spell.




If you wanted to argue the merits of the ability to ignore SR, then simply say so. Don't go around the argument that  "it's a touch attack that almost hits and can also do double damage." Because every ray damaging spell falls under that.

And I wouldn't say the Orb spells are considerably better than Polar Ray. At high levels, I'd actually be using Polar Ray (because of Split Ray metamagic) more often than the Orb spells unless I have good reason to do so. And yes, a lot of spells are pretty much like that. I mean Delayed Blast Fireball is really just an upgrade of Fireball. The delayed part is situationally useful but I honestly don't think the time it's used with its delayed effect outnumbers the times it's used as a glorified fireball.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> No, but they all have saves.




In contrast to the Orb spells which is an all or nothing deal if they miss the attack roll?

What point of attack roll do you not get? Even Melf's and Scorching Ray isn't a sure thing -- they get attack rolls. If I had a high BAB and a high Dex it might be an auto-hit but when you're a mage, you have crappy BAB. And unless I cast it in the first round of combat, pseudo-ray spells get messier: cover, penalties for allies in melee, etc. reduce my chances unless I have a big investure in feats (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, etc.). There are even situations when the targets simply have a high touch AC (ring of protection, insight bonuses, luck bonuses, etc.). Your AC is your save.





			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And this is important how? AMF has a radius of 10 feet. It is extremely rare when an enemy spell caster is within that range.




I thought it was an anti-magic field in general rather than the specific spell.




			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The problem is that Antimagic Field is a 6th level spell that is supposed to be the ultimate protection versus cast spells (at the cost of losing the caster's only spells and magic items) and a 1st or 4th level spell can blow through it




I think this is a matter of expectation. Again, it does nullify spellcasters when they're in the field. If they're out, everything is free game (everything from casting Cometfall or some other "indirect" way of harming the target).



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> That's a serious balance issue.




I think we've shown that it's not. Is it a good spell? Arguably so. Broken? Some of us believe it is, some not. However I'd like to point out that does that do usually point flavor and thematics as a reason (the conjuration vs evocation). I also think part of it stems from the fact that it breaks certain sacred cows (i.e. golems being totally invulnerable to magic).

Mechanically, here's my argument. If we ignore the SR component, would it be a broken spell? If your answer is no, then we can move on to what I think is the heart of the argument: "Are the Orb spells balanced/broken because they go through SR?" I feel that's a better argument rather than me having to go through the dynamics explaining ray spells, metamagic feats, etc.

If your problem is the fact that it ignores SR, just say so. If it's about dealing about a crapload of damage because of metamagic feats, a lot of spells falls under that complaint. If it's about the fact that it has no saving throw for half damage, again, a lot of spells has that. If it's about the fact that it's resolves as a ranged touch attack, again, see ray spells.


----------



## Rystil Arden

charlesatan said:
			
		

> No, you simply asked for spells that could damage a golem. If you wanted spells that could deal significant damage to a golem, that's another matter. And Acid Fog for me has always been a tactical placement spell rather than a damaging one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted to argue the merits of the ability to ignore SR, then simply say so. Don't go around the argument that  "it's a touch attack that almost hits and can also do double damage." Because every ray damaging spell falls under that.
> 
> And I wouldn't say the Orb spells are considerably better than Polar Ray. At high levels, I'd actually be using Polar Ray (because of Split Ray metamagic) more often than the Orb spells unless I have good reason to do so. And yes, a lot of spells are pretty much like that. I mean Delayed Blast Fireball is really just an upgrade of Fireball. The delayed part is situationally useful but I honestly don't think the time it's used with its delayed effect outnumbers the times it's used as a glorified fireball.
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast to the Orb spells which is an all or nothing deal if they miss the attack roll?
> 
> What point of attack roll do you not get? Even Melf's and Scorching Ray isn't a sure thing -- they get attack rolls. If I had a high BAB and a high Dex it might be an auto-hit but when you're a mage, you have crappy BAB. And unless I cast it in the first round of combat, pseudo-ray spells get messier: cover, penalties for allies in melee, etc. reduce my chances unless I have a big investure in feats (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, etc.). There are even situations when the targets simply have a high touch AC (ring of protection, insight bonuses, luck bonuses, etc.). Your AC is your save.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was an anti-magic field in general rather than the specific spell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a matter of expectation. Again, it does nullify spellcasters when they're in the field. If they're out, everything is free game (everything from casting Cometfall or some other "indirect" way of harming the target).
> 
> 
> 
> I think we've shown that it's not. Is it a good spell? Arguably so. Broken? Some of us believe it is, some not. However I'd like to point out that does that do usually point flavor and thematics as a reason (the conjuration vs evocation). I also think part of it stems from the fact that it breaks certain sacred cows (i.e. golems being totally invulnerable to magic).
> 
> Mechanically, here's my argument. If we ignore the SR component, would it be a broken spell? If your answer is no, then we can move on to what I think is the heart of the argument: "Are the Orb spells balanced/broken because they go through SR?" I feel that's a better argument rather than me having to go through the dynamics explaining ray spells, metamagic feats, etc.
> 
> If your problem is the fact that it ignores SR, just say so. If it's about dealing about a crapload of damage because of metamagic feats, a lot of spells falls under that complaint. If it's about the fact that it has no saving throw for half damage, again, a lot of spells has that. If it's about the fact that it's resolves as a ranged touch attack, again, see ray spells.



 charlesatan, I'm wondering--do you play at higher levels?  If so, do you fight against by-the-book monsters?  If so again and you use the Orb spells as written in their gloriously-broken no-SR splendour, do you honestly see people using Polar Ray?  Because I'm here from experience with play in that level, and I can tell you that SR is a major factor and the orb spells (metamagicked up to snuff) break the game at high levels if the SR isn't changed.  

All the other stuff?  KarinsDad is 100% right that the touch attack roll is *much* better than Reflex half for the caster (enemies tend to have excellent Ref saves compared to touch AC.  Look at any dragon), but it doesn't break the game at that point--it is just a black eye for the Evoker.  The ignores-SR-and-SR-equivalents thing is massive--it is 95% of the issue here, a gravity to which Karinsdad making 6 points, all valid but less important, doesn't quite do justice without that emphasis.  Heck, look at the name of this thread  

At low levels, the brokenness of the Orb spells is much less apparent because SR is rarer.  Let's look at high levels though: 

Level 20 Wizard in a party VS Wyrm Red Dragon BBEG:

So we have Connie the Conjurer and Evan the Evoker.  All things about them are equal except specialty school (heck, they could be the same character--Evan the Evoker is better off using the Orbs too).

Evan has a few choices.  With his caster level of 20, he could Empower an Cold-Subbed Delayed-Blast Fireball for 30d6 (*1.5 due to weakness - the dragon's inevitable ice-related defenses).  Evan's DC is likely going to be 29 or lower, which the dragon makes on a 9 (or lower), so the dragon is probably taking half damage as well, so more like 22.5d6 - cold defenses.  Let's say the dragon only has up Resist Energy--that's 48.75 damage on average if it saves, or 127.5 if not.  Sounds good, right?  That's 80 Damage average.  But the dragon also has SR!  Suddenly, average damage decreases to 44, and a lot of that is due to a hefty chance to do 0. 

Alright, let's try a Meteor Swarm.  We have a problem--each of the meteors is separate, so Cold Resistance applies to each one.  This will destroy our only hope, so let's assume we got lucky and picked an element the dragon was dumb enough not to resist (Acid or Electricity, your favourite--of course it would have protected from cold, and it probably protects from Acid because too many things with Acid cut through SR, so let's pick electric) Despite doing only 24d6 Electric and 8d6 bludgeoning (not multiplied), the meteors can't miss except on a 1, so no save is allowed.  That's 106 Damage again.  But SR applies again!  Damage is reduced to 58.52.  This is better than Polar Ray would do, so we'll ignore Polar Ray.

Evan probably cleans up with a Quickened Cone of Cold (subbed to Electric because we're pretending we know the Dragon didn't protect against Electric again) for another  18.7825 damage.  So total?  77 Damage average.

Okay, so what about these orbs we hear so much about?  Connie tosses an Orb of Electricity just for kicks (because we let Evan pretend that Electricity was not resisted at all by the dragon--if the dragon actually resists electricity, Evan is boned, but Connie can just use Orb of Force), I prefer Twinned because this only uses an 8th-level slot, but Evan used two 9th-level slots, so I'll use the underwhelming Empower + Maximise so that Connie can at least use a 9th and an 8th (her 8th will be a Quickened Orb of Electricity).  These both hit except on a 1, like the little meteors, so average damage from the first is 116.25 and from the Quickened one is 52.5 (counting criticals on a 20 to nearly cancel out missing on a 1).  This total is 168.75.  If it allowed SR, the total would be down to 93 (though using slightly lower spell slots to do so).

This analysis gets MUCH worse if the two casters are lower level or the enemy is stronger.  In fact, without Meteor Swarm as an option for the Evoker, if we go down to level 15 and she has to use Polar Ray and Quickened Fireball against Twinned Orb and Quickened Orb, the Conjurer kicks so much ass it isn't even funny (assuming no resistance to electricity and subbing everything to that, the damage is 21.525 for the Evoker and 157.5 for the Conjurer!)


----------



## hong

Mind you, I'm of the opinion that SR as a mechanic sucks the big one. It will be the sixth against the wall when 4E comes.


----------



## Rystil Arden

hong said:
			
		

> Mind you, I'm of the opinion that SR as a mechanic sucks the big one. It will be the sixth against the wall when 4E comes.



 It _is_ a fairly decent secondary check against low-level characters who munch out their saving throw DCs, but admittedly it could have been more elegant.  However, a huge step up from the old flat random % Spell Resistance?  Definitely!


----------



## Hypersmurf

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Also AMF blocks line of effect if I'm not mistaken. It makes casting anything into the anti-magic field impossible but if you want a ruling on it...




And with a Conjuration spell, you need line of effect to the point of origin of the effect.  The point of origin of the effect is your palm, which is not inside the AMF; you have line of effect to the point of origin.  And after that, as the effect of a Conjuration [Creation] with an instantaneous duration, the orb no longer relies on magic for its existence, and is thus unaffected by the AMF when you make you ranged touch attack with it.

If you were inside the AMF when you cast the spell, it would be a different story.

-Hyp.


----------



## glass

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> These are dumb, but I really think they make as much sense as a non-magical orb of anything that does damage based on the amount of magical power the caster can bring to bear.



Especially a non-magical orb of magical force... 


glass.


----------



## charlesatan

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> charlesatan, I'm wondering--do you play at higher levels?  If so, do you fight against by-the-book monsters?  If so again and you use the Orb spells as written in their gloriously-broken no-SR splendour, do you honestly see people using Polar Ray?  Because I'm here from experience with play in that level, and I can tell you that SR is a major factor and the orb spells (metamagicked up to snuff) break the game at high levels if the SR isn't changed.
> 
> All the other stuff?  KarinsDad is 100% right that the touch attack roll is *much* better than Reflex half for the caster (enemies tend to have excellent Ref saves compared to touch AC.  Look at any dragon), but it doesn't break the game at that point--it is just a black eye for the Evoker.  The ignores-SR-and-SR-equivalents thing is massive--it is 95% of the issue here, a gravity to which Karinsdad making 6 points, all valid but less important, doesn't quite do justice without that emphasis.  Heck, look at the name of this thread
> 
> At low levels, the brokenness of the Orb spells is much less apparent because SR is rarer.  Let's look at high levels though:
> 
> Level 20 Wizard in a party VS Wyrm Red Dragon BBEG:
> 
> So we have Connie the Conjurer and Evan the Evoker.  All things about them are equal except specialty school (heck, they could be the same character--Evan the Evoker is better off using the Orbs too).
> 
> Evan has a few choices.  With his caster level of 20, he could Empower an Cold-Subbed Delayed-Blast Fireball for 30d6 (*1.5 due to weakness - the dragon's inevitable ice-related defenses).  Evan's DC is likely going to be 29 or lower, which the dragon makes on a 9 (or lower), so the dragon is probably taking half damage as well, so more like 22.5d6 - cold defenses.  Let's say the dragon only has up Resist Energy--that's 48.75 damage on average if it saves, or 127.5 if not.  Sounds good, right?  That's 80 Damage average.  But the dragon also has SR!  Suddenly, average damage decreases to 44, and a lot of that is due to a hefty chance to do 0.
> 
> Alright, let's try a Meteor Swarm.  We have a problem--each of the meteors is separate, so Cold Resistance applies to each one.  This will destroy our only hope, so let's assume we got lucky and picked an element the dragon was dumb enough not to resist (Acid or Electricity, your favourite--of course it would have protected from cold, and it probably protects from Acid because too many things with Acid cut through SR, so let's pick electric) Despite doing only 24d6 Electric and 8d6 bludgeoning (not multiplied), the meteors can't miss except on a 1, so no save is allowed.  That's 106 Damage again.  But SR applies again!  Damage is reduced to 58.52.  This is better than Polar Ray would do, so we'll ignore Polar Ray.
> 
> Evan probably cleans up with a Quickened Cone of Cold (subbed to Electric because we're pretending we know the Dragon didn't protect against Electric again) for another  34.125 damage.  So total?  92 Damage average.
> 
> Okay, so what about these orbs we hear so much about?  Connie tosses an Orb of Electricity just for kicks (because we let Evan pretend that Electricity was not resisted at all by the dragon--if the dragon actually resists electricity, Evan is boned, but Connie can just use Orb of Force), I prefer Twinned because this only uses an 8th-level slot, but Evan used two 9th-level slots, so I'll use the underwhelming Empower + Maximise so that Connie can at least use a 9th and an 8th (her 8th will be a Quickened Orb of Electricity).  These both hit except on a 1, like the little meteors, so average damage from the first is 116.25 and from the Quickened one is 52.5 (counting criticals on a 20 to nearly cancel out missing on a 1).  This total is 168.75.  If it allowed SR, the total would be down to 93 (though using slightly lower spell slots to do so).
> 
> This analysis gets MUCH worse if the two casters are lower level or the enemy is stronger.  In fact, without Meteor Swarm as an option for the Evoker, if we go down to level 15 and she has to use Polar Ray and Quickened Fireball against Twinned Orb and Quickened Orb, the Conjurer kicks so much ass it isn't even funny (assuming no resistance to electricity and subbing everything to that, the damage is 21.525 for the Evoker and 157.5 for the Conjurer!)




1) Yes, I play at high levels. It's actually my preferred area of play. =)

2) Yes, I would use Polar Ray. Because I can use Twin Spell Split Ray on Polar Ray and not on the Orb spells (because as much as they are like rays, they simply aren't). That's not to say I'd never used Orbs. But the question is a) will I be facing creatures with SR/spell immunity and b) how many. In the absence of a), I'll be using Polar Ray. If they have spell immunity, I'll use the orb. If they have spell resistance, it depends on b) which i'll get to later.

3) I'm not saying that an attack roll isn't better than a saving throw. But if you've ever played D&D, you'll also know how you'll hit on a roll of 5 and above yet you managed to roll 4,3,2, and even the dreaded 1. And again, once they're in melee and firing into melee penalties and cover applies, I'm more hesitant to fire a ray (especially when there's a chance I'll hit an ally). If the dragon in the example used the spell Scintillating Scales which turns their nat armor into a deflection bonus (dragons can cast spells too!), I wouldn't be hitting them in the first place unless I rolled a 20.

4) The dragon example is biased towards the Orb user in the sense that it's a single target. If I were facing multiple opponents (even if they have SR), I'll most likely still be using a Delayed Blast Fireball or Chain Lightning (plus whatever metamagic feat). As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the strength of Evocation in my opinion is its ability to tackle multiple foes. If I were facing single targets, I could depend on other schools (Enchantment, Necromancy).

5) In the case of the dragon, honestly, I wouldn't be using either Evocation or Conjuration. If I was of nongood alignment, I'd be casting a Split Ray Twinned Maximixed (Rod) Enervation. The dragon actually has a lower SR for its CR. With spell penetration I have a good chance of penetrating the SR (I'd probably even invest in an item that boosts my caster level or those that helps beat SR). If various books are allowed, I'd cast Assay Resistance in the first place to give me a +10 bonus to the caster level check. Actually optimally speaking, I'd never use Meteor Swarm. It's not as cost efficient as I'd like it to be. I'd honestly actually use Polar Ray (plus whatever metamagic) on it or a lower-level evocation spell (delayed blast, etc.).


----------



## charlesatan

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And with a Conjuration spell, you need line of effect to the point of origin of the effect.  The point of origin of the effect is your palm, which is not inside the AMF; you have line of effect to the point of origin.  And after that, as the effect of a Conjuration [Creation] with an instantaneous duration, the orb no longer relies on magic for its existence, and is thus unaffected by the AMF when you make you ranged touch attack with it.
> 
> If you were inside the AMF when you cast the spell, it would be a different story.
> 
> -Hyp.




Thanks for clarifying. =)


----------



## Hypersmurf

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 2) Yes, I would use Polar Ray. Because I can use Twin Spell on Polar Ray and not on the Orb spells (because as much as they are like rays, they simply aren't).




Uh...?

The Twin Spell feat has no must-be-a-Ray requirement.

In fact, I'm not convinced it works on Rays (or Orbs) at all; per the feat text, it allows a spell to take effect twice in the same area or on the same target simultaneously.  A Ray spell (or an Orb) has neither area nor target; rather, it has an effect.  (This would disallow the Split Twinned Maximized Enervation mentioned above, since Enervation, as a spell with neither target nor area, would not be a valid subject of the Twin Spell feat.)

If it does, in fact, allow a Ray to be duplicated, with both rays using the same attack roll to strike at a single opponent, then it certainly would allow the same for an Orb.

Did you mean the Split Ray feat instead?

-Hyp.


----------



## charlesatan

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Uh...?
> 
> The Twin Spell feat has no must-be-a-Ray requirement.
> 
> In fact, I'm not convinced it works on Rays (or Orbs) at all; per the feat text, it allows a spell to take effect twice in the same area or on the same target simultaneously.  A Ray spell (or an Orb) has neither area nor target; rather, it has an effect.
> 
> If it does, in fact, allow a Ray to be duplicated, with both rays using the same attack roll to strike at a single opponent, then it certainly would allow the same for an Orb.
> 
> Did you mean the Split Ray feat instead?
> 
> -Hyp.




Sorry, was thinking of Split Ray and typing Twin Spell. You're right. Split Ray has the advantage of merely two spell levels higher for the same effect.

I expect Twin Spell to work on Rays (and Orbs) for that matter because as far as I know, they still qualify as having the same target, and the sentence following that first line says that any variable characteristic (including attack rolls) apply. But I could be wrong. If that's the case, the Maximized, Empowered, Twin Split Ray Enervation route.


----------



## Hypersmurf

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 5) In the case of the dragon, honestly, I wouldn't be using either Evocation or Conjuration. If I was of nongood alignment, I'd be casting a Split Ray Twinned Maximixed (Rod) Enervation.




Leaving aside the question of Twinned ray spells, why the non-good stipulation?

-Hyp.


----------



## charlesatan

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Leaving aside the question of Twinned ray spells, why the non-good stipulation?
> 
> -Hyp.




Missed your last part, edited my previous post to cover the ground on Twin Spell.

Checking the SRD, it's not listed there, but I could vaguely remember that Enervation had the [evil] subtype. Will check the PHB when I get home.


----------



## Hypersmurf

charlesatan said:
			
		

> I expect Twin Spell to work on Rays (and Orbs) for that matter because as far as I know, they still qualify as having the same target, and the sentence following that first line says that any variable characteristic (including attack rolls) apply. But I could be wrong. If that's the case, the Maximized, Empowered, Twin Split Ray Enervation route.




They don't have a target, they have an effect; there are spells that _do_ have a target that require an attack roll (like Shocking Grasp, for example).

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Checking the SRD, it's not listed there, but I could vaguely remember that Enervation had the [evil] subtype. Will check the PHB when I get home.




It doesn't; and even if it did, there's no prohibition on a wizard or sorcerer casting a spell with a descriptor opposed to his own alignment as there is for clerics and druids.

-Hyp.


----------



## Plane Sailing

charlesatan said:
			
		

> I think we've shown that it's not.




Actually, I don't think you've even scratched the surface in attempting to show that it isn't. I don't find a single one of your arguments convincing in any way (especially if you try to take KD to task for not addressing something that he has already addressed at length earlier in the thread - it isn't reasonable to expect someone to restate every part of every argument in every post in a thread).

p.s. first time I've heard anyone singing the praises of polar ray, which I've universally seen derided in the past.


----------



## charlesatan

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It doesn't; and even if it did, there's no prohibition on a wizard or sorcerer casting a spell with a descriptor opposed to his own alignment as there is for clerics and druids.
> 
> -Hyp.




It seems I imagined the [Evil] descriptor. As a player I don't want to cast evil spells for roleplaying purposes (unless it's the Protection from ... spells).


----------



## charlesatan

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think you've even scratched the surface in attempting to show that it isn't. I don't find a single one of your arguments convincing in any way (especially if you try to take KD to task for not addressing something that he has already addressed at length earlier in the thread - it isn't reasonable to expect someone to restate every part of every argument in every post in a thread).




I also feel the same way about re-stating about everything I said. If his argument is that it's imbalanced because a) it deals 15d6 points of damage, b1) it's a ranged touch attack/auto-hit and b2) it has no save, and c) that because of the right metamagic feats it's an instant-kill, then I'm saying a) there are other spells that deal 15d6 points of damage, b) it's far from an auto-hit and the fact that orb only targets 1 creature while evocation spells are capable of targeting multiple targets, and c) the same evocation spells can auto-kill using the same logic of metamagic feats.

If he's arguing that it's imbalanced because of the fact that it ignores SR and does considerable damage, then I'm all for it (discussing about it). I just want to get rid of the excess clutter above which I think is not the source of the imbalance -- the fact that it ignores SR is.

Of course if you think that a spell that fulfills a), b), and c) but has SR is still imbalanced, then feel free to correct me.



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> p.s. first time I've heard anyone singing the praises of polar ray, which I've universally seen derided in the past.




Admittedly I've enjoyed it back in 3.0 when it was Otiluke's Freezing Sphere. But we got Scorching Ray from Flame Arrows so...


----------



## Someone

Charlesatan, I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. The compaints about the Orb spells are that they do damage comparable to other Evocation, energy-based, single target spells of frequently higher level and allows far less defenses than them. This makes the orbs objectively better than those evocations. The auto-kill and such arguments are admittedly red herrings: both evocations and orbs can kill, so what? The point is that the orbs can deal damage much easily, since they only have to hit and deal with energy resistance VS having to hit, deal with energy resistance *and* deal with SR.


----------



## charlesatan

Someone said:
			
		

> Charlesatan, I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. The compaints about the Orb spells are that they do damage comparable to other Evocation, energy-based, single target spells of frequently higher level and allows far less defenses than them. This makes the orbs objectively better than those evocations. The auto-kill and such arguments are admittedly red herrings: both evocations and orbs can kill, so what? The point is that the orbs can deal damage much easily, since they only have to hit and deal with energy resistance VS having to hit, deal with energy resistance *and* deal with SR.




If the auto-kill argument is something we can drop, then I'm glad. It's one less thing to debate about. Which was my point with my previous posts.

Second, I don't want to get into an argument which is overall better: a ranged touch attack or a saving throw against a spell. The former is an all-or-nothing gambit: if it hits, you're dealt full damage. If it doesn't, nothing. A saving throw on the other hand is the reverse: at worse, it's half damage. At best, it's full damage. But never under any circumstances is a ranged touch attack an auto-hit. At best there's a 5% chance for failure. But I don't think that will always be the case (certainly there will be chances when that will be the case but there will also be scenarios when you will only have 5% chance to hit). For me the ranged touch attack vs saving throw is a stylistic choice. Depending on the opponent the former might be a better choice than the latter but it is far from "all the time the former trumps the latter".

Third, they're both energy based. Okay. For me Abjuration, Conjuration, and Evocation had energy subtypes. Evocation just tends to have more of them.

Fourth, I'm not denying that the Orb spells aren't great single target spells. They are. But so what? I don't think single target spells are the forte of Evocation. It's spells that damage multiple targets. And the Orbs don't occupy that particular niche. It's giving the chance to do 10d6 damage at multiple targets for 15d6 at just one.

Fifth, what I think is the heart of the argument is that the Orb spells ignores SR. Evocation spells simply don't have such a counterpart. That I think is what we should be discussing. Not the other "red herrings". And even assuming the Orbs are imbalanced, it's not dethroning the school of Evocation. I still can't hit multiple targets with the Orb spells at the same damage output. Evocation can.


----------



## Someone

No, a ranged touch attack isn't a guarantedd ht, and a reflex ST means normally that you're going to deal some damage. But overall, starting at medium levels a ranged touch attack is vastly better than saving throws. 

However, the crux of the matter isn't even this, or the fact that orbs aren't fireballs. The point is that the orbs, which are conjurations, are better than similar evocation spells. By similar I mean ranged touch, energy damage dealing spells. And they are better because they deal similar or more damage, and allow less defenses. I doesn't mater that there are other spells in the evocation school that deal area damage: orbs are good enough (and then some) to be part of the evocation school. As an analogy, suppose Necromancy had a 1st level spell mostly identical to charm person, only that it doesn't allow spell resistance. That the enchantment school still has Mass Suggestion doesn't change the fact that the new necromancy spell is better than Charm person.


----------



## Henry

Someone said:
			
		

> No, a ranged touch attack isn't a guarantedd ht, and a reflex ST means normally that you're going to deal some damage. But overall, starting at medium levels a ranged touch attack is vastly better than saving throws.




IMO, this point bears emphasizing. The Attack bonus for a touch attack, even for wizards and sorcerers, goes up MUCH faster than the Touch AC of most opponents faced at higher levels (levels above 8th or 9th, anyway). 95-100% of the opponents in the MM have touch AC's below 16, and PROBABLY half of them have touch AC's below 10; a mid-level spellcaster has a touch attack in the +4 to +8 range, meaning I fail one time out of 4 or 5 to deliver full effect (damage, anti-magic, charming, etc.) When I play spellcasters I seek out touch attack spells. I don't consider it a drawback, I consider it an advantage.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Someone said:
			
		

> I doesn't mater that there are other spells in the evocation school that deal area damage: orbs are good enough (and then some) to be part of the evocation school. As an analogy, suppose Necromancy had a 1st level spell mostly identical to charm person, only that it doesn't allow spell resistance. That the enchantment school still has Mass Suggestion doesn't change the fact that the new necromancy spell is better than Charm person.



Well said, my friend


----------



## KarinsDad

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> charlesatan, I'm wondering--do you play at higher levels?  If so, do you fight against by-the-book monsters?  If so again and you use the Orb spells as written in their gloriously-broken no-SR splendour, do you honestly see people using Polar Ray?  Because I'm here from experience with play in that level, and I can tell you that SR is a major factor and the orb spells (metamagicked up to snuff) break the game at high levels if the SR isn't changed.




Thanks for trotting out the overwhelming one sided math Rystil. I usually try to go to the math to prove points, but did not have time to do so at work this week.

Course, charlesatan totally ignored the math, but whatever.  


I'd like to point out another issue that pro-Orb people will blow off as well, but to me it is another worthwhile advantage of Orbs.

Energy damaging spells which have SR and/or saves (specifically Reflex saves) have non-detectable defenses which can negate them completely. For example, a high SR or Improved Evasion (or even such a high Reflex save that half damage is often ensured). The caster often does not know until he casts the spell (and maybe even not necessarily then) that the spell has a high chance of failure. This is even true for spells like Scorching Ray which have both a ranged touch attack and SR.

However, energy damaging spells like the Orbs which *only* have a ranged touch attack tend to have detectable defenses which can negate them completely. In other words, a miss chance. Invisibility or Blur or concealment or cover or even Displacement are often noticable. The caster tends to know ahead of time that his opponent is invisible and the spell has a high chance of failure, so he can intelligently choose to cast a different spell instead.

So in addition to the Orbs averaging more single target energy damage than most single target energy damaging Evocation spells as illustrated, they also have a selection advantage. The caster incorrectly chooses a single target energy damage spell less often with the Orbs. If the caster can clearly see the target (shy of some more unusual magic), he can typically damage the target.


And of course as someone else pointed out, with a ranged touch attack, that is mostly under the control of the caster. He can bump up his to hit and damage with spells and feats and PrC special abilities in order to become a ranged touch attack specialist. It is mostly under his control. Most opponents are not anti-ranged touch attack specialist such that they can defend against this and most opponents do not have extremely high touch ACs. For most opponents, even ones with high hit points, Orb spells are deadly.


As both of these points illustrate, controlling your odds is a major advantage of ranged touch spells. As single target energy damage spells, Orbs have the best of all worlds.


----------



## James McMurray

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So is claiming that it disappears immediately after use. Indefinite means that something lasts until some other factor changes it. Unfortunately, that is not defined by the rules.




You're right. The rules don't declare that fire needs fuel. LOL



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Maybe not for you, but can you list a single target Evocation spell that does energy damage and does not have SR?




No, but I haven't read every book. It isn't important, either. I also can't name an evocation spell that targets a single creature and grants them negative levels, but I can name a telepathy (i.e Enchantment) psionic power that does it (Mindwipe). Crossovers happen.



> Instead of a max of 15D6 for a 4th level spell, it's typically a max of 8D6 (and often less) for a 6th level spell.




Assuming minimum caster level of 11, Acid Fog deals 22d6 damage in an area, it's just spread out over time.



> No, but it does have SR. At 15th level, a 4th level Orb spell does the same damage as an 8th level Polar Ray spell, but the Orb spell does not have SR and has a special condition if a save is failed. Granted, the Polar Ray does more damage at higher levels, but consider: at 15th level, the 4th spell is considerably better than the 8th level spell.
> 
> The conjurer is better with a 4th level spell than an evoker is with an 8th level spell for an energy damage spell which is the evoker's specialty.
> 
> That's just plain imbalanced.




Yep, Polar Ray blows chunks as an 8th level spell. I definitely agree with you on that.



> And this is important how? AMF has a radius of 10 feet. It is extremely rare when an enemy spell caster is within that range.




I've only very rarely seen someone activate an AMF when they weren't within range. Doing it outside of 10' from the enemy caster is usually a stupid idea, because he can just leave. If you want to hurt him instead of just forcing him to cast fly and drop rocks on your head you have to cast it when you're within range.



> The problem is that Antimagic Field is a 6th level spell that is supposed to be the ultimate protection versus cast spells (at the cost of losing the caster's only spells and magic items) and a 1st or 4th level spell can blow through it.




OMG!!!! I just realized you're right!!!! Quick, everyone sign my petition to ban Acid Splash! It's waaay too powerful for a cantrip. It does the same damage as Ray of Frost, but is more likely to stop a regenerater, and ignores AMF!!!  EEEEEK!


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Assuming minimum caster level of 11, Acid Fog deals 22d6 damage in an area, it's just spread out over time.




Yes, and because of that, often spread over no targets. Most of the time, opponents leave it as quickly as possible. Now, it is possible to put Wall spells around it so that opponents cannot get out, but typically opponents in Acid Fog take anywhere between 2D6 and 8D6 damage max and if they have Energy Resistance Acid 10 or higher, they often take no damage whatsoever.



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> I've only very rarely seen someone activate an AMF when they weren't within range. Doing it outside of 10' from the enemy caster is usually a stupid idea, because he can just leave. If you want to hurt him instead of just forcing him to cast fly and drop rocks on your head you have to cast it when you're within range.




Stupid???  

Have you actually played this game at high level? I've seen AMF used in a lot of ways to prevent enemy attacks from affecting PCs.

Examples: Dispelling Wall, Symbol spells, surprise round spells, supernatural abiliites from undead, breath weapons, gaze attacks, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on and on and on.

Since it lasts 10 minutes per level and is dismissable, it's one of the best overall defensive spells in the game. People who do not use it this way are basically clueless on how powerful it really is. Sure, if the Sorcerer or Wizard or Cleric then wants to cast a spell in a combat, he has to dismiss it and that takes a Standard Action (although he can still often cast a swift or Quicken spell if he wants). But in the meantime, AMF prevents most of the unexpected nasty stuff that can happen before the party can react. And it saves on a boatload of Heal and Restoration-like spells. Having one caster dedicated to this level of defense is huge in the game.

And since it merely suppresses spells and magic items and does not dispel them, a caster can buff up before casting AMF and the instant he brings it down, all of his buffs are up.


All of your sarcasm aside (it's really not necessary and makes your position look less tenable, not more), you really do not know what you are talking about with regard to AMF.


----------



## Notmousse

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So is claiming that it disappears immediately after use. Indefinite means that something lasts until some other factor changes it. Unfortunately, that is not defined by the rules.



 And when conjuring fire you need fuel to sustain it, or like all other non-magical fire it goes out.

Conjured cold is filled by ambient heat, conjured acid becomes inert after burning something, conjured electricity discharges, conjured sound shoots away at roughly 750mph (so not even a monk sould catch it!) harmlessly, conjured force dissipates due to it's unstable properties.

In short it goes away because it hits.


----------



## Rystil Arden

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 1) Yes, I play at high levels. It's actually my preferred area of play. =)
> 
> 2) Yes, I would use Polar Ray. Because I can use Twin Spell Split Ray on Polar Ray and not on the Orb spells (because as much as they are like rays, they simply aren't). That's not to say I'd never used Orbs. But the question is a) will I be facing creatures with SR/spell immunity and b) how many. In the absence of a), I'll be using Polar Ray. If they have spell immunity, I'll use the orb. If they have spell resistance, it depends on b) which i'll get to later.
> 
> 3) I'm not saying that an attack roll isn't better than a saving throw. But if you've ever played D&D, you'll also know how you'll hit on a roll of 5 and above yet you managed to roll 4,3,2, and even the dreaded 1. And again, once they're in melee and firing into melee penalties and cover applies, I'm more hesitant to fire a ray (especially when there's a chance I'll hit an ally). If the dragon in the example used the spell Scintillating Scales which turns their nat armor into a deflection bonus (dragons can cast spells too!), I wouldn't be hitting them in the first place unless I rolled a 20.
> 
> 4) The dragon example is biased towards the Orb user in the sense that it's a single target. If I were facing multiple opponents (even if they have SR), I'll most likely still be using a Delayed Blast Fireball or Chain Lightning (plus whatever metamagic feat). As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the strength of Evocation in my opinion is its ability to tackle multiple foes. If I were facing single targets, I could depend on other schools (Enchantment, Necromancy).
> 
> 5) In the case of the dragon, honestly, I wouldn't be using either Evocation or Conjuration. If I was of nongood alignment, I'd be casting a Split Ray Twinned Maximixed (Rod) Enervation. The dragon actually has a lower SR for its CR. With spell penetration I have a good chance of penetrating the SR (I'd probably even invest in an item that boosts my caster level or those that helps beat SR). If various books are allowed, I'd cast Assay Resistance in the first place to give me a +10 bonus to the caster level check. Actually optimally speaking, I'd never use Meteor Swarm. It's not as cost efficient as I'd like it to be. I'd honestly actually use Polar Ray (plus whatever metamagic) on it or a lower-level evocation spell (delayed blast, etc.).



 Enchantment?  Necromancy?  At high levels, a good percentage of enemies are virtually immune to both (at least the good single-target stuff) either naturally or due to Death Wards and Mind Blanks.  And they still allow SR.


----------



## helium3

All I know is that outsiders and dragons, particularly those with high CR's, were a lot more fearsome before the various high damage output, no spell resistance spells and powers appeared.

It got to the point where I stopped having my high level psion manifest crystal shard because it was too easy to kill just about anything with it, particularly when maximized.


----------



## charlesatan

Someone said:
			
		

> No, a ranged touch attack isn't a guarantedd ht, and a reflex ST means normally that you're going to deal some damage. But overall, starting at medium levels a ranged touch attack is vastly better than saving throws.p




Yes, I get the benefits of a ranged touch attack (let's throw in the possibility of double damage of  crit). Out of curiosity, so if the Orb spells weren't touch attacks but rather resolved like bursts (save for half, still single target), in your opinion would they still be as broken?



			
				Someone said:
			
		

> However, the crux of the matter isn't even this, or the fact that orbs aren't fireballs. The point is that the orbs, which are conjurations, are better than similar evocation spells. By similar I mean ranged touch, energy damage dealing spells. And they are better because they deal similar or more damage, and allow less defenses. I doesn't mater that there are other spells in the evocation school that deal area damage: orbs are good enough (and then some) to be part of the evocation school. As an analogy, suppose Necromancy had a 1st level spell mostly identical to charm person, only that it doesn't allow spell resistance. That the enchantment school still has Mass Suggestion doesn't change the fact that the new necromancy spell is better than Charm person.




For the record, my arguments were to Karin'sDad and how he phrased his arguments. Your quote, I think, is a better, more clearer way to present your arguments.

1) Honestly, I haven't seen much ranged touch Evocation spells. The only usual choices I end up with is Polar Ray or Scorching Ray. Yes, I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

2) Of course IMO, I think there's room for some overlap between Conjuration and Evocation. But that's just my opinion. I'll still stick to my argument that when it comes to crowd control, Evocation can't be beat. If you're lobbying for single targets as well, until the "defense" factor (saves, AC, SR, etc.) they're about equal. If we're factoring in SR/spell immunity, obviously I can't prove that the Orb is inferior to other comparable spells. But in 3.5, I think that's what the designers were lobbying for in terms of Conjuration spells, a sub school that has a limited (limited in the sense that the summoning subschool still isn't a solution to SR) way of overcoming SR.


----------



## Delta

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> It _is_ a fairly decent secondary check against low-level characters who munch out their saving throw DCs, but admittedly it could have been more elegant.  However, a huge step up from the old flat random % Spell Resistance?  Definitely!




The current SR mechanic is almost exactly equivalent to 1E Magic Resistance. Both chances shift 5% per level of the caster. 1E MM, p. 5-6:



> MAGIC RESISTANCE indicates the percentage chance of any spell absolutely failing in the monster’s presence. It is based on the spell being cast by a magic-user of 11th level, and it must be adjusted upwards by 5% for each level below 11th or downwards for each level above 11th of the magic-user casting the spell...


----------



## charlesatan

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So in addition to the Orbs averaging more single target energy damage than most single target energy damaging Evocation spells as illustrated, they also have a selection advantage. The caster incorrectly chooses a single target energy damage spell less often with the Orbs. If the caster can clearly see the target (shy of some more unusual magic), he can typically damage the target.




My qualm with quoting selection advantage is that it's just that: selection advantage. It's not like it's the Psion kineticist subschool where you get to choose which element it is at casting. The only real class to benefit from it is the Warmage (who gets all of it and casts spells spontaneously). There's some advantage to the Wizard if he knows what he's facing (and took the time to copy all four Orb elemental spells... I consider Orb of Force a different beast altogether). If I were a Sorcerer, I'd still need to pick the right element when I pick my 4th-level spells.




			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And of course as someone else pointed out, with a ranged touch attack, that is mostly under the control of the caster. He can bump up his to hit and damage with spells and feats and PrC special abilities in order to become a ranged touch attack specialist. It is mostly under his control. Most opponents are not anti-ranged touch attack specialist such that they can defend against this and most opponents do not have extremely high touch ACs. For most opponents, even ones with high hit points, Orb spells are deadly.




Barring spell immunity, it's also possible to buid your character to overcome spell resistance. Granted boosting your attack bonus is a lot easier than boosting your caster level against SR, but it's not impossible either.


----------



## charlesatan

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Assuming minimum caster level of 11, Acid Fog deals 22d6 damage in an area, it's just spread out over time.




Uh, even I can't defend the merits of Acid Fog based on damage output alone. There's a big difference between 22d6 now and 22d6 over time. (If I'm going to cast Acid Fog, it's for its other benefits. The damage is nice but it's honestly not comparable to everything else either Conjuration or Evocation can throw.)


----------



## charlesatan

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Enchantment?  Necromancy?  At high levels, a good percentage of enemies are virtually immune to both (at least the good single-target stuff) either naturally or due to Death Wards and Mind Blanks.  And they still allow SR.




Mind Blank, yes. Death Ward, not really (barring undead). At epic levels there's as long list of immunities (mind-affecting, necromancy, disintegration, polymorphing, etc.) including most energy types except sonic and high resistances to fire at the very least.


----------



## Henry

_BRIEF TIME-OUT:

I'm noticing from a few of the posters that the insults are ratcheting up just a tad in the midst of heated debate. Let's keep in mind to keep it back at the "civil" level, if we could.

Thanks, all._


----------



## Alratan

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Are you saying that fire is a creature or object?




It's worth noting that in the D&D cosmology, Fire is most certainly an object, one of the four basic constituents of all matter - fire as an element. Thus, fire can exist in of itself, with no fuel, a piece of elemental fire dragged onto the material plane.



> Really? I can think of at least 8 conjuration spells that create energy (fire, electrical, force, and sonic). It seems rather apparent that WotC feels that Conjuration spells can create energy.




Similar arguments can be made that in an alchemical paradigm, electricity may also be an object, and quite possibly force as well. Sonic is more difficult, but for that I can argue that an orb of force is simply a conjured pulse of very dense vibrating air.


----------



## Someone

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Yes, I get the benefits of a ranged touch attack (let's throw in the possibility of double damage of  crit). Out of curiosity, so if the Orb spells weren't touch attacks but rather resolved like bursts (save for half, still single target), in your opinion would they still be as broken?




Ah, but I wasn't arguing if they were broken or not. My position in the thread is that they are incorrectly placed: they should be evocations, not conjurations. In any case, being evocations with a touch attack, no save and with SR would make them right fine in my book.



> For the record, my arguments were to Karin'sDad and how he phrased his arguments. Your quote, I think, is a better, more clearer way to present your arguments.
> 
> 1) Honestly, I haven't seen much ranged touch Evocation spells. The only usual choices I end up with is Polar Ray or Scorching Ray. Yes, I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed.




We agree on this.



> 2) Of course IMO, I think there's room for some overlap between Conjuration and Evocation. But that's just my opinion.




I see no problem with some overlap; most people too, since nobody is complaining, say,  about Melf's acid arrow Vs Scorching ray.



> I'll still stick to my argument that when it comes to crowd control, Evocation can't be beat.




Very true, but it'll be truer that in terms of crowd blasting, Evocation can't be beat _still_. Orbs IMO are a wrong step in terms of design philosophy, that if repeated would lead to conjured balls of fire and conjured chaing lighnings, just without SR. Evocation isn't a total joke because there are no many spells like the orbs: that doesn't make the orbs good, which is the point being argued.


----------



## Rystil Arden

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Mind Blank, yes. Death Ward, not really (barring undead). At epic levels there's as long list of immunities (mind-affecting, necromancy, disintegration, polymorphing, etc.) including most energy types except sonic and high resistances to fire at the very least.



 Deathe Ward makes you immune to death effects and negative energy, which includes Enervation.


----------



## James McMurray

> Have you actually played this game at high level? I've seen AMF used in a lot of ways to prevent enemy attacks from affecting PCs.




Did you read my post? I specifically said that if you want to use it offensively you have to be close, then you respond by saying it can be used defensively from far away. Can you at least do me the favor of finishing a paragraph before you dive towards your rant button?

If you have a moment to follow my sig and read my Story Hour threads you'll know that when I run games it's almost exclusively at higher levels. So yes, I have a lot of experience at high level games. 



> All of your sarcasm aside (it's really not necessary and makes your position look less tenable, not more), you really do not know what you are talking about with regard to AMF.




Says the guy whose response was 



> Stupid???








			
				charleston said:
			
		

> Uh, even I can't defend the merits of Acid Fog based on damage output alone. There's a big difference between 22d6 now and 22d6 over time. (If I'm going to cast Acid Fog, it's for its other benefits. The damage is nice but it's honestly not comparable to everything else either Conjuration or Evocation can throw.)




Neither can I, but someone that says Acid Fog only deals 8d6 damage apparently hasn't read the spell.



			
				Altaran said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that in the D&D cosmology, Fire is most certainly an object, one of the four basic constituents of all matter - fire as an element. Thus, fire can exist in of itself, with no fuel, a piece of elemental fire dragged onto the material plane.




In the D&D cosmology, element does not equal object. Fire is an energy type, and is consistently described as such. It is not an object. If it were it would have hardness and hit points, be sunderable, etc.



> Similar arguments can be made that in an alchemical paradigm, electricity may also be an object, and quite possibly force as well. Sonic is more difficult, but for that I can argue that an orb of force is simply a conjured pulse of very dense vibrating air.




Possibly, but is there any basis for it in the D&D rules to which this forum is dedicated?


----------



## Felix

charlesatan said:
			
		

> My qualm with quoting selection advantage is that it's just that: selection advantage. It's not like it's the Psion kineticist subschool where you get to choose which element it is at casting. The only real class to benefit from it is the Warmage (who gets all of it and casts spells spontaneously). There's some advantage to the Wizard if he knows what he's facing (and took the time to copy all four Orb elemental spells... I consider Orb of Force a different beast altogether). If I were a Sorcerer, I'd still need to pick the right element when I pick my 4th-level spells.



I believe the selection advantage he was talking about was different than the selection of which flavor energy of orb to cast.

You have an Evoker who faces an opponent with Evasion. The Evoker does not know this, and so casts _Fireball_; the save is made and no damage results. The Evoker now suspects Evasion (though there could be other reasons) and from that point on will be less likely to select _Fireball_ to deal with that subject: the benefit of knowing that the target can completely avoid Reflex save fire spells was purchased with a round's worth of actions.

You have a Conjurer who faces an opponent with a miss chance. It is more easily known that the opponent has a miss chance than it is to know that the opponent has Evasion. So instead of casting one of his _Orb_ spells which may not hit due to the miss chance, he instead casts another spell which will not be affected by miss chance.

The Conjurer selects away from spells which have a counter present (miss chance v. attack roll), while the Evoker must spend a round to learn that he should do so (Ref save spell v. Evasion). This is not to say that either caster immediately or perfectly knows what it is that countered or may counter his spells, but rather that the Conjurer is in a better position to do so.


---

*Re: Fire needing fuel to burn.*

The fire conjured either needs fuel to burn or it does not.

If it does not need fuel to exist, then the 3 inch ball of fire lasts forever.

If it does need fuel to exist, there exists no explanation as to how much fuel the spell provides; if you assume that the damage-dealing text of the spell mandates that the _Orb_ lasts at least long enough to hit, then after that point every round is as equally likely to see the _Orb_ run out of fuel. At which point you open the door to people picking it up and stuffing it down the britches of the Conjurer who thought it would be a good idea to be an Evoker.

Which is a door I am very, very glad to open.


----------



## Felix

James McMurray said:
			
		

> In the D&D cosmology, element does not equal object.



I agree. At which point you run into:

*Creation:* A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates​
So you have your options:

Fire is an object or it is not.

If it is, what are its hardness, HP, etc?

If it is not, what is it doing in the Conjuration (Creation) subschool?


----------



## IcyCool

In my opinion, the Orb spells are imbalanced.

If you removed the "no SR" from them, they would be balanced.

If you then also changed them from Conjuration to Evocation, they would be properly placed (but this is more of a flavor thing, I *like* the spell school rules to be as close to consistent as possible).


----------



## Rystil Arden

IcyCool said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the Orb spells are imbalanced.
> 
> If you removed the "no SR" from them, they would be balanced.
> 
> If you then also changed them from Conjuration to Evocation, they would be properly placed (but this is more of a flavor thing, I *like* the spell school rules to be as close to consistent as possible).



 I agree--this might be an easier line to pursue the OP's sentiment, so I ask:

People who for whatever reason are arguing that the orb spells are fair with no SR (notwithstanding my math which you guys have all ignored), given the comparison to similar spells of that level, why would they not be more fair if they DID allow SR?  All of the flavour arguments for putting them in Evocation aside.


----------



## James McMurray

Felix said:
			
		

> I agree. At which point you run into:
> 
> *Creation:* A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates​
> So you have your options:
> 
> Fire is an object or it is not.
> 
> If it is, what are its hardness, HP, etc?
> 
> If it is not, what is it doing in the Conjuration (Creation) subschool?




I'll choose hidden option c: The PHB's general descriptions do not cover all individual cases and in this instance the designers felt it appropriate to allow Conjuration (Creation) spells to create energy.


----------



## DungeonMaester

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I agree--this might be an easier line to pursue the OP's sentiment, so I ask:
> 
> People who for whatever reason are arguing that the orb spells are fair with no SR (notwithstanding my math which you guys have all ignored), given the comparison to similar spells of that level, why would they not be more fair if they DID allow SR?  All of the flavour arguments for putting them in Evocation aside.




I have no problem with them. 1d8 every two levels is half as powerful as a fireball, and for one target. SR? Never comes up so its never a problem? Can you collect them afterwords? They are instantaneous..You fire, they hit something and go boom. Duh? Can you collect a fireball after you shot one?

---Rusty


----------



## Rystil Arden

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> I have no problem with them. 1d8 every two levels is half as powerful as a fireball, and for one target. SR? Never comes up so its never a problem? Can you collect them afterwords? They are instantaneous..You fire, they hit something and go boom. Duh? Can you collect a fireball after you shot one?
> 
> ---Rusty



 You might be thinking of the level 1 Orb spells (which can be crazy in their own right at low levels if properly metamagicked)--we're talking about the level 4s 

And I say that SR comes up _a lot_, and when it does come up, the orbs are problem children.  If you think SR never comes up, you must be willing to have the orbs be SR: Yes, right?  If so, I'd be satisfied with their balance.


----------



## Felix

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I'll choose hidden option c: The PHB's general descriptions do not cover all individual cases and in this instance the designers felt it appropriate to allow Conjuration (Creation) spells to create energy.



"They're more what you call... guidelines."

You're a rules pirate.

And frankly, I'd change the wording to:

c: The PHB's general descriptions do not cover all individual cases and in this instance the designers felt it appropriate to *weren't paying attention when they* allow*ed* Conjuration (Creation) spells to create energy.​


----------



## RigaMortus2

Notmousse said:
			
		

> And when conjuring fire you need fuel to sustain it, or like all other non-magical fire it goes out.




Not that I doubt you or anything, but is there an actual quote or ruling you could point to in the PHB or DMG regarding "fire needs fuel to sustain it"???


----------



## James McMurray

Felix said:
			
		

> And frankly, I'd change the wording to:
> 
> c: The PHB's general descriptions do not cover all individual cases and in this instance the designers felt it appropriate to *weren't paying attention when they* allow*ed* Conjuration (Creation) spells to create energy.​




If you insist on being insulting that's a fine interpretation. But whatever the reasons for it making it into the book, it hasn't been changed yet, so either they're fine with it or they don't care enough to issue an erratta.


----------



## Hypersmurf

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> I have no problem with them. 1d8 every two levels is half as powerful as a fireball, and for one target. SR? Never comes up so its never a problem? Can you collect them afterwords? They are instantaneous..You fire, they hit something and go boom. Duh? Can you collect a fireball after you shot one?




Create Water is instantaneous.  Can you collect the water afterwards?

The difference is that Create Water and the Orb spells are instantaneous _Conjuration [Creation]_ spells, while Fireball is not.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Never said they were. you seem to have developed a habit of replying to things I haven't said in the last few threads.



??

You said: "I wouldn't freak out about it"

I said: "I don't think anyone's freaking out".

Now you're saying "You are replying to things I haven't said?"

....ohhh-kay.


----------



## James McMurray

I said I wouldn't freak out about it. I never said other people were freaking out about it.


----------



## Notmousse

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Not that I doubt you or anything, but is there an actual quote or ruling you could point to in the PHB or DMG regarding "fire needs fuel to sustain it"???



 Every source of fire I've seen requires fuel, from torches to lamps to lanterns to alchemist's fires.  While not written out explicitely I believe that it wouldn't be against the RAI (not to mention the dreaded common sense) that fire needs fuel.


----------



## Nail

IcyCool said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the Orb spells are imbalanced.
> 
> If you removed the "no SR" from them, they would be balanced.
> 
> If you then also changed them from Conjuration to Evocation, they would be properly placed (but this is more of a flavor thing, I *like* the spell school rules to be as close to consistent as possible).



Me too.

If you moved them from Conjuration to Evocation, then they would (because of consistancy) no longer be "SR = No".


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I said I wouldn't freak out about it. I never said other people were freaking out about it.



Either you or I should drop this part of the discussion, but....oh heck, I can't help it.  

You said "I wouldn't freak out", which - in  context - implies that others shouldn't freak out either.


----------



## James McMurray

Nail said:
			
		

> Either you or I should drop this part of the discussion, but....oh heck, I can't help it.
> 
> You said "I wouldn't freak out", which - in  context - implies that others shouldn't freak out either.




Yes, I definitely think we should drop it, and no. I can't either. 

Yes, I think others shouldn't freak out about it. But I don't think anyone has freaked out about it either. There's yet to be any cursing, all-capsing, or strong flaming involved. If any of that happens I'll switch from "I wouldn't freak out" to "dude, why are you freaking out?"


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Yes, I definitely think we should drop it, and no. I can't either.



 
"OCD, I've arrived!"


----------



## Nail

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> People who for whatever reason are arguing that the orb spells are fair with no SR (notwithstanding my math which you guys have all ignored), ....



It's not ignored...it's just not easily refutable.


----------



## James McMurray

Nail said:
			
		

> It's not ignored...it's just not easily refutable.




I ignored it because there was no math, just numbers. Tossing out floats doesn't impress me without also explaining where they came from.


----------



## Notmousse

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I ignored it because there was no math, just numbers. Tossing out floats doesn't impress me without also explaining where they came from.



 Not only that, but it still ignores that the Evoker's shtick is in taking out hordes of mooks or units of minions as much if not moreso than on one one situations.  Furthermore there's going to be more low level enemies than high level ones.


----------



## charlesatan

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Deathe Ward makes you immune to death effects and negative energy, which includes Enervation.




Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that creatures don't usually have death ward on. Mind blank yes, death ward no. Of course the undead type are immune to negative energy so that's already a bunch of creatures that's immune to it. But aside from them, few creatures in the MM have outright death ward cast on them or have some such immunity.


----------



## Drowbane

Notmousse said:
			
		

> All were Sudden feats, and I believe sudden twin was in CMage or CArcane.  If not then the player pulled a fast on on the GM.




Sudden Twinned doesn't exist in any WotC products (that I could find).  Perhaps your DM houseruled it in?


----------



## Plane Sailing

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I ignored it because there was no math, just numbers. Tossing out floats doesn't impress me without also explaining where they came from.




What additional explanation are you looking for? The fact that average damage on a d6 is 3.5, so an attack that does 8d6 damage will produce 28 damage on average? The %age chance that the 20th level caster will overcome the great wyrms spell resistance? That is where the basic maths behind Rystil's illustration comes from.

Which bit of their derivation is obscure?


----------



## Plane Sailing

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Not only that, but it still ignores that the Evoker's shtick is in taking out hordes of mooks or units of minions as much if not moreso than on one one situations.  Furthermore there's going to be more low level enemies than high level ones.




That sounds like a bit of retroactive shticking to me 

The traditional Evokers shtick has always been causing direct damage. Limiting it to be an anti-mook shtick because some designer gave conjurers a better single-target direct damage spell doesn't make sense (and gives even less reason to be an evoker than normal).

Mook-clearing spells are only any good if there are mooks to clear (and that isn't always the case - IMX it isn't even often the case) AND you have an opportunity to do it before the rest of your party get into melee. Once melee is joined, ranged touch or targetted damage spells become the best way of participating in your chosen fashion (big booms for the evoker - or at least that is what the recruiting pamphlets said...)

Cheers


----------



## Rystil Arden

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> What additional explanation are you looking for? The fact that average damage on a d6 is 3.5, so an attack that does 8d6 damage will produce 28 damage on average? The %age chance that the 20th level caster will overcome the great wyrms spell resistance? That is where the basic maths behind Rystil's illustration comes from.
> 
> Which bit of their derivation is obscure?



 I agree--it's all pretty transparent.  Oh, and I forgot to apply SR to the level 20 Evoker's Quickened Cone of Cold last night.  With that in mind, the Evoker loses by even more.


----------



## charlesatan

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Sudden Twinned doesn't exist in any WotC products (that I could find).  Perhaps your DM houseruled it in?




It never existed. The "Sudden" feats were applied only to the PHB metamagic feats, with Sudden Quicken having the most prerequisites.


----------



## Felix

James McMurray said:
			
		

> If you insist on being insulting that's a fine interpretation.



 

They've created spells that fit nicely into one school, but put it in another that doesn't jive unless you treat the rules as guidelines, which you do in this case (the "rules pirate" was a joke, if that didn't come accross; I recently watched Pirate of the Carribean if you missed the reference). 

If you're going to have rules, you may as well treat them as such. Those spells were either made in ignorance of the rules presented, or they were careless: I figure assuming the second option the more comforting and less insulting vis a vis the folks who make the game.



> But whatever the reasons for it making it into the book, it hasn't been changed yet, so either they're fine with it or they don't care enough to issue an erratta.



WotC has been lackadaisical about issuing errata about many things that don't make sense; I would hesitate to accept something I have a problem with because they haven't erratad it.


----------



## James McMurray

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> What additional explanation are you looking for? The fact that average damage on a d6 is 3.5, so an attack that does 8d6 damage will produce 28 damage on average? The %age chance that the 20th level caster will overcome the great wyrms spell resistance? That is where the basic maths behind Rystil's illustration comes from.
> 
> Which bit of their derivation is obscure?




Perhaps the part where the guy that requires SR spells to perform his "schtick" doesn't have Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Assat Resistant, some form of Caster Level boost, or any of the millions of other things that an actual 20th level caster facing a dragon is likely to have. I didn't feel like backtracking the numbers to see which of those (if any) he'd accounted for.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Perhaps the part where the guy that requires SR spells to perform his "schtick" doesn't have Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Assat Resistant, some form of Caster Level boost, or any of the millions of other things that an actual 20th level caster facing a dragon is likely to have. I didn't feel like backtracking the numbers to see which of those (if any) he'd accounted for.



 The feats are not a good idea for comparison because then I can give the Conjurer two different feats (she has no need for them after all) that make her massively more powerful than the Evoker, and then we'd have to decide whether it was just because of feat choice (I've been down that road before).  In reality, taking Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration in a game with Orbs is idiotic because you can save two feats (a _massive_ savings, since Spell Penetration and its Greater cousin tend to be taken using high-level feat slots since they don't help much at low levels) for a BETTER benefit by just casting the Orbs instead.  Assay Resistance is a whole other round's worth of actions.  With Orb average damage, if the rest of the party is doing anything, the dragon is dead by round 2 of attacks (and this includes the 15th-level Conjurer vs the vastly stronger Dragon, the Orbs are just that powerful).  The damage is already around 25% of the dragon's total per round for the Conjurer only.


----------



## James McMurray

So it's not a good idea to give a character that requires the ability to penetrate spell resistance abilities which allow them to penetrate spell resistance before discussing their ability to penetrate spell resistance?



> In reality, taking Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration in a game with Orbs is idiotic because you can save two feats (a massive savings, since Spell Penetration and its Greater cousin tend to be taken using high-level feat slots since they don't help much at low levels) for a BETTER benefit by just casting the Orbs instead.




So now you're saying that with the existence of orbs spell resistance no longer matters at all?



> Assay Resistance is a whole other round's worth of actions.




Not if you use the printed casting time of One Swift Action instead of hamstringing yourself by casting it slower.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Every source of fire I've seen requires fuel, from torches to lamps to lanterns to alchemist's fires.  While not written out explicitely I believe that it wouldn't be against the RAI (not to mention the dreaded common sense) that fire needs fuel.




I think the "common sense" arguement gets thrown out the window as soon as you discuss magic which creates an orb of flame out of thin air.

And, unless you were one of the game designers, it's kind of hard to argue RAI.  Perhaps the RAI is that they should be Evocation, not Conjuration?  Or that when they wrote the rules on the Conjuration school of magic, they "really didn't mean" the only two things you could conjure had to be either a creature or an object.  Only the game designers can really say what the intent of it was, all we can do is speculate and house rule.

That's why I prefer to discuss RAW in situations like these...


----------



## James McMurray

It's definitely true that RAW never states explicitly that nonmagical fires require fuel, but I'm incredibly surprised it's actually sparked debate.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> So it's not a good idea to give a character that requires the ability to penetrate spell resistance abilities which allow them to penetrate spell resistance before discussing their ability to penetrate spell resistance?
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're saying that with the existence of orbs spell resistance no longer matters at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you use the printed casting time of One Swift Action instead of hamstringing yourself by casting it slower.





> So it's not a good idea to give a character that requires the ability to penetrate spell resistance abilities which allow them to penetrate spell resistance before discussing their ability to penetrate spell resistance?




No, I'm saying that taking them leads the discussion to a place of comparing feat optimisation where it probably shouldn't go (because if I use those two feats for the Conjurer to make the Conjurer even stronger, you could then claim that it's only because of those two feats).



> So now you're saying that with the existence of orbs spell resistance no longer matters at all?




Why yes.  Yes I am.  In fact, you've hit the nail on the head.  For direct damage anyway, and that's what we're talking about here.  The spells are just that broken.  Notice that they do slightly more damage than the Evoker in the example _before applying_ SR.  There is no possible reason to prepare Polar Ray over Twinned Orb of X (uses the same slot for much more damage even without SR, and extremely more damage with SR).  With Orbs in existence (if you don't take the better way out and houserule them to allow SR, of course), SR no longer matters because your staple attack spell doesn't allow it.  The old spells that ignore SR deal tidbits of damage over time, and often less than the Evocation spell does up front even after all the time (unless the enemies are somehow forced to stay in an area spell), so you actually have to think about which to pick.  Orbs are right now, they do slightly more damage without SR, and they ignore SR.  Thus they make SR obsolete.  Let's examine the possible situations if you don't believe:

The Old Way when Orbs didn't exist--

Situation 1: Enemy doesn't have SR--Optimally you would cast an Evocation, since they do much more damage than the Conjuration equivalents and they do it right now.  You have to prepare some Evocations so that you can do this though.  If you're stuck with only Conjurations you're in trouble.
Situation 2: Enemy has SR--Optimally you would cast a Conjuration spell that ignores SR, but if you're any good at caster level, the Evocation with the SR chance actually looks attractive here too, but either way, the presence of SR lowers your damage output.

Now With Orbs:

Situation 1: Enemy doesn't have SR--Cast Orb and do slightly more damage or cast Evocations for slightly less--we should prepare the Orbs in case of below, though
Situation 2: Enemy has SR--cast Orb, ignore the SR, and do massively more damage   than the Evocation, and the same as the Orb did to the no-SR guy.  Because we prepare the Orb either way, SR didn't matter at all--it is rendered irrelevant.


----------



## RigaMortus2

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It's definitely true that RAW never states explicitly that nonmagical fires require fuel, but I'm incredibly surprised it's actually sparked debate.




I don't know about you, but when discussing the RULES, I actually like to use the RULES.  Not mix in "real world" physics (unless they are actually defined somewhere in the game RULES).  YMMV


----------



## Hypersmurf

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> There is no possible reason to prepare Polar Ray over Twinned Orb of X...




... assuming one permits Twin Spell to be applied to a spell with neither Target nor Area entry...

-Hyp.


----------



## Felix

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It's definitely true that RAW never states explicitly that nonmagical fires require fuel, but I'm incredibly surprised it's actually sparked debate.



It's a debate over how rigorously you decide to apply the Conjuration (Creation) Instantaneous duration spell rule. 

The rule says they stick around.

Common sense says they need something to burn to be non-magical.

The two don't jive; this is a problem with the spell, not the rule.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... assuming one permits Twin Spell to be applied to a spell with neither Target nor Area entry...
> 
> -Hyp.



 To be fair, the 7th-level Maximised Orbs do more damage than Polar Ray, as does the 6th-level Empowered Orbs, so you don't need Twin Spell to beat them.


----------



## SlagMortar

> Common sense says they need something to burn to be non-magical.



Note that the rules also say the fire from the orb of fire is magical because it has a 50% chance - because its a spell - of affecting an incorporeal creature and incorporeal are immune to all non-magical attack sources.  By the rules, orb of fire makes magical fire that is not subject to spell resistance.


----------



## Rystil Arden

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Note that the rules also say the fire from the orb of fire is magical because it has a 50% chance - because its a spell - of affecting an incorporeal creature and incorporeal are immune to all non-magical attack sources.  By the rules, orb of fire makes magical fire that is not subject to spell resistance.



 This is true.  The "nonmagical" crowd have yet to explain the 50% chance to affect incorporeal.


----------



## KarinsDad

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Not only that, but it still ignores that the Evoker's shtick is in taking out hordes of mooks or units of minions as much if not moreso than on one one situations.  Furthermore there's going to be more low level enemies than high level ones.




I must have missed this in the description of the Evocation School of Magic.

From what I read, it was about casting energy spells.


----------



## KarinsDad

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> This is true.  The "nonmagical" crowd have yet to explain the 50% chance to affect incorporeal.




Actually, I prefer to go with the magical fire because it is not an object or creature and hence, the instantaneous conjuration creation rules do not apply (and hence, Orbs cannot penetrate AMF).

Course, the moment I do that, I should also throw it into the Evocation school and add in SR to be consistent with the rest of the rules and with the balance of the rest of the rules.


----------



## KarinsDad

IcyCool said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the Orb spells are imbalanced.
> 
> If you removed the "no SR" from them, they would be balanced.
> 
> If you then also changed them from Conjuration to Evocation, they would be properly placed (but this is more of a flavor thing, I *like* the spell school rules to be as close to consistent as possible).




This sums up my take on the subject.


----------



## Seeten

I am astonished there are people who dont think the Orb spells are ridiculous.

They are in the wrong school, AND they are too powerful.

Both, at the same time.

All I hear from those disagreeing are excuses. Weird.


----------



## James McMurray

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying that taking them leads the discussion to a place of comparing feat optimisation where it probably shouldn't go (because if I use those two feats for the Conjurer to make the Conjurer even stronger, you could then claim that it's only because of those two feats).




You're saying "let's compare situations" and then setting up a situation where a character that needs to penetrate SR to be effective hasn't done anything at all to enhance his ability to penetrate SR. If you want a fair comparison, you'll have to try something else, cuz that just son't work.



> Why yes.  Yes I am.  In fact, you've hit the nail on the head.  For direct damage anyway, and that's what we're talking about here.




What I was talking about was you saying that Orbs make Spell Pemnetration pointless, period.



> There is no possible reason to prepare Polar Ray over Twinned Orb of X (uses the same slot for much more damage even without SR, and extremely more damage with SR).




I've already conceded that Polar Ray is a crappy spell. 



> With Orbs in existence (if you don't take the better way out and houserule them to allow SR, of course), SR no longer matters because your staple attack spell doesn't allow it.




Silly me, I thought the staple attack spells were the ones that did lots of damage to lots of people, but then again maybe my groups fights larger numbers of foes than yours.



> The Old Way when Orbs didn't exist--
> 
> Situation 1: Enemy doesn't have SR--Optimally you would cast an Evocation, since they do much more damage than the Conjuration equivalents and they do it right now.  You have to prepare some Evocations so that you can do this though.  If you're stuck with only Conjurations you're in trouble.
> Situation 2: Enemy has SR--Optimally you would cast a Conjuration spell that ignores SR, but if you're any good at caster level, the Evocation with the SR chance actually looks attractive here too, but either way, the presence of SR lowers your damage output.




For case two, I'd say that optimally you'd rather set yourself up as a character that can penetrate SR.


----------



## James McMurray

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> This is true.  The "nonmagical" crowd have yet to explain the 50% chance to affect incorporeal.




What 50% chance to affect incorporeal creatures? As an instantaneous creation effect, after it's brought into being it's a nonmagical effect, and hence it can't affect them at all. The Orb of Force can, but that's because of it being Force, not because it's get a 50% miss chance by being magical.


----------



## Rystil Arden

> You're saying "let's compare situations" and then setting up a situation where a character that needs to penetrate SR to be effective hasn't done anything at all to enhance his ability to penetrate SR. If you want a fair comparison, you'll have to try something else, cuz that just son't work.




Except that I can give the Conjurer two feats in place of those that increase the Orb damage even more, as I've mentioned every previous time you made that point.



> What I was talking about was you saying that Orbs make Spell Pemnetration pointless, period.




No, I said that they were pointless for Evan the Evoker--because Evan the Evoker is better off prepping all Conjuration spells anyway



> Silly me, I thought the staple attack spells were the ones that did lots of damage to lots of people, but then again maybe my groups fights larger numbers of foes than yours.




Or larger numbers of foes who stand in formation for them perhaps?  At least at high levels, most big encounters where the best spells are needed are not just with a large groups of worthless mooks.  They are with a smaller number of strong things, possibly just one or two.



> For case two, I'd say that optimally you'd rather set yourself up as a character that can penetrate SR.




Which still does less damage, so why?


----------



## Nifft

Seeten said:
			
		

> I am astonished there are people who dont think the Orb spells are ridiculous.
> 
> They are in the wrong school, AND they are too powerful.
> 
> Both, at the same time.




IMHO, _acid orb_ (not _lesser_) is in the correct school; it's merely too strong.

As to the rest, I agree with you. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## James McMurray

> Except that I can give the Conjurer two feats in place of those that increase the Orb damage even more, as I've mentioned every previous time you made that point.




Then by all means do so. Hamstringing one competitor does not make for a fair fight.



> No, I said that they were pointless for Evan the Evoker--because Evan the Evoker is better off prepping all Conjuration spells anyway




Then the orb spells must make all other spells useless, unless you're claiming that Evan's only job is to deal damage to a single target.



> Or larger numbers of foes who stand in formation for them perhaps? At least at high levels, most big encounters where the best spells are needed are not just with a large groups of worthless mooks. They are with a smaller number of strong things, possibly just one or two.




It's impossible to argue playstyle, so I'll just say that my group appears to do things differently than yours.



> Which still does less damage, so why?




Because energy damage to a single target via ranged touch attack is not the only thing a 20th level evoker should concern himself with?


----------



## SlagMortar

James McMurray said:
			
		

> What 50% chance to affect incorporeal creatures? As an instantaneous creation effect, after it's brought into being it's a nonmagical effect, and hence it can't affect them at all. The Orb of Force can, but that's because of it being Force, not because it's get a 50% miss chance by being magical.






			
				SRD on Incorporeal subtype said:
			
		

> An incorporeal creature has no physical body. *It can be harmed only by* other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and *spells*, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. *It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms*. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead, but a hit with holy water has a 50% chance of not affecting an incorporeal creature



(emphasis mine)
Facts:
1.  Orbs are spells that deal damage.
2.  Spells that deal damage have a 50% chance to affect incorporeal foes.  
3.  Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms.

Therefore:
Orbs have a 50% chance to affect incorporeal foes and orbs must be a magical attack form.


----------



## Rystil Arden

> Then by all means do so. Hamstringing one competitor does not make for a fair fight.




Done!  In exchange, Connie takes Arcane Thesis and Easy Metamagic (Quicken).

Evan level 20 increases to 105 from 77 (Connie level 20 just missing the two feats did 168.5 remember) and Connie increases to 296.25. 

Evan level 15 increases to 35.875 from 21 (Connie level 15 just missing the two feats did 157.5) and Connie increases to 247.5.  

Of particular note--a party of three level 15 Connies is nearly guaranteed to kill the dragon in one round if they are in range thanks to the Orb spells not allowing SR.  The problem with this being the case is that the dragon's CR is 9 higher than their level, and three is lower than the usual party size.  Allowing SR reduces Connie's damage to 74.25.


----------



## Someone

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> (emphasis mine)
> Facts:
> 1.  Orbs are spells that deal damage.
> 2.  Spells that deal damage have a 50% chance to affect incorporeal foes.
> 3.  Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms.
> 
> Therefore:
> Orbs have a 50% chance to affect incorporeal foes and orbs must be a magical attack form.




However it also can be stated as follows:

Facts:
1.  Orbs are spells that conjure a nonmagical attack form.
2.  Nonmagical attack forms have no chance to affect incorporeal foes.  

Therefore

3.  Incorporeal creatures are immune to orbs.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Someone said:
			
		

> However it also can be stated as follows:
> 
> Facts:
> 1.  Orbs are spells that conjure a nonmagical attack form.
> 2.  Nonmagical attack forms have no chance to affect incorporeal foes.
> 
> Therefore
> 
> 3.  Incorporeal creatures are immune to orbs.



 But the Crystal Shard power (and similar spells) deals slashing damage that automatically penetrates DR, right?  Even though slashing damage normally doesn't unless conjured by a spell.


----------



## Someone

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> But the Crystal Shard power (and similar spells) deals slashing damage that automatically penetrates DR, right?  Even though slashing damage normally doesn't unless conjured by a spell.




Depends on the status of the Crystal shard as a magic/psionic effect that for some reason doesn't allow spell resistance or if it's a real item created by the psionic power and propelled towards the enemy that for some reason ignores armor. Complete psionics tends to think it's the second option.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Someone said:
			
		

> Depends on the status of the Crystal shard as a magic/psionic effect that for some reason doesn't allow spell resistance or if it's a real item created by the psionic power and propelled towards the enemy that for some reason ignores armor. Complete psionics tends to think it's the second option.



 Are you saying that Crystal Shard and other powers and spells that deal slashing damage (or the like) do not ignore DR?  I thought it was universally accepted that it did.


----------



## Someone

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Are you saying that Crystal Shard and other powers and spells that deal slashing damage (or the like) do not ignore DR?




Am I saying that? At most I've said that you can't have your cake and eat it too. *If* the Shard or the orb are no longer magical things then they should not ignore DR. Would you let your psion use True creation to create weapons that ignore DR?



> I thought it was universally accepted that it did




It's somewhat less than universal. By the RAW metacreativity powers don't ignore DR. As long you don't used autohynosis to convince yourself that Complete psionics was a bad dream.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Someone said:
			
		

> Am I saying that? At most I've said that you can't have your cake and eat it too. *If* the Shard or the orb are no longer magical things then they should not ignore DR. Would you let your psion use True creation to create weapons that ignore DR?
> 
> 
> 
> It's somewhat less than universal. By the RAW metacreativity powers don't ignore DR. As long you don't used autohynosis to convince yourself that Complete psionics was a bad dream.



 I agree that you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too--but I want it changed so I can eat it and WotC seems to be movin more towards just having the cake.

I didn't remember that particular nerf from CPsi.  Wow, that's one more way that they kicked Shapers in the nuts 

EDIT: Actually, this is more like just pulling their hair--the Astral Construct thing is the kick in the junk.


----------



## James McMurray

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> (emphasis mine)
> Facts:
> 1.  Orbs are spells that *create a nonmagical ernegy source that deals* damage.
> 2.  Spells that deal damage have a 50% chance to affect incorporeal foes.
> 3.  Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms.
> 
> Therefore:
> Orbs have *no* chance to affect incorporeal foes and orbs must be a magical attack form.




Your "fact" 1 doesn't jibe with the say instantaneous cretions work, so I fixed it for you.


----------



## James McMurray

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Done!  In exchange, Connie takes Arcane Thesis and Easy Metamagic (Quicken).




What other feats has my 20th level evoker gotten? You're trying to use specific examples to prove a general case. It doesn't work that way.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Are you saying that Crystal Shard and other powers and spells that deal slashing damage (or the like) do not ignore DR?  I thought it was universally accepted that it did.




Can we necro one of the 5,0000 other threads about Crystal Shard rather than trying to make a case for nonmagical objects hitting incorporeal creatures because of how Crystal Shard works (or at least, how it works depending on who you ask)?


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> So now you're saying that with the existence of orbs spell resistance no longer matters at all?






			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Why yes.  Yes I am.  In fact, you've hit the nail on the head.



 Ouch!

Yep, I can vouch fer that.


----------



## James McMurray

You honestly think that Orbs invalidate all other spells that must penetrate spell resistance, and therefor spell resistance itself no longer matter?


----------



## Nail

Seeten said:
			
		

> I am astonished there are people who dont think the Orb spells are ridiculous.



@ Seetan:

There are people who thought 3.0e _Haste_ was fine as it was.

There are people who think _Wraithstrike_ fine as is.

...of course there are people who think the Orb line of spells are fine!       (sigh)


----------



## Rystil Arden

> What other feats has my 20th level evoker gotten? You're trying to use specific examples to prove a general case. It doesn't work that way.




We can say that any other feats will be taken by the other and thus cancel each other out (although I assumed both had all the metamagic they needed, so at least Energy Sub, Empower, Maximize, Quicken, Twin, and Energy Admixture (the last useful against Energy Resistance, since it doesn't shoot twice like Twin) .  With a bigger slew of obscure feats, both numbers will be higher, but it won't matter--we're talking about the Orbs here versus Evocation spells.  The more caveats and provisos added on top as we pile on extra abilities on either side, the less and less clear it is what effect is caused by the Orbs.  If it isn't clear to you the effect of the Orbs now, it should be less clear later, particularly with more and more other components added.  I, for one, care far less about the more-impressive numbers I just put out for you because it has other factors involved beyond just the Orbs.  I will care less and less as more changes to the two characters are incorporated.  I could do it, but when the Orb specialist comes out with an even _larger_ advantage at the end, you're not going to budge, just like now, so I'm not going to waste my time.  You pretty clearly won't be convinced by math, no matter what.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> You honestly think that Orbs invalidate all other spells that must penetrate spell resistance, and therefor spell resistance itself no longer matter?



 Yes, SR doesn't matter against damage dealing spells with the Orbs around.  Well, that's not exactly the case--it matters insomuch as now Evocation sucks and Orbs rule because of it, but in combat with the no-SR Orbs as an option and a Wizard who chooses wisely, yes SR no longer matters.  And that is _why_ orbs are broken.


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> You honestly think that Orbs invalidate all other spells that must penetrate spell resistance, and therefor spell resistance itself no longer matter?



If you have an enemy who has SR, you use Conjuration spells.

It used to be that meant you'd do little direct damage to them, but you could hamper them in other (significant!) ways.  ...Or you'd help buff your party's fighters so they could deal with the threat.

Now, with the Orb spells, if there is a threat with a high SR, you just nuke it with an Orb spell.  Who needs fellow party members anymore?  Who bothers hampering the SR enemy anymore?  Just kill it.


----------



## James McMurray

After 6 pages should we agree to disagree? You're not going to convince me of any of the following things:

1) Orbs invalidate spell resistance. There's just too many other things that orbs can't do that spell resistance effects.

2) Orbs (except Force) being conjuration nerfs the evoker. There's just too many things the evoker can do, including mass nukes, that the conjurer can't.

3) Orbs are infinite duration damage, fires that need no fuel, nonmagical, and can hit incorporeal creatures.


----------



## Nail

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> EDIT: Actually, this is more like just pulling their hair--the Astral Construct thing is the kick in the junk.



I missed this: what did they do to AC?  Don't tell me they finally got around to nerfing AC.....Life can't be that good.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> After 6 pages should we agree to disagree? You're not going to convince me of any of the following things:
> 
> 1) Orbs invalidate spell resistance. There's just too many other things that orbs can't do that spell resistance effects.
> 
> 2) Orbs (except Force) being conjuration nerfs the evoker. There's just too many things the evoker can do, including mass nukes, that the conjurer can't.
> 
> 3) Orbs are infinite duration damage, fires that need no fuel, nonmagical, and can hit incorporeal creatures.



 Yes, I figured that out in post 224.  As I said there, regardless of the math, you aren't going to care, so I'm not going to go to the effort of producing more.  I think that the two sides are represented fairly well here based on their respective merits (examples, rationale, and numbers vs "No it's not" denials) for anyone lurking to read it.  The question is this: is the OP satisfied?  If so, we can probably be done here.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Nail said:
			
		

> I missed this: what did they do to AC?  Don't tell me they finally got around to nerfing AC.....Life can't be that good.



 They didn't change the constructs, they put a limit of 1 out on the field at once and then created a PrC that lets you still be worse than a Shaper pre CPsi.  I would have _much_ rather they weakened the constructs than create such a silly limit.  Can you imagine telling a Conjurer specialised in summoning that she can only have 1 summoned creature out on the field at once, even if she uses a higher-level summons to summon 1d3?


----------



## Nail

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> They didn't change the constructs, they just put a limit of 1 out on the field at once .....



Huh?    

Wow, that's a weird nerf.  I agree such a nerf is not the right direction.


----------



## Nail

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I think that the two sides are represented fairly well here based on their respective merits (examples, rationale, and numbers vs "No it's not" denials) for anyone lurking to read it.



Agreed.  Well done, people.


----------



## Deset Gled

Nail said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Well done, people.



Well, I'm a little dissapointed.  I thought that we were supposed to be able to keep this going until someone decided to create a poll on the topic, at which point we would get this thread closed and start it all over again.


----------



## two

Nail said:
			
		

> @ Seetan:
> 
> There are people who thought 3.0e _Haste_ was fine as it was.
> 
> There are people who think _Wraithstrike_ fine as is.
> 
> ...of course there are people who think the Orb line of spells are fine!       (sigh)




Something I pointed out during the long discussion of Wraithstrike.

(Some) people still maintain Haste 3.0 is balanced because it works ok "in their campaign" (as if this is relevant to the game as a whole).  And this despite Haste 3.0 being hit by the nerf bat incredibly hard in 3.5, and... all for the better.  When you have the game designers agreeing that a spell is crazy-whack and changing it in a revision, it is not unreasonable to claim that the spell was, in fact, crazy-whack.

I think some people simply can't understand how something might work OK in their game but be unbalanced/crazy for the game as a whole.  

Everyone's campaign is specific; some players might not ever cast Haste 3.0 just because they don't like the feel of it (or cast it very rarely).  Which means it is not a problem in the campaign... which means.... it is not a problem in the campaign.  And that's it.

People that have the Orb spells in high-end games - and they view the spells as balanced - likely don't have players that are using them much, or doing relatively trivial things to maximize the orb's power (like maximizing or metamagicking them).

That's about the most generous way to view it. 

It is either that or people can't understand that the Orb spells  (particularly at middle or high levels) do more damage than an evoker who specializes in busting through SR.

The equation is something like this:

Cast Orb spell, do X damage on average.

OR

Cast evocation spell by a SR busting specialist, and do less than X damage on average.

The evocation guy has burned feats and money and energy and etc. to bust through SR and still can't keep up with a guy just standing there casting equal-level Orb spells.

Orb spells are overpowered for the reason that Haste 3.0 was overpowered.

They are so good, by such a margin, that they are always taken (unless barred by school or theme or player burn-out).  And they are so good that, when taken, they are cast a lot.

Remember 3.0 battles? Me:  haste, cast spell | cast 2 spells next round.  Repeat.

Now it's more like... Me:  cast orb spell | cast orb spell | etc.

There are clearly some situations where you don't want to cast an orb spell.  An attack by a bunch of mooks is one of them.  At middle or high level, this is not much of a threat.  Orbs seem to do worst in situations where the danger is lowest.  They do best in situations where the danger is highest (2-3 really nasty creatures with high DR and high AC and possibly other defenses).

But... I know this is not going to convince anyone.  That's fine.  I don't think I convinced anyone when I was screaming about 3.0 haste being crazy a few years ago.  I suppose my broader point is that you are not going to convince everyone of something even when the situation is clear cut.  And that's fine.  We all don't need to ban the Orb spells or modify them (allowing SR, etc.).  It's just a game, after all.

{goes and sits in a yoga pose, and opens himself up to the wisdom of the ages.  not much trickles down from above}


----------



## borc killer

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Well, I'm a little dissapointed.  I thought that we were supposed to be able to keep this going until someone decided to create a poll on the topic, at which point we would get this thread closed and start it all over again.





<--- almost made a poll.  LOL


----------



## Nail

borc killer said:
			
		

> <--- almost made a poll.  LOL



 lol!!!


----------



## James McMurray

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> (examples, rationale, and numbers vs "No it's not" denials)


----------



## Rystil Arden

borc killer said:
			
		

> <--- almost made a poll.  LOL



 That would have been hilarious   Was the poll meant to be a topical joke based on tradition of contentious threads or a serious poll?


----------



## Anthraxus

Not that I'll convince anyone of anything, and I don't have any hard numbers, but...

Last night, I played my Conjurer (10th level) with several memorized Lesser Orbs and one Force orb and Blast of flame, with Spell Focus Conjuration. I am a blaster/summoner-type. 

I summoned once or twice, used maybe one orb spell, and I'd say about 8 evocation spells in 3 combats. 

In most situations, I'd have probably missed with the orbs(cover and no precise shot), even with a decent dexterity and such. Magic missile was useful. Empowered Fireball very useful(generally hit 2-3 enemies per combat with fireball's ares). Not many of the creatures had SR, so hitting more than one enemy and having *them* roll a save instead of me firing an orb and only targeting one enemy with a decent chance of missing, well...  

It's highly situational, and I haven't found the orb spells that overpowering. Oh well.


----------



## Gorin Stonecleaver

*Here's the thing*

What is good for the goose is good for the gander..... meaning if PC's can use them so can the BBEG as long as its available to both sides can anything really be broken?


----------



## James McMurray

Gorin Stonecleaver said:
			
		

> What is good for the goose is good for the gander..... meaning if PC's can use them so can the BBEG as long as its available to both sides can anything really be broken?




Yes.


----------



## PallidPatience

Gorin Stonecleaver said:
			
		

> meaning if PC's can use them so can the BBEG as long as its available to both sides can anything really be broken?




Yes.


----------



## IcyCool

Gorin Stonecleaver said:
			
		

> What is good for the goose is good for the gander..... meaning if PC's can use them so can the BBEG as long as its available to both sides can anything really be broken?




Yep, and in most cases that means that the Sorceror, Wizard, or Rogue will be sitting that encounter out, as he'll be the first to eat enough unstoppable damage to kill him outright.


----------



## IanB

What I'm not sure of is why the 'orb spells are overpowered' side (I'm sort of waffling between both camps myself) continually seems to dismiss ranged touch attacks as being autohits.

They're not even close to that! I've played a warlock of significant level who had spent quite a few resources on making his ranged touch attacks better, and I still missed noticeably often. A wizard/sorcerer is almost certainly going to be less accurate with their ranged touch attacks.

Even a touch AC of 15 isn't anything close to a gimme for a wizard much of the time; for a wizard or sorcerer who hasn't invested a bunch of feats into ranged attacks, hitting people with these ranged touch spells is going to be a similar challenge to SR when you start factoring in AC from cover and penalties for firing into melee. (And that isn't even getting into miss chances from bad illumination or other sources.)

I think this is a significant flaw in the arguments as presented, and the fact that it is being ignored makes the 'anti-orb' case a lot less compelling to me. I dunno, maybe I accidentally skipped a page somewhere in the middle, but it doesn't seem like something that should just be glossed over as irrelevant.

(I definitely agree that they're thematically problematic. I'm just not totally sure they're broken in terms of game balance.)


----------



## PallidPatience

There are a relatively few types of creatures that will have a touch AC anywhere near comparable to their normal AC. Those monsters do not include assumed common encounters for high level play, including powerful giants, dragons, and other large monsters whose main level of defense is the high natural armor bonus that is ignored by touch attacks. At the same time, many of these creatures also have SR (especially dragons). It is this second level of defense, not the natural armor bonus, which is used against touch-attack spells.


----------



## Rystil Arden

IanB said:
			
		

> What I'm not sure of is why the 'orb spells are overpowered' side (I'm sort of waffling between both camps myself) continually seems to dismiss ranged touch attacks as being autohits.
> 
> They're not even close to that! I've played a warlock of significant level who had spent quite a few resources on making his ranged touch attacks better, and I still missed noticeably often. A wizard/sorcerer is almost certainly going to be less accurate with their ranged touch attacks.
> 
> Even a touch AC of 15 isn't anything close to a gimme for a wizard much of the time; for a wizard or sorcerer who hasn't invested a bunch of feats into ranged attacks, hitting people with these ranged touch spells is going to be a similar challenge to SR when you start factoring in AC from cover and penalties for firing into melee. (And that isn't even getting into miss chances from bad illumination or other sources.)
> 
> I think this is a significant flaw in the arguments as presented, and the fact that it is being ignored makes the 'anti-orb' case a lot less compelling to me. I dunno, maybe I accidentally skipped a page somewhere in the middle, but it doesn't seem like something that should just be glossed over as irrelevant.
> 
> (I definitely agree that they're thematically problematic. I'm just not totally sure they're broken in terms of game balance.)



 As PallidPatience says, there are many high-CR creatures with excellent saves, terrible touch AC, and high SR.  The things that have terribly high touch ACs tend to be Monk/Rogue NPCs and incorporeals, and that's about it except edge-case things with weird Deflections in there (Nymph for one).  In my examples, I always factored in the chance for the orb to miss.  However, the orb always only missed on a 1.


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Yes, I figured that out in post 224.  As I said there, regardless of the math, you aren't going to care, so I'm not going to go to the effort of producing more.  I think that the two sides are represented fairly well here based on their respective merits (examples, rationale, and numbers vs "No it's not" denials) for anyone lurking to read it.  The question is this: is the OP satisfied?  If so, we can probably be done here.



 Why do you feel the need to snipe at the people opposed to your position rather than their position?  Does it make you feel better, or are you hoping that we'll stop having our opinion if you insult our position?


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Why do you feel the need to snipe at the people opposed to your position rather than their position?  Does it make you feel better, or are you hoping that we'll stop having our opinion if you insult our position?



 This post I'm quoting has been the first so far that is an ad hominem attack.  James McMurray has agreed that he doesn't care about the math--the Orbs work in his game, and he's okay with that, and we've agreed to disagree.  Please don't make ad hominem attacks, particularly when both people involved have settled it and you're a bystander.  It stirs the pot for no reason.


----------



## FireLance

Nail said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> Wow, that's a weird nerf.  I agree such a nerf is not the right direction.



[Tangent]I think the main reason for the change was that multiple astral constructs took up too much time at the gaming table, as the player had several creatures to control. It was as much a game-play issue as it was a balance issue.[/Tangent]


----------



## Notmousse

You insulted the position I take and I asked why in like tone.

I went to check your math the other day, but could not find 'Easy Metamagic', so I can only presume it's either in a book I don't have access to (mostly campaign books and third party), or doesn't exist.  I can't argue a point where a crucial bit of information isn't available.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> You insulted the position I take and I asked why in like tone.
> 
> I went to check your math the other day, but could not find 'Easy Metamagic', so I can only presume it's either in a book I don't have access to (mostly campaign books and third party), or doesn't exist.  I can't argue a point where a crucial bit of information isn't available.



 Now you're saying I insulted the position--you're right that I did.  I'll agree with you there.  I was attacking the position, not the person.  In the end, I think that all the people who think Orbs or Wraithstrike or Divine Metamagic+Persistant or 3.0 Haste are balanced are reasonably-smart reasonable people, which is why I always try to explain to them my views on the matter because I think their position is remarkably foolish.

@The feat, I may have named it with the wrong adjective.  It lowers the cost of a single metamagic you know by one level.  I can check the exact name for you if you like.  I'd rather you deal with the first set of numbers though, even though the Orbs win by less, for the reasons I stated many times to James before were why I didn't want to give the two casters different feats (the feat disparity invites the argument that the problem is the feats rather than the Orbs).


----------



## Sabathius42

Just chiming in with a 1st person view on the orb spells.

I am playing a Warmage.  I have not "tricked him out".  I have taken various feats, none of which have anything to do with raising DCs of my spells or overcoming spells resistance.  He is a complete character, not a character relying on one schtick to see him through life.

Now that we have reached higher levels (13 to be exact) we are facing somewhere between 50% and 75% of opponents with some manner of spell resistance.  In addition almost all opponents at this stage have +10 or more on their saves.

So I have two choices when casting a spell at a bad guy...
1. Cast a standard evocation.  Hope I get lucky passing SR.  Hope I get lucky and they fail their save.  And finally hope I get lucky and they aren't immune or resistant to whatever energy I chose.  On the off chance that all of these line up then WAZOO, I did some damage.  For the sake of argument its capped at 10d6 which averages out to 35 points.

2. Cast an orb.  Make a to-hit roll that I probably won't fail (I have taken ranged attack feats).  Do some damage.  At 13th level I can do 13d6, which averages out to about 45 points.

The triple layer defence of SR/Save/Resistances have depowered most spell so bad that the orb spells actually make being blasted by the wizard a bad thing.

I think the most direct correlation between an existing spell and the orb spells would be to take an empowered Acid Arrow.  It would deal out a max of 21d4 damage with a ranged touch, ignore SR and allow no save.  The same caster slinging an orb of acid would do 15d6.  The average damage of the arrow is 52 points, the damage of the orb is 52 points.  One use of the energy substitution feat and you could get most of the other orbs the same as above.

DS


----------



## Notmousse

Arguing your numbers is silly in that it's heavily biased.  Single enemy encounters make a good portion of evokations less useful if only for the reason that the damage dice caps are different for multiple opponent attacks vs single opponent attacks.  That isn't the exact phrasing, but, I did double check the table (page 36 of the DMG IIRC) to make sure the Orb spells complied.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Arguing your numbers is silly in that it's heavily biased.  Single enemy encounters make a good portion of evokations less useful if only for the reason that the damage dice caps are different for multiple opponent attacks vs single opponent attacks.  That isn't the exact phrasing, but, I did double check the table (page 36 of the DMG IIRC) to make sure the Orb spells complied.



 I don't have a problem with the damage dice on the Orb, but the SR penetration.  I can give the Evoker metamagicked Scorching Rays if you would prefer, though.  However, those are more prone to Energy Resistance than usual, which is something to consider.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> Just chiming in with a 1st person view on the orb spells.
> 
> I am playing a Warmage.  I have not "tricked him out".  I have taken various feats, none of which have anything to do with raising DCs of my spells or overcoming spells resistance.  He is a complete character, not a character relying on one schtick to see him through life.
> 
> Now that we have reached higher levels (13 to be exact) we are facing somewhere between 50% and 75% of opponents with some manner of spell resistance.  In addition almost all opponents at this stage have +10 or more on their saves.
> 
> So I have two choices when casting a spell at a bad guy...
> 1. Cast a standard evocation.  Hope I get lucky passing SR.  Hope I get lucky and they fail their save.  And finally hope I get lucky and they aren't immune or resistant to whatever energy I chose.  On the off chance that all of these line up then WAZOO, I did some damage.  For the sake of argument its capped at 10d6 which averages out to 35 points.
> 
> 2. Cast an orb.  Make a to-hit roll that I probably won't fail (I have taken ranged attack feats).  Do some damage.  At 13th level I can do 13d6, which averages out to about 45 points.
> 
> The triple layer defence of SR/Save/Resistances have depowered most spell so bad that the orb spells actually make being blasted by the wizard a bad thing.
> 
> I think the most direct correlation between an existing spell and the orb spells would be to take an empowered Acid Arrow.  It would deal out a max of 21d4 damage with a ranged touch, ignore SR and allow no save.  The same caster slinging an orb of acid would do 15d6.  The average damage of the arrow is 52 points, the damage of the orb is 52 points.  One use of the energy substitution feat and you could get most of the other orbs the same as above.
> 
> DS



 So you're saying that the orbs are *much* better, right?  As to Empowered Acid Arrow, do remember that this is over time, and Energy Resistance (even just the level 2 spell) will convert that to no damage.


----------



## FireLance

IanB said:
			
		

> I definitely agree that they're thematically problematic. I'm just not totally sure they're broken in terms of game balance.



I generally agree with the above.

The main problem with the orb spells is that they are very effective against single targets - they have no saving throw (not for the damage, anyway), and they only require a touch attack. Generally speaking, it is more likely that a PC will succeed at his touch attack than his opponent will fail his saving throw. Spell resistance is an additional factor. Although not every opponent will have spell resistance, many will in a high-level game. The only real defences against them are energy resistance and immunity, and these affect the other spells, too.

The other factor contributing to their effectiveness is that combat with single, powerful opponents (usually, the BBEG or his main allies or henchmen) are a staple of many games, and even when the PCs face multiple opponents, the numbers are probably in the low single digits. This makes area-effect spells comparatively less useful in-game.

I am not convinced that the orb spells are broken, but I do believe that many DMs run games that favor them over area-effect spells.


----------



## KarinsDad

IanB said:
			
		

> What I'm not sure of is why the 'orb spells are overpowered' side (I'm sort of waffling between both camps myself) continually seems to dismiss ranged touch attacks as being autohits.
> 
> They're not even close to that! I've played a warlock of significant level who had spent quite a few resources on making his ranged touch attacks better, and I still missed noticeably often. A wizard/sorcerer is almost certainly going to be less accurate with their ranged touch attacks.




I think one has to look at the math, just like always.

It is not unreasonable for a Wizard or Sorcerer to have a starting Dex of 14. Let's go with that. Let's assume that he is willing to devote a few feats to it, but not ability score points. Let's look at what his chances are to hit touch AC 10 and touch AC 15 (the range where an Orb is a proper selection and btw, the average touch AC and the high end touch AC of the vast majority of opponents). Let's assume that he gains a +2 Dex item at level 5, a +4 Dex item at level 10, and a +6 Dex item at level 15 (we'll ignore Cat's Grace or other attack boost spells, although that is a viable option at lower levels instead of a Dex boost item). And let's say that he is human (extra feat at first level).

01 70% 45% Point Blank Shot
02 75% 50%
03 75% 50% Precise Shot
04 80% 55%
05 85% 60%
06 90% 65%
07 90% 65%
08 95% 70%
09 95% 70%
10 95% 80%
11 95% 80%
12 95% 85%
13 95% 85%
14 95% 90%
15 95% 95%
16 95% 95%
17 95% 95%
18 95% 95%
19 95% 95%
20 95% 95%

This is with a single item (or spell) and two feats (the second one in order to fire into combat). No special PrC abilities, no additional magic, etc.

Sure, his chances against Rogues and Monks will be somewhat less, but not against 90+% of opponents (Monsters and non-light armor opponents).

Another factor is that PCs run into larger creatures as they get higher levels, so sometimes, the touch AC of opponents actually decreases at higher levels.


Now, start throwing Bless or Prayer or Inspire Courage or Haste, or a boatload of other ways to improve to hit. Or make him an Elf or a Halfling. Throw in some more feats or PrC special abilities. Granted, a few opponents might have boost spells up that improve their touch AC, but the vast majority typically do not.


The math is really against your position on this. Most opponents have touch AC 14 or less. In the MM, the range of AC is -1 to 29, the average is 10.5, and 93+% of the creatures have touch AC 14 or less.


10.5 Average touch AC for creatures in the MM. It really is virtually auto-hit (i.e. 95% chance) by 10th level for the vast majority of opponents and a real high chance to hit even before then.


Apples and Oranges when compared to Evocation spells with Reflex saves. Plus, the caster can purposely pick feats, spells, items, and special abiliites to boost his effectiveness a lot more ways than ways to improve spell DC for Reflex save spells.


Plus, range touch spells that do damage can sometimes (4.5% to 4.75%) do double damage as opposed to reflex save spells that never do double damage and sometimes do half damage.


Quite frankly, Orb spells would be extremely potent (one may even say borderline broken since two of them can take out most near level opponents) even if they did have SR. Without SR and especially without SR and with metamagic, they are through the roof.


----------



## FireLance

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, Orb spells would be extremely potent even if they did have SR. Without SR, they are through the roof.



I am not sure if the ability to ignore SR is as great a benefit as it is made out to be. While I do recognize that opponents with SR are more common at high levels, what proportion of encounters do they actually make up? If half the opponents you encounter have SR, and your opponents' SR stops your spells half the time, the ability to ignore SR makes a difference only 25% of the time - useful, but hardly "through the roof". I suspect the difference is more psychological than real.


----------



## Rystil Arden

FireLance said:
			
		

> I am not sure if the ability to ignore SR is as great a benefit as it is made out to be. While I do recognize that opponents with SR are more common at high levels, what proportion of encounters do they actually make up? If half the opponents you encounter have SR, and your opponents' SR stops your spells half the time, the ability to ignore SR makes a difference only 25% of the time - useful, but hardly "through the roof". I suspect the difference is more psychological than real.



 The difference is real and highly important--it gets even worse when you're dealing with an enemy that is much more powerful than the party which the party should flee (or just not attack in the first place!).  Without the orbs, the enemy will win (as it should) because the caster can't get through the SR reliably, but with the orbs, the party can probably beat the overwhelming encounter.  As I mentioned in one of my posts, Connie the Conjurer can do well over 1/3rd of the health of an enemy 9 CR higher guaranteed with Orbs.  

This same principle applies for turning exciting boss battles into cakewalks or taking monsters that were designed to give the non-casters a chance and making them a slaughter for the caster.

The Orbs aren't a balance problem for when SR doesn't appear--they're a balance problem for when SR is important because they make it meaningless.  Any argument as to the amount of SR in a campaign ignores that the Orbs are unfair when SR appears.  Anyone who says "I admit Orbs are overwhelmingly better against SR, but SR isn't that common and they are balanced otherwise" should answer me this:  If SR isn't that common and you don't care about it, why not force the Orbs to allow SR to apply and fix the situations where it comes up?


----------



## Sabathius42

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Let's assume that he gains a +2 Dex item at level 5, a +4 Dex item at level 10, and a +6 Dex item at level 15




I think thats a lot to assume since most wizards/sorcerers are going to get an item to increase their INT/CHA instead of their DEX.

DS


----------



## Sabathius42

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So you're saying that the orbs are *much* better, right?  As to Empowered Acid Arrow, do remember that this is over time, and Energy Resistance (even just the level 2 spell) will convert that to no damage.




Nope, i'm saying the damage is a wash.  The orb has instant damage, but can't disrupt spellcasting or spell-like abilities over time like the arrow can so I consider both those to be washes.  The cap with energy resistance certainly is a factor against the arrow, however I find that at higher levels when monster most often have multiple energy resistances nobody is going to open with a salvo of 4th level spells.

I'm not arguing that the orbs AREN'T more powerful than most other 4th level spells.  I am arguing that direct-damage spells in general are crap and that the orbs are going a ways to fixing them.  Kind of like the change in feat design with the PHBII.  Therefore they are not broken, any more than any other spell/feat/item/whatever that 80% of characters would take if given the chance.

DS


----------



## Rystil Arden

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> Nope, i'm saying the damage is a wash.  The orb has instant damage, but can't disrupt spellcasting or spell-like abilities over time like the arrow can so I consider both those to be washes.  The cap with energy resistance certainly is a factor against the arrow, however I find that at higher levels when monster most often have multiple energy resistances nobody is going to open with a salvo of 4th level spells.
> 
> I'm not arguing that the orbs AREN'T more powerful than most other 4th level spells.  I am arguing that direct-damage spells in general are crap and that the orbs are going a ways to fixing them.  Kind of like the change in feat design with the PHBII.  Therefore they are not broken, any more than any other spell/feat/item/whatever that 80% of characters would take if given the chance.
> 
> DS



 So you _are_ saying that orbs are much more powerful, you just think that spellcasters need a major boost to damage.  Alright, that's fine.  Maybe in your game the spellcasters are being trivialised by the Fighters.  It is unusual, but I've seen it happen (though usually it involves novice players with the casters).  

Myself, I think that spellcasters are already the strongest, and I don't want them to have another major boost to damage that lets them slay enemies easily that were previously challenges due to SR by negating all of the resistance mechanisms in place when balancing that enemy. (saves and SR).


----------



## Notmousse

Not to mention the availability/cost of these items.  At 5th level that's about 45% of your expected wealth, at 10th it's around 30%, and at 15th it's about 18%.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Not to mention the availability/cost of these items.  At 5th level that's about 45% of your expected wealth, at 10th it's around 30%, and at 15th it's about 18%.



 I agree with you Notmousse--it's a bit much to ask for the +2 at level 5 or maybe the +4 at level 10 (though the +6 for 18% of wealth at level 15 is eminently acceptable--Wizards usually are buying these anyway to increase AC, Ref saves, Init, etc).  Still, that only throws the numbers off by 5% at a few locations on the chart (+2 Dex item is a no-brainer by level 7, say, and +4 a no-brainer by level 12)


----------



## Notmousse

At 15th it's reasonable to have two, maybe even three +6 items, but the +2 Dex at 5th is outright silly, and the +4 Dex at 10th stretches belief.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> At 15th it's reasonable to have two, maybe even three +6 items, but the +2 Dex at 5th is outright silly, and the +4 Dex at 10th stretches belief.



 As I said, I agree--some GMs won't even allow players to spend more than 33% of their wealth on any one item if creating a PC at that level.  I'd say the only way the character would have a +2 Dex item at 5 is if she has Craft Wondrous Item starting at level 3, lets the other PCs take the magic while she takes the gold, and then uses the gold to make items, effectively doubling much of her wealth.  Otherwise, the PC is making a pretty big commitment to Dex over other things.  But as I said, that barely changes Karinsdad's chart.


----------



## FireLance

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The difference is real and highly important--it gets even worse when you're dealing with an enemy that is much more powerful than the party which the party should flee (or just not attack in the first place!).  Without the orbs, the enemy will win (as it should) because the caster can't get through the SR reliably, but with the orbs, the party can probably beat the overwhelming encounter.  As I mentioned in one of my posts, Connie the Conjurer can do well over 1/3rd of the health of an enemy 9 CR higher guaranteed with Orbs.
> 
> This same principle applies for turning exciting boss battles into cakewalks or taking monsters that were designed to give the non-casters a chance and making them a slaughter for the caster.
> 
> The Orbs aren't a balance problem for when SR doesn't appear--they're a balance problem for when SR is important because they make it meaningless.  Any argument as to the amount of SR in a campaign ignores that the Orbs are unfair when SR appears.  Anyone who says "I admit Orbs are overwhelmingly better against SR, but SR isn't that common and they are balanced otherwise" should answer me this:  If SR isn't that common and you don't care about it, why not force the Orbs to allow SR to apply and fix the situations where it comes up?



I think it depends very much on whether you want SR to be a roadblock or a speed bump. If you want SR to be a speed bump, the ability to overcome SR is a minor advantage. If you want SR to be a road block, whether it is "to give the non-casters a chance", or to prevent the PCs from defeating an opponent they are not supposed to defeat, then the ability to overcome SR is a potentially game-breaking benefit (for that specific game, at least).

On the whole, however, I don't think it is wise to rely on a single element (such as SR) to swing an encounter one way or the other. Even if Connie can reduce her CR level+9 opponent's hit points by a third, will she (and her party) be able to survive what the opponent does on his turn?


----------



## Rystil Arden

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think it depends very much on whether you want SR to be a roadblock or a speed bump. If you want SR to be a speed bump, the ability to overcome SR is a minor advantage. If you want SR to be a road block, whether it is "to give the non-casters a chance", or to prevent the PCs from defeating an opponent they are not supposed to defeat, then the ability to overcome SR is a potentially game-breaking benefit (for that specific game, at least).
> 
> On the whole, however, I don't think it is wise to rely on a single element (such as SR) to swing an encounter one way or the other. Even if Connie can reduce her CR level+9 opponent's hit points by a third, will she (and her party) be able to survive what the opponent does on his turn?



 Can Connie survive a single round?  Likely yes if they start at range (which seems reasonable), though the enemy could choose to flee.  Then she can do another third of its health.  If the rest of her party can do anything at all (another Conjurer is not out of the question, which would do the trick easily, but any combo that can do the final 1/3 between the three of them in two rounds will do), the dragon is dead.

SR isn't the sole factor, though--the dragon has many defenses, and the orbs just happen to ignore them all.  I wouldn't call SR always a "roadblock", although sometimes it should be.  I'd call it a balancing factor that is an intrinsic part of the game's challenge.  It's like the incredible Reflex saves and Evasion (and later Improved Evasion) on Rogues and Monks.  It isn't always a roadblock, but it's a balancing factor on those classes against certain attacks.


----------



## KarinsDad

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> I think thats a lot to assume since most wizards/sorcerers are going to get an item to increase their INT/CHA instead of their DEX.




Not very relevant.

Minimally, a caster who tries to boost his Dex will use Cats Grace.


----------



## KarinsDad

Notmousse said:
			
		

> At 15th it's reasonable to have two, maybe even three +6 items, but the +2 Dex at 5th is outright silly, and the +4 Dex at 10th stretches belief.




It's not silly for a caster whose bread and butter spells are Orbs. +1 to AC, Reflex saves, and attacks might be worth 45% of his wealth.

And there are a lot of core ways to get +1 or better bonus to attacks at level 5 and higher without +Dex items. Aid, Bless, Blink, Cats Grace, Good Hope, Haste, Heroes Feast, Heroism, Greater Heroism, Inspire Courage, Prayer, Reduce Person, Weapon Focus (let alone non-core spells, items, feats, and special abilities).


The pro-Orb people are quibbling over 5%.


----------



## Notmousse

Oddly enough you're quibbling as well.  If your position is so solid why do you have to argue the point over 5%?

I'd also like to point out that casting those spells is going to mean either spending a round casting yourself, or waiting for your cleric/wizard buddy to do it for you.  Which seems very unlikely if Orbs are as strong as you claim.


----------



## James McMurray

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> This post I'm quoting has been the first so far that is an ad hominem attack.  James McMurray has agreed that he doesn't care about the math--the Orbs work in his game, and he's okay with that, and we've agreed to disagree.  Please don't make ad hominem attacks, particularly when both people involved have settled it and you're a bystander.  It stirs the pot for no reason.




How is saying "your math doesn't work because you're ignoring certain factors" the same as agreeing that I don't care about the math?


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> How is saying "your math doesn't work because you're ignoring certain factors" the same as agreeing that I don't care about the math?



 I thought you said that in post 227, but if not, that's fine too.  Look, let me put it this way--it will take me effort to go through entire separate builds with full feats for both characters and do all the math instead of having us say that they are otherwise equal and cancel out.  If I did that and the Orb user was still doing tons more, would you agree that the Orbs are overpowered?  I'm guessing not.  If it was me, _I_ would say that the differences in the builds other than the Orbs might be the cause of the differences.  That's why I started out by comparing the two with all other things being equal.  But if you say that will really convince you and the current math doesn't (and the current math doesn't convince you that the total math will follow the pattern), I'll be happy to do it all.  It just seems like nobody would care for the additional math--I think most of the fence-sitters aren't disputing the math even at this point.  I thought you had simultaneously realised that in post 227 just as I was thinking it too.


----------



## James McMurray

No, what I realized is that we were talking past each other. You dismiss my posts as "no it's not denials." I ignore your math because it doesn't give the whole picture. Even if you show beyond a shadow of a doubt that orbs are always better than area spells against a single target it won't change the fact that 1) you don't always want to do straight damage and 2) single target encounters are not the only thing that ever happens.

If a conjurer memorizes nothing but orbs and en evoker memorizes nothing but area spells and it turns out that they fight single critters constantly, the orb guy could very well be far ahead in damage. Of course, single target spells are supposed to do more damage, so that doesn't surprise me. However, if they turn out to fight nothing but groups, the orb guy is going to do nowhere near as much damage as the evoker. 

IMX, YMMV, etc. the single creature encounters, especially at higher levels, are not very common. With or without orbs the amount of damage a party can output when they only have one target means that a DM is frequently forced to toss multiple opponents out there just to get the fight to last a while.

Again, if the world consists of nothing but single critters waiting around with "please nuke me" signs around their necks, the orbs are probably too strong. If most of those creatures have higher SR than average for their CR (or even outright immunity) then the orbs are almost certainly too strong. If that's the way your games go, I fully support an outright ban or nerf on orbs. It isn't the way my games go.


----------



## KarinsDad

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Oddly enough you're quibbling as well.  If your position is so solid why do you have to argue the point over 5%?
> 
> I'd also like to point out that casting those spells is going to mean either spending a round casting yourself, or waiting for your cleric/wizard buddy to do it for you.  Which seems very unlikely if Orbs are as strong as you claim.




Buff spells get cast in the game and are an integral part of DND combat, regardless of denials. Stat boost items are an integral part of DND, regardless of denials.

Orbs have a very minor to hit roll, no save for half damage, no SR, and the potential for double damage (and the 4th level version has a save for some other game affect which very few single target Evocation spells have). That means that it is energy damage magic practically without a game mechanic to determine if it works or not (the one it has rarely prevents it from not occurring).


I notice that the pro-Orb side is blowing off the fact that the average touch AC in the Monster Manual is 10.5 and 93% of creatures in it have a touch AC of 14 or less. Even without *any* additional magic whatsoever, a 10th level  arcane caster could still hit 95% against an average touch AC from the MM. Add in the fact that people do play their PCs with buff spells, feats, special abilities, and items and the math becomes overwhelming.


Without any magic spells or items whatsoever, I can easily create an arcane caster who specializes in Orb spells who hits an average touch AC creature in the MM (we'll make it AC 11) 95% of the time by 8th level:

Dex 14 Halfling which makes it Dex 16

01 70% Point Blank Shot
02 75%
03 75% Precise Shot
04 80%
05 80%
06 90% Weapon Focus
07 90%
08 95%

And really for such a specialist, only Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot is really needed for the game (Precise Shot is needed in order to help pick off creatures already in melee combat).


But, the pro-Orb side is really missing the point of the math. It does not matter if it is 95% or 70% or whatever for a given arcane caster. Compared to other first and fourth level single target spells with a saving throw, Orbs affect their targets a higher percentage of the time and because they do such nice damage, they often force their opponents to waste time fleeing or healing (at least in our campaigns, an opponent does not always fight to the death when he is 50% or more damaged in round one).

And against Arcane casters, the 4th level Orb spell can be practically a death sentence with few defenses for a same level enemy arcane caster in round one . D6 per level is a high percentage of the hit points of most arcane casters (unless of course, pro-Orb people are now going to argue that arcane casters walk around with Con boost items, but not Dex boost items  ).


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The question is this: is the OP satisfied?  If so, we can probably be done here.



I am.
In the way that I am convinced now that Orbs should be SR: yes.

It has been an exciting and insightful discussion. It has given me a _lot_ of useful hints at upping the combat effectiveness of speel casters. Wasn't reaaly the point of my OP really.

The point was, why should the orb spells not be affected by SR? I saw no reason as to why. I haven't really read the schools and their definition but I can't say anything said here has made it any clearer to me that Orbs should bypass SR, other than they for some reason are conjuration.

Th very special deal about certain monsters (dragons fx) and golems in particular is that the best spells only have a limited chance of doing any good, and for golems that your best spells probably won't do any good. That deal is null with the Orbs in their current form.

I'm going to houserule Orbs to be affected by SR.

Thanks for all the input.


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> IMX, YMMV, etc. the single creature encounters, especially at higher levels, are not very common.



Wow.

Really?

I've played in 5 groups, with 3 different DMs, IIRC.  I've played published modules and home-brews.  My experience has been that as you gain levels, many "big" encounters tend to be with single creatures, or with a BBEG surrounded by mooks.  (Even as I write this I'm thinking through the last 2 adventures I played, from Dungeon Magazine; One or Two BBEGs per encounter, usually.)

In both cases, SR is a big deal after 12th level or so.  Being able to drop the BBEG to 2/3 its hp with one energy spell while ignoring his/her/its SR and saves?  That would have been great!

Sign me up!


----------



## James McMurray

Nail said:
			
		

> Wow.
> 
> Really?




Yep, really. Maybe my group is just scary at dealing out damage to single foes so the GMs (including me) send multiple foes instead.

Out of ciruiosity, checking Age of worms at levels 15+ for encounters. I haven't read these, so am just looking at number of creatures per encounter. (Spoilers below)


Spoiler



The Prince of Red Hand: 
1 - CR 10 enemy vs. EL 15 players, orbs don't matter here because you could sneeze on this guy and kill him
2 - 2 enemies, neither with SR
3 - 1 enemy, golem, orbs would rock
4 - 1 enemy with high SR, orbs would rock
5 - 4 enemies, no SR
6 - 1 enemy, orbs would rock

The Library of Last Resort
1 - 9 enemies
2 - 1 enemy, orbs would rock
3 - 6 enemies
4 - 1 enemy, no SR
5 - 4 enemies with constant 50% miss chances, orbs could blow
6 - 7 enemies
7 - 1 enemy, no SR
8 - 6 enemies
9 - 1 enemy, no SR
10 - 1 enemy, no SR
11 - 1 enemy, no SR
12 - 3 enemies
13 - 1 enemy, orbs would rock
14 - 21 enemies

Kings of the Rift (after this point I'm too lazy to type orbs would rock unless they are facing a single enemy with magic immunity or higher than average SR for its CR). Throughout this area many sections that list one or two enemies are set up so that enemy joins another fight already in progress unless here's no noise to alert them.
1 - 12 enemies
2 - 1 enemy
3 - 27 enemies
4 - 24 enemies
5 - 7 enemies
6 - 1 enemy
7 - 1 enemy
8 - 1 enemy
9 - 30 enemies, but set up so that you only encounter a small group at a time
10 - 21 enemies, but they're no challenge unless some players get screwed by a trap
11 - 1 enemy
12 - 245 enemies (no, that's not a typo. There'sa ton of little creatues, but they're carrion crawlers, so could get lucky and take out some PCs via paralysis)
13 - 1 enemy
14 - 1 enemy
15 - 2 enemies
16 - 1 really weak enemy, sneezing kills it
17 - 1 enemy
18 - 2 enemies
19 - 1 enemy
20 - 7 enemies you can sneeze on
21 - 2 enemies
(end area where single gang up)
22 - 1 enemy
23 - 1 enemy
24 - 1 enemy
25 - 1 enemy
26 - 1 enemy, orbs would rock

Into the Worm Crawl Fissure
1 - 4 enemies
2 - 9 enemies
3 - 5 enemies, 4 are golems
4 - 3 enemies, orbs would rock due to higher than average SR on 2 of the critters
5 - 2 enemies
6 - 1 enemy
7 - 6 enemies
8 - 6 enemies
9 - 1 enemy
10 - 1 enemy
11 - 1 enemy
12 - 3 enemeies
13 - 1 - 3 enemies depedning on events

Dawn o fa New Age
1 - 2 enemies
2 - 12 enemies
3 - 33 enemies
4 - 1 enemy
5 - 4 enemies
6 - 8 enemies
7 - 6 enemies
8 - 4 enemies
9 - 4 enemies
10 - 1 enemy
11 - 6 enemies
12 - 4 enemies
13 - 1 enemy
14 - 3 enemies
15 - 9 enemies



Out of 74 encounters, 32 are against a single foe. Of those, only a handful have SR that's higher than their CR would indicate and therefor play fully to the strengths of orbs. 30 of them are against groups of 4 or more, and hence play to the weakness of single targetted spells. 10 of them are against 10+ enemies, making an orb focused caster really sad. One of them is against 245 enemies, which will make a guy that focused on orbs wish he hadn't thrown away his crossbow 15 levels ago.


----------



## Nail

Interesting!  Thanks,  James McMurray.  That took some work to type out......


----------



## moritheil

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, what else is a sorcerer supposed to use when faced with an opponent in an AMF?  A crossbow?  Feh.
> 
> -Hyp.




Disjunction, or a ghaele eladrin.


----------



## James McMurray

Age of Worms is written by a diferent author for each section, and it certainly shows how playstyles can affect the usefulness of the orbs. The first two parts have a lot of one-on-one or low enemy count encounters, making orbs the best bet for damaging folks. Thenext part has fights where orbs are practically worthless because you're fighting over 10 foes. The next one breaks even on large vs. small encounters, and the last has again favors large groups.


----------



## Sabathius42

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Without any magic spells or items whatsoever, I can easily create an arcane caster who specializes in Orb spells who hits an average touch AC creature in the MM (we'll make it AC 11) 95% of the time by 8th level:
> 
> Dex 14 Halfling which makes it Dex 16
> 
> 01 70% Point Blank Shot
> 02 75%
> 03 75% Precise Shot
> 04 80%
> 05 80%
> 06 90% Weapon Focus
> 07 90%
> 08 95%




So you are basically saying "Look, I can totally trick out a guy using all of my feats to be good at ranged-attacks with a wizard and rarely miss.  Thus the ranged-touch attack roll is a non-issue."  Well I would hope so!  Rerun those number with the same character but NOT picking ranged feats and you get the following.

Level--Chance--Chance vs. Melee Occupied (happens a lot in our games)
01--65%--45%
02--70%--50%
03--70%--50%
04--75%--55%
05--75%--55%
06--80%--60%
07--80%--60%
08--85%--65%

I would hardly say having a base 35% chance of your spells just plain missing is a non-issue for an 8th level character.  Those number are based on 16DEX character, which I would think is rare for a "standard wizard or sorcerer".

DS


----------



## FireLance

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Can Connie survive a single round?  Likely yes if they start at range (which seems reasonable), though the enemy could choose to flee.  Then she can do another third of its health.  If the rest of her party can do anything at all (another Conjurer is not out of the question, which would do the trick easily, but any combo that can do the final 1/3 between the three of them in two rounds will do), the dragon is dead.



For a 15th level spellcaster, the range of an orb spell is 60 ft. That's not much range, considering a wyrm red dragon has a breath weapon that also has a 60 ft. range (which deals 22d10 damage, Reflex DC 38 half), and has a fly speed of 200 ft. And, it's only a third if she expoits the dragon's elemental vulnerability. Otherwise, the damage she deals is closer to one-quarter its hit points. 

Connie can deal pretty good damage against the dragon in the first round of combat, but that probably takes up all her 8th-level slots for the day. Even if she survives to the second round, she probably won't be able to repeat it.


----------



## Rystil Arden

FireLance said:
			
		

> For a 15th level spellcaster, the range of an orb spell is 60 ft. That's not much range, considering a wyrm red dragon has a breath weapon that also has a 60 ft. range (which deals 22d10 damage, Reflex DC 38 half), and has a fly speed of 200 ft. And, it's only a third if she expoits the dragon's elemental vulnerability. Otherwise, the damage she deals is closer to one-quarter its hit points.
> 
> Connie can deal pretty good damage against the dragon in the first round of combat, but that probably takes up all her 8th-level slots for the day. Even if she survives to the second round, she probably won't be able to repeat it.



 The over 1/3rd (40.6% to be exact is how much Connie does of the dragon's HP) does not assume elemental vulnerability.  Increase the damage by x1.5 (so 60%!) if she uses cold attacks and the dragon has no defense against them, but I think it's stretching for that to be the case.  However, if they do use cold uncontested, then two Connies would kill the dragon before the dragon could go once if they won initiative.  

I know about the breath weapon--she should probably be able to survive that breath weapon (assuming she has 20 to 22 Con after buffs and items, which is par for a Wizard of that level), though not by much (and above average but not-terribly-unlikely-damage might end her) unless she had some sort of Energy Resistance against it or made the save (and she isn't making that save).  

She can do nearly as much damage with only 7th-level slots: 195.  And probably she'll have one more 8th-level slot (don't forget bonus from high Int and the Conjuration slot, so 3) and so do 236.25.  Two Connies will clearly kill the dragon on their own if it doesn't flee on the first round (and it most certainly has that option, though having the CR 24 monster flee from two level 15 characters on the first round of combat is fairly pathetic).


----------



## KarinsDad

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> So you are basically saying "Look, I can totally trick out a guy using all of my feats to be good at ranged-attacks with a wizard and rarely miss.  Thus the ranged-touch attack roll is a non-issue."  Well I would hope so!  Rerun those number with the same character but NOT picking ranged feats and you get the following.
> 
> Level--Chance--Chance vs. Melee Occupied (happens a lot in our games)
> 01--65%--45%
> 02--70%--50%
> 03--70%--50%
> 04--75%--55%
> 05--75%--55%
> 06--80%--60%
> 07--80%--60%
> 08--85%--65%
> 
> I would hardly say having a base 35% chance of your spells just plain missing is a non-issue for an 8th level character.  Those number are based on 16DEX character, which I would think is rare for a "standard wizard or sorcerer".




Dex 16 is not so rare for a PC halfling though. And, if your players are playing such that the 8th level arcane caster often has a 35% chance to miss with a ranged touch attack (i.e. having a ranged combatant type and not giving him opportunities to hit without the -4 penalty for being in melee), then they are not playing to the tactical level which they can.

The feats are not necessary to be an effective Orb tosser, they are just an example of what can be done to make Orbs slightly more guaranteed to hit (10% in that example). Our melee PCs in our game do things like take a 5 foot step back or to the side so that they are no longer engaged with a specific enemy and the range attackers can pelt them (i.e. no real need for precise shot if your Fighter types and other PCs often set it up for you, this is no different then setting up flank in the game). Bards and Clerics and Psions in our games do things like Inspire Courage and Bless and Entangling Ectoplasm. If players in your particular campaign do not maximize their capabilities with movement, spells, feats, etc., it does not mean it cannot be done in the game. It's trivially easy to work as a team and maximize capability in DND.

It is the synergy of abilities in the game that must be looked at when discussing balance issues, not just individual abilities in a fishbowl (although those too are important). DND is typically a group activity, not an individual one.

PS. That guy was nowhere near totally tricked out. He did not have a single spell or magic item to assist and really does not need any feats to help him be effective at chucking Orbs. At 8th level, he could easily have a +2 Dex item to help instead, for example.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Karinsdad--he's a halfling?  You forgot to give him +5% more chance to hit to all categories then for the size bonus.


----------



## KarinsDad

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Karinsdad--he's a halfling?  You forgot to give him +5% more chance to hit to all categories then for the size bonus.




Actually, I remembered the +1 for size and forgot the +1 for the Point Blank Shot I gave him. Doh!  

01 75% Point Blank Shot
02 80%
03 80% Precise Shot
04 85%
05 85%
06 95% Weapon Focus


----------



## Rystil Arden

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, I remembered the +1 for size and forgot the +1 for the Point Blank Shot I gave him. Doh!
> 
> 01 75% Point Blank Shot
> 02 80%
> 03 80% Precise Shot
> 04 85%
> 05 85%
> 06 95% Weapon Focus



 I wasn't counting PBS in case the enemy was farther than that once the range gets better--chance to hit AC 10 with +0 = 55%.  Add 3 for Dex = 70%.  1 for size is 75%


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Age of Worms is written by a diferent author for each section, and it certainly shows how playstyles can affect the usefulness of the orbs. The first two parts have a lot of one-on-one or low enemy count encounters, making orbs the best bet for damaging folks. Thenext part has fights where orbs are practically worthless because you're fighting over 10 foes. The next one breaks even on large vs. small encounters, and the last has again favors large groups.



That's a cool break down of some high level published adventures.  Thanks again.  Are each of those encounter groups an adventure?  I'm unfamiliar with the AoW path.  (Where's Hong when you need him? )

There's no question that orbs are great against 1 -2 foe encounters, in which the foes have spell resistance.  (Even foes without SR don't get a save, so they are good for those too.)

But I think it's just as obvious that an orb is good in larger battles, i.e. the BBEG and his minions.  Killing just 1 of 4 opponents for example, or even 1 of 5, makes things a heck of a lot easier for the rest of the party.  (And IME, foes at higher level are not nicely grouped for AoE spells.)

As I've said before, the Orb spells become more reasonable if you just add SR = Yes.  They are still on the nasty side, even with that adjustment, but I'll adjust.


----------



## KarinsDad

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I wasn't counting PBS in case the enemy was farther than that once the range gets better--chance to hit AC 10 with +0 = 55%.  Add 3 for Dex = 70%.  1 for size is 75%




I was doing touch AC 11. 65+% of the creatures in the MM have touch AC 11 or lower. That's a majority of opponents.

Since the use of an Orb is under the control of the caster (just like taking or not taking feats to enhance it is under control of the caster), whether to use one or not is situationally dependent. Since Orbs are close range attacks, typically the caster would use them within 30 feet if he had PBS, just to gain the extra +1. In fact, he could not use them beyond 30 feet until 4th level as is. So, the +1 for PBS is forced at levels 1 to 3.


----------



## James McMurray

Nail said:
			
		

> That's a cool break down of some high level published adventures.  Thanks again.  Are each of those encounter groups an adventure?  I'm unfamiliar with the AoW path.  (Where's Hong when you need him? )




Yeah, each one is a single adventure. Most of the large group fights are not BBEG with mooks, they're groups of the same type of creature, or a few groups of a few different types.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Yeah, each one is a single adventure. Most of the large group fights are not BBEG with mooks, they're groups of the same type of creature, or a few groups of a few different types.



 Yeah, that's an awesome breakdown!  By the way, in the groups of 10+ of the same type of creature, just how hard are the individual enemies, though?  Are these significant encounters that require an AoE specialist to whittle them down just to give the melees a chance, or is a full attack going to be a sure thing to take at least one down?  These data seem to suggest that you want to have a bit of mid-level AoE, but you probably still want your highest level blasts to be orbs.

Also, sometimes it depends how many encounters they expect you to fight in a single day--do you have a rough estimate of that for these adventures?  I ask because it seems often that groups save all the big guns (sometimes even when they shouldn't!) for the peak difficulty ending encounter.


----------



## James McMurray

I haven't read through the entire adventures, I just went through and counted monsters, so can't really give more details than that. Apart from a few that are obviously supposed to be single encounters for the day or drawn out sieges I don't know what the expected pacing is.

For the most part encounter ELs were equal to or higher than the party's expected character level for that adventure, except in areas where monsters were tightly packed and likely to join forces. That's just a rough rememberance of my thoughts as I read the ELs though, not me going back and double checking my memory.

I plan to run AoW eventually, but since we'd start at first and those start at 15th, it'll be a while before I sit and read them straight through. For now I'm too busy reading Exalted rules to prepare for a campaign I'll hopefully start after we finish playing the introductory adventure.


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Yeah, each one is a single adventure. Most of the large group fights are not BBEG with mooks, they're groups of the same type of creature, or a few groups of a few different types.



I wish I had a breakdown like this for a few adventure paths...it would be useful data for my own game!  (I home-brew adventures and campaigns.)

Of the 74 encounters (in 5 adventures):
35 are against 1 foe,
 6 are against 2 foes,
 4 are against 3 foes,
 8 are against 4 foes, and
 21 are against larger groups.

I'd claim Orbs would be optimal on encounters up to 4 creatures; if so, Orbs are used in 72% of the encounters!  That's quite a few!


----------



## Rystil Arden

Nail said:
			
		

> I wish I had a breakdown like this for a few adventure paths...it would be useful data for my own game!  (I home-brew adventures and campaigns.)
> 
> Of the 74 encounters (in 5 adventures):
> 35 are against 1 foe,
> 6 are against 2 foes,
> 4 are against 3 foes,
> 8 are against 4 foes, and
> 21 are against larger groups.
> 
> I'd claim Orbs would be optimal on encounters up to 4 creatures; if so, Orbs are used in 72% of the encounters!  That's quite a few!



 I'd call the 4 foes a wash, not advantage Orbs, unless at least 2 of the enemies had high Reflex saves / Evasion / SR / spell immunity.  

I also agree with James's assessment that Orbs blow in that one encounter with multiple incorporeals.


----------



## James McMurray

I'd personally call 3 foes a wash and 4 foes a slight advantage for area spells, but it really boils down to the terrain a lot of the time. Apart from a glance at a map to figure out why one or two low CR critters appear alone in rooms on a 17th+ level adventure I don't really know what the terrain is like. 

Party makeup also helps decide where the breakoff point is for area spells, as it's possible, especially at levels 15+, to have a setup where even having multiple PCs in melee with all the enemies isn't going to stop you from hitting all the opponents with a nuke.


----------



## KarinsDad

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I'd call the 4 foes a wash, not advantage Orbs, unless at least 2 of the enemies had high Reflex saves / Evasion / SR / spell immunity.




From my perspective, the tactical aspect of DND is about numerical and magical advantages. PCs tend to win, even against numerically superior forces, because they tend to have more magic (and often more powerful magic) than NPC enemies. It's rare to have an encounter with a group of enemies with as much magic as the PCs have (cause this is just begging for a TPK). So, most combat encounters tend to be with groups of mooks (i.e. less powerful than the PCs), or groups of mooks led by a few BBEGs at most, or one or two BBEGs by themselves (although some of the best and most memorable combats we've ever played are with a group of opposing adventurers of similar power and levels, but those are rare because they can easily lead to a TPK).

Typically, there are at least 4 PCs in most groups (I've played with smaller groups in the past, but it was rare). At higher levels, this number might exclude other allies such as cohorts or an animal companion. So although at low level, 4 enemies might be a numerical challenge for 4 PCs, it might be less of a numerical challenge at higher levels (or when there are more than 4 PCs in a group).

Another advantage of Orbs is to instantly wipe out a wounded foe in order to change the numerical odds and to free up allies to concentrate on other enemies. So, if on a given round the PC Fighter type does 30% to 50% damage to one NPC, the PC Arcane type can often more or less put that opponent away with an Orb (or with some form of metamagic Orb at real high levels) and hence, shift the numerical balance.

So, I'm not convinced that Orbs and Area Effects spells are typically a wash with 4 opponents. It's not always easy to get the opponents to cooperate in order to get even 2 enemies out of 4 with an area effect spell (shy of metamagic), it often requires more enemies in situations where the enemies cannot quickly engage the PCs in melee.

When area affect spells do target a lot of enemies, they are great. It's just not that often that prime area affect opportunities present themselves. At least IME.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Karinsdad--it's true that tactics and terrain are a big factor.  I'd say 4 is the tipping point where it is almost a wash because of the slight chance of blasting all 4 in a constrained areA with a lucky shot, but I admit I am being charitable to the AoE.  Certainly 3 or lower is a clear advantage Orb.


----------



## Nail

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, I'm not convinced that Orbs and Area Effects spells are typically a wash with 4 opponents.



That's where I sit too, at least if we're taling about direct damage spells (rather than battlefield control).

Against a party with an APL of 15, a EL 16 of 4 opponents means each is a CR 12.  How much damage could a 8th level Orb (metamagicked) do?  Enough to one-shot a CR 12, maybe (with no save, no SR)?  If they were classed NPCs, the answer would be a definite "yes".

IOW, knocking out 25% of the opposition in one round's worth of actions by only one of the PCs is a good deal.




.......FWIW, I'm currently play-testing the "SR=Yes" Orbs.  One of my players is a Warmage, and if there's any class they'll be overpowered with, it'd be that one.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Nail said:
			
		

> That's where I sit too, at least if we're taling about direct damage spells (rather than battlefield control).
> 
> Against a party with an APL of 15, a EL 16 of 4 opponents means each is a CR 12.  How much damage could a 8th level Orb (metamagicked) do?  Enough to one-shot a CR 12, maybe (with no save, no SR)?  If they were classed NPCs, the answer would be a definite "yes".
> 
> IOW, knocking out 25% of the opposition in one round's worth of actions by only one of the PCs is a good deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .......FWIW, I'm currently play-testing the "SR=Yes" Orbs.  One of my players is a Warmage, and if there's any class they'll be overpowered with, it'd be that one.



 I've been playing with the SR=Yes Orbs for a long time.  They're also moved to Evocation.  They are perennial favourites, though the short range is sometimes an issue.  Of all the things mentioned in this thread by the Orb=No SR people, short range is really the only one that has ever been an issue.


----------



## KarinsDad

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> They are perennial favourites, though the short range is sometimes an issue.  Of all the things mentioned in this thread by the Orb=No SR people, short range is really the only one that has ever been an issue.




This is an issue for Psions as well. 80% of EPH psionic powers are Close range or less.

The difference, however, is that unlike the Psion with his energy powers, the arcane caster cannot just pick a different Orb-like spell (i.e. one that has all of the normal properties of the Orbs) with a longer range. The arcane caster must metamagic it to increase its range. The Psion can acquire a different energy psionic power with longer range and single target blast away at several different ranges.


----------



## Cheiromancer

It would be nice if arcanists could make some kind of direct magical attack against golems.  Sure the orbs might be too good as written, but I can't help but feel that making them SR (yes) nerfs them too much.

How about a compromise?  Say that yes, the energy collected by the orb spells is non-magical, but that the mode of delivery (the touch attack part) is partly magical.  Against a creature with SR, therefore, the attack roll has to beat the creature's normal AC or the SR, whichever is lower.  If the attack roll is too low, it indicates that the SR disrupted the orb and the energy dissipated harmlessly against the creature's physical defenses.

Having to make a ranged attack instead of a ranged touch attack is a much steeper cost for the benefit of ignoring SR.  If a ranged touch attack is too little for the benefit, then perhaps a ranged attack would be enough.  Better than having to beat an infinite SR, anyway.


----------



## Mort

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Having to make a ranged attack instead of a ranged touch attack is a much steeper cost for the benefit of ignoring SR.  If a ranged touch attack is too little for the benefit, then perhaps a ranged attack would be enough.  Better than having to beat an infinite SR, anyway.




Im not so sure about that. Having some monster (of which golems are the prime example) that the mage can't just point blast and kill is a good thing as long as its not overused. It's not like a mage has no other options - when faced with unbeatable spell resistance most mages have a host of other things they can do: buff the other party members to deal with it, summon  monster, contain the monster (evards, wall spells etc.). Just giving them another point blast and kill option promotes a lack of creativity and is boring to boot.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Mort said:
			
		

> Having some monster (of which golems are the prime example) that the mage can't just point blast and kill is a good thing as long as its not overused. It's not like a mage has no other options - when faced with unbeatable spell resistance most mages have a host of other things they can do: buff the other party members to deal with it, summon  monster, contain the monster (evards, wall spells etc.). Just giving them another point blast and kill option promotes a lack of creativity and is boring to boot.



True, but it seems that the designers of the orbs disagreed with this perspective.  The option they provided (single target direct damage that replaces an SR check with a ranged touch attack) is unsatisfactory to some people; I just want to point out that there are potential fixes besides making the orb spells SR: Yes or banning them entirely.

But yeah.  Rogues are expected to find alternatives to sneak attack when faced with COUPEs (constructs, oozes, undead, plants or elementals), why shouldn't arcanists be expected to find alternatives to direct damage?  Of course, the weakness to this analogy is the growing number of feats, magic items and/or class abilities that allow the rogue to use sneak attacks even on COUPEs (or at least on some kinds of COUPEs).


----------



## FireLance

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The over 1/3rd (40.6% to be exact is how much Connie does of the dragon's HP) does not assume elemental vulnerability.  Increase the damage by x1.5 (so 60%!) if she uses cold attacks and the dragon has no defense against them, but I think it's stretching for that to be the case.  However, if they do use cold uncontested, then two Connies would kill the dragon before the dragon could go once if they won initiative.
> 
> I know about the breath weapon--she should probably be able to survive that breath weapon (assuming she has 20 to 22 Con after buffs and items, which is par for a Wizard of that level), though not by much (and above average but not-terribly-unlikely-damage might end her) unless she had some sort of Energy Resistance against it or made the save (and she isn't making that save).
> 
> She can do nearly as much damage with only 7th-level slots: 195.  And probably she'll have one more 8th-level slot (don't forget bonus from high Int and the Conjuration slot, so 3) and so do 236.25.  Two Connies will clearly kill the dragon on their own if it doesn't flee on the first round (and it most certainly has that option, though having the CR 24 monster flee from two level 15 characters on the first round of combat is fairly pathetic).



Well, I'm assuming a twinned orb and a quickened orb, which will do an average of 45 x 3.5 = 157.5 damage in the first round. That's about 25.8% of an average wyrm red dragon's hit points of 610.

And, assuming a starting Intelligence of 15, 3 level increases and a +6 Intelligence-boosting item, that's an Intelligence of 24, which isn't enough to get a bonus 8th-level spell. This leaves Connie with just one 8th-level spell slot for being a 15th-level wizard, and the bonus 8th-level slot for being a specialist, both of which will be used up in the first round.

With 7th-level slots, she can manage a maximized orb, for 90 damage, and a quickened, empowered, lesser orb for an average of 33.5 damage. That's 123.5 damage in the second round by my calculations.

What did you have Connie do to achieve those results?


----------



## Nail

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Rogues are expected to find alternatives to sneak attack when faced with COUPEs (constructs, oozes, undead, plants or elementals), why shouldn't arcanists be expected to find alternatives to direct damage?



Right.

But in the case of Orbs, they are still a *great* option against creatures with SR (minus golems).  Sure, the (house ruled Orb) allows SR....but there is No Save.


----------



## Nail

Mort said:
			
		

> Having some monster (of which golems are the prime example) that the mage can't just point blast and kill is a good thing as long as its not overused. It's not like a mage has no other options - when faced with unbeatable spell resistance most mages have a host of other things they can do: buff the other party members to deal with it, summon  monster, contain the monster (evards, wall spells etc.). Just giving them another point blast and kill option promotes a lack of creativity and is boring to boot.



IME, golems can be cramped pretty effectively with battlefield control spells (EBT works well, frex).  Then just let the adamantine arrows do their job......


----------



## James McMurray

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I also agree with James's assessment that Orbs blow in that one encounter with multiple incorporeals.




I didn't even think to look at whether something was incorporeal, and thus immune to all the orbs except the Force one. If I listed it as "orbs would blow" it must have been a decent sized group of critters early on in the list (before I got lazy). There may be a bunch of those encounters that look great for orbs because there's just one big foe, but really stink because the orbs can't hurt it.


----------



## KarinsDad

Nail said:
			
		

> But in the case of Orbs, they are still a *great* option against creatures with SR (minus golems).  Sure, the (house ruled Orb) allows SR....but there is No Save.




Precisely.

Instead of a fair chance of half damage, there is instead a slim chance of double damage.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I didn't even think to look at whether something was incorporeal, and thus immune to all the orbs except the Force one. If I listed it as "orbs would blow" it must have been a decent sized group of critters early on in the list (before I got lazy). There may be a bunch of those encounters that look great for orbs because there's just one big foe, but really stink because the orbs can't hurt it.



 Oh right--I forgot about the force orb against incorporeals.


----------



## Rystil Arden

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, I'm assuming a twinned orb and a quickened orb, which will do an average of 45 x 3.5 = 157.5 damage in the first round. That's about 25.8% of an average wyrm red dragon's hit points of 610.
> 
> And, assuming a starting Intelligence of 15, 3 level increases and a +6 Intelligence-boosting item, that's an Intelligence of 24, which isn't enough to get a bonus 8th-level spell. This leaves Connie with just one 8th-level spell slot for being a 15th-level wizard, and the bonus 8th-level slot for being a specialist, both of which will be used up in the first round.
> 
> With 7th-level slots, she can manage a maximized orb, for 90 damage, and a quickened, empowered, lesser orb for an average of 33.5 damage. That's 123.5 damage in the second round by my calculations.
> 
> What did you have Connie do to achieve those results?



 Oh, I'm willing to backtrack to the first example if you like, but since you quoted my "over 1/3" number, that means you were definitely looking at the second example, the one I kept saying I didn't want to do, where Evan picked up the two Spell Penetrations and I gave Connie two feats in exchange.

As to Int, this might be an interesting poll, but I've never seen a PC Wizard with lower than 16 Int unless the player rolled no 16s on 4d6 drop without being hopeless (which is unlikely).  Even in 25 PB, there are more than enough points to buy the 16.  That still isn't enough to have an 8th-level slot without at least a +1 from a Tome unless she has 17 to start.  It does mean she gets 2 more slots at level 16 instead of just one, but we're looking at 15.  That's fine though--Evan is harmed even more by using lower-level slots than Connie because his DCs will also be lower (unless he's been using metamagic, in which case they'll all be lower).


----------



## James McMurray

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Oh right--I forgot about the force orb against incorporeals.




It's probably not much of a factor. At 15th level the drastically lower damage and lack of a secondary effect for an orb of force means you're not likely to have memorized a lot of them unless you know in advance you'll be fighting incorporeals or ethereals. Of course, if you're a War Mage, all bets are off.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It's probably not much of a factor. At 15th level the drastically lower damage and lack of a secondary effect for an orb of force means you're not likely to have memorized a lot of them unless you know in advance you'll be fighting incorporeals or ethereals. Of course, if you're a War Mage, all bets are off.



 That's true, or if you expect to fight enemies with fairly universal energy resistance.  You know, I forgot the secondary effects in all my analyses!  That makes the Orbs _even better_.


----------



## James McMurray

It would have to be energy resistance higher than 15 to make the difference in averages worth swapping out.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It would have to be energy resistance higher than 15 to make the difference in averages worth swapping out.



 This is true, and even higher than that with metamagic.  I just realised looking back on the numbers that the Orb-user is probably okay using a Cold Orb on that dragon unless the dragon somehow cooked up total immunity because the x1.5 is a whole lot more than the -30 for Resistance.  This (and switching Easy Metamagic from Quicken to Energy Admixture so that we get the discount on the big one instead of the small one) increases Connie's Orb damage to the Dragon to 407 Damage at level 15.  Yikes, that dragon is toast!


----------



## PallidPatience

Orbs can take metamagic better because of the aforementioned DC problems with lower-level evocation spell. Every metamagic applied to boost damage for those evocation spells reduces the chances of affecting the opponent by a decent percentage. Metamagicked evocation spells are rarely actually equal to the higher level spells they replace, but the orbs very well may be.


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> This is true, and even higher than that with metamagic.  I just realised looking back on the numbers that the Orb-user is probably okay using a Cold Orb on that dragon unless the dragon somehow cooked up total immunity because the x1.5 is a whole lot more than the -30 for Resistance.  This (and switching Easy Metamagic from Quicken to Energy Admixture so that we get the discount on the big one instead of the small one) increases Connie's Orb damage to the Dragon to 407 Damage at level 15.  Yikes, that dragon is toast!



 Ok, I've asked about your 'easy metamagic' feat you keep talking about, but you've yet to actually produce even a vague description of it.

Furthermore you're not giving 'Connie' two feats, but three as you need a metamagic feat to use it.


----------



## FireLance

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm willing to backtrack to the first example if you like, but since you quoted my "over 1/3" number, that means you were definitely looking at the second example, the one I kept saying I didn't want to do, where Evan picked up the two Spell Penetrations and I gave Connie two feats in exchange.



I read your "over 1/3" comment, and found your first post, but not the second. I've found the second now, so I'm good.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Ok, I've asked about your 'easy metamagic' feat you keep talking about, but you've yet to actually produce even a vague description of it.
> 
> Furthermore you're not giving 'Connie' two feats, but three as you need a metamagic feat to use it.



 Check Crystalkeep.  I've checked and the name is right.  It reduces metamagic cost by 1, minimum 1 for a particular feat.  As to your assertion of 3, nope.  Connie and Evan each have only the same metamagic feats as each other--I gave them to both and used them in both analyses.  Otherwise Evan does much less also.  The only differences between them are two Spell Penetrations for Connie's feats, as proposed by James McMurray.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Check Crystalkeep.




Dragon 325.

You're assuming a DM allows feats from Dragon magazine.

-Hyp.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Dragon 325.
> 
> You're assuming a DM allows feats from Dragon magazine.
> 
> -Hyp.



 It's weird--I could _swear_ I saw it in a game book also (it may have been taken from Dragon into a game book--they do that sometimes) because I didn't read that Dragon and yet somehow I knew the name and the ability of the feat exactly.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Okay, I checked--there's an identical feat to Easy Metamagic called Practical Metamagic, and it is in Races of the Dragon.  I must have forgotten the name and accidentally made up the name of another feat that does the same thing   If the GM allows them both, that could spell Quicken at a +1 price for the Thesised spell, but I won't assume that is the case.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Okay, I checked--there's an identical feat to Easy Metamagic called Practical Metamagic, and it is in Races of the Dragon.




Of course, you need to be Dragonblooded for Practical Metamagic.

-Hyp.


----------



## IcyCool

Doesn't the Arcane Thesis (Complete Mage?) feat do the same thing?


----------



## Notmousse

Using Dragon feats in your example (without documenting the source or requirements) weakens the position that orbs are broken.  Dragon feats can be found to make near anything problematic.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Using Dragon feats in your example (without documenting the source or requirements) weakens the position that orbs are broken.  Dragon feats can be found to make near anything problematic.



 Not really.  I thought I was using the RotD one that does the same thing.  I don't think I even read that Dragon.  Regardless, the feat is unnecessary--Arcane Thesis does all the heavy lifting.  Damage is not appreciably lowered by removing Easy Metamagic.


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Not really.  I thought I was using the RotD one that does the same thing.  I don't think I even read that Dragon.  Regardless, the feat is unnecessary--Arcane Thesis does all the heavy lifting.  Damage is not appreciably lowered by removing Easy Metamagic.



 You're also forgetting that you're not giving two feats to your example character, but three.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> You're also forgetting that you're not giving two feats to your example character, but three.



 No, I'm not.  Read the example again:  Connie and Evan are identical save for Arcane Thesis and Easy/Practical Metamagic vs Spell Penetration and Greater.  However, both of them have all the metamagic that a reasonable Evoker and Conjurer would have, thus balancing.


----------



## Nail

Why bother with feats at all?


----------



## Rystil Arden

Nail said:
			
		

> Why bother with feats at all?



 I didn't want to, actually.  I wanted to just assume feats were a wash, but James McMurray insisted, even after I posted this:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> The feats are not a good idea for comparison because then I can give the Conjurer two different feats (she has no need for them after all) that make her massively more powerful than the Evoker, and then we'd have to decide whether it was just because of feat choice (I've been down that road before). In reality, taking Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration in a game with Orbs is idiotic because you can save two feats (a massive savings, since Spell Penetration and its Greater cousin tend to be taken using high-level feat slots since they don't help much at low levels) for a BETTER benefit by just casting the Orbs instead.  With Orb average damage, if the rest of the party is doing anything, the dragon is dead by round 2 of attacks (and this includes the 15th-level Conjurer vs the vastly stronger Dragon, the Orbs are just that powerful). The damage is already around 25% of the dragon's total per round for the Conjurer only.




Which was replied with:



			
				James said:
			
		

> So it's not a good idea to give a character that requires the ability to penetrate spell resistance abilities which allow them to penetrate spell resistance before discussing their ability to penetrate spell resistance?




To which I replied:



> No, I'm saying that taking them leads the discussion to a place of comparing feat optimisation where it probably shouldn't go (because if I use those two feats for the Conjurer to make the Conjurer even stronger, you could then claim that it's only because of those two feats).




To which he said:



			
				James said:
			
		

> You're saying "let's compare situations" and then setting up a situation where a character that needs to penetrate SR to be effective hasn't done anything at all to enhance his ability to penetrate SR. If you want a fair comparison, you'll have to try something else, cuz that just son't work.




To which I said:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Except that I can give the Conjurer two feats in place of those that increase the Orb damage even more, as I've mentioned every previous time you made that point.




To which he said:



			
				James said:
			
		

> Then by all means do so.





So as you can see, I definitely was not super-eager to bring in these feats


----------



## KarinsDad

Nail said:
			
		

> Why bother with feats at all?




I think feats are important in balance discussions.

It is not just the raw damage that has to be considered, it is also how that damage can be boosted.

Maximimizing Fireball yields 30 or 60 points. Maximizing the Orbs yields 90 points (180 for a critical, 0 for a miss).


----------



## Rystil Arden

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I think feats are important in balance discussions.
> 
> It is not just the raw damage that has to be considered, it is also how that damage can be boosted.
> 
> Maximimizing Fireball yields 30 or 60 points. Maximizing the Orbs yields 90 points (180 for a critical, 0 for a miss).



 If we considered giving Evan and Connie both more feats, it is possible to build Connie up with just a few more feats so that she will not only kill the Dragon on Round 1, but, by virtue of Repeat Spell, will kill it again on Round 2, just in case it survived the first time through some sort of miracle.


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> No, I'm not.  Read the example again:  Connie and Evan are identical save for Arcane Thesis and Easy/Practical Metamagic vs Spell Penetration and Greater.  However, both of them have all the metamagic that a reasonable Evoker and Conjurer would have, thus balancing.



 These 'reasonable' metamagic feats aren't documented anywhere.  Like math class when trying to convince people it's 'show your work or it doesn't count'.

Aside from the math...  While dropping multiple metamagic spells in a round is a great way to nova, I find it a much less effective when going through multiple encounters a day.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> These 'reasonable' metamagic feats aren't documented anywhere.  Like math class when trying to convince people it's 'show your work or it doesn't count'.
> 
> Aside from the math...  While dropping multiple metamagic spells in a round is a great way to nova, I find it a much less effective when going through multiple encounters a day.



 Yes they are.  I just did a post sweep for why the feats came up.  Do I need to do a post sweep for the metamagic list now as well?


----------



## Sabathius42

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I think feats are important in balance discussions.
> 
> It is not just the raw damage that has to be considered, it is also how that damage can be boosted.
> 
> Maximimizing Fireball yields 30 or 60 points. Maximizing the Orbs yields 90 points (180 for a critical, 0 for a miss).





Maximized Empowered Scorching Ray (same level spell as maximized orb) yields 108 points (216 on criticals, 0 for misses).  Thus the orb spells are underdamaged compared to an SRD-only option.

Of course realistically you have to get 3 criticals instead of 1, and Fireball is a lower level spell than an Orb, so really what do these numbers prove?

DS


----------



## Rystil Arden

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> Maximized Empowered Scorching Ray (same level spell as maximized orb) yields 108 points (216 on criticals, 0 for misses).  Thus the orb spells are underdamaged compared to an SRD-only option.
> 
> Of course realistically you have to get 3 criticals instead of 1, and Fireball is a lower level spell than an Orb, so really what do these numbers prove?
> 
> DS



 Actually, Maximising Empowered Scorching Ray gives you 93.  Remember, Empower does not stack with maximise.  Of course, Maximise is much worse for its price than Empower, so I'm not surprised that Empowered Maximised Scorching Ray beats Maximised Orbs barely.  It doesn't matter--the rays allow SR.


----------



## PallidPatience

And the three (or so) rays will each suffer from energy resistance, thus granting an advantage for the single orb.


----------



## James McMurray

So change the target of choice from a Dragon to a Ghost Dragon of a younger age category (to maintain the same CR). Now the orb is utterly useless.

How about picking a creature to target that doesn't take 150% damage from the orb? LOL


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Do I need to do a post sweep for the metamagic list now as well?



 Yeah.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Ah, see I was hoping that you would go look for them rather than make me find them and post again, but here's a cut-and-paste job:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> We can say that any other feats will be taken by the other and thus cancel each other out (although I assumed both had all the metamagic they needed, so at least Energy Sub, Empower, Maximize, Quicken, Twin, and Energy Admixture (the last useful against Energy Resistance, since it doesn't shoot twice like Twin))




Really the Orb person doesn't need Energy Sub as much as the Evoker, since Orbs come in all sorts of delicious flavours, but I gave it to both anyway.


----------



## James McMurray

The evoker doesn't need it either if he's willing to spend a little time researching variant spells. Energy Substitution is only for the folks that are pressed for time, need a prereq, or lazy.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> So change the target of choice from a Dragon to a Ghost Dragon of a younger age category (to maintain the same CR). Now the orb is utterly useless.
> 
> How about picking a creature to target that doesn't take 150% damage from the orb? LOL



 And  Connie can shrug and use an Orb of Force, while Evan is stuck with that 50% incorporeal miss chance unless he uses a metamagicked Magic Missile (which has terrible damage potential).  Besides, Ghost Dragons are a whole lot rarer in published and homebrewed adventures I've seen than the regular variety.


----------



## Notmousse

James McMurray said:
			
		

> So change the target of choice from a Dragon to a Ghost Dragon of a younger age category (to maintain the same CR). Now the orb is utterly useless.
> 
> How about picking a creature to target that doesn't take 150% damage from the orb? LOL



 But then the examples wouldn't be horribly skewed in their favor!


----------



## James McMurray

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> And  Connie can shrug and use an Orb of Force, while Evan is stuck with that 50% incorporeal miss chance unless he uses a metamagicked Magic Missile (which has terrible damage potential).  Besides, Ghost Dragons are a whole lot rarer in published and homebrewed adventures I've seen than the regular variety.




Yeah, because it's not like he could research a Force version. 

If you're looking for rarity, why go for dragons? At most there's usually one in an adventure, whereas there's a lot more other types of creatures. And it could be a ghost anything. Actually, it could be an incorpioreal anything. I haven't done an exhaustive stufy, but I'm pretty sure incorporeal creatures outnumber dragons in published adventures.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> The evoker doesn't need it either if he's willing to spend a little time researching variant spells. Energy Substitution is only for the folks that are pressed for time, need a prereq, or lazy.



 Wh-huh!?  I'm perplexed.

I don't think that's a valid argument anywhere, least of all in the rules forum, right?  Once your GM starts letting you research variant spells (and they aren't cheap on the gold either, mind you) all bets are off.  That's like if someone said that protection spells like Shield don't give enough AC and you said that you can just research a spell that is higher level and gives more.  It's certainly true if your GM allows it, but you can prove _anything_ via spell research if your GM allows it, since the possibilities are infinite, right?


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Yeah, because it's not like he could research a Force version.
> 
> If you're looking for rarity, why go for dragons? At most there's usually one in an adventure, whereas there's a lot more other types of creatures. And it could be a ghost anything. Actually, it could be an incorpioreal anything. I haven't done an exhaustive stufy, but I'm pretty sure incorporeal creatures outnumber dragons in published adventures.



 See above post--you can prove anything with arbitrary researched spells.  It's a bit like Oberoni's Fallacy, except from the other side of the screen.


----------



## James McMurray

Sure, you could say that spell research lets too much in, but I'm not trying to add anything crazy, just change an elemntal descriptior. I think most GMs would allow that. If you want to discount it out of hand, by all means go ahead. But it's not like "dude, can I have an electrical fireball" is stretching the boundaries of infinite possibility.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> But then the examples wouldn't be horribly skewed in their favor!



 If Orbs ruin the game against enough monsters, it doesn't matter that they aren't too much better against others and suck against a few.  That's like saying that the following spell isn't unbalanced because it won't kill ghosts (or anything except orcs!):

Level 1 Spell: Power Word Orcbane
Range: Long
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V
Targets: All orcs in range
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: None

Effect: This spell destroys all targets.  This is not a death effect, they are just destroyed.  For the purposes of Orcbane, Gruumsh and other orc deities count as an orc, as do half-orcs due to the orc-blooded special ability.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Sure, you could say that spell research lets too much in, but I'm not trying to add anything crazy, just change an elemntal descriptior. I think most GMs would allow that. If you want to discount it out of hand, by all means go ahead. But it's not like "dude, can I have an electrical fireball" is stretching the boundaries of infinite possibility.



 I probably wouldn't allow it because Energy Substitution is already out there and it seems like a needless complication (I'd rather it be the same spell metamagicked for purposes of Spellcraft and Counterspelling also).  I *definitely* wouldn't allow it as force.


----------



## James McMurray

Cool. Most GMs I know would allow it because it's already balanced by being a feat, so you don't have to sweat over it. Instead of spending a feat you're spending money for an extremely limited use of the feat. Like I said though, feel free to dismiss it. It doesn't really change anything about picking a strong spell, giving the caster foreknowledge of his enemy's weaknesses, and then slapping that enemy (who coincidentally has an abyssal touch AC) with a spell specifically designed to fight that enemy. Energy Substitution works just as well for that sort of stacked setup.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Cool. Most GMs I know would allow it because it's already balanced by being a feat, so you don't have to sweat over it. Instead of spending a feat you're spending money for an extremely limited use of the feat. Like I said though, feel free to dismiss it. It doesn't really change anything about picking a strong spell, giving the caster foreknowledge of his enemy's weaknesses, and then slapping that enemy (who coincidentally has an abyssal touch AC) with a spell specifically designed to fight that enemy. Energy Substitution works just as well for that sort of stacked setup.



 My initial analysis gave both casters, Connie and Evan, an average attack in that they attacked with an energy type that the creature neither resisted nor was weak against, electricity, not cold.  Interestingly, Connie does so much damage that she is better off using cold despite Energy Resistance, though Evan is better using Electricity because his attacks are weaker than Connie's and likely to be saved against.  Also, if they both used Electricity and the dragon resisted Electricity, Connie would still be okay, but Evan would be completely ruined.

As to the touch AC, you did see the post where Karinsdad went through the entire SRD for you and calculated the touch ACs of every monster to show you what percent have different thresholds of touch AC, right?


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> And  Connie can shrug and use an Orb of Force, while Evan is stuck with that 50% incorporeal miss chance unless he uses a metamagicked Magic Missile (which has terrible damage potential).  Besides, Ghost Dragons are a whole lot rarer in published and homebrewed adventures I've seen than the regular variety.



 There's more force spells now than _Magic Missile_.

BTW metamagics further skew the numbers in your favor since the evoker is using his highest spell slot and thus *can not use* any of those neat metamagic feats.  Not only that but it's 6 feats for a 15th level wizard.  Did neither of them want to do anything aside from chuck magic?


----------



## James McMurray

I saw a few posts with numbers in them, but doubt the veracity of them. I avoided replying to those posts because I didn't want to say so, but since you brought it up I feel I have to.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> There's more force spells now than _Magic Missile_.
> 
> BTW metamagics further skew the numbers in your favor since the evoker is using his highest spell slot and thus *can not use* any of those neat metamagic feats.  Not only that but it's 6 feats for a 15th level wizard.  Did neither of them want to do anything aside from chuck magic?



 I tried the Evoker with Metamagics also in my very first example.  He does less if he uses metamagicked Cone of Cold, Fireball, Delayed Blast, etc, as I pointed out, because Meteor Swarm doesn't allow a Reflex save if it hits.



> Did neither of them want to do anything aside from chuck magic?




Well, they're Wizards, right?  That's what they do.  Evokers especially (and although Conjurers sometimes do other things, Connie is specifically created to be a wannabe Evoker blaster, though she is better than the actual Evoker thanks to Orbs)


----------



## James McMurray

Notmousse said:
			
		

> There's more force spells now than _Magic Missile_.
> 
> BTW metamagics further skew the numbers in your favor since the evoker is using his highest spell slot and thus *can not use* any of those neat metamagic feats.  Not only that but it's 6 feats for a 15th level wizard.  Did neither of them want to do anything aside from chuck magic?




A 15th level wizard has 10 feats available (6 from levels + 4 bonus feats from class). This assumes he never picks up a PrC of course.


----------



## hong

Notmousse said:
			
		

> BTW metamagics further skew the numbers in your favor since the evoker is using his highest spell slot and thus *can not use* any of those neat metamagic feats.  Not only that but it's 6 feats for a 15th level wizard.  Did neither of them want to do anything aside from chuck magic?




Well, that would be why Rystil said a long time ago, in a thread you apparently haven't fully read:



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying that taking them leads the discussion to a place of comparing feat optimisation where it probably shouldn't go (because if I use those two feats for the Conjurer to make the Conjurer even stronger, you could then claim that it's only because of those two feats).


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> If Orbs ruin the game against enough monsters, it doesn't matter that they aren't too much better against others and suck against a few.  That's like saying that the following spell isn't unbalanced because it won't kill ghosts (or anything except orcs!):
> 
> Level 1 Spell: Power Word Orcbane
> Range: Long
> Casting Time: 1 standard action
> Components: V
> Targets: All orcs in range
> Saving Throw: None
> Spell Resistance: None
> 
> Effect: This spell destroys all targets.  This is not a death effect, they are just destroyed.  For the purposes of Orcbane, Gruumsh and other orc deities count as an orc, as do half-orcs due to the orc-blooded special ability.



 Love the hyperbole, keep it up!

If you want to weaken you case with these absurd instances in any case.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I saw a few posts with numbers in them, but doubt the veracity of them. I avoided replying to those posts because I didn't want to say so, but since you brought it up I feel I have to.



 Now we really are going in circles--you already brought up this point 4 pages ago:



			
				James said:
			
		

> I ignored it because there was no math, just numbers. Tossing out floats doesn't impress me without also explaining where they came from.




and Plane Sailing replied to you:



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> What additional explanation are you looking for? The fact that average damage on a d6 is 3.5, so an attack that does 8d6 damage will produce 28 damage on average? The %age chance that the 20th level caster will overcome the great wyrms spell resistance? That is where the basic maths behind Rystil's illustration comes from.
> 
> Which bit of their derivation is obscure?




EDIT: Thanks hong   It's frustrating to keep making the same points I already made


----------



## Kmart Kommando

So, how is comparing an Orb to a Fireball proving anything?  If the wizard is throwing down fireballs at a single target, then they are nerfing themselves.


> Maximimizing Fireball yields 30 or 60 points. Maximizing the Orbs yields 90 points (180 for a critical, 0 for a miss).



I wouldn't toss a fireball at less than 3 targets, so the numbers jump to 90-180 for your Maximized Fireball.

A regular Orb spell does avg 52.5 dmg, while a Sculpted Fireball (Same 4th level slot) hitting 5 targets (reasonable, since 4 10ft cubes covers plenty of ground) does 175, with saves for half, or 87.5 with all targets saving.  

Winner: Fireball

If one of the targets evades the fireball, then you pop him with an Orb.

With Orb spells, you pretty much need Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, or you'll miss too often. 

I'd much rather have Whirling Blade than an Orb Spell, but then, I like to mix it up and melee sometimes.
here's one to tear down: Sculpted Whirling Blade


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Love the hyperbole, keep it up!
> 
> If you want to weaken you case with these absurd instances in any case.



 Actually, it was intentionally absurd.  What I just did there is a logically valid argument.  Check here: reductio ad absurdum

In this case, you made the following logical statement:

Okay, I admit that it murders all dragons and similar low touch AC high SR monsters.  But that's a special case you chose.  There are some things that it is terrible against, like ghosts.  So it is balanced.

So I used reductio ad absurdum--your argument is that as long as something doesn't work against some enemies, it is balanced, so that should apply in the extreme (I was nice--I could have made it kill everything _except_ orcs, but I made it even more specialised than orbs--Orcbane works against a small minority of things, but it ruins the game if those are your opponents).  

Your argument doesn't stand up in the extreme case, as you then admitted.

(If you didn't click the link, the most familiar case of reductio ad absurdum is:

Father- Why did you start smoking? 
Daughter - All my friends were doing it. 
Father- You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too? )


----------



## Notmousse

If memory serves metamagics were in his first examples.  In either case it's the same story with any uber ___ build when you over specialize you breed in weakness.


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> In this case, you made the following logical statement:
> 
> Okay, I admit that it murders all dragons and similar low touch AC high SR monsters.  But that's a special case you chose.  There are some things that it is terrible against, like ghosts.  So it is balanced.



 Problem being that I never admitted it murdered dragons at all.

Furthermore with wizard Init you're not even close to guaranteed to go first against the dragon.  Even a surprise round in the dragon's favor (not to mention a full round's worth of actions by a dragon) kills your orb chucker just as easily as anyone else trying something what was it, 9 CR over your level wasn't it?

No matter what false logic is applied the simplicity is that orbs are single target kills, many (and I wouldn't be surprised were it most) evokations are designed for multiple targets, hence a smaller damage cap.

If you don't want to admit you're skewing these scenarios in your favor be my guest, but it doesn't fool me.


----------



## James McMurray

Yes, I've shown a predisposition to ignore numbers people toss out with no backup to them. It's one of the reasons I chose to not reply to the supposed averages of the MM. If you throw more numbers out later without any backing to them, I'll happily ignore those as well. It comes from having been on the internet for along time: I'm convinced that everyone is a fat and old FBI agent posing as a knowledgable gamer, making up numbers to lure me into believing their pet thories. Or something like that.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Problem being that I never admitted it murdered dragons at all.
> 
> Furthermore with wizard Init you're not even close to guaranteed to go first against the dragon.  Even a surprise round in the dragon's favor (not to mention a full round's worth of actions by a dragon) kills your orb chucker just as easily as anyone else trying something what was it, 9 CR over your level wasn't it?
> 
> No matter what false logic is applied the simplicity is that orbs are single target kills, many (and I wouldn't be surprised were it most) evokations are designed for multiple targets, hence a smaller damage cap.
> 
> If you don't want to admit you're skewing these scenarios in your favor be my guest, but it doesn't fool me.



 Huh?



> Problem being that I never admitted it murdered dragons at all.




Okay then, how can you say that with the analysis in front of you?  I thought that's why you said the dragon analysis was unfair--because you saw that the Conjurer destroyed the dragon.  If not, then why not talk about the dragon?



> Furthermore with wizard Init you're not even close to guaranteed to go first against the dragon. Even a surprise round in the dragon's favor (not to mention a full round's worth of actions by a dragon) kills your orb chucker just as easily as anyone else trying something what was it, 9 CR over your level wasn't it?




Surprise rounds could go to either side.  It's only fair to nullify that possibility and just roll Init for both of them.  Wizards like their Dex, particularly Orb Wizards.  Even most 25 PB Wizard builds have 14 Dex when they aren't Orb chuckers, and increased to 20 with a +6 item.  The dragon thus has exactly a 26.25% chance to go first.  On an average fight, Connie goes first.



> No matter what false logic is applied




Are you saying that I'm lying to you or that standard logic is false?  If the first, I take offense.  If the second, that's kind of silly.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Yes, I've shown a predisposition to ignore numbers people toss out with no backup to them. It's one of the reasons I chose to not reply to the supposed averages of the MM. If you throw more numbers out later without any backing to them, I'll happily ignore those as well. It comes from having been on the internet for along time: I'm convinced that everyone is a fat and old FBI agent posing as a knowledgable gamer, making up numbers to lure me into believing their pet thories. Or something like that.



 Check any of the numbers.  I stand behind them fully unless I made a calculation error, which should be relatively rare because I double-checked most of them when I had to go back and find them again.  If you won't either put the effort to check the basic math or just admit that nobody's trying to con you, what's the point?  How about this--are you willing to concede that the Orbs are overpowered because they cut through SR assuming I can make those numbers absolutely crystal in painstaking detail?  I'm thinking that if you agree to that, it might actually save time.  Please feel free to look at the numbers before you decide, and I'm willing to take the time to back up any of them so you don't have to, if and only if you agree.  I think that's fair--basically you'd just be saying: "If your numbers are correct, I agree with you, but I'm not sure they're correct.  Show me exactly how this works".


----------



## James McMurray

I thought I'd already explained my stance on the orbs? I thought we were just talking now. Did you not read my posts earlier? My opinion hasn't changed. To save you the hassle of digging it up: no, I do not think that the orbs are overpowered because they ignore SR. I do no think they're overpowered at all. I think they're strong spells, and extremely useful in fights with only one or two foes, less useful with 3 foes, a wash or worse against 4, and inefficient to the point of near uselessness with any larger group.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I thought I'd already explained my stance on the orbs? I thought we were just talking now. Did you not read my posts earlier? My opinion hasn't changed. To save you the hassle of digging it up: no, I do not think that the orbs are overpowered because they ignore SR. I do no think they're overpowered at all. I think they're strong spells, and extremely useful in fights with only one or two foes, less useful with 3 foes, a wash or worse against 4, and inefficient to the point of near uselessness with any larger group.



 That's what I figured--a guy can hope though, right? 

Yeah, no worries if you won't agree to that, but you can see why it seems a bit one-sided of you to have me do the math and then refuse to check it and demand proof, right?  If you don't trust the numbers, you probably won't trust my proof much either--the best way to do it is to do the numbers yourself.  I'll even help out with the hardest part: since Empower and Maximise don't stack, the weirdest bit of math is calculating the average on a Maximised Empowered Orb (everything else stacks once you have those two, though).  That number is 116.25 (90 for the Maximised, 26.25 for the Empower).  You can easily use that to derive everything else (Twin/Energy Admixture that?  Just double it.  Throw a Quickened version of that?  Sure, just add it again.  Note that the damage on Maximise alone is 90 and Empower alone is 78.75.  You'll need that if you do the one with Easy Metamagic on the Energy Admixture instead of the Quicken, since then the Quickened spell is only Empowered and the non-Quickened is Admixtured and Maximised, thus getting up that 258.75 I mentioned).


----------



## James McMurray

You expect me to check your math for you? I'm not your professor. And besides, you later came back and gave numbers, so I'm cool with your math. I just don't think that it makes the spells broken. Strong yes; overpowered? No. There's just too many situations (IMX, YMMV) where packing a single target damage dealing spell is a bad choice.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> You expect me to check your math for you? I'm not your professor. And besides, you later came back and gave numbers, so I'm cool with your math. I just don't think that it makes the spells broken. Strong yes; overpowered? No. There's just too many situations (IMX, YMMV) where packing a single target damage dealing spell is a bad choice.



 This isn't a math class, though.  If I say: "I'm using X, which does Y average damage" it isn't hard to check if you think the number is way off.

And if you don't think Connie is insane against the Dragon, that's fine.  The Orbs will be fine in your actual game if those numbers look okay to you, I guarantee it.  When it comes to my game, I think the numbers I have here are horrible and make the game less fun if they should ever occur.  

However, as far as I know, your current argument is the only valid one that exists for claiming the Orbs are balanced without SR--that is "I understand that this spell does massive damage on average, allowing two characters to end a BBEG that is CR = character level + 9 (and one character can do this if optimised more), but since it's single target, this isn't overpowered in my game."  I respect that argument, and it is perfectly valid.  What an onlooker who is unsure about Orb balance needs to do, then, is decide if her game is more like yours or mine, and that will help her decide what to do about Orbs.


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> You expect me to check your math for you?



You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

If you "don't believe the numbers", then it's your job to prove them wrong.  If you don't prove them wrong, then you have conceeded the point.

It's really quite simple.




I'm amazed, frankly, that Rystil Arden has had the patience and grace to stay in this thread and post politely, and continue bat down the same ole bad arguments.  Good job, bud.


----------



## James McMurray

So do someone's work for them or accede the point? Interesting idea.

The average touch AC of all creatures in the MM2, MM3, MM4, FF, Creature Catalogs 1&2, tome of Horrors, and Dungeon Magazine special features combined is 49.95. Orbs blow against anything noncore. 

I'm assuming you'll be conceding the point that orbs should probably be powered up a bit just to make them worthwhile in a game where so many creatures are so hard to hit with them?


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Huh?




I don't believe your numbers.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Okay then, how can you say that with the analysis in front of you?  I thought that's why you said the dragon analysis was unfair--because you saw that the Conjurer destroyed the dragon.




Because it was blatently one sided.  Single target, low touch AC (as it was appearently surprised or too stupid to have scintilating scales ready), non-resistant to damage, high saves, still a single target (this point is big enough to list twice).



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Surprise rounds could go to either side.  It's only fair to nullify that possibility and just roll Init for both of them.




I have a problem swallowing that a couple of blaster build mages are going to get the drop on a creature with 40+ listen and spot ranks (white dragon, the weakest dragon, CR 21 IIRC).



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Are you saying that I'm lying to you or that standard logic is false?




I feel your logic is false (or flawed if you prefer), so please feel silly and offended if you like.


----------



## hong

James McMurray said:
			
		

> So do someone's work for them or accede the point? Interesting idea.




Ah. This must be a new meaning of "do someone's work for them" that I wasn't previously aware of.


----------



## hong

Notmousse said:
			
		

> I don't believe your numbers.




See, not believing numbers is a privilege to be earned.



> Because it was blatently one sided.  Single target, low touch AC (as it was appearently surprised or too stupid to have scintilating scales ready), non-resistant to damage, high saves, still a single target (this point is big enough to list twice).




The bulk of high-level encounters involve only a few opponents, rather than an army (and indeed, sometimes just the one). In this case, taking out one opponent is weakening them by a significant margin.



> I have a problem swallowing that a couple of blaster build mages are going to get the drop on a creature with 40+ listen and spot ranks (white dragon, the weakest dragon, CR 21 IIRC).




D00d, stop it. So what if the dragon gets init. Are you suggesting that it's going to do enough to take out the mages, plus their party members, in one round? Because that's all that's required; for the mage to get one attack off. Are you suggesting that all the opponents in your game are powerful enough to regularly TPK the party in one round?


----------



## Land Outcast

See when you open a door and just say "Yeesh! I *DON'T* want to get in there!"?
Well, this thread has turned exactly into that.

Don't take it as an insult, it's just an observation.


EDIT: But if you feel insulted, I assume it is because you do recognize you have earned the right to be insulted.


----------



## Notmousse

Nail said:
			
		

> If you don't prove them wrong, then you have conceeded the point.
> 
> It's really quite simple.




What?!  Hold up, so the default is a widgit is broken unless it's proved not to be broken?  I just don't buy that.


----------



## Land Outcast

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't prove them wrong, then you have conceeded the point.
> 
> It's really quite simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?! Hold up, so the default is a widgit is broken unless it's proved not to be broken? I just don't buy that.
Click to expand...



No man, it's the other way around:
Unless you show your reasons for stating something is wrong, then you are admitting it is right (or implying your reasons aren't good enough, which is quite similar).


----------



## PallidPatience

It's more along the lines of this:

If a dragon is attacking your town and you do nothing to stop it, it will destroy the town.

Rystil Arden is the dragon. Your position is your town. His examples, numbers, and arguments are his fiery-breath, talons, and claws. If you don't offer a defense for your town against his fiery-breath, talons, and claws, your town will fall. 

Or, put another way, where's your counterargument? Where's your proof that his numbers are wrong? If you just don't believe them (even after he's explained how he got them), state why.


----------



## Notmousse

hong said:
			
		

> The bulk of high-level encounters involve only a few opponents, rather than an army (and indeed, sometimes just the one).




In your campaign, possibly in many campaigns, but not in all campaigns to be sure.  I know I prefer larger numbers of opponents as it keeps people from the whole bumrush the big guy and supernova attitudes.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> D00d, stop it. So what if the dragon gets init.




Then said dragon does 42 points of damage (still white dragon here, weakest of the true dragons) and the 39 hp mages both drop.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that it's going to do enough to take out the mages, plus their party members, in one round?




They have additional party members now?  I didn't get the memo.  I could have sworn the idea was that these two guys (mostly the conjurer, because it's broken) were going to bring down the dragon 9 CR above their level (which I don't recall being specified) all on their own because the orbs were broken.


----------



## Felix

James McMurray said:
			
		

> You expect me to check your math for you?



But if you don't believe them, don't you ground your basis of disbelief in that you have already checked the numbers?

Or do you disbelieve Rystal Arden's numbers on other grounds?

RA argues (very well) that the orbs are overpowered because they do X damage in Y situations, while evocations only manage Z damage in the same situations. Then he provides numbers.

Do you argue against the numbers he provides (as Notmousse seems to be doing), or do you argue against the hypothesis behind the numbers (If the numbers show greater damage for orbs than evocations in listed situations, then orbs are overpowered)?

Because if it's the second, then there's no need to argue if he's done his arithmetic correctly.


----------



## Felix

Notmousse said:
			
		

> They have additional party members now?  I didn't get the memo.



_Psst_: the dragon conversation has always had a party, at least as far back as page 5.



			
				post 191 said:
			
		

> With Orb average damage, if *the rest of the party* is doing anything, the dragon is dead by round 2 of attacks (and this includes the 15th-level Conjurer vs the vastly stronger Dragon, the Orbs are just that powerful). The damage is already around 25% of the dragon's total per round for the Conjurer only.



So check your memo in-box. There may be some other neat little tidbits of information floating around in this thread you may have overlooked.

Good thing this messageboard doesn't have TPS reports.


----------



## Notmousse

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> It's more along the lines of this:




And why is it like this?  Is it because his position is more active in voicing their opinion, or the OP doesn't understand why the spells bypass SR, or what?



			
				PallidPatience said:
			
		

> If you don't offer a defense for your town against his fiery-breath, talons, and claws, your town will fall.




How am I suppose to come up with a counter to something not shown?  He's never shown all his work (or if he has never all in one place).  The number of things I don't have information on about this scenario are legion, from the kind of dragon, the age of the casters, the age of the dragon, the race of the casters, a complete list of feats if human, other spells known, distance from dragon, awareness of dragon, awareness of casters, if others are on the caster's side, if the dragon has the full allotment of feats (a single selection of Improved Toughness gives even the White dragon 36 additional HP).



			
				PallidPatience said:
			
		

> Or, put another way, where's your counterargument? Where's your proof that his numbers are wrong?




Where's his proof his numbers are right?  Where's his proof anything he's come up with is correct?  I've already found that one of the feats he used was either misremembered from a book that wouldn't apply to the casters, or from Dragon magazine which is notorious for being overpowered in the cirlces I've been in.  What is there to say there's not other mistakes in his numbers which I don't have sufficient data to recheck his numbers?


----------



## Seeten

Its like that because he has provided proof, while you have only provided obfuscation, which I have to assume is because you are, for some reason, afraid of the consequences if a Conjurer isnt a better nuker than an Evoker.


----------



## Notmousse

Felix said:
			
		

> _Psst_: the dragon conversation has always had a party, at least as far back as page 5.



 Who are the rest of the party?  When did 'always' mean four pages into the thread?  Why are they in an example about the sheer brokeness of a series of spells?  Why is a throw away line in one post suddenly canon, but a whole post about ways to change the scenario is disregarded?

On second thought, I won't ask what you mean by report.


----------



## Felix

Notmousse said:
			
		

> How am I suppose to come up with a counter to something not shown? He's never shown all his work (or if he has never all in one place). The number of things I don't have information on about this scenario are legion...



By doing this you reject the general argument.

In post 343 you reject a specific argument presented, though you don't say exactly what specifics you are unhappy with.

How is it that you can be satisfied with an argument? Is there something that you are looking for, that we* may show you, that would convince you? Or have you decided to not be convinced? In which case, in an argument with someone that has decided to do so, there is no point even in arguing that the world is round.

If blind conviction withstands verifiable truth, what chance do we have when the truth is more subjective, as it is in this situation?

So, are there numbers that may exist that would compel you, or are you convinced of their helplessness to sway you?

---

*And by "we", I mean "Rystil Arden".


----------



## Felix

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Who are the rest of the party?  Why are they in an example about the sheer brokeness of a series of spells?  Why is a throw away line in one post suddenly canon, but a whole post about ways to change the scenario is disregarded?



It shows that the assumption of a party has been part of the scenario for a long, long time that you have been unaware of.



> On second thought, I won't ask what you mean by report.



It was a reference to memos, not having seen them, and being reminded that you missed them over and over again.


----------



## KarinsDad

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> Maximized Empowered Scorching Ray (same level spell as maximized orb) yields 108 points (216 on criticals, 0 for misses).  Thus the orb spells are underdamaged compared to an SRD-only option.




If one were only to look at damage and your math were correct, your point would be well taken. The metamagicked Scorching Ray does do 3 more average damage than the metamagicked Orb with no other factors considered (93 versus 90).

However, these are 8th level spells.

By the time the casters are throwing 8th level spells, there are more defenses against the Scorching Ray which do not affect the Orbs as greatly. For example:

Energy Resistance 5: Scorching Ray 78, Orb 85
Energy Resistance 10: Scorching Ray 63, Orb 80
Energy Resistance 15: Scorching Ray 48, Orb 75
Energy Resistance 20: Scorching Ray 33, Orb 70
Energy Resistance 30: Scorching Ray 3, Orb 60

Also note that Fire Resistance is found on more creatures in the Monster Manual than any other type of resistance. One could research different Energy type Scorching Rays, but as a rule of thumb, those are typically not available in many campaigns.

Also, Spell Resistance. The Orb blows through SR completely. Scorching Ray does not.

Plus, the Orb still has the save for a secondary effect.

Scorching Ray can be stopped by both versions of Globe of Invulnerability whereas the Orb can only be stopped by the 6th level version (presumably).


Overall, these particular metamagic versions of Scorching Ray and Orb still have an edge of Orb over Scorching Ray. In an average campaign, the metamagicked Orb will average a lot more damage at 17th+ level in the long run.


----------



## Notmousse

In short, if we're to even use this scenario (which I've already poked a hole in with the nonexistant feat, and is heavily biased towards the orb user), I want all the details to look over.

At the very least how a party of X many people can reliably manage to sneak all of themselves into a dragon's lair (where they are most of the time), not be caught by surprise (Remember, even a white dragon has 40 spot and listen as a great wyrm).

I half expect someone to repeatedly tell me 'you want answers' as I say 'I want the truth'.


----------



## Land Outcast

Note: CRs are thought with direct face-to-face encounters in mind.


----------



## Twowolves

Last time I checked, almost all the dragons regardless of age or color, had a Dex of 10. That's an Init of +0, or +4 if they have Imp Init. Are you seriously saying that A) a conjurer with a Dex of 14 won't win initiative more often than not or B) said conjurer won't have ANY defensive spells up (like, say RESIST (dragon's breath weapon-flavored) ELEMENTS? 

You don't need to know what bonus feat a human conjurer took, what his zodiac sign is, or if he likes chocolate over vanilla to understand RA's point. You appear to be intentionally obtuse, refusing to counter numbers with numbers, instead deflecting and obfuscating for no other reason than that you don't have a good counter arguement. "I don't believe the numbers" doesn't cut it when your final word is "I just don't, that's why".


----------



## hong

Notmousse said:
			
		

> In short, if we're to even use this scenario (which I've already poked a hole in with the nonexistant feat, and is heavily biased towards the orb user), I want all the details to look over.




Prove that the details are relevant.



> At the very least how a party of X many people can reliably manage to sneak all of themselves into a dragon's lair (where they are most of the time), not be caught by surprise (Remember, even a white dragon has 40 spot and listen as a great wyrm).




Prove that this is relevant.



> I half expect someone to repeatedly tell me 'you want answers' as I say 'I want the truth'.




No, no. The truth is out there.


----------



## Twowolves

Notmousse said:
			
		

> At the very least how a party of X many people can reliably manage to sneak all of themselves into a dragon's lair (where they are most of the time), not be caught by surprise (Remember, even a white dragon has 40 spot and listen as a great wyrm).




Gee, I dunno, maybe Silence and Invisibility? Teleport? Etherealness? Walk right up and knock?


----------



## Notmousse

Seeten said:
			
		

> Its like that because he has provided proof, while you have only provided obfuscation, which I have to assume is because you are, for some reason, afraid of the consequences if a Conjurer isnt a better nuker than an Evoker.



 What?  Ok, I'm rooting for orbs to not be broken because I secretly think that if they're 'proven' not to be broken on an internet forum that I profit?  I hate to tell you but as far as I know there's not even a single person I game with on this forum, much less any gamer that has influence on what goes on IMC.

And I still don't see his work shown.  Oh sure I see that he picked some feats, that his characters *could* have such and such items, and stats, but not the concrete whole.

If you have his entire proof please provide to me the following information:

What kind of dragon is this
Who are the other members of the party (with complete stats)
What form of chargen is being used (how are stats generated, are we using any varient rules, is unearthed arcana/arcana unearthed involved)
What sources are allowed (dragon, quintessential dandelion eater, various d20 stuff?)
Is the dragon sleeping
Is any of the dragon's treasure useful to the either side (I'd ask if treasure were there, but since there's adventurers involved I think it's safe to assume)
Is the dragon's treasure easily accessable to either side.

If you're able to answer these questions I would like links to the posts where the answers are obtained.


----------



## Notmousse

Land Outcast said:
			
		

> Note: CRs are thought with direct face-to-face encounters in mind.



 But is that how they're always, or even normally encountered?


----------



## hong

Notmousse said:
			
		

> What?  Ok, I'm rooting for orbs to not be broken because I secretly think that if they're 'proven' not to be broken on an internet forum that I profit?  I hate to tell you but as far as I know there's not even a single person I game with on this forum, much less any gamer that has influence on what goes on IMC.




Well, I guess we might as well start posting pictures of dinosaurs.



> Is the dragon sleeping




. . .



> Is any of the dragon's treasure useful to the either side (I'd ask if treasure were there, but since there's adventurers involved I think it's safe to assume)
> Is the dragon's treasure easily accessable to either side.




A dragon's CR is a dragon's CR regardless of whether it has 1 copper piece, a vorpal stick or all the treasure of the City of Brass.


----------



## hong

Notmousse said:
			
		

> But is that how they're always, or even normally encountered?



 Prove that this is not how they're normally encountered.


----------



## Notmousse

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, almost all the dragons regardless of age or color, had a Dex of 10. That's an Init of +0, or +4 if they have Imp Init. Are you seriously saying that A) a conjurer with a Dex of 14 won't win initiative more often than not or B) said conjurer won't have ANY defensive spells up (like, say RESIST (dragon's breath weapon-flavored) ELEMENTS?




A Great Wyrm White Dragon has 13 feats to blow, casts as a sorcerer.  Within 4 of those feats I could give him a +8 init (using LG open material).  With but a fraction of his treasure a 21 Dex (that's another +5 init).  With the other 9 feats he can take metabreath feats to cheese that out too.

'You don't need to know what bonus feat a human conjurer took'

But I do need to know the character's race, because that is now too a part of the equation.  I'm sure in most of the games you're played in or GMed that showing a partial character sheet isn't going to cut it for long.


----------



## Notmousse

hong said:
			
		

> Prove that the details are relevant.




You're kidding right?  Math without details is meaningless!  If I said D=MC^2 with nothing else how is anyone to know I wasn't making a typo and meant something completely different?



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Prove that this is relevant.




If the dragon gets a surprise round (or just initiative) all the orbs in the world aren't going to help dead mages.


----------



## Deset Gled

Notmousse said:
			
		

> What?  Ok, I'm rooting for orbs to not be broken because I secretly think that if they're 'proven' not to be broken on an internet forum that I profit?




Step 1: Control the minds of all peoples on the internets.

Step 2:  ???

Step 3: Profit.

Care to enlighten the rest of us as to what step 2 is?


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> If the dragon gets a surprise round (or just initiative) all the orbs in the world aren't going to help dead mages.




Hong's point is that you're throwing in obfuscation that makes the entire exercise pointless.  Remember my Orcslayer spell?  If there was another version of that which was also level 1 and worked only on dragons, automatically destroying them with no defenses, it would be overpowered, right?  But I can make the argument "The dragon will win surprise and kill them before they can go, so Dragonslayer spell is balanced" and this is a direct parallel to your argument.  Arguing that an enemy with surprise can kill someone before they use Option X is irrelevant to arguing that Option X is not overpowered.


----------



## Twowolves

Notmousse said:
			
		

> If you have his entire proof please provide to me the following information:
> 
> What kind of dragon is this




Irrelevant.




> Who are the other members of the party (with complete stats)




What, you want an entire, completely stated out party before you will accept ANY evidence contrary to your unsupported opinion? Complete stats are unnecessary and you know it. What a joke.




> What form of chargen is being used (how are stats generated, are we using any varient rules, is unearthed arcana/arcana unearthed involved)




Irrelevant.




> What sources are allowed (dragon, quintessential dandelion eater, various d20 stuff?)




Irrelevant. Any cheese you can pull out of a 3rd party book to support your non-arguement can be matched by another equally cheesy 3rd party book. It's a wash, a dodge, and you know it. 




> Is the dragon sleeping




What, do you want to know it's "% chance in lair" as well? 




> Is any of the dragon's treasure useful to the either side (I'd ask if treasure were there, but since there's adventurers involved I think it's safe to assume)




Irrelevant. The debate is over the effectiveness of the orb spells at killing single big opponents, not what kind of candy the PCs get at Halloween.




> Is the dragon's treasure easily accessable to either side.




Irrelevant. It's safe to assume that both sides have equipment appropriate for their level/CR.




> If you're able to answer these questions I would like links to the posts where the answers are obtained.




Evidence of these types weren't presented, because they were... say it with me now... IRRELEVANT. Once again, you've defended your position with a series of non-answers.


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It's one of the reasons I chose to not reply to the supposed averages of the MM. If you throw more numbers out later without any backing to them, I'll happily ignore those as well.




Another troll born every minute.

Instead of writing words like "supposed", maybe you too could actually do some *real* research. It is only "supposed" if you research it and find it in error. In fact, anyone here on the boards can do the research if they doubt the numbers.

I'll give you a hint. With the Search button, you too can find out that there are ~529 touch ACs listed in the SRD and ~36 with touch AC 15 or higher. In other words, 93+% with touch AC 14 or lower. You can also do the same to find out the average touch AC. Even if I made a slight mistake and my numbers are off a little, it is a lot more accurate data than what you have posted on this topic.


PS. Rystal, you'll never convince these people. If the math does not convince them, no other argument will. They argue just to argue, regardless of the facts. And they won't actually do any real work themselves to counter your position.


----------



## Rystil Arden

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Another troll born every minute.
> 
> Instead of writing words like "supposed", maybe you too could actually do some *real* research. It is only "supposed" if you research it and find it in error. In fact, anyone here on the boards can do the research if they doubt the numbers.
> 
> I'll give you a hint. With the Search button, you too can find out that there are ~529 touch ACs listed in the SRD and ~36 with touch AC 15 or higher. In other words, 93+% with touch AC 14 or lower. You can also do the same to find out the average touch AC. Even if I made a slight mistake and my numbers are off a little, it is a lot more accurate data than what you have posted on this topic.
> 
> 
> PS. Rystal, you'll never convince these people. If the math does not convince them, no other argument will. They argue just to argue, regardless of the facts. And they won't actually do any real work themselves to counter your position.



 Actually, I think James McMurray has accepted the math now--he's agreeing with my math but disagreeing that the fact that the Orbs are an instakill for a level-appropriate BBEG is a problem, which may be true to his game.  That's an argument I can respect when it applies to his games, though it doesn't work for me for making a universal decision about the orbs.


----------



## Notmousse

hong said:
			
		

> Prove that this is not how they're normally encountered.



 Prove this is how they are always encountered.


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Hong's point is that you're throwing in obfuscation that makes the entire exercise pointless.




I believe part of your point was that they were going up against dragons 9 CR above them and *winning*.  Any idiot that can find a dragon can attempt to fight it even if they're not a mage.  Or is it just that they can do gobs of damage when the stars are aligned and that's just not kosher?



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Remember my Orcslayer spell?




Are you seriously going to bring this up again?  Aside from the fact that godslaying isn't the grounds of pre-epic magic it's just silly and reduces my opinion for you.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Arguing that an enemy with surprise can kill someone before they use Option X is irrelevant to arguing that Option X is not overpowered.




Are you or are you not arguing that orbs are so broken because they can be used to slay things 9 CR above them?  If that is even tangentally a part of your arguement then the fact that a dragon not even tricked out has a decent chance of one shotting your mages is relevant.


----------



## Rystil Arden

> Are you seriously going to bring this up again? Aside from the fact that godslaying isn't the grounds of pre-epic magic it's just silly and reduces my opinion for you.




Yes, I'm bringing it up again as an analogy.  And yes, it's very silly.  It's supposed to be silly.  That's the point of reductio ad absurdum.  The point is, this is a spell we can all agree is overpowered, right?  And yet your argument would defend it _exactly_ the same as it would defend Orbs.  This proves that your argument in defense of Orbs is invalid unless you also accept that the same argument defends my new silly Dragonslayer spell.

I'll take it into logical terms with a translation below:

A) You said "Dragon can kill Mage before she does X, thus X is not overpowered"

B) I said: Okay, here's Y.  You agree that Y is overpowered, yes?  You agreed that Y was overpowered.

C) I said "By argument (A) Dragon can kill Mage before she does Y, thus Y is not overpowered" by your argument.

This is a contradiction in the definition.  The only possibility is that Y is not overpowered or that argument (A) is invalid.

(X is Orbs, Y is Dragonslayer)


----------



## KarinsDad

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> (X is Orbs, Y is Dragonslayer)




As Spock would say: "Using logic to try to convince people who ignore the math is not logical". 

You're playing in a different sandbox.


----------



## Notmousse

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Irrelevant.




What you're fighting in a scenario isn't relevant?  I doubt I could say that to my GMs.  "Y'know chief, it doesn't matter what we're fighting here, because y'see I got this spell the ENWorlders tell me makes what I'm fighting irrelevant because it's so broken.  Please give me the treasure and XP now."



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> What, you want an entire, completely stated out party before you will accept ANY evidence contrary to your unsupported opinion?




If it's in the scenario I want it's stats.  If you can't provide them then fine.



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> Irrelevant.




Quite the opposite since it's what determines if the mages are even allowed a 14 Dex.



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> Any cheese you can pull out of a 3rd party book to support your non-arguement can be matched by another equally cheesy 3rd party book.




I've not used any sources from a third party book yet, but, he's already used a feat from Dragon (or typed the wrong name which coincidentally happened to be a feat from dragon).



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> What, do you want to know it's "% chance in lair" as well?




No, I wanted to know if it's sleeping.



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> The debate is over the effectiveness of the orb spells at killing single big opponents, not what kind of candy the PCs get at Halloween.




The treasure can be of immense importance.  If it were all treasure of gold the dragon could have melted it into fortifications, or create a lake of molten gold over the heads of the PCs.



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> It's safe to assume that both sides have equipment appropriate for their level/CR.




A dragon with equipment equal to it's CR...  That dragon would have more bling than the entire east coast rapper's ball.



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> Once again, you've defended your position with a series of non-answers.




I simply don't see it that way.  Since this was the scenario pushed by the anti-orb position I wish to see the entirety of it before deciding if it's a broken spell when used in such biased situations.


----------



## Notmousse

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> As Spock would say: "Using logic to try to convince people who ignore the math is not logical".
> 
> You're playing in a different sandbox.



 Would you please not mock me?  I'm trying to get somewhere with this.

Actually I'm trying to get an MP3 player to work right, but I'm here anyway.


----------



## Rystil Arden

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> As Spock would say: "Using logic to try to convince people who ignore the math is not logical".
> 
> You're playing in a different sandbox.



I guess our difference (perhaps I'm being naive, but I like to think well of people), is that I always assume that everyone is a rational and intelligent person who just happens to disagree with me:  

For instance, Mistwell thinks that Wraithstrike is a perfectly fine spell.  He is a rational and intelligent person who happens to disagree with me.  He generally hedged around the math and pointed to everything other than Wraithstrike as the offender (which is what led me to add a caveat before adding the different feats in this thread), but he clearly understood all sides of the argument, and he made logical statements and generally never tried to defend with an argument from ignorance or a statement that would negate anything.  In the end, it turned out that his game worked fine with massive Wraithstrike damage (just like James McMurray's game works fine with massive Orb damage), and that was that.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Notmousse said:
			
		

> What you're fighting in a scenario isn't relevant?




If it's something that can kill either the conjurer or the evoker before they can react, the example will tell us nothing.  So we can ignore dragons with extreme initiatives, dragons with lake-of-molten-gold-on-the-ceiling traps, and so forth.

If it's something that either the conjurer or the evoker can kill in one round, the example will tell us nothing.  So we can ignore sleeping dragons, casters accompanied by a party of demigods, baby dragons, and the like.

If you absolutely need complete stats for the party, the dragon, the room, the treasure, and so forth, compile some and post them, after determining that the resulting example falls into neither of those two categories.

-Hyp.


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> That's the point of reductio ad absurdum.




Which as an arguement is both silly, and completely ignores the idea of moderation.  for example I have a character heavily invested in wands of CLWs (long story, rather not discuss it), in part because it's cost efficient (IMC, ATM).  To extrapolate that it's stupid to bring along other HP increasing methods, or that item X which is much cheaper in the long run is silly because it's not the *only* reason I invested in the wands of CLW.

In your scenario you propose that a couple mages (which gained a party in page 4) could beat up dragons 9 CR above their level (I'm guessing a Red of Gold Great Wyrm but I've yet to get that piece of info).



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> This proves that your argument in defense of Orbs is invalid unless you also accept that the same argument defends my new silly Dragonslayer spell.




This proves my arguement is situational and keyed to the scenario.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I'll take it into logical terms with a translation below:




Allow me to retranslate only instead of changing the spell we define the opponent.

A) You said "Orbs are broken because they can be used to kill dragons."

B) I said: "Which dragons?"

C) I said "By argument (A) Orb wielding Mage can kill dragons I have to wonder what kind of dragons you mean" by my argument.

You see not all dragons are created equal (nor scenarios, but I've already stated that), and I'm sure even a CR 24 Prismatic or Force dragon may be a bit too much for the conjurer or evoker to handle.


----------



## hong

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Which as an arguement is both silly, and completely ignores the idea of moderation.  for example I have a character heavily invested in wands of CLWs (long story, rather not discuss it), in part because it's cost efficient (IMC, ATM).  To extrapolate that it's stupid to bring along other HP increasing methods, or that item X which is much cheaper in the long run is silly because it's not the *only* reason I invested in the wands of CLW.




What on earth does this have to do with reduction ad absurdum?



> This proves my arguement is situational and keyed to the scenario.




Actually, the corollary to your argument is that nothing is broken.


----------



## ogre

Reading this thread was like passing by an accident, I kept coming back for more, and yup for some deranged reason, I've read the whole thing. I was very interested in the orbs power level, as I just started playing in a campaign that uses them, and I've never seen them before. So, my wizard can use them I suppose.
Well, I am certainly convinced the No SR thing is bogus. As a matter of fact, I'm so convinced, I'm going to suggest to the DM that he put SR on the orb spells, to my character's detriment, but to better the game imho.
Thank you Rystil, Karinsdad and others for making this plain, over and over. I think I agreed with you about 9 pages ago.
Notmousse, you'll need to look at this problem objectively, not definitively to see the point everyone here is making. Meaning, you won't see 'the light' until you let go of the specifics and try and see the bigger picture. Think abstractly. It will come.


----------



## Rystil Arden

hong said:
			
		

> What on earth does this have to do with reduction ad absurdum?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the corollary to your argument is that nothing is broken.



 Yep.  All of this is completely true.

Also, Notmousse, we've been talking about a CR 24 Red Dragon the whole time.  Want to make it truly simple for you so that you can have more details to look at?  We can use the CR 21 Red Dragon right out of the Monster Manual with no edits--playtested by the designers as CR 21.  I can use that from the book and destroy a level 15 party with no orbs (let's say they have two Evans if you like).  Add in no-SR orbs, and that dragon is dead before you can say "Hoard come to momma".


----------



## Notmousse

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If it's something that can kill either the conjurer or the evoker before they can react, the example will tell us nothing.




I believe it does is part of the scenario is showing that 15th level mages are killing CR24 dragons.  Even if both the mages went first the dragon just uses it's dragon breath killing them both (I can't say about the rest of the party as I know nothing about them).



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So we can ignore dragons with extreme initiatives, dragons with lake-of-molten-gold-on-the-ceiling traps, and so forth.




What's the point then?  If the arguement is that twinked out characters can kill things bigger than them if simply plucked from the MM then I'm sure that point has been made by now.  I was under the impression that it had to do with the orbs being broken (and using cheesey characters in a biased situation to prove this somehow).



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If it's something that either the conjurer or the evoker can kill in one round, the example will tell us nothing.




I thought the point was that the conjurer was killing dragons 9 CR above them in a couple rounds.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you absolutely need complete stats for the party, the dragon, the room, the treasure, and so forth, compile some and post them, after determining that the resulting example falls into neither of those two categories.




As in a normal pair of mages and a dragon, that's somehow not biased towards the orb mage?  I just don't see it happening as the scenario is prejudicial in the extreme even with my filling in the vaugeries however I see fit.


----------



## Rystil Arden

ogre said:
			
		

> Reading this thread was like passing by an accident, I kept coming back for more, and yup for some deranged reason, I've read the whole thing. I was very interested in the orbs power level, as I just started playing in a campaign that uses them, and I've never seen them before. So, my wizard can use them I suppose.
> Well, I am certainly convinced the No SR thing is bogus. As a matter of fact, I'm so convinced, I'm going to suggest to the DM that he put SR on the orb spells, to my character's detriment, but to better the game imho.
> Thank you Rystil, Karinsdad and others for making this plain, over and over. I think I agreed with you about 9 pages ago.
> Notmousse, you'll need to look at this problem objectively, not definitively to see the point everyone here is making. Meaning, you won't see 'the light' until you let go of the specifics and try and see the bigger picture. Think abstractly. It will come.



 And that makes it all worth it   Thanks for chiming in!


----------



## Notmousse

hong said:
			
		

> What on earth does this have to do with reduction ad absurdum?




I bought the wands because (IMC, ATM), they were the most efficient method of reliable healing.  The RAA of that I would imagine being 'well why doesn't everybody, everywhere do that?' or 'This way is much more efficient in X way, why aren't you doing it this way?'.  The answer to both would be 'because I was in a situation that if altered even slightly changes my buying decisions'.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> What's the point then? If the arguement is that twinked out characters can kill things bigger than them if simply plucked from the MM then I'm sure that point has been made by now. I was under the impression that it had to do with the orbs being broken (and using cheesey characters in a biased situation to prove this somehow).




:sigh:  I knew it would come down to claiming the two feats were the problem and argue "twinked out casters".  I said this three times before I did it, but you'll recall that James McMurray is the one who told me to set it up like that (if you don't recall the exchange, I pasted it in total a page or two back). 

By all means take the feats away.  She doesn't need them.  You'll find that with nothing more than basic metamagic feats that almost every Wizard would take (This requires exactly three feats--Quicken Spell, Maximise Spell, and your choice of Twin Spell or Energy Admixture, with preference to Energy Admixture, though other feats are certainly fun to have), two level 15 Connies will still kill the CR 24 Red Dragon (even assumed to already have up something to give himself 30 Resist against Cold).  

Most everything you are arguing has already been covered.  If you are too lazy to find it yourself, so be it.  As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Connie survives average breath damage on a failed save, even without fire protection, but not by much, so it is in the realm of plausibility that above average breath rolls will kill her if she has no protection up.  Still, on average, she lives through a breath attack and kills the dragon.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> I bought the wands because (IMC, ATM), they were the most efficient method of reliable healing.  The RAA of that I would imagine being 'well why doesn't everybody, everywhere do that?' or 'This way is much more efficient in X way, why aren't you doing it this way?'.  The answer to both would be 'because I was in a situation that if altered even slightly changes my buying decisions'.



 Actually, that isn't a valid reductio ad absurdum (mostly because there are no fallacies or contradictions that can possibly be exposed in the statement "I bought lots of CLW wands").  You need to make a statement in the form of "X proves Y" or "If X then Y" before you can reductio ad absurdum by choosing some absurd value of X and Y.

For example, if you said "I bought lots of CLW wands for 750 GP each, but a Dragon killed me before I could use them, so CLW wands suck at healing for their price" I could point out that you could buy wands of Mass Heal for 0 GP, and if the dragon killed you before you could use them, you could make the same argument.


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Also, Notmousse, we've been talking about a CR 24 Red Dragon the whole time.




Then why could no one answer me that simple question all this time?  Was a simple request, and appearently you knew this the whole time when I asked awhile back.  Why is there fighting against giving me the scenario's full details in order to give a well informed opinion upon which to base a counterarguement?





			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> We can use the CR 21 Red Dragon right out of the Monster Manual with no edits--playtested by the designers as CR 21.




We're going to abandon your arguement that they can take on dragons 9 DR above them, in favor of 6 above them?



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I can use that from the book and destroy a level 15 party with no orbs (let's say they have two Evans if you like).  Add in no-SR orbs, and that dragon is dead before you can say "Hoard come to momma".




Are you saying that Connie can one shot the Dragon?  Because I'm fairly sure the dragon (as written in the SRD, without any of the power creep than the mages can afford) can kill (not down, outright kill) Connie in round 1, even if it loses initiative.


----------



## Rystil Arden

> We're going to abandon your arguement that they can take on dragons 9 DR above them, in favor of 6 above them?




No, Team Connie can still beat the CR 24 guy.  But you seemed unwilling to do the numbers yourself, dismissive of the work I've presented, and insistent on details that don't matter, so I figured you would prefer the SRD one which has all the details?



> Are you saying that Connie can one shot the Dragon? Because I'm fairly sure the dragon (as written in the SRD, without any of the power creep than the mages can afford) can kill (not down, outright kill) Connie in round 1, even if it loses initiative.




Please don't talk about "power creep".  Read this post again.  Okay, with me?  Now, two Connies, without any of the new stuff, can kill the CR 24 (or the CR 21 if you like since it is right there in the book--I don't mind) if they each get two rounds to do it, and it can't kill her with average rolls unless it starts in melee range and gets a full attack.  It can flee just fine, if you want to have a game where an EL+9 monster must flee from two mages, but it can't kill her on average rolls (and the CR 21 almost certainly can't kill her unless it gets incredibly unlikely rolls in its favour, which are low enough chance to be discarded).


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> :sigh:  I knew it would come down to claiming the two feats were the problem and argue "twinked out casters".




Two feats nothing!  Each of them had 8.  Sure you gave them both 6 of the same feats, but neglected that they were inherently superior in Connie's build than Evan's.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> (This requires exactly two feats--Quicken Spell and your choice of Twin Spell or Energy Admixture, with preference to Energy Admixture, though other feats are certainly fun to have)




Of those three feats only Quicken Spell is in the PHB.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Still, on average, she lives through a breath attack and kills the dragon.




A single unaugmented breath attack, and has no provisions for the dragon possibly going before connie and ripping connie to shreds before connie makes a second round of actions.  At least that's the way I see it from your description.

In any case it's already midnight.  I'm calling it a night and will likely send an angry email to someone about this MP3 player BS in the morning.


----------



## Rystil Arden

> Two feats nothing! Each of them had 8. Sure you gave them both 6 of the same feats, but neglected that they were inherently superior in Connie's build than Evan's.




...Umm...dude, they were important to Evan's build too.  Otherwise his damage would be down in the toilet.  In fact, I can tell you exactly how much he would do without those--Doing the calculations, the Level 20 (not 15 like the Conjurer) Evoker does 12 Damage if he has no metamagic available.



> Of those three feats only Quicken Spell is in the PHB.




Really?  I actually thought Twin was, but looks like your right.  It is fairly basic though, and they're in Complete Arcane (the same book as Orbs, so we know that we're using that one)--I've never seen anyone call Twin Spell "Power Creep".  But I'm happy to reduce it even further--I'm that confident that the Orbs will still be devastating if you just give them enough metamagic to go to roughly your highest level.  So if you reduce this to just Quicken and Maximise (the barebones mind--this means that Connie has avoided taking 8 possible feats and just taken nothing instead; all she has going for her in the world are Maximise and Quicken, plus the Orbs spells), which are both in the PH, two Connie level 15 can still kill the Ancient Red Dragon (CR = her level + 8), but she becomes unable to kill the Wyrm, _barely_ by the skin of its wyrmy teeth (and if it has no energy resistance or less than 30, it's gone).


----------



## Hypersmurf

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If it's something that either the conjurer or the evoker can kill in one round, the example will tell us nothing.





			
				Notmousse said:
			
		

> I thought the point was that the conjurer was killing dragons 9 CR above them in a couple rounds.




Let me rephrase it less ambiguously.

If it's something that the conjurer can kill in one round, and that the evoker can also kill in one round, the example will tell us nothing.

If we put either of them up against a hobgoblin, it's not going to tell us which is superior; the hobgoblin dies whichever caster is there.

The example opponent has to be one that won't immediately win regardless of which caster is present, and that won't immediately lose regardless of which caster is present.  It needs to be in a middle range where a difference becomes apparent between the two casters.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Really?  I actually thought Twin was, but looks like your right.  It is fairly basic though--I've never seen anyone call Twin Spell "Power Creep".




And there's still the issue of applying it to a spell with neither Target nor Area entry...

-Hyp.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And there's still the issue of applying it to a spell with neither Target nor Area entry...
> 
> -Hyp.



 I know that's a contention, which is one of the two reasons I prefer Energy Admixture.  It's 100% Smurf-Tested, Mother-Approved for Orbs   And if anything, it is generally considered less useful than Twin.  

For Notmousse, I guess I should also point out that both Twin and Energy Admixture appear in Complete Arcane, and if you aren't using Complete Arcane, you don't even have the Orb spells.  Thus, I consider my (Quicken, Maximise, Energy Admixture, 7 unspent feats) build perfectly reasonable for an Orb build--it doesn't use any books at all other than those required to make an Orb caster.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

ogre said:
			
		

> Well, I am certainly convinced the No SR thing is bogus. As a matter of fact, I'm so convinced, I'm going to suggest to the DM that he put SR on the orb spells, to my character's detriment, but to better the game imho.
> Thank you Rystil, Karinsdad and others for making this plain, over and over. I think I agreed with you about 9 pages ago.



Seconded


----------



## FireLance

ogre said:
			
		

> Well, I am certainly convinced the No SR thing is bogus. As a matter of fact, I'm so convinced, I'm going to suggest to the DM that he put SR on the orb spells, to my character's detriment, but to better the game imho.



Actually, I think the No SR thing is what makes these spells distinctive, and adds to the variety of effects in the game. I personally would keep it, and if I find that the orb spells are too effective for my taste (which I do recognize will vary from person to person), I'd either reduce the damage dice and/or dice cap, or substitute a saving throw for the ranged attack roll.


----------



## Rystil Arden

FireLance said:
			
		

> Actually, I think the No SR thing is what makes these spells distinctive, and adds to the variety of effects in the game. I personally would keep it, and if I find that the orb spells are too effective for my taste (which I do recognize will vary from person to person), I'd either reduce the damage dice and/or dice cap, or substitute a saving throw for the ranged attack roll.



 A save negates would be better than nothing (though it would weaken them even more than just allowing SR), but all in all, you can keep them super-strong but not game-destructive if you just add SR back in (and I'd suggest swapping them to Evocation for flavour, but it isn't necessary).  It's a simple fix, and it keeps with the general standard of making the only SR-penetrating spells low damage or damage over time rather than Blitzkreig blasts like an Evoker would want to do.


----------



## FireLance

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> A save negates would be better than nothing (though it would weaken them even more than just allowing SR), but all in all, you can keep them super-strong but not game-destructive if you just add SR back in (and I'd suggest swapping them to Evocation for flavour, but it isn't necessary).  It's a simple fix, and it keeps with the general standard of making the only SR-penetrating spells low damage or damage over time rather than Blitzkreig blasts like an Evoker would want to do.



I was thinking save for half, actually. I definitely agree that for flavor purposes you should shunt them off to Evocation if you're going to give them SR, but I don't think SR is the problem. Essentially, if a spell is broken because it ignores SR, then it's going to be broken against an opponent without SR. If the problem is high damage potential, that should be fixed directly, instead of indirectly through SR, so that the spell is better balanced for all opponents instead of a select subclass of them.


----------



## Rystil Arden

FireLance said:
			
		

> I was thinking save for half, actually. I definitely agree that for flavor purposes you should shunt them off to Evocation if you're going to give them SR, but I don't think SR is the problem. Essentially, if a spell is broken because it ignores SR, then it's going to be broken against an opponent without SR. If the problem is high damage potential, that should be fixed directly, instead of indirectly through SR, so that the spell is better balanced for all opponents instead of a select subclass of them.



 The trouble is in the balancing of it--reduce it to 10d6 cap?  Not enough--that has no effect on the Orb-user until level 11, and it is still an issue with 1/3 less damage even at the end.  The things that are weak at Touch AC and counting on SR are still screwed.  

Reflex half?  Even at half damage, it can potentially be a problem, and now unless they have Evasion, you know they're taking at least some--things that will fail a Reflex save on something other than 1 are more common than things with Evasion, so this is kind of like nerfing it to 2/3 again (1/2 assuming everyone always make their save guaranteed except for a 1, +1/6 for the net gain of times when they don't make the save minus the Evasioners = 4/6 = 2/3).  The good news is that many of the things counting on SR have good Reflex and will usually take half--in a game where you changed it this way, I would expect Ring of Evasion to become an item that every dragon owned (and perhaps she owns two in case one of them is deactivated for a round by Dispel magic).

~~~

Fixing the SR is easy, and though as you mention, it still does a _lot_ of damage against monsters with low touch AC and no SR / resistances, so does Metamagicked Scorching Ray, which is only a level 2 spell.  Those monsters are designed knowing that they don't have any of those things, and they have CR accordingly.  The trouble comes when the things are balanced not expecting the ultimate nuke to ignore SR (Dragons, for one, are screwed.  Golems become pathetic.  The AMF defense strategy, which is a valid trade normally, is rendered laughable--was it Karinsdad or Nail who had a character bite the dust from that one, I can't remember)


----------



## FireLance

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The trouble is in the balancing of it--reduce it to 10d6 cap?  Not enough--that has no effect on the Orb-user until level 11, and it is still an issue with 1/3 less damage even at the end.  The things that are weak at Touch AC and counting on SR are still screwed.
> 
> Reflex half?  Even at half damage, it can potentially be a problem, and now unless they have Evasion, you know they're taking at least some--things that will fail a Reflex save on something other than 1 are more common than things with Evasion, so this is kind of like nerfing it to 2/3 again (1/2 assuming everyone always make their save guaranteed except for a 1, +1/6 for the net gain of times when they don't make the save minus the Evasioners = 4/6 = 2/3).



The problem with this argument seems to be the assumption that the opponent is automatically doomed if it takes any form of damage. The trade-off really is, what percent of damage is the SR expected to stop? If it's a third, dropping average damage by a third has the same effect.

Now, if we're talking scalability, and you see SR as the only mechanism that will prevent PCs from defeating opponents several CRs above their level, then yes, you find spells that ignore SR to be a problem. However, I think that the scalability problem can be addressed through giving the monster better offenses, other defences, or simply fixing the other parameters of the spell, such as the base damage, or giving it a saving throw, even if it is only for half.



> Fixing the SR is easy, and though as you mention, it still does a _lot_ of damage against monsters with low touch AC and no SR / resistances, so does Metamagicked Scorching Ray, which is only a level 2 spell.  Those monsters are designed knowing that they don't have any of those things, and they have CR accordingly.  The trouble comes when the things are balanced not expecting the ultimate nuke to ignore SR (Dragons, for one, are screwed.  Golems become pathetic.  The AMF defense strategy, which is a valid trade normally, is rendered laughable--was it Karinsdad or Nail who had a character bite the dust from that one, I can't remember)



Adjust the other spell parameters and the spells get a nice niche (good against these opponents) without being overpowered.


----------



## Rystil Arden

FireLance said:
			
		

> The problem with this argument seems to be the assumption that the opponent is automatically doomed if it takes any form of damage. The trade-off really is, what percent of damage is the SR expected to stop? If it's a third, dropping average damage by a third has the same effect.
> 
> Now, if we're talking scalability, and you see SR as the only mechanism that will prevent PCs from defeating opponents several CRs above their level, then yes, you find spells that ignore SR to be a problem. However, I think that the scalability problem can be addressed through giving the monster better offenses, other defences, or simply fixing the other parameters of the spell, such as the base damage, or giving it a saving throw, even if it is only for half.
> 
> Adjust the other spell parameters and the spells get a nice niche (good against these opponents) without being overpowered.



 If you adjust it to be more like Acid Arrow (low initial damage, but damage over time--so the high-powered enemy can do something about this, or just kill you), then it would be fine.  The problem is that the niche of high-damage-all-at-once-nuke-that-also-ignores-SR is a bad niche to have in a typical D&D game.  

There are even other issues that would be raised by increasing the attack powers of the monsters--that Dragon is a scary beast.  It's attack power is high enough already to be a terrifying opponent for a CR-appropriate party.  It just isn't strong enough to win if the game has escalated to "if you can't kill them on the opener, even 9 levels lower than your CR, you lose Mr. Dragon" that Orbs bring along.  If you make the Dragon even stronger offensively, then it utterly annihilates any party except those with mainly Conjurers who can kill it in the first round before it can--it becomes an escalation (one that I consider unfun):  Who can kill the other in one round with its super nuke before the other team can use their supernuke?

The Orbs still would have an excellent niche if they had SR: Yes and remained ranged touch--it is easy to underestimate the advantage the Orbs have over Scorching Ray, so let's take an example.  An opponent with no SR who is weak against Fire but has up Energy Resist Fire for 30 (Frost Giant Shaman say--if they had SR, like a White Dragon, it wouldn't matter for this demonstration).  No crazy Thesis or anything else.  Just a simple Maximised Empowered Orb of Fire + Quickened Orb of Fire vs Twinned Maximised Scorching Ray + Quickened Maximised Scorching Ray:  The Orb does 193.  The Scorching Rays do 54.  If the enemy isn't weak against the element and just resists, the Rays do nothing at all.


----------



## Twowolves

Notmousse said:
			
		

> What you're fighting in a scenario isn't relevant?  I doubt I could say that to my GMs.  "Y'know chief, it doesn't matter what we're fighting here, because y'see I got this spell the ENWorlders tell me makes what I'm fighting irrelevant because it's so broken.  Please give me the treasure and XP now."




Wow, another dismissive position that ignores all previous evidence. Never seen that before.

Yes, you can say that what you are fighting is irrelevant, because that's the point. No save, no SR, touch attack for massive damage pretty much means that 90% of what you are fighting, if it's a lone massive foe like a dragon, is dead meat.




> If it's in the scenario I want it's stats.  If you can't provide them then fine.




So, if people can't provide complete stats, which in itself is absurd when you have already ignored mathematical evidence previously, then you reject ALL evidence out of hand. And of course, if such a detailed example were provided, you could just as easily wave your hands dismissively saying "well, in that ONE case, maybe", prompting a second, third, fourth, five-hundred and thirty sixth specific, fully stated out example, all for you to ignore. 




> Quite the opposite since it's what determines if the mages are even allowed a 14 Dex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most examples used on these forums uses 28pt buy means nothing to you, I see. Even if it didn't, you are reaching for excuses. As long as there are enough stat points to provide a 14 dex and 18 int, the rest of the stats could be 5 and it would not be germaine to this discussion and you know it. You are blowing smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not used any sources from a third party book yet, but, he's already used a feat from Dragon (or typed the wrong name which coincidentally happened to be a feat from dragon).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which he's said could be ignored. You haven't used ANY sources for ANYTHING, because you haven't put up a completely statted out dragon or PCs (or what's in the dragon's hoard, or what he had for dinner, or what stars are in alignment, or any of the other nitpicky useless information you demand RA put up).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I wanted to know if it's sleeping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still irrelevant. Do you want to also know if the dragon is reading a book, playing checkers, or sipping tea with the ladies bridge club?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The treasure can be of immense importance.  If it were all treasure of gold the dragon could have melted it into fortifications, or create a lake of molten gold over the heads of the PCs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's irrelevant. Your reaching for absurd traps and other instant death scenarios outside of what's written into the dragon's stats is not germaine to the issue of the balance of the orb spells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dragon with equipment equal to it's CR...  That dragon would have more bling than the entire east coast rapper's ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still irrelevant. Keep dodging any real discussion of the facts, it's funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I simply don't see it that way.  Since this was the scenario pushed by the anti-orb position I wish to see the entirety of it before deciding if it's a broken spell when used in such biased situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think you don't want to see the entirety of anything, because no matter what proof is put before you, you will just hand-wave it away and come up with more excuses or more pointless tangents to dismiss what's right there in front of you.
> 
> I see you STILL ignore something as simple and core as Silence, Invisibility, Teleport, or just plain Resist Energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## FireLance

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> If you adjust it to be more like Acid Arrow (low initial damage, but damage over time--so the high-powered enemy can do something about this, or just kill you), then it would be fine.  The problem is that the niche of high-damage-all-at-once-nuke-that-also-ignores-SR is a bad niche to have in a typical D&D game.



How about medium-to-low-damage-all-at-once-nuke-that-also-ignores-SR?



> The Orbs still would have an excellent niche if they had SR: Yes and remained ranged touch



SR: Yes and ranged touch is a niche that's already been filled by _scorching ray_ and _polar ray_. _Melf's acid arrow_ fills the SR: No and ranged touch niche at low levels, but there's no similar high-level spell. Continuous damage also looks better on paper than it actually works out to be in play because (in my experience, at least) most fights don't last long enough to make it really useful.


----------



## shmoo2

Thanks to RA and Karinsdad for putting in the work to bring us all some numbers to help evaluate the spells. Add me to those who've been convinced. 



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> How about medium-to-low-damage-all-at-once-nuke-that-also-ignores-SR?




So what were you thinking of?
1d4 per level?
or 1d6 per 2 levels?

or something else?


----------



## shmoo2

Nail said:
			
		

> I wish I had a breakdown like this for a few adventure paths...it would be useful data for my own game!  (I home-brew adventures and campaigns.)
> 
> Of the 74 encounters (in 5 adventures):
> 35 are against 1 foe,
> 6 are against 2 foes,
> 4 are against 3 foes,
> 8 are against 4 foes, and
> 21 are against larger groups.
> 
> I'd claim Orbs would be optimal on encounters up to 4 creatures; if so, Orbs are used in 72% of the encounters!  That's quite a few!




Here is data for the combat encounters from the last 4 adventurers in the SCAP:

Foundation of Flame
4 farastus
2 kelubars
1 morkoth
1 red dragon

Thirteen Cages
3 farastus
3 farastus
2 vrocks
1 Gau (minotaur)
2 kelubars
2 Flamewarders
2 Flamewarders
2 Flamewarders + Ti'irok (Fire Giant)
1 Dragon
1 Cleric
1 Cleric
1 Wizard + 1 Quasit
1 Cleric + 1 Shator
2 Flamewarders
4 Flamewarders + 1 Glabrezu
2 NPCs (Ardeth + Nulin)
1 Wizard
1 Dyr'ryd (advanced Shator)

Strike on Shatterhorn
1 Yuan-ti Sorcerer + 1 Mohrg
4 Medusa rogues
1 Farastu
1 Alurad (blackguard)
1 Crystal snake
1 Vampire +1 Dread wraith
2 half iron golems
1 Xokek + 2 death slaad
2 NPCs + 2 Farastus 
2 Embril (cleric) + spellweaver

Asylum
10 Farastus
1 Hexavog (advanced kelubar)
1 advanced devourer
3 hag +minions
2 Dark Myrakul + Demonflesh golem
1 Adimarchus

Earlier consensus was that 1-3 opponents advantaged orbs, 5+ advantaged AoE spells.
Of the above,
36% involve 1 opponent
71% involve 1-2 opponents
78% involve 1-3 opponents

5% (only 2) involve 5+ opponents


----------



## evilbob

Rystil:  Please forgive me for not reading the last ten pages' worth of argument,  but I wanted to ask a quick question about your general math.  You're saying that a 15th level caster with the Maximize and Quicken Spell feats could do how much damage to a single target in one round?  Noting that you can't use both feats on a single 4th level spell, I figure you are calculating 90 damage from the maximized, and then avg. 45 from the quickened spell - assuming you get no energy resistance.  That's an avg. of 135, x 2 spell casters = 270.  In two rounds, assuming both survived (and both had at least 2 8th level spells), you're hitting 540 avg damage (min 420, max 720).  That doesn't really seem high enough to kill a CR 24 red dragon with his 610 HP (on average), although I would say that's probably going to win against a CR 21 with 449 HP.  This is, of course, ignoring any existing energy resistance and the dragon's ultimate response, whatever that may be.  (Granting that the dragon is a 17th caster-level sorcerer, I'd imagine that _spell immunity_ - another 4th level spell - or _globe of invulnerability_ would be high priorities.  Well, or _teleport_ or _wish_ or something.)

Adding Twin Spell or Energy Admixture to the mix (both add 4 levels to a spell) doesn't change anything, because you cannot quicken or maximize a twinned or "admixtured" spell (and you would probably rather maximize than twin or admixture, since you're guarenteed max damage, and the other two options would give you average damage twice).  Not to mention that two twinned or admixtured 4th level spells and two quickened 4th level spells means you'd need four 8th level spell slots - impossible for 15th level specialist wizards without some kind of ultra-specialization or extra feats (or a "brokenly" high Int bonus).

Assuming the high-CR dragon did nothing intelligent against the spellcasters (like cast a spell), nor had access to any items that would help, do you mind to do the math for me on what I may have missed that bumps the average damage of those orb spells up again?


Edit:  Actually, do you also mind to do the math on why the dragon couldn't kill both casters in one round?  A 15th level caster with a 12 Con will have an average of 54 HP.  I'm guessing that they would not have evasion, and also could not, on average, make a DC 38 reflex save, meaning the dragon's breath attack would do an average of 110 points of damage to them.  Assuming 30 points of energy resistance, that's still more than enough to kill both (on average).


----------



## James McMurray

Yet more evidence that the brokenness (or lack thereof) for single target spells is at least partially dependent on the campaign style. Spells that are advantageous in less than half of the last five encounters from AoW are advantageous in over 3/4 of the last 4 adventures in SC.


----------



## SlagMortar

I don't think that Notmousse's disagreement with Rystil's argument is logically invalid.  The math relies on a couple unstated assumptions:

1.  A spell can be broken by being overly powerful in a specific instance.
 - I believe this is true if an only if the specific instance is common enough.  For example, Bane weapon enhancements are clearly better than their +1 price if you are fighting the bane opponent.  If all opponents in your compaign are humans then humanbane is definitely broken, but in general the bane enhancments work fine.  I believe Rystil's reductio ad absurdum could be used to "prove" that bane enhancements are broken.  "If bane enhancements are not broken, then a +1 enhancement that automatically kills all Balors in a 50 foot radius is not broken."  Since most people do not consider bane enhancements "broken", it is possible to have non-broken rules that would be broken if carried to an extreme.  

I would add a caveat to assumption #1: If the specific instance occurs often enough.

2.  The example Rystil presented is sufficiently general to show that orbs are overpowerred often enough to satisfy my caveat.
- Notmousse is not convinced that orbs are overpowered in enough instances to need a fix.
I believe he wants more details of the example in order to determine if it is a reasonable example that would come up with frequency in a real game - to make sure there are no hidden gotcha's that make the example work.  Unfortunately, I think that is the wrong way to go about it.  James's method of looking at a published campaign to see which encounters are blown away by orbs is probably the better way to satisfy the "often enough" metric.

Note, I am convinced by the examples and the math that orbs are overpowerred in enough instances to be a problem and to require a rewrite, but the orbs have not been mathematically proven to need a rewrite.


----------



## Rystil Arden

evilbob said:
			
		

> Rystil:  Please forgive me for not reading the last ten pages' worth of argument,  but I wanted to ask a quick question about your general math.  You're saying that a 15th level caster with the Maximize and Quicken Spell feats could do how much damage to a single target in one round?  Noting that you can't use both feats on a single 4th level spell, I figure you are calculating 90 damage from the maximized, and then avg. 45 from the quickened spell - assuming you get no energy resistance.  That's an avg. of 135, x 2 spell casters = 270.  In two rounds, assuming both survived (and both had at least 2 8th level spells), you're hitting 540 avg damage (min 420, max 720).  That doesn't really seem high enough to kill a CR 24 red dragon with his 610 HP (on average), although I would say that's probably going to win against a CR 21 with 449 HP.  This is, of course, ignoring any existing energy resistance and the dragon's ultimate response, whatever that may be.  (Granting that the dragon is a 17th caster-level sorcerer, I'd imagine that _spell immunity_ - another 4th level spell - or _globe of invulnerability_ would be high priorities.  Well, or _teleport_ or _wish_ or something.)
> 
> Adding Twin Spell or Energy Admixture to the mix (both add 4 levels to a spell) doesn't change anything, because you cannot quicken or maximize a twinned or "admixtured" spell (and you would probably rather maximize than twin or admixture, since you're guarenteed max damage, and the other two options would give you average damage twice).  Not to mention that two twinned or admixtured 4th level spells and two quickened 4th level spells means you'd need four 8th level spell slots - impossible for 15th level specialist wizards without some kind of ultra-specialization or extra feats (or a "brokenly" high Int bonus).
> 
> Assuming the high-CR dragon did nothing intelligent against the spellcasters (like cast a spell), nor had access to any items that would help, do you mind to do the math for me on what I may have missed that bumps the average damage of those orb spells up again?
> 
> 
> Edit:  Actually, do you also mind to do the math on why the dragon couldn't kill both casters in one round?  A 15th level caster with a 12 Con will have an average of 54 HP.  I'm guessing that they would not have evasion, and also could not, on average, make a DC 38 reflex save, meaning the dragon's breath attack would do an average of 110 points of damage to them.  Assuming 30 points of energy resistance, that's still more than enough to kill both (on average).



 evilbob--

You did the math wrong.  45 is not the spell's average damage, 52.5 is.  Also, you forgot the *1.5 - 30 for using Cold.  Also, you would definitely rather Admixture than maximise.

As to the Dragon's attack--15th-level Wizard with *12* Con?  Any player who manages that feat without dying 20 times or more has impressed me greatly, but that isn't anywhere near a realistic number for a 15th-level Wizard.


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> The average touch AC of all creatures in the MM2, MM3, MM4, FF, Creature Catalogs 1&2, tome of Horrors, and Dungeon Magazine special features combined is 49.95. Orbs blow against anything noncore.



...and with such an answer, a typical question might be: "Where did you get that average?  Do you have a spreadsheet of all creatures in those books?"

(An average touch score of ~50? Please.....)


----------



## IanB

If we are assuming that a red dragon who is also a high level spellcaster is smart enough to be prepared with resist elements vs. cold (or protection from elements, which I would think more likely) why are we not also assuming that the dragon is smart enough to be prepared with, say, displacement?

I mean, setting aside the orb spells, dragons just have weak touch ACs period, and there are plenty of other devastating touch attacks out there. It stretches things a little far for my taste to assume they'll prepare for one glaring weakness but not the other.

I also still find myself unconvinced by the touch AC argument. Unless we're talking about a warmage or a warlock I haven't seen casters taking point blank shot/precise shot very often, and so when I think about this situation I tend to add a net 8 points of AC (for shooting into melee and for cover) onto the touch ACs of these opponents, which makes your typical wizard/sorcerer look a lot worse in terms of chance to hit. Certainly in the campaigns I've played in, it would be very unusual for even a 15th level wizard to have a ranged touch attack above +10 or so, and +10 can and will miss frequently against even opponents with a natural touch AC of 10 (18 with cover and melee, remember.)

Warmages are definitely a possible problem here, but I'm not really sure that is the fault of the orb spells alone. Combining the orbs with the free sudden feats and the ability to always choose the best energy type on the fly is a bad combination. A wizard doesn't have anywhere near that tactical flexibility.

I will say one thing that this thread has convinced me of - that easy metamagic feat is not going to be allowed in my games.


----------



## evilbob

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> 45 is not the spell's average damage, 52.5 is.



Ah, you're right - wow, totally don't know what I was doing there.  


			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Also, you forgot the *1.5 - 30 for using Cold.



Hmm...  I guess this is a matter of interpretation.  Depending on how you approach the situation, there's a lot to be said for a red dragon understanding its weakness and doing _something_ to account for it.  However, if we're going for "a totally surprised dragon" (that doesn't have feats from the Dragonomicon, or contengency spells, or any pre-buffs other than 30 resistance) and again ignoring it making any smart moves, you're right.  x1.5 easily puts the damage range into "autokill" without a problem.


			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Also, you would definitely rather Admixture than maximise.



Really?  Admixture gives you avg. 52.5 * 1.5 (cold) + avg. 52.5 (other element) = 131.25.  Maximized gives you 90 * 1.5 = 135.  Besides the fact that maximized gives you a greater reliability, it also gives a higher number.  Unless you're saying you could admixture (cold) and (cold), in which case, yes it would give you a slightly higher average damage (157.5).


			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> As to the Dragon's attack--15th-level Wizard with *12* Con?



Um... yeah.  I mean, again if you're saying the wizard would spend a lot of time buffing or buying items to prepare or something, then it would be higher - but then you might as well allow the red dragon to cast a few of his own upper-level spells, too.  But seriously, I thought I'd be generous with a 12 Con.  I'd guess some wizards have more, but typically even upper level wizards don't get a lot more.  Wizards don't have HP because wizards don't get hit.  If you're playing a wizard and you get hit by something (or at least, if you get hit by TWO somethings), then you're not playing a very good wizard.

But still, let's say the wizard had a Con of 18.  That's way high, but that still only gives him 99 HP.  That's still under average for the breath weapon.


Honestly, I understand your math, but I think you're presenting an idealized situation.  Two 15th level casters, prepared to the gills, knowing what they're fighting, buffed all up, are going to do SERIOUS damage to anything, anywhere, anytime.  That said, there should be no way they could guarentee to kill the dragon in 1 round, even with the orb spells.  And if they cannot kill the dragon in 1 round, they will not kill the dragon without more of a plan than what you've presented.  As I said, 1 4th level spell ruins this plan completely.  And of course, 1 full attack against any mage by a dragon is far more likely to work than these orb spells.

As I believe someone earlier has stated, in order to prove that these spells are broken, you will need to show that they are broken in a common sort of occurance.  This setup is so far from common - or even unusual - that it fails to convince me as an argument.


Again, I think it is amazing that two wizards, fully prepared and with lots of planning could get very close to guarenteeing that they could down a CR 24 red dragon under ideal circumstances.  I just don't think that warrants rewriting a spell.


----------



## James McMurray

Nail said:
			
		

> ...and with such an answer, a typical question might be: "Where did you get that average?  Do you have a spreadsheet of all creatures in those books?"
> 
> (An average touch score of ~50? Please.....)




So what you're saying then is "show me your work." That's all I'm saying too.



> If we are assuming that a red dragon who is also a high level spellcaster is smart enough to be prepared with resist elements vs. cold (or protection from elements, which I would think more likely) why are we not also assuming that the dragon is smart enough to be prepared with, say, displacement?




Or, since we're obviously not shying away from non-SRD material in a thread about orbs, why wouldn't he have a handy Scintillating Scales available? Good luck hitting him with a touch attack from a wizard's BAB after that goes up.


----------



## Seeten

Its like a train wreck, I just keep watching and watching, open mouthed, and staring.

Hours of amusement.


----------



## James McMurray

Happy to be of service.


----------



## Benben

Seeten said:
			
		

> Its like a train wreck, I just keep watching and watching, open mouthed, and staring.
> 
> Hours of amusement.




*Hands Seeten some popcorn.*

I've almost posted twice now with rebuttals but thanks the heavens I keep making my Will save.


----------



## Stalker0

evilbob said:
			
		

> But seriously, I thought I'd be generous with a 12 Con.  I'd guess some wizards have more, but typically even upper level wizards don't get a lot more.  Wizards don't have HP because wizards don't get hit.  If you're playing a wizard and you get hit by something (or at least, if you get hit by TWO somethings), then you're not playing a very good wizard.




For PCs, con is generally the wizard's second best stat. First is int, second is con. AC to the wizard isn't that critical because the wizard tries to stay out of combat. But he needs the hitpoints to be able survive a fireball, or take that one big hit from a charging dragon before he can d door to safety.

So at 15th level, I'll assume a wizard has a +6 con item. However, as you said that's only 99 hitpoints, which probably won't cut the mustard. He could add in other spells, like false life, to boost that further.


----------



## James McMurray

Yeah, 12 Con is incredibly low. I'd say at least a 20 (base 14, +6 item).


----------



## Diirk

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> For PCs, con is generally the wizard's second best stat. First is int, second is con. AC to the wizard isn't that critical because the wizard tries to stay out of combat. But he needs the hitpoints to be able survive a fireball, or take that one big hit from a charging dragon before he can d door to safety.




Using 28 point buy, I'd never even consider making a character that didn't start with at least 14 con, no matter what class it is. Preferably more (I'm a big fan of gnomes as wizards/sorcerers).


----------



## jensun

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Yeah, 12 Con is incredibly low. I'd say at least a 20 (base 14, +6 item).



*fails his will save*

A +6 con item at level 15 is still a bit of a stretch.  36k out of an available 200k when you are already spending 36k on a +6 int item.  

Now, I agree that Con will often be the Wizards second highest stat but if we are talking about Orb hurling Wizards here then its probably going to be Dex as a second priority instead. 

Touch attacks might not be that hard to hit in ideal circumstances but when you have to factor in things like firing into melee or cover, people who cast Shield of Faith, Rogues, Monks, Druids with Monk Belts and Orbs are your main source of damage then you really want to pump it.  

*goes back to lurking, offers popcorn*


----------



## jensun

Diirk said:
			
		

> Using 28 point buy, I'd never even consider making a character that didn't start with at least 14 con, no matter what class it is. Preferably more (I'm a big fan of gnomes as wizards/sorcerers).



Same here.  Personally I prefer Dwarves as Wizards and Gnomes or Humans for Sorceror.


----------



## James McMurray

jensun said:
			
		

> *fails his will save*
> 
> A +6 con item at level 15 is still a bit of a stretch.  36k out of an available 200k when you are already spending 36k on a +6 int item.




I prefer to think of it as 36,000gp and 1,440xp for both.


----------



## jensun

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I prefer to think of it as 36,000gp and 1,440xp for both.



Thats a lot of downtime there and also opens the thorny question of whether or not crafting feats allow you to effectviely double your starting welath when starting a game at a higher level.


----------



## Seeten

Getting extra wealth and less feats is a tradeoff, to be sure. I do not believe crafting and getting double wealth is worth more, or less, than having more firepower feats. Look what Rystil does, extra damage wise, with the 2 feats you used for CWI and CA&A, or, what have you.


----------



## jensun

Seeten said:
			
		

> Getting extra wealth and less feats is a tradeoff, to be sure. I do not believe crafting and getting double wealth is worth more, or less, than having more firepower feats. Look what Rystil does, extra damage wise, with the 2 feats you used for CWI and CA&A, or, what have you.



You only really need to invest in Craft Wondrous Item which leaves more than enough feats for metamagic.  

Personally I have no real issue with the Orbs.  Direct Damage has struggled to be effective since 3.0 due to the mass HP inflation.  If damage spells are finally becoming a potential threat then I have no real problem with that.  

The fact that you have to stack a mass of metamagic and most likely a metamagic rod or two leaves me very much in the "meh, they're ok" camp.


----------



## Notmousse

Why I don't buy the 15th level mage walking into a dragon's lair and killing it.  A spell or a feat completely shut down the orb specialist.  _Scintilating Scales_, or Maximize Breath.

The first makes it nearly impossible (5% in most cases) to hit the dragon, the latter obliterates the mages, (and I believe many 15th level characters).


----------



## Notmousse

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I prefer to think of it as 36,000gp and 1,440xp for both.



 Doesn't that make you 14th level then?


----------



## James McMurray

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Doesn't that make you 14th level then?




It depends on when you craft it. If you make iut early in your career you'll get the XP back. If you make it at least 1,440xp into 15th you'll stay 15th. If you are creating a 15th level character for scratch with no rules allowed for starting with crafted items you'll be 14th.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Which is still irrelevant. Do you want to also know if the dragon is reading a book, playing checkers, or sipping tea with the ladies bridge club?




Revelation!

We finally have an explanation for the boxed text from _The Forest Oracle_!



			
				The Forest Oracle said:
			
		

> A group of seven men approaches. They are following the road east, and are making good time, neither tarrying nor running. Their faces are expressionless. One is dressed as a cleric of some sort, and another is dressed as a traveling drummer. The others could be peasants or serfs going from one location to another for the harvest season. Each carries some sort of weapon. It is plain that they are not soldiers by their haphazard way of walking. They do not seem to be joking loudly or singing as they advance.




So when someone wnats to know if the group of men are tarrying, running, joking loudly, or singing, _we have the answer right there_!

(Alas, the author failed to mention whether or not they are sipping tea with the ladies bridge club.)

-Hyp.


----------



## Felix

Notmousse said:
			
		

> A spell ... completely shuts down the orb specialist. Scintilating Scales.



[Quickened] _True Strike_ will reverse this.

Not to say that having _Scintilating Scales_ won't make him harder to kill, but rather that it won't necessarily completely shut the orb specialist down. 



> Maximize Breath.
> ...
> the latter obliterates the mages, (and I believe many 15th level characters).



If it is the case that this feat pwn3s all 15th level characters, how does it inform our opinion of the brokeness of _Orbs_?


----------



## Sabathius42

To answer the original question posed ... "No spell resistance vs. Orb spells?  Why?" ... the answer is (without much argument) "Because they are conjuration spells".  You would have to go to the original designer to get a definitive answer, but that is probably the logic behind them not having SR.  The question CAN have an answer that is the right answer.

To answer the following questions....

1. Should the orb spells be conjuration?
2. Should the orb spells have SR?
3. Are the orb spells overpowered?
3. How can I fix the orb spells?

..... You can really only supply an opinion.  No matter how much math you provide, or how many builds or scenarios you pose for or against the orb spells, the end result is that you are just supporting an opinion.

My opinion (based on the facts that I am playing a warmage in an Age of Worms campaign) is no,no,no,n/a to those four questions.  My opinion cannot be wrong.  Your opinion cannot be wrong.  You can certainly try to change someones opinion, but you cannot PROVE an opinion correct or incorrect.

I base my opinion on first hand experience.  I very rarely outgun the party fighter in damage in combat.  The party fighter generally kills more things in combat than my warmage.  We are both the same level.  This is with me using the orb spells as written.  Therefore, to me, they do not seem overpowered.

DS


----------



## Tzeentch

This whole argument seems a bit silly to me. Nuke spells in D&D are horribly *underwhelming* compared to various save or die/control spells and now something comes along that can keep your casters from being reduced to crossbowmen against the ever-popular AMF/Disjunction/Dispel Magic-fest and look at the complaints....

Polymorph/wildshape/summon cheese is more egregious then any orb could hope to be - nukes need a serious overall buff.


----------



## FireLance

shmoo2 said:
			
		

> So what were you thinking of?
> 1d4 per level?
> or 1d6 per 2 levels?
> 
> or something else?



While it's not a scientific method, I did a quick poll on what people felt would be a balanced amount of damage for a spell that did irresistable damage (no save, no SR, no ranged attack roll, no resistance/immunity). As of this posting, there was a fairly even split between the top three options of:

(1) no matter how low the damage goes, the spell will still be broken because it is irresistable (15/49),
(2) 1d4/level, maximum 15d4 (14/49), and
(3) 1d3/level, maximum 15d3 (13/49).

I'm inclined to go with the 1d4/level option, but to further cap the spell at 10d4. Using core-only feats (and no metamagic rods), a 15th-level conjurer's expected damage against a CR 24 red wyrm (ignoring vulnerability) would be 65 points with a one _quickened orb_ and one _maximized orb_. That's about 11% of its hit points.

With Arcane Thesis, Empower, Energy Admixture and Quicken, this works out to about 101.25 damage for two eighth-level spell slots, or about 17% of the wyrm's hit points.

If we add Practical Metamagic into the mix and substitute Maximize for Empower, we get 120 damage for two eighth-level slots, or about 20% of the wyrm's hit points.

The conjurer still does much better than the evoker against the red wyrm, because of spell resistance and saving throws. Using core rules only, an evoker can expect to do 112.5 base points of damage with _quickened lightning bolt_ and _empowered, maximized lightning bolt_. However, a red wyrm's SR of 35 means that the spells have only a 5% chance of working, reducing average damage to less than 6 before it even needs to attempt a saving throw.

The evoker does better against a more CR-appropriate single encounter, although still not as well as the conjurer. Against a CR 15 adult red with SR 24, the evoker's spells work 60% of the time, bringing average damage down to 67.5.  Assuming an Intelligence of 24 (15 +3 stat increase + 6 enhancement), the saving throw DC is 20, and the adult red's Reflex save of +13 means it saves 70% of the time. This brings the average damage down to just under 44, or about two-thirds what the conjurer is now doing (with the lower damage dice and cap for the orb spells). Of course, if they were facing two adult reds, the advantage swings back to the evoker.

With Arcane Thesis, Practical Metamagic and Energy Admixture, an evoker can pull off an _empowered, maximized, energy admixed lightning bolt_ and an _empowered, maximized, quickened lightning bolt_ for 232.5 points of damage. After SR and saving throws, this drops down to just under 91 points damage on average, or about 75% of the conjurer's maximum output. Again, advantage conjurer against a single target, advantage evoker against two or more.

An evoker actually functions about on par with a conjurer against a CR 13 young adult red with SR 21 and a Reflex save of +11, dealing about 59 points on average with core, and about 122 points with all the extra feats. Against multiple such opponents, the evoker is definitely the superior spellcaster.


----------



## FireLance

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> I base my opinion on first hand experience.  I very rarely outgun the party fighter in damage in combat.  The party fighter generally kills more things in combat than my warmage.  We are both the same level.  This is with me using the orb spells as written.  Therefore, to me, they do not seem overpowered.



You are quite right that the distinction between Conjuration and Evocation is largely irrelevant when there is a single arcanist in the party with access to both schools, and hence, access to both single-target, ranged touch attack, SR-ignoring spells, as well as area effect, Reflex save half, SR-affected spells. In addition, since you are playing a published adventure that mostly uses CR-appropriate opponents, it is unsurprising that the rules seem to work pretty well - this is where they are supposed to be best balanced, after all.

What several people have problems with is that while SR and saving throws scale with level, ranged touch attacks may not (or alternatively, are too easy to succeed at, regardless of level). That iconic monster, the dragon, is the best example of this. Look at the average damage dealt by the conjurer in my last post. It does not change whether the dragon is a CR 24 wyrm, a CR 15 adult, or a CR 13 young adult. On the other hand, the damage dealt by the evoker changes significantly because of SR and saving throws. Of course, if you never have to fight a creature with CR 9 higher than your level in any of your game, this may never become an issue for you.


----------



## Wish

jensun said:
			
		

> Touch attacks might not be that hard to hit in ideal circumstances but when you have to factor in things like firing into melee or cover, people who cast Shield of Faith, Rogues, Monks, Druids with Monk Belts and Orbs are your main source of damage then you really want to pump it.




That's the beautiful thing about the wizard.  He's got the whole toolkit instead of just a hammer, so he can avoid the problem of every problem looking like a nail.  Can't hit the guy with touch spells?  Target some other weakness.  The orb spell is one tool in the kit.


----------



## Seeten

jensun said:
			
		

> You only really need to invest in Craft Wondrous Item which leaves more than enough feats for metamagic.
> 
> Personally I have no real issue with the Orbs.  Direct Damage has struggled to be effective since 3.0 due to the mass HP inflation.  If damage spells are finally becoming a potential threat then I have no real problem with that.
> 
> The fact that you have to stack a mass of metamagic and most likely a metamagic rod or two leaves me very much in the "meh, they're ok" camp.




My issue with this is manyfold.

I have no issue with DD nukes being good.

However,

A) Orbs are the only true high quality nukes that are truly worth casting

B) Orbs are Conjurations

C) That means Evocation, as a specialty, is basically utterly worthless, borne out by the total lack of specialist Evokers. I cant recall a game I've played in ever having one, nor have I seen a game around here discussed where anyone had one

D) Nuker of choice is Conjurer. Also the Summoner of Choice. And Creator of choice.

Orbs make a mess of the game, the Specialist Wizard balance, and they deserve to get their designer a stern talking to.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Revelation!
> 
> We finally have an explanation for the boxed text from _The Forest Oracle_!
> 
> 
> 
> So when someone wnats to know if the group of men are tarrying, running, joking loudly, or singing, _we have the answer right there_!
> 
> (Alas, the author failed to mention whether or not they are sipping tea with the ladies bridge club.)
> 
> -Hyp.



You win the Internet, sir.


----------



## two

*Huh?*



			
				Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> ..... You can really only supply an opinion.  No matter how much math you provide, or how many builds or scenarios you pose for or against the orb spells, the end result is that you are just supporting an opinion.




Isn't this really basic philosophical stuff right here?

Obviously opinions can be wrong:  flat out wrong.

"It is my opinion that the nation of Germany, last week, turned into a clump of seaweed."

That's an interesting opinion.  You can certainly state it. And it is obviously - and overwhelmingly - wrong.

Some opinions are right.  Some are wrong.  Most are in the middle.

Now, when you are talking about a subjective judgement ("The best movie ever made was Debbie Does Dallas") your opinion is just that:  an opinion, and can't be "wrong."  

That does not mean you can or should respect all opinions (weight them all) the same amount.  Somebody who loves "Debbie Does Dallas" that much I feel confident... ignoring their judgment RE: movie quality.  And I am not "wrong" to do so - in fact, it is sensible to do so.

The power level of the Orb spells, in D&D, from a game designer perspective, is not a purely "subjective" determination.  It might work well in your campaign; that does not mean it is balanced in D&D as a whole.  That is why math and various builds are helpful.  They get us away from the specific ("Oh my god, the orbs killed everything in my campaign!  Oh my god, the orbs were useless in my campaign!") and into a more general discussion.

Anything, however crazy powerful, can be "balanced" in a given campaign.  That's trivially true, and meaningless.

Are the Orbs too powerful in the majority of campaigns?  In 90 out of 100 campaigns? In a series of adventures? 

How do you answer this question?  Hint: You don't talk about your personal experience with the spell.  You simply must step back and see the big picture.


----------



## evilbob

New idea:  supply both casters with greater rods of maximize!    (They cost 121k for a character with ~200k wealth, but why not!)

Now the two mages can kill the dragon in one round, since they'll be doing a maximized, admixtured orb of cold, cold for 90 * 2 * 1.5 = 270 + quickened, maximized orb of cold for 90 * 1.5 = 135, for a total of 405 damage, no save, no SR, 5% chance to miss.  Two of those guys can kill a CR 24 dragon in just 1 round!

However, the plan still fails because the orb spells have a range of "short" and right as they get to within range (60') the dragon breathes on them.  Ah well.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Why I don't buy the 15th level mage walking into a dragon's lair and killing it.  A spell or a feat completely shut down the orb specialist.  _Scintilating Scales_, or Maximize Breath.
> The first makes it nearly impossible (5% in most cases) to hit the dragon, the latter obliterates the mages, (and I believe many 15th level characters).



Was Scintillating Scales changed in the Spell Compendium?  Using the version from Draconomicon, it's +Con bonus as a deflection bonus, and half of that bonus lost from natural armor bonus.  For a great red wyrm, that's +10 deflection, bringing touch AC from 2 to 12.  Assuming a +7 BAB and a +2 Dex, your typical 15th-level caster will have a 90% chance to hit, not 5%.


----------



## jensun

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Was Scintillating Scales changed in the Spell Compendium?



Yes.  IIRC it basicly turns the NA bonus into a deflection one.


----------



## Notmousse

Felix said:
			
		

> [Quickened] _True Strike_ will reverse this.




But it also takes a good portion of damage away by only allowing the mage to throw one orb.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> Not to say that having _Scintilating Scales_ won't make him harder to kill, but rather that it won't necessarily completely shut the orb specialist down.




The dragon simply needs to survive the first round to destroy the mage.  Unless the mage gets first attack the dragon breaths, or crushes the mage (and 'party'), or full attacks the mage (and 'party') killing the mages and at least crippling any others.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> If it is the case that this feat pwn3s all 15th level characters, how does it inform our opinion of the brokeness of _Orbs_?




In the fact that the example mages aren't capable of killing cr +9 dragons as was proposed in the example.


----------



## Notmousse

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Was Scintillating Scales changed in the Spell Compendium?



 Yes it was.  When I looked over the Draconomicon version I noticed the difference and was going to note it, but you beat me to the punch.

It now changes your natural armor bonus to a deflection armor bonus.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Yes it was.  When I looked over the Draconomicon version I noticed the difference and was going to note it, but you beat me to the punch.
> 
> It now changes your natural armor bonus to a deflection armor bonus.



That's INSANELY powerful.  Makes dragons effectively immune to touch attacks, which were their most significant weakness before (not just vs. orbs, but also swarms of shadows or stirges).  What level spell is it?  I imagine that even at 9th level it would STILL be a "must-have" for dragons.

[Edit: Okay, I see one slight flaw in using this spell, the feat Pierce Magical Protection.  With Scintillating Scales, that becomes a must-have for dragonslayers.]


----------



## Notmousse

With _True Strike_ it's still *possible* to hit the dragon, just much less likely to do so.

BTW my take is that dragons were meant to be insanely powerful, what with being in the name of the game and all.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> [Edit: Okay, I see one slight flaw in using this spell, the feat Pierce Magical Protection.  With Scintillating Scales, that becomes a must-have for dragonslayers.]




It sounds symptomatic of a rampant arms-race effect that seems to have happened with 3.5e supplments.

It's funny - we got hold of and used a lot of 3.0 supplements, but we've not touched any of the 3.5 supplements at all. I think that it may be because the latter seem rather more inclined towards the arms race effect.

"Orbs are a problem! Buff up 'scintillating scales'!"
"scintillating scales are now a problem! introduce Pierce Magical Protection"
etc.
etc.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Notmousse said:
			
		

> BTW my take is that dragons were meant to be insanely powerful, what with being in the name of the game and all.



Well, true, and most dragons are heavily over-powered for their CR already (except whites, in my experience, which are frustrating but not that deadly).  Very few weaknesses.

I was more referring to the power level of this particular spell and trying to determine at what level it would NOT be so good that every dragon would take it.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It sounds symptomatic of a rampant arms-race effect that seems to have happened with 3.5e supplments.



Fair enough.  In my opinion, Scintillating Scales is so good that it is overpowered at any level.  And in my opinion orb spells are so good that they are overpowered (at what level would they NOT be taken?  7th?).  I'd just as soon have a game with neither.  

Pierce Magical Protection is in the Mage Slayer chain of feats -- a useful chain intended for fighters, barbarians, and monks.  Before Bo9S (which I don't have), this seems to have been an early attempt to buff up the power of non-casters with some very powerful feats.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It sounds symptomatic of a rampant arms-race effect that seems to have happened with 3.5e supplments.
> 
> It's funny - we got hold of and used a lot of 3.0 supplements, but we've not touched any of the 3.5 supplements at all. I think that it may be because the latter seem rather more inclined towards the arms race effect.
> 
> "Orbs are a problem! Buff up 'scintillating scales'!"
> "scintillating scales are now a problem! introduce Pierce Magical Protection"
> etc.
> etc.



 3.5 generally does not have this problem as long as you make sure to snipe out a few problem abilities as they appear and don't let the defenders of Problem Ability A tell you that Problem Ability B is the solution because pretty soon the poor folks who don't take any problem abilities are left in the lurch (I mentioned this earlier in the vein of the "whichever side wins initiative nukes the other side and automatically wins" paradigm).  

If anything, 3.5 is better about exploits on the whole than 3.0 because most of the designers know some of the big exploits from 3.0 and avoid them, and most editors keep them away too--too many extra actions and stackings in 3.0, in general.


----------



## Felix

Notmousse said:
			
		

> In the fact that the example mages aren't capable of killing cr +9 dragons as was proposed in the example.



Against a CR+9 critter with Maximize Breath, the Evoker and the Conjurer will die.

Against a CR+9 critter _without_ Maximize Breath, the Evoker will die and the Conjurer has a fighting chance. He has that fighting chance _because of the Orbs_. Would this not suggest that perhaps the Orbs have something to do with the wizard being able to kill CR+9 challenges? And that perhaps being able to kill CR+9 challenges is an indication of imbalance?


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> So what you're saying then is "show me your work."



Nope.

I'm saying: "What spreadsheet (et al.) did you use?"


----------



## Nail

...for example: 

"I use a spreadsheet which has all of the monster stats from the MM 3.5e.  I'd be happy to share it.  If I use this spreadsheet, I find the median touch AC for monsters in the MM 3.5e is Touch AC 12."

Now your turn.


----------



## evilbob

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> (I mentioned this earlier in the vein of the "whichever side wins initiative nukes the other side and automatically wins" paradigm).



I think this is a general problem with all very high level battles.  And it's not really something you can really "fix," either.  Any party with a high-level wizard, given enough time to plan, should almost always win handily with a good initiative.  Why would a wizard fight any other way?


----------



## Notmousse

Felix said:
			
		

> Against a CR+9 critter _without_ Maximize Breath, the Evoker will die and the Conjurer has a fighting chance.



 Without Maximize Breath they both die anyway.  Like I said the dragon crushes them.  It's a simple matter of 'if you don't one shot the dragon you die at level 15'.


----------



## Rystil Arden

evilbob said:
			
		

> I think this is a general problem with all very high level battles.  And it's not really something you can really "fix," either.  Any party with a high-level wizard, given enough time to plan, should almost always win handily with a good initiative.  Why would a wizard fight any other way?



 Huh?  Maybe against something of approximately their own level, but not against something massively more powerful.  And they don't need time to plan--they just need Orbs.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Without Maximize Breath they both die anyway.  Like I said the dragon crushes them.  It's a simple matter of 'if you don't one shot the dragon you die at level 15'.



Crush is fairly easily thwarted by Contingency-Polymorph (Colossal dragon can't crush Huge opponents), Contingency-DimDoor, or Projected Image, just looking at core spells.  Not sure if a dragon can crush flying opponents; that sounds like a DM judgement call to me.


----------



## Seeten

Sounds to me like more obfuscation, as though the dragon versus the conjurer is the argument, and not the balance of the orbs.


----------



## Notmousse

Seeten said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like more obfuscation, as though the dragon versus the conjurer is the argument, and not the balance of the orbs.



 The example given by the anti-orb side was 15th level mages killing a dragon 9 CR above them.  I see no reason why in this already obscenely prejudicial example that the dragon be an oversized pinata.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Seeten said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like more obfuscation, as though the dragon versus the conjurer is the argument, and not the balance of the orbs.



The orbs aren't balanced relative to other damaging spells, they destroy the evocation school's reason for being, they are too powerful golem-killers, and they powergame around a common defense by using the most tenuous of game logic ("No, it's not magical lightning, it's a perfectly natural ball of lava/liquid hydrogen/vibrating air/pure electrons that is brought into existence through magic").  Same holds true for Blast of Flame and Arc of Lightning.  Conjurers were already very powerful without these spells.

But the conversation seems to have shifted to dragons.


----------



## Twowolves

Notmousse said:
			
		

> The example given by the anti-orb side was 15th level mages killing a dragon 9 CR above them.  I *REFUSE * to see no  *ANY * reason why in this already obscenely prejudicial example that the dragon be an oversized pinata.





There, fixed it for you.


----------



## Notmousse

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Crush is fairly easily thwarted by Contingency-Polymorph (Colossal dragon can't crush Huge opponents), Contingency-DimDoor, or Projected Image, just looking at core spells.




Polymorph: I'll skip how you word this contingency for now and get to the part where you're already pinned, and are still treated as grappled no matter what your size changes to.

Dimension Door: Unless you already know the layout of the dragon's lair this one's dangerous as you could be shunted 100' off target, or at worst simply take an extra 4d6 damage.

Projected Image:  Ok, you got me.  I can't even fathom how this would beat a dragon crushing a mage.


----------



## Twowolves

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Polymorph: I'll skip how you word this contingency for now and get to the part where you're already pinned, and are still treated as grappled no matter what your size changes to.




Ok fine, change it to Contingency: Gaseous Form. Or Contingency: Blink. Or Contingency: Just-About-Any-Of-A-Dozen-Other-Spells.




> Dimension Door: Unless you already know the layout of the dragon's lair this one's dangerous as you could be shunted 100' off target, or at worst simply take an extra 4d6 damage.




Yeah, no one ever used Scrying, Arcane Eye, Divination, or Contact Other Plane before going into a dragon's lair. No way they'd be able to.... Dimension Door 30' to one side and not die instantly!



> Projected Image:  Ok, you got me.  I can't even fathom how this would beat a dragon crushing a mage.




Easy, you are casting through the Projected Image. Dragon flies down and crushes.... an illusion.

In any case, you still are ignoring the balance of the orb spells and instead finding more and more convoluted ways to defend a dragon.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Polymorph: I'll skip how you word this contingency for now and get to the part where you're already pinned, and are still treated as grappled no matter what your size changes to.



Quick and sloppy: "When any dragon is 30' above me or less, Polymorph me into an athach."  Or just begin the fight at Huge size.  The size thwarting Crush makes Polymorph an essential tool when fighting dragons -- though unfortunately the spell itself is so wonky.



			
				Notmousse said:
			
		

> Dimension Door: Unless you already know the layout of the dragon's lair this one's dangerous as you could be shunted 100' off target, or at worst simply take an extra 4d6 damage.



Make it a short jump.  Then there is CERTAINLY going to be an open location within 100', since the dragon had to have jumped from somewhere.  So you will not remain in your current spot and take 4d6 damage.  Though this won't work if the dragon has spent the resources to cast Forbiddance on its lair.  Only an utter moron would enter a dragon's lair if it had an active Forbiddance effect.



			
				Notmousse said:
			
		

> Projected Image:  Ok, you got me.  I can't even fathom how this would beat a dragon crushing a mage.



Because your projected image is casting the spells, not you.  If the dragon crushes the image, you can cast the spell yourself with no penalty.

You can use Limited Wish to get a Freedom of Movement effect, but that's subpar.  You'll be Crushed, then move out and cast a quickened spell, then be Crushed again.


----------



## Nail

Seeten said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like more obfuscation, as though the dragon versus the conjurer is the argument, and not the balance of the orbs.



Bingo.


----------



## Nail

BTW: Without including most dragons, the average touch AC is 11 (in 3.5e MM).

Just so you know.

IOW: Touch ACs suck.


----------



## IanB

"BTW: Without including most dragons, the average touch AC is 11 (in 3.5e MM).

Just so you know.

IOW: Touch ACs suck."

And what percentage of primary casters invest in precise shot? In many circumstances you pretty much have to assume that touch ACs vs. ranged attacks are going to be 4 or 8 higher than listed.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

To use another example: the SR-ignoring makes it fairly easy for a 5th-level orb conjurer to kill a CR 13 iron golem.  This problem goes back to the change to Acid Arrow in 3.5 (which will also let a caster kill a much-higher-CR golem) and the change to golem's magic immunity.  Not sure if the interaction of these two changes was considered thoroughly.  The orb spells exacerbate the problem by introducing new damage types (force and sonic being the worst offenders) to the no-SR energy-damage club.  Demons and devils can shrug off Acid Arrow but not Lesser Orb of Sound. 

The SR-ignoring makes the orb spells killer against monsters whose main defense is SR.  Dragons are a poor example, as their SR is typically CR +6 to CR +8, so not all that potent.  Mind flayer's SR is CR +17, Rakshasa is CR +17, and most devils are CR +12.  These monsters should be highly resistant to direct spell attacks from PCs.


----------



## Nail

IanB said:
			
		

> And what percentage of primary casters invest in precise shot? In many circumstances you pretty much have to assume that touch ACs vs. ranged attacks are going to be 4 or 8 higher than listed.



Are you claiming that Touch ACs don't, in fact, "suck"?


----------



## Henry

Twowolves said:
			
		

> There, fixed it for you.



_
*Guys, I issued a warning a while back, and apparently it's gotten lost in the thread's growth, so I'll remind people: Let's lay off the snarky comments, please. If people can't, then I'll have to either give anyone who can't listen a temporary forum vacation, or close the thread if enough people can't hear.*_

Thanks.


----------



## IanB

Nail said:
			
		

> Are you claiming that Touch ACs don't, in fact, "suck"?




Compared to the ranged touch attack bonus of a typical primary caster, no, they don't really suck. Even a level 20 wizard with a dex of 18 will miss a touch AC of 19 20% of the time. (Your average AC of 11, with cover and melee factored in.)

Granted, a warmage who has specialized in ranged feats, has access to the 'best' orb at any given time, and can do all sorts of tricks with sudden metamagic, etc., is going to be a problem a lot of the time. So, we come to the classic chicken/egg dilemma: which is broken, the warmage or the orbs?

I'm pretty willing to accept that orb of force is out of line. (And Easy Metamagic is right out.) I'm really not sure about the others, still. With normal wizard builds they don't seem that bad to me, and they're *certainly* not out of line in a game where stuff like Tome of Battle is allowed.


----------



## Nail

IanB said:
			
		

> Compared to the ranged touch attack bonus of a typical primary caster, no, they don't really suck. Even a level 20 wizard with a dex of 18 will miss a touch AC of 19 20% of the time. (Your average AC of 11, with cover and melee factored in.)



So:

"If the target has cover, and if the target is engaged in melee, a Touch spell has a chance to miss its target."

Do I have that right?



			
				IanB said:
			
		

> Granted, a warmage who has specialized in ranged feats, has access to the 'best' orb at any given time, and can do all sorts of tricks with sudden metamagic, etc., is going to be a problem a lot of the time. So, we come to the classic chicken/egg dilemma: which is broken, the warmage or the orbs?



(Nods) I'm currently DMing a warmage, and the game-balance there is...interesting.  

But let's keep this on topic: Orbs are overpowered.  You don't need to be a specific class (say, a warmage), or attack a specific creature (say, a dragon) to see the effect.  Touch attack, no save, no SR, excellent single-target damage.


----------



## borc killer

IanB said:
			
		

> I'm pretty willing to accept that orb of force is out of line. (And Easy Metamagic is right out.) I'm really not sure about the others, still.




That is what I am doing for now.  OoF is now Evocation with SR.  The others are 'as is' until further notice in my campaign.

But still thinking about making a poll... would to see real numbers on how many people feel the same.


----------



## Diirk

IanB said:
			
		

> And what percentage of primary casters invest in precise shot? In many circumstances you pretty much have to assume that touch ACs vs. ranged attacks are going to be 4 or 8 higher than listed.




Its pretty common in games I play in for the wizard to invest in precise/point blank shot. Besides orbs, there's plenty of other rays and ranged touch spells (eg. Ray of Enfeeblement, which is a great debuff for melee brutes) that make it worthwhile. Cover isn't so much an issue because you can usually position to avoid it.

Ps. I'm willing to bet you lose a lot less damage to missing ranged touches than you would to SR and successful reflex saves.


----------



## IanB

Nail said:
			
		

> So:
> 
> "If the target has cover, and if the target is engaged in melee, a Touch spell has a chance to miss its target."
> 
> Do I have that right?




At lower levels you don't even really need the cover/melee penalty. I typically don't expect a ranged touch attack bonus above BAB+2 for your average wizard/sorcerer. In my experience those classes tend to throw most/all of their ability score resources into their casting stat and constitution. Dex is 3rd on the priority list and I don't often see scores over 14 unless we're talking about a 4d6 game rather than point buy, and someone rolls very well. (And in those cases people in my player group usually jump at the chance to play some class with MAD rather than a wiz/sorc.)


----------



## Seeten

Diirk said:
			
		

> Its pretty common in games I play in for the wizard to invest in precise/point blank shot. Besides orbs, there's plenty of other rays and ranged touch spells (eg. Ray of Enfeeblement, which is a great debuff for melee brutes) that make it worthwhile. Cover isn't so much an issue because you can usually position to avoid it.
> 
> Ps. I'm willing to bet you lose a lot less damage to missing ranged touches than you would to SR and successful reflex saves.




In fact, though, I'd posit that 90% of the reason for taking these feats is optimizing the orb spells, because thats how broken they are.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Fine with the +4 to touch AC for firing into melee, but would a colossal dragon really get +4 cover bonus for fighting medium opponents??

DM fiat?


----------



## Rystil Arden

Nail said:
			
		

> Bingo.



 Yep, this is exactly why the baatezu is in the details--when you get lost in arguing whether some third thing beats a fourth thing, you lose sight of the Orbs themselves.

By the way, in an aside not related to the post I quoted, I'm surprised that so many people came out against Practical/Easy Metamagic and not Arcane Thesis.  It did almost nothing.  Arcane Thesis is the monstrosity feat in the killer Connie build--those who said you're banning Practical/Easy Metamagic should be sure to ban Arcane Thesis as well (I know I don't allow it in its current PHII form).


----------



## Rystil Arden

Sorcica said:
			
		

> Fine with the +4 to touch AC for firing into melee, but would a colossal dragon really get +4 cover bonus for fighting medium opponents??
> 
> DM fiat?



 There's actually a rule somewhere on the SRD (I think!) that says that you can avoid the firing into melee penalty if you shoot at a square of the enemy at least 10 feet from any actual melee.  With a colossal dragon, it's hard not to be presented with such a square.


----------



## IanB

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> There's actually a rule somewhere on the SRD (I think!) that says that you can avoid the firing into melee penalty if you shoot at a square of the enemy at least 10 feet from any actual melee.  With a colossal dragon, it's hard not to be presented with such a square.




Specifically:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Big Creatures and Cover
> Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.




That's for melee attacks though. I seem to recall a rule like the one you mention, but I couldn't find it. Maybe a 3.0 relic memory?


----------



## Brother MacLaren

IanB said:
			
		

> That's for melee attacks though. I seem to recall a rule like the one you mention, but I couldn't find it. Maybe a 3.0 relic memory?



PHB p. 140.
"If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character."

So an enemy using a reach weapon, or a giant, or whatever, often will not provoke the -4 penalty.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> PHB p. 140.
> "If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character."
> 
> So an enemy using a reach weapon, or a giant, or whatever, often will not provoke the -4 penalty.



 It would actually be incredibly hard to provoke the -4 penalty with a colossal dragon--you'd have to line up your guys all around the dragon in a sphere so that there was not a single spot to shoot that was more than 10 feet from an ally


----------



## IanB

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> PHB p. 140.
> "If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character."
> 
> So an enemy using a reach weapon, or a giant, or whatever, often will not provoke the -4 penalty.




Ah yes. This is for the melee penalty, not for cover, mind you.


----------



## Notmousse

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Quick and sloppy: "When any dragon is 30' above me or less, Polymorph me into an athach."  Or just begin the fight at Huge size.




This is still after being crushed as the conditions are only met after the attack.



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Make it a short jump.  Then there is CERTAINLY going to be an open location within 100', since the dragon had to have jumped from somewhere.




He could easily have been on a 10' high pile of treasure.  Unless you want to get 3D (and find a new die for random direction since the d8 no longer works), which could just as easily shunt you to a lower level.



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Only an utter moron would enter a dragon's lair if it had an active Forbiddance effect.




This is a guy walking into a dragon's lair fighting something 9 CR higher.  The example mage is already a moron.



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Because your projected image is casting the spells, not you.  If the dragon crushes the image, you can cast the spell yourself with no penalty.




Now you're stretching things.  It's a 7th level spell, lasts a minute and a half, and what kind of 'party' (if there is one) would say ok to being bait while you sit back nice and pretty?



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> You can use Limited Wish to get a Freedom of Movement effect, but that's subpar.




I agree.  That is subpar.


----------



## IanB

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> It would actually be incredibly hard to provoke the -4 penalty with a colossal dragon--you'd have to line up your guys all around the dragon in a sphere so that there was not a single spot to shoot that was more than 10 feet from an ally




In fact even that wouldn't do it, since the center of the dragon's space can't help but be 10 feet away from your allies (unless the dragon is grappling someone.)


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> It would actually be incredibly hard to provoke the -4 penalty with a colossal dragon--you'd have to line up your guys all around the dragon in a sphere so that there was not a single spot to shoot that was more than 10 feet from an ally



 Or simply not be able to aim at the parts that aren't behind cover.

I honestly doubt a GM's going to be ok with someone saying 'I aim for the back square' when there's 2-6 squares of monster in the way.


----------



## Rystil Arden

IanB said:
			
		

> In fact even that wouldn't do it, since the center of the dragon's space can't help but be 10 feet away from your allies (unless the dragon is grappling someone.)



 Hmmm...that's a tricky call--I'd rule that either you have to aim for a space on the sides of the dragon, or, if you aim for a central space, it gets soft cover from the spaces in the way (which gives the same -4 penalty), but we're already talking about a ridiculous situation with a sphere of allies positioned exactly to screw our caster over, so it isn't as if it will come up any time soon


----------



## Rystil Arden

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Or simply not be able to aim at the parts that aren't behind cover.
> 
> I honestly doubt a GM's going to be ok with someone saying 'I aim for the back square' when there's 2-6 squares of monster in the way.



 Looks like you and I agree on that--see my simultaneous post  

However, even if you only consider the front and not the back, that still requires a highly-improbable three-dimensional hemisphere of allies who are positioned exactly right so that you don't have any space to attack.


----------



## James McMurray

Nail said:
			
		

> ...for example:
> 
> "I use a spreadsheet which has all of the monster stats from the MM 3.5e.  I'd be happy to share it.  If I use this spreadsheet, I find the median touch AC for monsters in the MM 3.5e is Touch AC 12."
> 
> Now your turn.




All that says is "here's all my work in this partucular format." Sorry, I calculated them by hand. If you ask me for my work you're admitting I'm right. At least, according to your statements earlier.



> If you "don't believe the numbers", then it's your job to prove them wrong. If you don't prove them wrong, then you have conceeded the point.
> 
> It's really quite simple.




If you don't believe that the average touch AC for those books is that high, you have to prove me wrong or concede my point. Using your "prove them wrong or admit defeat" methodology, you "prove" the existence of all sorts of ludicrous ideas.

Either that, or you can admit that it's the province of the data provider to give verification for the data. 

Edit: Almost forgot, I'd love to see that spreadsheet. It could be insanely useful in games.


----------



## Rystil Arden

As an aside, for those who are paying attention to these things, this whole bit with claiming that the other books average to some absurd number without proof is another good example of reductio ad absurdum.  Notice that Nail and James are debating the terms of the reductio and not saying "57 is ridiculous for AC.  It weakens the strength of everything you've said this whole time"


----------



## James McMurray

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> The orbs aren't balanced relative to other damaging spells, they destroy the evocation school's reason for being,




What would you say is the quintessential evocation spell? For decades, most gamers have answered that question with "fireball." An Orb, even maximized, empowered, and rolling straight sixes for a total of 135 damage does not have the damage capacity of a delayed blast fireball hitting six creatures for average damage after their successful saves (26.25 each, total 157.5). Orbs don't even come close to "destroying the evocation school's reason for being."



> they are too powerful golem-killers,




Possibly. They're certainly good, but then again I like the idea of arcane casters not having to sit back and ready actions to run away every time a golem pops up.



> and they powergame around a common defense by using the most tenuous of game logic ("No, it's not magical lightning, it's a perfectly natural ball of lava/liquid hydrogen/vibrating air/pure electrons that is brought into existence through magic").




"Tenuous" is a subjective term in this case. I personally disagree with the idea that it makes no sense that conjuration can create metal out of thin air but can't create the natural substances available for generating various energy types (except Force, but I don't hate it enough that I'd argue if a GM didn't want to house rule it).



> But the conversation seems to have shifted to dragons.




Only because the orb decriers pulled a creature with an incredibly low touch AC, high SR, and a weakness to energy and tried to use the orb's optimal situation as the example of why the spell is broken.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Notmousse said:
			
		

> This is a guy walking into a dragon's lair fighting something 9 CR higher.  The example mage is already a moron.



How should a *character* have the slightest clue of what CR a monster is without metagaming?
*Players* shouldn't even know what CR a monster is.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> How should a *character* have the slightest clue of what CR a monster is without metagaming?
> *Players* shouldn't even know what CR a monster is.



 True that--she probably heard "Beware and stay away from Anthralanxus's lair!  He is the greatest and most fearsome red dragon in all of the Eastern kingdoms", to which she replies "Well, he can't be much harder than Aranalathanrus, the greatest and most fearsome red dragon in all of the Western kingdoms, and my Sister and I killed him last month."  Example aside, the player and the character will lose a sense of perspective of CR because the Orb mage is so good at killing these things.  When she fries a CR 21 dragon (for instance) easily, if she is level 15, she might think the dragon was probably CR 15 or lower (unless the player is a metagamer with an excellent memory for numbers and reverse engineers the HP from how many Orbs it took to kill the dragon, though each Orb does enough damage that it leaves a pretty big room for error that way).


----------



## Brother MacLaren

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Orbs don't even come close to "destroying the evocation school's reason for being."



Direct-damage energy spells have been evocation's bread and butter, whether single-target or area-effect.  Conjuration ALREADY claimed a fair segment of area-effect energy-damage with cloud spells, and now Blast of Flame and Arc of Lightning. 



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> Possibly. They're certainly good, but then again I like the idea of arcane casters not having to sit back and ready actions to run away every time a golem pops up.



As opposed to resorting to summoning, battlefield control, or buffs?



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> Only because the orb decriers pulled a creature with an incredibly low touch AC, high SR, and a weakness to energy and tried to use the orb's optimal situation as the example of why the spell is broken.



There are a LOT of monsters with high SR that is supposed to be one of their main defenses.  The rakshasa is a good example.  It has outstanding DR and SR, but fairly low HP.  Devils are another example.  Dragons are a poor choice because their SR isn't that good and because they have so many HP that you need several metamagic feats to make the orbs deadly.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Notmousse said:
			
		

> This is still after being crushed as the conditions are only met after the attack.



I disagree here, but it would be up to the DM running the game.  In my opinion, the caster becomes Huge before the Crush attempt is completed, and so cannot be Crushed.  I'd certainly allow a PC to foil my dragon's Crush attempt this way.



			
				Notmousse said:
			
		

> He could easily have been on a 10' high pile of treasure.  Unless you want to get 3D (and find a new die for random direction since the d8 no longer works), which could just as easily shunt you to a lower level.



Sure, 3-D movement is onerous, but it seems the most straightforward and logical interpretation of the spell.


----------



## James McMurray

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Direct-damage energy spells have been evocation's bread and butter, whether single-target or area-effect.  Conjuration ALREADY claimed a fair segment of area-effect energy-damage with cloud spells, and now Blast of Flame and Arc of Lightning.




Really? How many single target evocation spells are there out there compared to area spells?



> As opposed to resorting to summoning, battlefield control, or buffs?




Summon what? The SR and and the DR of x/adamantine make saving most Summon Monster x spells better as saved resources for later encounters. 



> There are a LOT of monsters with high SR that is supposed to be one of their main defenses.  The rakshasa is a good example.  It has outstanding DR and SR, but fairly low HP.  Devils are another example.  Dragons are a poor choice because their SR isn't that good and because they have so many HP that you need several metamagic feats to make the orbs deadly.




Right. The orbs work great in the area they were designed to work great in. Toss them against a creature with the same subtype as the energy, a high touch AC, or a group of monsters and they fare extremely poorly. Therefor, their balance comes down partly to a matter of campaign style. In Age of Worms they're decent. In SCAP (which I assume means Shattered City?) they're da bomb.


----------



## Fieari

James McMurray said:
			
		

> All that says is "here's all my work in this partucular format." Sorry, I calculated them by hand. If you ask me for my work you're admitting I'm right. At least, according to your statements earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe that the average touch AC for those books is that high, you have to prove me wrong or concede my point. Using your "prove them wrong or admit defeat" methodology, you "prove" the existence of all sorts of ludicrous ideas.
> 
> Either that, or you can admit that it's the province of the data provider to give verification for the data.
> 
> Edit: Almost forgot, I'd love to see that spreadsheet. It could be insanely useful in games.



If you did it by hand, does that mean you have it on paper?  Can you scan it?

If not, can you name the outlying numbers?  That is to say, which monsters skewed the results so high?  I mean, if you were adding in some epic level monsters, and/or gods, I could understand 57.

Which books provided the highest touch AC?

Let me say, I don't believe your numbers, or rather, I don't believe THAT number.  Not 57.  Not by a LONGSHOT.  I'm willing to be convinced, if you back them up.  I'll even give you a head start... Here's a survey of touch ACs from one of the books you mentioned, that I also possess: Fiend Folio.  I found the average touch AC to be 11.81, with the lowest being 4 and the highest being 23 (Thunder Worm), 164 records counted.  Here's the numbers, I may have missed one or two, but that shouldn't skew things much:
	
	




		Code:
	

13
13
11
14
12
11
10
15
11
19
4
14
12
12
12
11
13
16
16
13
4
14
12
8
13
14
13
18
12
11
11
15
17
11
10
12
15
12
12
13
14
16
9
9
14
4
14
12
13
10
7
11
9
14
14
11
10
12
14
12
8
9
11
8
9
11
12
10
11
9
7
11
14
12
8
11
12
14
7
12
13
13
12
13
11
10
11
9
16
5
9
10
15
9
10
13
13
12
12
4
11
12
12
11
14
9
9
11
13
11
10
17
11
7
13
9
6
11
13
13
17
9
12
11
12
11
20
14
15
15
12
14
14
11
13
13
13
13
14
12
12
12
13
11
12
12
23 - Thunder Worm
12
10
8
13
13
12
10
13
20
7
11
10
9
10
14
10
18

Not a full spreadsheet like Rystil has for the MM, but I was working with time constraints here.

But you'll note, the highest touch AC in the entire book is less than half the AVERAGE touch AC you claim.  If there was an additional monster added to this list with a touch AC of 100, not found anywhere outside of Upper Krust's epic bestiary, it would raise this average to 12.35.  In fact, in order to get an average of 57 out of this list, you need another monster with a touch AC of 7500.  You're not going to find that number in CR's lower than a thousand.  You're just not.

The highest touch ACs there were exclusively held by the incorporeal, and I think one or two fae.

EDIT: As a lark, I calculated the touch AC's in Upper Krust's Epic Bestiary, with a CR range of  6 to 9721 (yes, nine thousand, seven hundred and twenty one), most of which lay in the 20-100 range, before and after which they get sparse.  Anyway, the lowest touch AC in this book is -7 (negative seven), and the highest was 303 (Great Wyrm Nexus Dragon, which has a divine rank of 240).  The average touch AC for the book?  41.56, still lower than your claim of 57.


----------



## James McMurray

two said:
			
		

> "It is my opinion that the nation of Germany, last week, turned into a clump of seaweed."




That's not an opinion it's a fiction caused by an attempt to state something that isn't true as a fact.

If it can be proven true or false it falls outside the realm of opinion.


----------



## Diirk

James McMurray said:
			
		

> That's not an opinion it's a fiction caused by an attempt to state something that isn't true as a fact.
> 
> If it can be proven true or false it falls outside the realm of opinion.




Well, unless he was speaking metaphorically


----------



## Fieari

Here's an opinion: Evocations should do more immediate and direct damage per spell level than any other school of magic.

Here's a fact: Orb spells do more immediate and direct damage per spell level than any other spell in the game.  They are not evocations.

Feel free to disagree with the opinion.  You can't disagree with the fact without demonstrating it clearly false.


----------



## IanB

Fieari said:
			
		

> Here's an opinion: Evocations should do more immediate and direct damage per spell level than any other school of magic.
> 
> Here's a fact: Orb spells do more immediate and direct damage per spell level than any other spell in the game.  They are not evocations.
> 
> Feel free to disagree with the opinion.  You can't disagree with the fact without demonstrating it clearly false.




Scorching ray's max of 12d6 as a 2nd level evocation (vs. 15d6 for a 4th level spell) would seem to satisfy the conditions for disproving your fact.


----------



## Fieari

Feel free to amend my fact with "Assuming you are fighting foes with CR appropriate defenses up, such as reasonable energy resistance, SR, and so forth".


----------



## James McMurray

There are plenty of CR 12 foes with no SR and no fire resistance.


----------



## Mort

I was feeling a bit bored so I checked the average regular AC vs. average touch AC of the Epic monsters in the SRD

Average regular AC:47.41 (highest AC 106, lowest 0)
Average touch AC:19.75 (highest 50, lowest 0)

I have a very difficult time believing that the average touch AC in the regular MM's is twice as high as the epic level handbook - and even if by some chance it is it must be only because of 1 or 2 ridiculous outliers.

Other interesting point - because most epic monsters have ridiculous ACs, ridiculous SRs but are usually not met in large groups and for the most part have reasonable touch AC's the orb spells would be disproportionally powerful in an epic game - especially if you researched epic "higher damage" versions.


----------



## IanB

At this point I'm wondering just how many people are going to misinterpret your touch AC post as an actual claim, James...


----------



## Mort

IanB said:
			
		

> At this point I'm wondering just how many people are going to misinterpret your touch AC post as an actual claim, James...




this thread's way too long, I just saw the quote and got curious. It was interesting to see regardless. And it's also interesting to me that the Orb spells would be so effective in an epic game (especially force - which so few (maybe 1) monsters, even epic, have resistance to).


----------



## hong

Notmousse said:
			
		

> The example given by the anti-orb side was 15th level mages killing a dragon 9 CR above them.  I see no reason why in this already obscenely prejudicial example that the dragon be an oversized pinata.



 Ah. Since this is "obscenely prejudicial", maybe the dragon should be 12 CRs higher instead. That should be enough for a fair fight. Rystil, care to think up a scenario?


----------



## James McMurray

The Force Orb has resistance built into, because it deals (at the levels we're talking about) at least 5 points less damage than the rest, 17.5 points less on average, and 30 points less in the most extreme cases. That's before factoring in metamagic, which seems to be a big strike against the orbs for some folks.


----------



## Fieari

Mort said:
			
		

> I was feeling a bit bored so I checked the average regular AC vs. average touch AC of the Epic monsters in the SRD
> 
> Average regular AC:47.41 (highest AC 106, lowest 0)
> Average touch AC:19.75 (highest 50, lowest 0)
> 
> I have a very difficult time believing that the average touch AC in the regular MM's is twice as high as the epic level handbook - and even if by some chance it is it must be only because of 1 or 2 ridiculous outliers.
> 
> Other interesting point - because most epic monsters have ridiculous ACs, ridiculous SRs but are usually not met in large groups and for the most part have reasonable touch AC's the orb spells would be disproportionally powerful in an epic game - especially if you researched epic "higher damage" versions.




Part of it is because the MM has many more lower level creatures than higher level ones... after all, you can always add class levels or templates to low CR things, but it's harder to go the reverse route.  The epic SRD is only going to have high level stuff, most of which is going to have sufficient dexterity to have a decent touch AC, not to speak of deflection bonuses, which are more common at higher levels.  The sub-epic creatures with such things are few and far between, outliers.  The epic ones are more or less the norm.

And there's no need to research an epic version of the orbs.  Metamagic extends above level 9, after all, with feats.


----------



## two

*yuck*



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> That's not an opinion it's a fiction caused by an attempt to state something that isn't true as a fact.
> 
> If it can be proven true or false it falls outside the realm of opinion.




Wow, how tawdry.  So you claim that somebody's opinion isn't really an opinion if it is not true (i.e. not a "fact")?

I'm sure you don't really mean this.

In my opinion, this is the lamest comeback ever.  Oh, nuts.  "This is the lamest comeback ever" is not proveable as a "fact" so I can't really have that opinion (is "this is the lamest comeback ever" a fact or not?  who says so?).

All you are doing with this shoddy bit of sleight-of-hand is move the discussion from "your opinion is wrong" to a truth debate about the stated opinion (because if the truth state is negative it can't be an opinion it is, rather, a fiction).

Not only is this not helpful, it makes no sense in the real world.  People have opinions that often run counter to "the facts" as most people see "the facts" and sometimes they even die because of their opinons (which run into "the facts" in a bloody way).  

On the other hand, some people have opinions that run counter to "the facts" which are, in fact, correct...but we only recognize it a hundred years later.

Honestly, get a grip.  It is perfectly valid, and in fact necessary, to allow that a teenager might opine: "Brittney Spears the best singer in the world ever bar none since the beginning of time."  It is a valid opinion in the sense that it is well-formed, and we understand what they are talking about, and is not trivially disproveable (which a claim such as "the sky is hard as a rock" could be).  It is also an opinion that makes a claim which is false and should be (and is) recognized as such.  What you do when confronted by such opinions is roll your eyes, bite your tongue, and wait for them to grow up (and they do, eventually). 

Surely you don't think all claims are equal?  Goodness!


----------



## James McMurray

No, what I mean is that if something can be proven to be either true or false, it isn't an opinion. Thus, "this is the lamest comeback ever" is an opnion, because lame (in that usage) is a subjective adjective and hence not provable. Likewise with your Brittney Spears example: the claim is neither true nor false in a provable sense because "greatest" is another subjective term (again in that usage, greatest and lame aren't always subjective, such as "greatest common denominator" or "lame because his leg is busted").

Why would you jump from me pointing out definitions of words to thinking I believe all claims to be equal?


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> No, what I mean is that if something *can be* proven to be either true or false, it isn't an opinion.




It can be proven true that the average touch AC in the SRD is ~10.5 and 93+% of creatures there have touch AC 14 or less.

Hence, it isn't opinion.

That's for supporting my POV.  


Btw, the reason touch ACs are slightly lower than people might expect in the SRD is due to creatures like Dragons and Oozes.



		Code:
	

Black  12, 11, 10, 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6
Blue   11, 10, 10,  9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 6
Green  11, 10, 10,  9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 6
Red    10,  9,  9,  9, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 2
White  12, 11, 10, 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6
Brass  12, 11, 10, 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6
Bronze 11, 10, 10,  9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 6
Copper 12, 11, 10, 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6
Gold   10,  9,  9,  9, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 6, 2, 2
Silver 11, 10, 10,  9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 2


Dragon touch ACs account for 120 touch ACs out of ~529 or over 22.5%.

The average Dragon touch AC is ~8.18. From that it can be calculated that the non-Dragon creatures have an average touch AC of ~11.18 (since the overall average touch AC is ~10.5). Dragons are 3 touch AC lower than non-Dragon creatures on average and pull down the overall average by almost 0.7.

PS. Feel free to double check my facts at any time. Jump in and quote some real data.


----------



## Notmousse

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Looks like you and I agree on that--see my simultaneous post




Scarey, huh?



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> However, even if you only consider the front and not the back, that still requires a highly-improbable three-dimensional hemisphere of allies who are positioned exactly right so that you don't have any space to attack.




Yeah, but going 3D always gives me a headache on the map.  Not the least of which is finding a die to determine random direction, that's what a D26 if you count all the permutations of 'down' too?


----------



## shmoo2

Orb spells also make the SC "Ray of Deanimation" spell useless. If the Ray is balanced, the orbs should not be.

Ray of Deanimation is a level 4 spell- ranged touch attack for 1d6/level [max 15d6] at close range, no save, no SR to one construct. It presumably has been balanced because it targets only constructs. A spell caster could take that spell to fight golems. 
OR
take an Orb spell which is also a level 4 spell- ranged touch attack for 1d6/level [max 15d6] at close range, no save, no SR AND can be used against any type of creature, AND has an additional effect on top of the damage.


----------



## Notmousse

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> How should a *character* have the slightest clue of what CR a monster is without metagaming?




Gather Information, bardic knowledge, and plain old asking 'So, I hear there's a dragon nearby, how's that working out for you?' in this particular case.  At 15th level you may well be legendary characters yourselves (campaign dependant I know), sung of by bards as legends in your own time, but almost certainly are there going to be legends about the insanely scarey monster that's been gathering untold riches over the last millenia.



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> *Players* shouldn't even know what CR a monster is.




While I agree they shouldn't be referencing the MM at the table, I'm sure that they may have an idea something's up when the monster is a size larger than it should be for an even challenge.  Or when the GM cackles insanely as he whips out a mini (maxi more like it) that costs more than the core rules.


----------



## shmoo2

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Therefor, their balance comes down partly to a matter of campaign style. In Age of Worms they're decent. In SCAP (which I assume means *Shattered City*?) they're da bomb.




SCAP = Shackled City

I think your data actually showed the orbs to be better than decent even in the AoW.
'Orbs optimal' encounters with 1-3 Opponents: 44/74 = 59.5%
'AoE optimal' encounters with 5+ opponents: 21/74 = 28%

That's a pretty good ratio.


----------



## Notmousse

hong said:
			
		

> Ah. Since this is "obscenely prejudicial", maybe the dragon should be 12 CRs higher instead. That should be enough for a fair fight. Rystil, care to think up a scenario?



 Or maybe it shouldn't be against a single monster with SR and practically nill (2 for a GWRD) touch AC?


----------



## hong

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Or maybe it shouldn't be against a single monster with SR and practically nill (2 for a GWRD) touch AC?



 It's not the wizard's fault it has SR and crap touch AC.


----------



## Notmousse

shmoo2 said:
			
		

> SCAP = Shackled City
> 
> I think your data actually showed the orbs to be better than decent even in the AoW.
> 'Orbs optimal' encounters with 1-3 Opponents: 44/74 = 59.5%
> 'AoE optimal' encounters with 5+ opponents: 21/74 = 28%
> 
> That's a pretty good ratio.



 What are the numbers using 3 as a wash instead of 4?


----------



## Notmousse

hong said:
			
		

> It's not the wizard's fault it has SR and crap touch AC.



 You're right it would be the anti-orb advocate's fault for using a creature with a touch AC half that of a gelatinous cube in their key example.

Nevermind that I already found two very reasonable ways to shut down the conjurer even with the example given.  It's just silly to put forth such a ridiculous encounter in the first place.


----------



## hong

Notmousse said:
			
		

> You're right it would be the anti-orb advocate's fault for using a creature with a touch AC half that of a gelatinous cube in their key example.




One uses the tool appropriate to the task at hand.

Clearly you must approve of a [feat|spell|item] that lets you kill undead with one hit from a toothpick, for the low, low price of [1st character level|1st spell level|100 gp]. After all, this is easily handled by the strategem of never using undead.



> Nevermind that I already found two very reasonable ways to shut down the conjurer even with the example given.  It's just silly to put forth such a ridiculous encounter in the first place.




Are you suggesting that a super-tough monster managing to fend off a couple of wizards 9 CRs below its level actually proves anything?


----------



## shmoo2

Notmousse said:
			
		

> What are the numbers using 3 as a wash instead of 4?




James' data is in post #278.

new break down:

'Orbs super optimal' 1-2 Opponents 40/74 = 54%
'AoE optimal' with 4+ Opponents 30/74 = 40%

Still advantage Orbs in 1/3 extra encounters- even considering 3 opponents the tipping point.


----------



## shmoo2

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Or maybe it shouldn't be against a single monster with SR and practically nill (2 for a GWRD) touch AC?




You're right- the single huge dragon encounter is biased against the evocations, and towards the orbs.

Ok, let's stack the deck against the Orbs instead. (I'll try and show all my math.)
We'll pick an appropriate CR for 15th level PCs- CR 16 would be a big, but not huge encounter. 

Now we'll choose the CR 16 monster from the MM with the _highest_ touch AC. It's the Cornugon Devil with touch AC of 16. It also has SR 28, Fortitude and Reflex saves of +16, and Cold Resistance 10.

We'll give both PCs 16 Dex (including a +2 item) and a 22 Int (25 pt buy: starting 15, 3 boosts; +4 item).

Since this isn't a huge encounter, the casters don't use their 8th level spells. They both toss a 7th level spell, Maximized versions of Orb of Cold or Cone of Cold.

Connie does:
Ranged attack bonus of +10 (+7 BAB +3 Dex) means she hits on a 6 or higher or 75% of the time. 
Average damage: 15*6 = 90(*0.75)= 67.5
-10 for cold resitance 
= *57.5 hp*. (11.25% of the time, the devil will be blinded.)

Evan does:
Caster level of +17 (we'll even give Evan Spell Penetration to help him) means he succeeds vs. SR on an 11 or higher, or 50% of the time. Reflex DC is 20 (lvl 4 spell +6 Int). The devil succeeds on a 4 or higher, or 85% of the time.
Average damage: 15*6 = 90(*0.50)= 45(*0.15+0.5*0.85)= 25.875
-10 for cold resitance 
= *15.875 hp*.

But Evocations are used against multiple opponents! let's cluster 4 Cornugons within the Area of Effect:

15.875*4 for AofE on all the devils =
*63.5 hp*! 
That's only 6hp more than Connie (+10.4%). And she has an 11% chance to blind.

In other words, even when we stack the deck for the Evocation user [High touch AC, Spell Penetration feat vs. no specific feat for Connie, 4 opponents] it comes out pretty even.
Almost any other encounter than this one will get worse for the Evocation spell up to the high CR dragon encounters Rystil has brought forth.

That's why the orbs seem broken to me.


----------



## Rystil Arden

shmoo2 said:
			
		

> That's only 6hp more than Connie (+10.4%). And she has an 11% chance to blind.




Also, of note, I would MUCH rather do 57.5 to one cornugon than 15.875 to 4 of them in most situations.  Thanks for doing the math.


----------



## shmoo2

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Also, of note, I would MUCH rather do 57.5 to one cornugon than 15.875 to 4 of them in most situations.  Thanks for doing the math.




Yeah, especially considering they have Fast Healing 5. 20 pts of Evan's damage is gone next round- while only 5 is taken off Connie's total.

Additionally, I just noticed that Cone of Cold is a 5th level spell.

So all of above, with Evan using an 8th level slot while Connie uses a 7th.

If Evan merely Empowers his Cone of Cold:
Evan does:
Caster level of +17 (we'll even give Evan Spell Penetration to help him) means he succeeds vs. SR on an 11 or higher, or 50% of the time. Reflex DC is 20 (lvl 4 spell +6 Int). The devil succeeds on a 4 or higher, or 85% of the time.
Average damage: 15*3.5*1.5 = 78.75(*0.50)= 39.375(*0.15+0.5*0.85)= 22.640625
-10 for cold resitance 
= 12.640625 hp.

against the 4 Cornugons that's
12.640625*4 for AofE on all the devils =
50.5625 hp!

or 7 points LESS than Connie, even with an extra feat, and multiple opponents and with high touch AC!


----------



## Rystil Arden

Yep.

Notably, they do have better SR for their CR than the dragons did (I thought dragons weren't too bad an example for the Evoker for that reason, but it seems some people didn't agree).  I imagine someone will point out that having SR means they aren't "the best" for Evokers, but I think you chose excellently--after all, if the proposed nerf is to make the Orbs SR: Yes, then against creatures with no SR, the Orbs wouldn't actually be changed at all and would seem the same either way.  Thus, the question is irrelevant unless the example creature has SR, since the nerf wouldn't weaken the orbs against non-SR creatures (so if they aren't overpowered when the monster has no SR, who cares!).


----------



## Sabathius42

shmoo2 said:
			
		

> = *15.875 hp*.




I like the scenario and the math.  I think you didn't go with extremes, you picked some basic easy to follow choices.

My question would then be....shouldn't an evoker burning a 7th (or 8th as someone pointed out) level spell be doing more than 16hp worth of damage against a monster that he is favorably paired up with?

I would vote...yes.  Which goes back to supporting my stand that the orb spell in this example seems reasonable and not overpowered.

DS


----------



## Nail

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Sorry, I calculated them by hand.



You've fabricated a number for all touch ACs, and now you are lieing about how you did it in an attempt to make a point.

That's too bad.    I guess I'll be responding to other posters from now on.


----------



## Felix

shmoo2 said:
			
		

> <Connie & Evan v. 4 Cornugons>



Nicely done.


----------



## Sabathius42

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Crush is fairly easily thwarted by Contingency-Polymorph (Colossal dragon can't crush Huge opponents), Contingency-DimDoor, or Projected Image, just looking at core spells.  Not sure if a dragon can crush flying opponents; that sounds like a DM judgement call to me.




Also much like Orb spells are easily thwarted by Contingency-Mirror Image.

DS


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> Also much like Orb spells are easily thwarted by Contingency-Mirror Image.



True.  But wizards have higher-level spells available than even a much higher-CR dragon.  The only chromatic dragons that can cast Contingency are CR 20 and up, whereas a wizard gets that spell at level 11.  And because dragons cast as sorcerers, it takes up a very valuable "spells known" slot that could be used for something like Greater Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, or (for the ones with cleric spells) Harm and Heal.  So it generally won't be "easily" thwarted by a dragon.  Buying scrolls is effectively a cost of 150 gp per day, or 54,750 gp per year.  A CR 20 dragon would spend its entire hoard in 4.4 years using this tactic for protection.  

Now Antimagic Field: that's a great dragon tactic to thwart the orbs, assuming you have Sudden Widen so the field covers your entire space.  And assuming the DM doesn't rule that the orbs are unaffected by AMF.  I *think* you can Widen an AMF, although technically that would be increasing both the range and the area.


----------



## James McMurray

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It can be proven true that the average touch AC in the SRD is ~10.5 and 93+% of creatures there have touch AC 14 or less.
> 
> Hence, it isn't opinion.
> 
> That's for supporting my POV.




Who said it was an opinion? I said that I didn't believe the numbers and was too lazy to check them. I never said they were an opinion.

What does it matter what the average dragon touch AC is?



> Orb spells also make the SC "Ray of Deanimation" spell useless. If the Ray is balanced, the orbs should not be.




I agree. That ray definitely blows chunks.



> 'Orbs optimal' encounters with 1-3 Opponents: 44/74 = 59.5%
> 'AoE optimal' encounters with 5+ opponents: 21/74 = 28%




I consider area effects to be optimal in fights with 4+ opponents, and a wash at 3 opponents. The actual usability of each depends too much on terrain.



> Ok, let's stack the deck against the Orbs instead. (I'll try and show all my math.)




Why is a character that relieds on bypassing SR not getting both SP and GSP? And why is either caster using cold against a devil? Presumably they'd both have knowledge (planes)?



> Notably, they do have better SR for their CR than the dragons did




So what you're saying is that if you're stackingt he deck against orbs you have to find a monster with higher than average SR and energy resistance (which is multiplied by the number of monsters when taking off area damage) for it's CR in order to make it so that the evoker does only slightly more damage? LOL

If you were really being honest about wanting to stack the deck you'd use 4+ monsters with low reflex saves and no SR. How about 4 elder earth elementals? Their +7 reflex save and no SR means the evoker does around 200 damage compared to the conjurer's 75-ish.


----------



## James McMurray

Nail said:
			
		

> You've fabricated a number for all touch ACs, and now you are lieing about how you did it in an attempt to make a point.
> 
> That's too bad.    I guess I'll be responding to other posters from now on.




You mean to say you thought I was serious? Of course I was making the point that telling someone if they can't disprove someone's numbers they automatically agree with them. I assumed that would have been obvious to everyone reading due to the fact that I chose 50 (or thereabouts) as my supposed average touch AC. I could have used fewer books and a more reasonable number if I'd actually been trying to lie about it and use the inflated average as an argument int he ongoing orb debate. You'll note I never once referred to it except while making a point about the burden of proof being on the one making the claim.


----------



## James McMurray

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Now Antimagic Field: that's a great dragon tactic to thwart the orbs, assuming you have Sudden Widen so the field covers your entire space.  And assuming the DM doesn't rule that the orbs are unaffected by AMF.  I *think* you can Widen an AMF, although technically that would be increasing both the range and the area.




It would require a house rule for the AMF to negate the orbs, as they're instantaneous creations. AMF is an emanation, so you can definitely widen it.


----------



## Felix

James McMurray said:
			
		

> You'll note I never once referred to it except while making a point about the burden of proof being on the one making the claim.



You'll note that those who _have_ crunched the numbers have offered multiple times to submit their calculations to your scrutiny, but you have not yet publicly accepted.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It would require a house rule for the AMF to negate the orbs, as they're instantaneous creations. AMF is an emanation, so you can definitely widen it.



Ah, that's right, the little balls of force piling up.  
In your opinion, would the orbs affect incorporeal creatures?  On the one hand, they are immune to all nonmagical attack forms (except holy water if undead).  On the other, they can be harmed by spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> If you were really being honest about wanting to stack the deck you'd use 4+ monsters with low reflex saves and no SR.




  Go back to the post of mine that you quoted (558) and read past the part you quoted--I already mentioned that I knew someone would say that, and I preemptively told you why it is irrelevant.


----------



## shmoo2

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Why is a character that relieds on bypassing SR not getting both SP and GSP? And why is either caster using cold against a devil? Presumably they'd both have knowledge (planes)?




Spell Penetration was already an extra feat for the Evoker. I gave the Conjurer no specific boost feats at all. The Evoker needs even MORE to be competitive with the Orbs?

They are using Cold because they know the Devils are immune to Fire and Acid, and also have Electricity Resistance 10. Cold is actually a pretty good choice.



			
				James McMurray said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that if you're stackingt he deck against orbs you have to find a monster with higher than average SR and energy resistance (which is multiplied by the number of monsters when taking off area damage) for it's CR in order to make it so that the evoker does only slightly more damage? LOL
> 
> If you were really being honest about wanting to stack the deck you'd use 4+ monsters with low reflex saves and no SR. How about 4 elder earth elementals? Their +7 reflex save and no SR means the evoker does around 200 damage compared to the conjurer's 75-ish.




What Rystil said.

But also:
This is hardly a cherry picked encounter to optimize orb spells.

The dragon example was 'rejected' because it was against a single opponent, and with a very low touch AC.

I brought forth an example against multiple opponents, with high touch ACs (the highest available at that CR in the MM).

Now you are rejecting this one, based on the opponents having Energy Resistance and SR.
Lots of fence post moving, again.

Also, the elder earth elementals are CR 11. One of the points of the high-powered-ness of orb spells (at high level) is that almost everything at say, CR 15+ has SR and multiple energy resistances.

If evokers are only balanced in encounters with multiple high touch AC, low SR, low Energy Resistance opponents (Air Elementals?) then I think the overpowered-ness of orbs is evident.


----------



## Plane Sailing

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Who said it was an opinion? I said that I didn't believe the numbers and was too lazy to check them. I never said they were an opinion.




This seems to be symptomatic of a number of posts you've made in this thread. Too lazy to do any work but remaining contrarian about the position.

Unless you have anything substantive to say, it seems as if this thread is drawing to an end of effective debate and I'm inclined to close it before tempers get frayed.

 - unless others believe that there is still life in this debate?

Regards,


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> unless others believe that there is still life in this debate?



Well, I was rather hoping to hear a few points of view on orbs vs. incorporeal -- are they magical attacks or are they not -- but that's just a minor point.


----------



## Notmousse

hong said:
			
		

> After all, this is easily handled by the strategem of never using undead.




As opposed to always using the most favorable conditions to a spell to 'prove' it's broken?



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that a super-tough monster managing to fend off a couple of wizards 9 CRs below its level actually proves anything?




That's another reason why I didn't like the example.  The claim was so outragious that even if I proved it false the response would be 'big deal'.

The truth is that in a reasonable encounter the CR 15 Red Dragon also destroys the mages.  Dragon hears them comming (from over 200 feet away), applies Scintilating Scales, and uses a Maximized Breath to deal more than the 99 HP tossed out earlier if it wins initiative or not.


----------



## IcyCool

I'd like to see some actual numbers from the pro-orb folks (actual calculations or hard evidence, not something you made up please).

If that isn't forthcoming, then I can't really see what else there is to talk about.


----------



## SlagMortar

> Well, I was rather hoping to hear a few points of view on orbs vs. incorporeal -- are they magical attacks or are they not -- but that's just a minor point.



See page 6 of the thread.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> See page 6 of the thread.



Thanks.  Sorry to bring up old points that I had missed.


----------



## Felix

As a benefit for the folks just now joining us, what are the arguments, conclusive or not, against Orbs as written?

(If the pro-orb folks want to do their own argument summary be my guest. I'm just trying to collect all the various arguments that have been presented so far.)

*~~~~~~~~*

*- Flavor: *

Direct damaging energy spells should be Evocation, Acid being an exception.

*- Conjuration (creation) Rules: *

Creates either creatures or objects, energy being neither.

The created energy lasts permanently.

*- Balance:*

Touch attack + no save + no SR + unaffected by Anti-magic = too easily bypasses defenses.

*~~~~~~~~*

If there are others that I don't have, let me know and I'll edit this post to contain them.


----------



## James McMurray

shmoo2 said:
			
		

> Spell Penetration was already an extra feat for the Evoker. I gave the Conjurer no specific boost feats at all. The Evoker needs even MORE to be competitive with the Orbs?




No, the Evoker needs SP and GSP to function competently in his job as area nuker, whether orbs exist or not.



> They are using Cold because they know the Devils are immune to Fire and Acid, and also have Electricity Resistance 10. Cold is actually a pretty good choice.




Ah, didn't check the stats. It doesn't change that the devils are a bad choice bacause while they're closer to a fair trade, they're still weighted in favor of orbs.



> Now you are rejecting this one, based on the opponents having Energy Resistance and SR.
> Lots of fence post moving, again.




No posts have moved. I'm still wanting a fair example. The ones given aren't fair.



> Also, the elder earth elementals are CR 11. One of the points of the high-powered-ness of orb spells (at high level) is that almost everything at say, CR 15+ has SR and multiple energy resistances.




I gave 4 CR 11s because that's what an ECL 15 encounter would be. I also don't have Complete Arcane with me. I'd originally wanted to use Elemental Monoliths.



> If evokers are only balanced in encounters with multiple high touch AC, low SR, low Energy Resistance opponents (Air Elementals?) then I think the overpowered-ness of orbs is evident.




Who said anything about only? I gave the earth elementals as an example that's on the opposite end of the "fairness" scale from the dragon example. I then went on to state what a truly fair example would require.



> This seems to be symptomatic of a number of posts you've made in this thread. Too lazy to do any work but remaining contrarian about the position.




Too lazy? You mean like the people that dismissed my calculations of touch ACs out of hand? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to believe numbers some random Joe on the internet throws out without seeing the work. If it means I'm too lazy, that's fine by me.



> Unless you have anything substantive to say, it seems as if this thread is drawing to an end of effective debate and I'm inclined to close it before tempers get frayed.




I've said all sorts of substantive things, but as they're on the less popular side of the fence they get dismissed en masse. But as was said several pages back (by me) this thread isn't going anywhere.



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Well, I was rather hoping to hear a few points of view on orbs vs. incorporeal -- are they magical attacks or are they not -- but that's just a minor point.




The rules are very clear that the orbs are nonmagical attacks, just like all other instantaneous conjurations. If you allow orbs to hit incorporeal creatures, you also have to allow swords created via conjuration to hit incoporeal creatures.



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> I'd like to see some actual numbers from the pro-orb folks (actual calculations or hard evidence, not something you made up please).
> 
> If that isn't forthcoming, then I can't really see what else there is to talk about.




I was going to post numbers with my elementals, but had a brain fart trying to remember the formula for expected damage with a save for half spell that allows SR. IF someone will be kind enough to post that I'll happily dig around fora few EL 15 encounters that orbs are decent in but AoEs rule.


----------



## James McMurray

Felix said:
			
		

> You'll note that those who _have_ crunched the numbers have offered multiple times to submit their calculations to your scrutiny, but you have not yet publicly accepted.




The only numbers I have outright rejected have beent he ones showing the suposed average AC of the monsters in the MM. I must have missed the post where someone listed the average ACs of the monsters in the MM. The other numbers have all been too situational to be of use.



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Ah, that's right, the little balls of force piling up.
> In your opinion, would the orbs affect incorporeal creatures?  On the one hand, they are immune to all nonmagical attack forms (except holy water if undead).  On the other, they can be harmed by spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.




I'd say that they can affect incorporeal creatures. In this case the general rule is that incorporeals are immune to anything nonmagical, and the specific case is that Force effects can hurt incorporeals. The specific would override the general. As I've said before though, in my games Force orbs are evocation. If it comes up at a table I'm sitting at I'll go with whatever the GM decides, since he's the ones that has opted not to house rule Orb of Force.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Go back to the post of mine that you quoted (558) and read past the part you quoted--I already mentioned that I knew someone would say that, and I preemptively told you why it is irrelevant.




The reason isn't a good one though. The complaint about orbs vs. dragons as an example is that orbs are tailor made to fight dragons due t the SR, touch AC, and energy weakness. Going from "in this extremely unbalanced situation orbs roxxorz" to "in this still unbalanced situation AoEs win, but only by a little" is not a proper mirror. If you want to compare orbs as "fairly" as the dragon example, you have to use creatures with no SR and weak saves. If you really wanted to be fair you'd have to pick a creature with average SR and average saves for its CR.


----------



## Sabathius42

Heres another example of a no-SR no-save spell that can easily whack a dragon.

Assume....wizard or cleric with a 19 in their casting stat.  Access to the gate spell.
Assume....the wizard or cleric can sneak up to the dragon without getting blasted, as we have been.

Wizard/Cleric casts gate 20' radius centered under flat-footed dragon leading to negative energy plane.  Wizard/Cleric doesn't concentrate after the dragon falls through and the gate closes.

Dragon is gone.  Treasure is had.

DS


----------



## Rystil Arden

> The reason isn't a good one though. The complaint about orbs vs. dragons as an example is that orbs are tailor made to fight dragons due t the SR, touch AC, and energy weakness. Going from "in this extremely unbalanced situation orbs roxxorz" to "in this still unbalanced situation AoEs win, but only by a little" is not a proper mirror. If you want to compare orbs as "fairly" as the dragon example, you have to use creatures with no SR and weak saves. If you really wanted to be fair you'd have to pick a creature with average SR and average saves for its CR.




Actually, I believe dragons have _below-average_ SR for their CR and they have Reflex saves that are not that much above average (Good Ref on the Dragon HD but terrible Dex--this puts them in between the totally bad Ref things and the things with Good Ref and good Dex).

And the reason to ignore the no-SR guys is plenty good enough--creatures with no SR at all are irrelevant because if you make my proposed nerf (and the one referenced in the thread title), Orbs do not change in strength against critters with no SR.


----------



## DungeonMaester

Has the point of a spell caster actually choosing his spells for the day as balance been brought up?

In my honest opinion, when players actually choose spells for the day even the most blammy spells such as the Orbs only are prepared once or twice, preparing them more means almost certain death for the party.

---Rusty


----------



## James McMurray

Rhystil, we're almost 600 posts into this thread. It's expanded well beyond the OP.


----------



## Felix

<disregard>


----------



## Wish

It's surely easy to make the orb spells look very strong when you hand pick the examples.  Let's go with a slightly different example.  (Also EL 16, just like the Cornugon that's got everybody so worked up.)

In this case, our intrepid wizards run into a pack of six elder water elementals (CR 11).

Our orb wizard lets fly with a maximized orb of cold.  Touch AC 14 means a 4 or better to hit.

Damage will be (90*0.85) = 76.5.  Not bad.

Our AoE wizard lets go an empowered cone of cold.  Save on a 5 or better with a +16 Reflex bonus and DC 21.

Damage per elemental will be 52.5*1.5*(0.2+0.5*0.8) = 47.25.

Damage for the whole pack of elementals will be 283.5.

Wow, those orb spells sure do suck.


----------



## James McMurray

Felix said:
			
		

> You claimed that Devils were stacked in favor of the Orb-caster without having checked the stats?




Because their SR (as stated by another poster) is higher than the average for their CR. The energy resistance was just icing on the cake.



> Meaning that you have found a reason to dismiss every number that has been offered you?
> 
> What numbers should I think you would accept?




It'll be hard. They have to be fair enough to matter, general enough to matter across the course of a wizard's career, and extreme enough in their differences between orbs and AoEs to show the imbalance clearly. For the reconrd, I don't believe the 4 earth elementals to be fair enough to matter, because they're weighted too strongly in favor of the AoE spell.

Personally, I'd prefer play reports from people running campaigns to numbers, because I'm not sure my criteria for numbers in this case is meetable. I'm afraid that encounters in a campaign are too disparate to generate enough sets of data to account for a large enough percentage of them that one can say "see, orbs are unbalanced." Icould be wrong though, so please feel free to try.

In my experience, running campaign games and arena games, the orbs are not unbalanced. They're a lot stronger in the arena games because the fights are almost always one on one, but I havn't seen them be demonstrably overpowered in enough situations to warrant a change. There are others who have posted that in their experiences the orbs also aren't broken. It's about as useful as firsthand experiences usually are (i.e. hardly at all without a sizeable sampling) but it's better to me that a few specific situations set up specifically to prove or disprove a point.


----------



## Felix

Wish said:
			
		

> It's surely easy to make the orb spells look very strong when you hand pick the examples.  Let's go with a slightly different example.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Wow, those orb spells sure do suck.



The reasoning behind pitting foes with SR against an Evoker and a Conjurer is that foes without SR will not show why _Orbs_ should remain "SR: no".

In this instance of 6 elementals, changing the spell to "SR: yes" will not make the _Orbs_ any less effective.

So to see if there is a good balance reason to keep the Orbs "SR: no" or change them to "SR: yes", look at three things: 1) how Evocations compare vs _Orbs_ opposing critters with SR, 2) the frequency of critters with SR appearing as opponents, and 3) the frequencey of small-numbers-of-opponent fights. The better _Orbs_ do against SR relative to Evocations, the closer to broken; the more frequent SR opponents are, the closer to broken; the more often you fight few foes, the closer to broken.

Either way, showing how 6 water elementals fare does nothing to inform us of any of these three things. The same point can be made by pitting 60 stirges against an _Orb_ tosser and a _Fireballer_.


----------



## Felix

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It'll be hard. They have to be fair enough to matter, general enough to matter across the course of a wizard's career, and extreme enough in their differences between orbs and AoEs to show the imbalance clearly. For the reconrd, I don't believe the 4 earth elementals to be fair enough to matter, because they're weighted too strongly in favor of the AoE spell.



So then what are the factors that will lead to a conclusion of game imbalance if you don't buy into the flavor and conjuration (creation) rules arguments against Orbs?

_Orbs_ will be imbalanced if:

Fights involve fewer opponents.
Fights involve enemies with SR.
Fights begin at short range.
Touch ACs are lower.
Saving throw bonuses for enemies are higher.​
The reverse of those things will weaken _Orbs_.

Are there others?


----------



## IanB

I suppose we're past the cornugon example already, but it should be pointed out that a cornugon's touch AC is actually likely to be 20, not 16, as it has both dispel chaos and dispel good as SLAs.


----------



## James McMurray

Felix said:
			
		

> So then what are the factors that will lead to a conclusion of game imbalance if you don't buy into the flavor and conjuration (creation) rules arguments against Orbs?
> 
> _Orbs_ will be imbalanced if:
> 
> Fights involve fewer opponents.
> Fights involve enemies with SR.
> Fights begin at short range.
> Touch ACs are lower.
> Saving throw bonuses for enemies are higher.​
> The reverse of those things will weaken _Orbs_.
> 
> Are there others?




Fights involve a lot of antimagic areas.
Fights involve few incorporeal creatures.
Fights involve situations where area spells cannot be used to reliably target three or more enemies.​
It would require a combination of those effects to make them broken. For instance, if every fight is against a single opponent they're broken. If every fight is against a single incorporeal opponent they're hideously ineffective. OR everyone having a touch AC of -15 and a reflex save bonus of +0 is a wash.


----------



## Hypersmurf

James McMurray said:
			
		

> AMF is an emanation, so you can definitely widen it.




You can, but strictly, it's a useless exercise.

"You can alter a burst, emanation, line, or spread shaped spell to increase its area. Any numeric measurements of the spell’s area increase by 100%."

AMF has a range of 10 feet, and an area of 10' radius emanation.

Widened AMF has a range of 10 feet, and an area of 20' radius emanation.

And "If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted."

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray

Good catch. I'd personally allow it to stretch all the way out, since it's effectively a 9th level spell effect.


----------



## Wish

Felix said:
			
		

> The reasoning behind pitting foes with SR against an Evoker and a Conjurer is that foes without SR will not show why _Orbs_ should remain "SR: no".




So, your point is that Orb spells do exactly what they are supposed to do - deliver damage to single targets with SR.

The elemental example shows that AoE spells do exactly what _they_  are supposed to do - deliver damage to multiple targets, especially those with limited specific defenses (such as SR or evasion).

You haven't shown why Orb spells should be SR: yes, you've shown that they do damage to foes with SR (which really is so obvious that it shouldn't merit discussion).  You have further assumed that foes with SR should not take damage from spells (and indeed they don't from most spells).  It's this assumption that lets you argue that Orb spells should be SR: yes, but I reject that assumption.

SR is just one of many defenses a creature can have.  There's no reason to believe it should be proof against everything a spellcaster can do.  And Orb spells are just one of many options a spellcaster can have to counter the defenses of a given foe.  Sometimes they will be the more effective option for dealing damage (as, for example, in the case of the cornugon).  Sometimes they will not be nearly as effective as area of effect spells (as in the case of the elementals whose primary defenses are DR/- and large hp totals - 1368 hp worth of elementals will take a while at 90hp/shot).


----------



## Felix

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It would require a combination of those effects to make them broken.



Sure, but these conditions arn't exactly uncommon. And you only need a little of each, or a lot of one, to make _Orbs_ outshine the entire direct-damage Evocation subschool.

Again for you watching at home: this is only the game-balance argument. I consider the Flavor argument damning enough for my taste, and the Conjuration (Creation) Rules argument makes the wording of these spells as written look silly.


----------



## Felix

Wish said:
			
		

> So, your point is that Orb spells do exactly what they are supposed to do - deliver damage to single targets with SR.



They'll do that anyway because it'll be more likely for the Orb caster to hit his touch attack than for the creature to fail the reflex save, assuming both pass the SR check.


----------



## James McMurray

Felix said:
			
		

> Sure, but these conditions arn't exactly uncommon. And you only need a little of each, or a lot of one, to make _Orbs_ outshine the entire direct-damage Evocation subschool.




Which is why I've said many times that balance is campaign specific. The samples taken from Age of Worms and Shackled City show that even in official WotC products, campaign style plays a major role. How much you need of each is completely unarguable because it boils dopwn to personal opinion.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Wish said:
			
		

> The elemental example shows that AoE spells do exactly what _they_  are supposed to do - deliver damage to multiple targets, especially those with limited specific defenses (such as SR or evasion).



Other conjuration spells added in Complete Arcane ignore SR AND are area-energy-damage spells.  Blast of Flame, Arc of Lightning, and Virtolic Sphere.  So it isn't the case that conjurers can just handle single opponents and evokers handle groups -- Complete Arcane gave conjurers a huge arsenal of energy-damage spells, far beyond the Acid Arrow they had before.  Having played a druid for 19 levels, I can say that summoning was already an extremely potent ability, and I don't understand why the authors thought that conjurers needed more power.  I don't know if there are more such spells in Spell Compendium.

Interestingly, Ice Knife and Hail of Stone are instantaneous creation conjurations from Complete Arcane that do NOT bypass SR.  I have no idea why this is.



			
				Wish said:
			
		

> SR is just one of many defenses a creature can have.  There's no reason to believe it should be proof against everything a spellcaster can do.



That was never the case.  There were always many things a caster could do when faced with a high-SR opponent.


----------



## Felix

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Which is why I've said many times that balance is campaign specific. The samples taken from Age of Worms and Shackled City show that even in official WotC products, campaign style plays a major role. How much you need of each is completely unarguable because it boils dopwn to personal opinion.



It may be campaign specific, but the examples show how _Orbs_ can easily turn into must-have spells because of the damage potential they have against opponents that are commonly, well, common; they'll do the same when opponents are fewer, as there are ~60% of encounters with 3 or less opponents in the Age of Worms (or was it Shackled City?) Adventure Path. 

With that serving as baseline, it won't take much to push _Orbs_ into broken territory, and quite a bit of management to ensure they don't. A DM shouldn't have to put this much design thought into a direct damage spell.


----------



## James McMurray

I don't disagree that they can be powerful in the right scenarios. I do disagree that it requires a lot of management to make them not be that way. I have never modified an adventure with the orbs in mind, and they haven't been too powerful in my games. As far as I know none of the people I've played under have modified adventures with orbs in mind, and they haven't been too powerful in those games either. No thought was required, merely continuin down the same path my group has been on for years.


----------



## IanB

I think I will specifically encourage one of my players to try out the warmage in my upcoming AoW game, as I'm now quite curious about how it will stand up against a 'standard' environment.


----------



## James McMurray

I'd suggest he play a specialized conjurer focusing on orbs if you're looking to compare the two. As a warmage he'll be able to cast all the area spells too, making it harder to figure out which encounters he sucked at because of orbs and which encounters he sucked at because of AoEs.


----------



## hong

Notmousse said:
			
		

> As opposed to always using the most favorable conditions to a spell to 'prove' it's broken?




It's funny how tactics often works that way.



> That's another reason why I didn't like the example.  The claim was so outragious that even if I proved it false the response would be 'big deal'.




It's also funny how those who decline to propose scenarios of their own give up the right to criticise when others do their work for them.



> The truth is that in a reasonable encounter the CR 15 Red Dragon also destroys the mages.




Ah. A "reasonable encounter" involves a CR 15 monster always killing an EL 15 party. Clearly this is a new meaning of reasonable that I wasn't aware of before.


----------



## James McMurray

He didn't say party, he said mage.


----------



## hong

Doesn't change anything. Does a reasonable encounter with a matching-EL monster, even a dragon, always involve the mages dying in the first round? I don't think so.


----------



## IanB

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I'd suggest he play a specialized conjurer focusing on orbs if you're looking to compare the two. As a warmage he'll be able to cast all the area spells too, making it harder to figure out which encounters he sucked at because of orbs and which encounters he sucked at because of AoEs.




Actually my personal suspicion is that a lot of the orb-hate is ultimately rooted in and caused by the nature of the warmage class, which is what I'd like to really get a look at in a long campaign. I've seen the orbs used, but never by a character totally focused in them, and they were definitely in the "solid but not broken" category. So, now I'd like to look at the most extreme possible case.


----------



## IanB

hong said:
			
		

> Doesn't change anything. Does a reasonable encounter with a matching-EL monster, even a dragon, always involve the mages dying in the first round? I don't think so.




I have to say I've noticed a strong correlation between "getting into a fight" and "the mage gets killed" in our current high level game... but yeah, I don't think assuming that you're going to kill 1/4 of the party in a *same level* encounter is at all reasonable.


----------



## Sabathius42

IanB said:
			
		

> I think I will specifically encourage one of my players to try out the warmage in my upcoming AoW game, as I'm now quite curious about how it will stand up against a 'standard' environment.




My warmage has died 3 times.  He has been adventuring from 6th to 13th levels during this time.  Keep in mind we are playing with the "Max Possible Hit Points for Heros" rules or it would be more than this.

1. Grappled by some sort of invisible devil that attacked through my circle wall of flames and fireshield.
2. Negative Energy Fireballed 4 times though I was hiding behind columns.
3. Turned into a monkey.
4. I went to -9HP being enveloped by a giant ooze once, but the Favored Soul saved my bacon.

During this time I have only one-shot-one-killed 1 major NPC and 1 higher powered but not highest powered NPC.  Both were on critical hits with empowered acid orbs.  The party minotaur/fighter has one-round-of-attacks-one-killed quite a number of NPCs, and that is after he has sundered their weapon making them useless in the fight.

DS


----------



## James McMurray

hong said:
			
		

> Doesn't change anything. Does a reasonable encounter with a matching-EL monster, even a dragon, always involve the mages dying in the first round? I don't think so.




None of the examples given have mentioned anything about a party at all. I fail to see why this one should also include them. Perhaps he meant for it to, but it goes aginst the trend of the thread.


----------



## hong

James McMurray said:
			
		

> None of the examples given have mentioned anything about a party at all. I fail to see why this one should also include them. Perhaps he meant for it to, but it goes aginst the trend of the thread.



 Here is what was said.

The truth is that in a reasonable encounter the CR 15 Red Dragon also destroys the mages.​
Now of course, it's within the bounds of possibility that your games generally feature lone mages traipsing into monster lairs. However, for most people I'd hazard to guess (terrible, I know) that a "reasonable encounter" will involve other party members besides the mages as well.


----------



## Rystil Arden

hong said:
			
		

> Here is what was said.
> 
> The truth is that in a reasonable encounter the CR 15 Red Dragon also destroys the mages.​
> Now of course, it's within the bounds of possibility that your games generally feature lone mages traipsing into monster lairs. However, for most people I'd hazard to guess (terrible, I know) that a "reasonable encounter" will involve other party members besides the mages as well.



 I think that he expects a "reasonable CR 15 encounter" to one-shot the Mages, in which case, having a group or not doesn't matter.  In a game like that, I can see how the Orb level of making combat less fun is not actually making combat less fun because combat is already horribly unfun.


----------



## James McMurray

hong said:
			
		

> Here is what was said.
> 
> The truth is that in a reasonable encounter the CR 15 Red Dragon also destroys the mages.​
> Now of course, it's within the bounds of possibility that your games generally feature lone mages traipsing into monster lairs. However, for most people I'd hazard to guess (terrible, I know) that a "reasonable encounter" will involve other party members besides the mages as well.




I took the "reasonable" to mean a monster not twinked out or horribly neutered. Like I said, it's possible he meant an entire party would be there.


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It would require a house rule for the AMF to negate the orbs, as they're instantaneous creations.




This instantaneous creation rule explicitly only applies to objects and creatures.

DND objects have hardness and hit points. The Orbs do not.

DND creatures have hit points and a lot of other attributes that the Orbs do not.

Hence, the instantaneous creation rule does not apply.

That's what happens when WotC breaks the rules and puts an Evocation spell into a Conjuration school of magic. It doesn't fit in more ways than one.


----------



## Felix

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I took the "reasonable" to mean a monster not twinked out or horribly neutered. Like I said, it's possible he meant an entire party would be there.



There has been dithering over the presence or absence of a party with said mage since page 6. Notmousse was unclear as to this point until not too long ago, and it seems the confusion may have crept back in.

I suspect that he believes that a CR 15 encounter, appropriate for a CL 15 party, would easily gak a lone CL 15 Evoker, as well as gak a lone CL 15 Conjurer.

All in all, the unclarity of meaning is impressive.


----------



## KarinsDad

James McMurray said:
			
		

> The rules are *very clear* that the orbs are nonmagical attacks, just like all other instantaneous conjurations.




Really? Very Clear?

Quote the rule because TMK, there is no such rule.


----------



## Hypersmurf

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This instantaneous creation rule explicitly only applies to objects and creatures.
> 
> That's what happens when WotC breaks the rules and puts an Evocation spell into a Conjuration school of magic. It doesn't fit in more ways than one.




Well, the description of the Conjuration school states:
_Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or *create objects or effects on the spot (creation).*_

If we are to judge intent, let's look at the 32 creation spells in the PHB.

Three of them create things which might be considered creatures:
_Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound
Phantom Steed
Shambler_

(Phantom Steed is explicitly a creature, and Shambling Mounds I've got no problem with; the Hound is debatable, but let's call it a creature.)

Eleven I'll grant the status of objects:
_Create Food and Water
Create Water
Fire Seeds
Heroes' Feast
Leomund's Secure Shelter
Major Creation
Minor Creation
Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion
Wall of Iron
Wall of Stone
Wall of Thorns
Web_

(Is 'water' an object?  Does changing acorns into bombs count as creating an object?  Does Web have a hardness or hit points?)

Which leaves 18 creation spells that create effects that are neither creatures nor objects:
_Acid Arrow
Acid Fog
Acid Splash 
Evard's Black Tentacles
Cloudkill
Fog Cloud
Gate
Glitterdust
Grease
Incendiary Cloud
Mage Armor
Obscuring Mist
Phase Door
Sepia Snake Sigil
Sleet Storm
Solid Fog
Stinking Cloud
Unseen Servant_

So when we look at the subschool description:
_A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates..._

... what is the more reasonable deduction?  That over half - the majority! - of the creation spells in the PHB are in the wrong subschool?  Or that the word "creature" was erroneously substituted in the subschool description for the earlier-stated "effect" from the school description?

Where should those 18 spells from the PHB be placed, if we decide that if it's not an object or a creature, it's not Creation?

-Hyp.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

The instantaneous creation effect text is on p. 173:
"If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic.  It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence."

This applies to Create Water, Wall of Iron, Wall of Stone, and Acid Splash.  The first three are very clear.  They don't go away in an antimagic field, but they could also not be created so that they partly extend into one.  

The last spell is the camel's nose in the tent that allows the orb spells.  It is "instantaneous", but has a certain duration -- the time for the acid to be assembled and "thrown" so it can pass from point A (the caster) to point B (the target).  A duration short enough to be considered instantaneous, but is there no magic holding the orb of acid together?  Or propelling it such a distance?


----------



## hong

Maybe the acid just fizzles after a short enough time to be considered instantaneous. Even real-world chemical concoctions don't always last indefinitely.


----------



## KarinsDad

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If we are to judge *intent*, let's look at the 32 creation spells in the PHB.
> 
> Three of them create things which might be considered creatures:
> _Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound
> Phantom Steed
> Shambler_
> 
> (Phantom Steed is explicitly a creature, and Shambling Mounds I've got no problem with; the Hound is debatable, but let's call it a creature.)
> 
> Eleven I'll grant the status of objects:
> _Create Food and Water
> Create Water
> Fire Seeds
> Heroes' Feast
> Leomund's Secure Shelter
> Major Creation
> Minor Creation
> Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion
> Wall of Iron
> Wall of Stone
> Wall of Thorns
> Web_
> 
> (Is 'water' an object?  Does changing acorns into bombs count as creating an object?  Does Web have a hardness or hit points?)
> 
> Which leaves 18 creation spells that create effects that are neither creatures nor objects:
> _Acid Arrow
> Acid Fog
> Acid Splash
> Evard's Black Tentacles
> Cloudkill
> Fog Cloud
> Gate
> Glitterdust
> Grease
> Incendiary Cloud
> Mage Armor
> Obscuring Mist
> Phase Door
> Sepia Snake Sigil
> Sleet Storm
> Solid Fog
> Stinking Cloud
> Unseen Servant_
> 
> So when we look at the subschool description:
> _A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates..._
> 
> ... what is the more reasonable *deduction*?  That over half - the majority! - of the creation spells in the PHB are in the wrong subschool?  Or that the word "creature" was erroneously substituted in the subschool description for the earlier-stated "effect" from the school description?




Intent? Deduction?

OMG, Hyp just stepped out of the world of rules and into the world of intent.

I think I'm going to have a heart attack!  



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Where should those 18 spells from the PHB be placed, if we decide that if it's not an object or a creature, it's not Creation?




I did not state that they were not creation. I stated that we have no such *explicit rule* for instantaneous conjuration creation *energy* spells.

Out of that entire list Hyp, only two spells are instantaneous conjuration creation spells.

Only 2 (Acid Splash and Create Water) out of 33 (not 32) Conjuration Creations spells are applicable to the discussion.

Hence, using your exact same (appeal to probability) logic:

... what is the more reasonable deduction?  That 7% - a small minority! - of the conjuration creation spells in the PHB should last indefinitely and avoid AMFs?  Or that the general instantaneous spell rule (an explicit rule) that we do have applies?



> Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.




Of these two spells, one does damage and the other does not (shy of drowning). One is an Energy Attack (acid) and one is not (water). There is no Water Energy Resistance.

So we have 1 instantaneous energy spell out of 33 conjuration creation subschool spells in the PHB.

And it is your position that this one spell should allow the energy to last indefinitely and that it should blow through AMFs because it seems reasonable that Create Water should last indefinitely and should blow through AMFs (even though water is not energy)?

And we should then extrapolate this that Fire and Force and Cold and Lightning Orbs should last indefinitely and blow through AMFs?

And it is your contention that this is designer *intent*? WotC wants Orbs to do this, even though they have not written an explicit rule anywhere (FAQ, errata, Rules of the Game, anywhere) that Orbs have these properties?


Or should we state that *energy/force* Instantaneous Conjuration Creation spells are *not* objects (instead are energy) and hence, do not follow the Instantaneous Conjuraction Creation spell rules and instead follow the normal instantaneous rules? And water, which is *not energy*, can follow the conjuration creation rules because it makes sense for it to do so (i.e. be considered an object in this case because it can be put in a bag and has some properties of objects such as weight).

Which makes more sense and follows the rules closer? Do you really think that having an Orb of Force that lasts indefinitely is designer intent?

And what is RAW? Is Energy an Object in RAW?


----------



## James McMurray

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This instantaneous creation rule explicitly only applies to objects and creatures.




True. That slipped my mind. So it's up to the GM to decide whether the energy orbs ignore AMFs or not.


----------



## James McMurray

Tangent question: what are water and air? They have neither hardness nor hit points, but are also not an energy type.


----------



## IcyCool

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Tangent question: what are water and air? They have neither hardness nor hit points, but are also not an energy type.




True, and I think that bit is ambiguous.  They are defined as elements, I believe.

As a side note, the energy/element match up is thus, as far as I recall:

Air = Electricity
Water = Cold
Fire = Fire
Earth = Acid


----------



## Nail

IcyCool said:
			
		

> As a side note, the energy/element match up is thus, as far as I recall:
> 
> Air = Electricity
> Water = Cold
> Fire = Fire
> Earth = Acid



Leaving [sonic] out, of course.


----------



## IcyCool

Nail said:
			
		

> Leaving [sonic] out, of course.




Yeah, sonic doesn't have an element that it matches up to.  It's also not an option for the energy substitution feats.  And since sonic resistance is rare, sonic damage tends to be much stronger than any of the elemental energies.


----------



## Nail

All true.

Now, try "matching up" the [force] "energy" type.


----------



## James McMurray

Why does every energy need an element matched to it? Negative, Positive, and viscious energies don't have elements. Force and Sonic don't need them. I think the goal was to have each element tied to an energy, not vice versa.


----------



## IcyCool

Nail said:
			
		

> All true.
> 
> Now, try "matching up" the [force] "energy" type.




Force is, of course, stronger than Sonic (as far as resistances go), so much so that it tends to get a smaller damage die or cap.


----------



## IcyCool

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Why does every energy need an element matched to it? Negative, Positive, and viscious energies don't have elements. Force and Sonic don't need them. I think the goal was to have each element tied to an energy, not vice versa.




I'm not sure anyone said that every energy needed an element matched to it, did they?

And I believe that Negative and Positive energy would be in the same boat as Sonic.  There's remarkably few spells that deal either Negative or Positive energy damage though.  Maybe that's the next bit of power creep we have to look forward to?


----------



## Nail

Just in case anyone is interested:

Using the spreadsheet provided by http://www.nzcomputers.net/heroforge/, I've calculated the average touch AC of all monsters in MM I - IV, Fiend Folio, Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack.  (Some may disparage the fact that I did not "do it by hand", as apparently someone did.   )

The Average Touch AC is ~12.  Interestingly, this is about the same as the average of the monsters in just the MM 3.5e.

FWIW, given the discussion in this thread about how effective ranged Touch Spells are.


----------



## IanB

For your next trick, let's see it just for creatures CR 12 and up and also a list of what percentage of those creatures have SLAs, spells, or other abilities not reflected in their raw stat blocks that add deflection or other touch AC-affecting AC bonuses, like unholy aura or protection from good.

(OK, just kidding.  But, FWIW, the lack of inclusion of that sort of thing is why I don't find the 'average touch AC' discussion all that useful. It counts the pit fiend as 17 instead of 21 due to unholy aura, etc.)


----------



## Rystil Arden

Nail said:
			
		

> Just in case anyone is interested:
> 
> Using the spreadsheet provided by http://www.nzcomputers.net/heroforge/, I've calculated the average touch AC of all monsters in MM I - IV, Fiend Folio, Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack.  (Some may disparage the fact that I did not "do it by hand", as apparently someone did.   )
> 
> The Average Touch AC is ~12.  Interestingly, this is about the same as the average of the monsters in just the MM 3.5e.
> 
> FWIW, given the discussion in this thread about how effective ranged Touch Spells are.



 I thought he didn't use Stormwrack or the other terrain books.  In that case, clearly those books had an average Touch AC of around -500 (since they each have far fewer monsters than the others), which throws the average back down from 50 to 12  

(By the way, you know his claim was meant as a reductio ad absurdum and he expected everyone to know it was false, right?)


----------



## Hypersmurf

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Intent? Deduction?
> 
> OMG, Hyp just stepped out of the world of rules and into the world of intent.




You started it, by saying that the orb spells are in the wrong school.  The orb spells are in the Conjuration school and the Creation subschool; either your argument is that someone made a typo, or that the spells are counter to the intent of the subschool, right?



> I did not state that they were not creation. I stated that we have no such *explicit rule* for instantaneous conjuration creation *energy* spells.




You miss my point.

You're saying "The instantaneous creation rule doesn't apply, because the orb is not a creature or an object."

I'm saying "The entire creation _subschool_, by that logic, is limited to creatures and objects, because the subschool description says so."

_A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates..._

If we accept that the Creation subschool description is accurate in its use of the phrase 'object or creature', then any spell which does not manipulate matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates is not a Creation spell.  And that's over half of the spells labelled 'Creation' in the PHB.

So my proposal is that where the Creation subschool says 'object or creature', they meant 'object or effect', just like the school description says.

Which means that 
_If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic._
would instead be read as
_If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured effect or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or effect is merely assembled through magic._

If we don't change the subschool description, and instead enforce the 'object or creature' wording as it appears, it invalidates over half the spells in the subschool in the PHB, because those spells do not manipulate matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I'm not sure anyone said that every energy needed an element matched to it, did they?




Nail implied it was a problem with the "nervous lauigh" smiley about sonic not matching an element, followed by a seeming problem with matching up force to elements. Nobody actually declared they should match up.


----------



## James McMurray

Nail said:
			
		

> Just in case anyone is interested:
> 
> Using the spreadsheet provided by http://www.nzcomputers.net/heroforge/, I've calculated the average touch AC of all monsters in MM I - IV, Fiend Folio, Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack.  (Some may disparage the fact that I did not "do it by hand", as apparently someone did.   )
> 
> The Average Touch AC is ~12.  Interestingly, this is about the same as the average of the monsters in just the MM 3.5e.
> 
> FWIW, given the discussion in this thread about how effective ranged Touch Spells are.




Cool, thanks! I'm sure you're unsurprised when I say it doesn't change my mind, because which creatures are used (and how many they are) is a campaign specific decision. 



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I thought he didn't use Stormwrack or the other terrain books.  In that case, clearly those books had an average Touch AC of around -500 (since they each have far fewer monsters than the others), which throws the average back down from 50 to 12




Dude, it wasn't 50. It was 49.something. 



> (By the way, you know his claim was meant as a reductio ad absurdum and he expected everyone to know it was false, right?)




Given that I've already stated it was meant as an example, I think it would be very odd if anyone didn't know that by now. I think Nail's work was done more for the thread and curiosity than to disprove my obviously false claim.


----------



## Nail

IanB said:
			
		

> For your next trick, let's see it just for creatures CR 12 and up and also a list of what percentage of those creatures have SLAs, spells, or other abilities not reflected in their raw stat blocks that add deflection or other touch AC-affecting AC bonuses, like unholy aura or protection from good.





Sure thing!......sometime soon, I'm sure.....    

An average is just that: "an average value (for about 800 monsters, in this sample)".  It doesn't mean a particular creature couldn't put up additional spells, etc.  Averages say nothing about a particular monster's tactics (nor does it claim that DMs can't change it).

That said, the average also says nothing about how a mage which uses ranged touch attacks could increase his own chances to hit. Etc. As the long, drawn out "dragon debate" in this thread amply demonstrates, trotting out this or that exception just obscures the fundmental point.  

"Orbs are much more likely to damage an opponent than some other spell with a save, SR, etc.  A significant part of this is that they are ranged touch attacks, and touch ACs for most monsters are rather low."


----------



## Nail

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I thought he didn't use Stormwrack or the other terrain books.



Ah!  My mistake.  

Pardon me while I hunt down all those (now Defunct!!!! ) Dragon and Dungeon magazines that were supposedly used.


----------



## IanB

Nail said:
			
		

> Sure thing!......sometime soon, I'm sure.....
> 
> An average is just that: "an average value (for about 800 monsters, in this sample)".  It doesn't mean a particular creature couldn't put up additional spells, etc.  Averages say nothing about a particular monster's tactics (nor does it claim that DMs can't change it).
> 
> That said, the average also says nothing about how a mage which uses ranged touch attacks could increase his own chances to hit. Etc. As the long, drawn out "dragon debate" in this thread amply demonstrates, trotting out this or that exception just obscures the fundmental point.
> 
> "Orbs are much more likely to damage an opponent than some other spell with a save, SR, etc.  A significant part of this is that they are ranged touch attacks, and touch ACs for most monsters are rather low."




Well, I don't really think monsters using SLAs that are right there in their stat blocks really constitutes an exception in this case.

Another reason the average is essentially useless is that it is combines CRs 1/3 to 25 or whatever all in one number, so we look at "ah, average touch AC of 11! this is terrible vs. a 15th level caster!"  - but we don't really know for sure how much all those CR 1/2 orc warriors and such are affecting it.

It actually *might* be useful to have it broken down by average touch AC for each CR. That would give us a better idea about how touch ACs look against the attack bonus progression of the wizard.

I have a game to run tomorrow, so my time tonight will be going to prep, but if I get a chance I might be able to run that against the SRD at least.


----------



## Nail

IanB said:
			
		

> It actually *might* be useful to have it broken down by average touch AC for each CR. That would give us a better idea about how touch ACs look against the attack bonus progression of the wizard.



Data as before.  These are average touch ACs.

CR 9  Touch AC 11
CR 10  Touch AC 11
CR 11  Touch AC 12
CR 12  Touch AC 10
CR 13  Touch AC 11
CR 14  Touch AC 13
CR 15  Touch AC 12
CR 16  Touch AC 12
CR 17  Touch AC 12

Notice any trends with "how touch ACs look against the attack bonus progression of the wizard"?


----------



## KarinsDad

Nail said:
			
		

> The Average Touch AC is ~12.  Interestingly, this is about the same as the average of the monsters in just the MM 3.5e.




I question the veracity of this for the 3.5 MM (and hence, question it for the other books as well).

If one does a search of the online SRD (including animals and vermin), there are ~108 creatures (20.4%) with touch AC 13 or higher out of ~529 creatures, ~62 with a touch AC of 12 (11.7%), and ~359 creatures (67.9%) with touch AC 12 or less. Over 3 times as many creatures with a touch AC below 12 than above 12. Even without actually figuring it out like I did before, that shouts that AC 12 is too high.

Are you sure you are not reporting the most common touch AC in the MM as opposed to the average touch AC? AC 12 is not even the median.

Considering that most of the touch AC 13+ (~72 out of ~108 or 67%) are only AC 13 or 14 (and not higher), I find it extremely hard to believe (i.e impossible) that average touch AC 12 is anywhere near an accurate number. There are just too few numbers above 12 to average it out and nearly all of those are AC 15 or less (80.5% of numbers 13+, 96% of all touch ACs are 15 or less).

I also spent over an hour calculating this by hand from the SRD, so although I could have made some mistakes, I am extremely confident that I am not off by 1.5 AC.

Can you redo your calculations for the 3.5 MM?

Note: I do not have HeroForge and do not know how to access the data.


----------



## KarinsDad

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You miss my point.




Not really. I just decided to focus on the instantaneous creation portion of it (i.e. 2 spells) because that is what is most applicable to the Orb discussion.

The rest of your point, although interesting, is not pertinent to Orbs.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So my proposal is that where the Creation subschool says 'object or creature', they meant 'object or effect', just like the school description says.




Funny. I have seen hundreds of posts by you where you purposely do *not* want to change the wording of what WotC wrote and go with a more literal RAW interpretation.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If we don't change the subschool description, and instead enforce the 'object or creature' wording as it appears, it invalidates over half the spells in the subschool in the PHB, because those spells do not manipulate matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates.




Yup. It does.

So, WotC screwed up a lot (logical fallacy: appeal to probability, we should change the text because so many spells have an error).

On the other hand, if we do change the words, we have another logical conundrum: Orb spells are magical (they affect incorporeal creatures), but they can blow through AMF without the text stating that they can.

Personally, I prefer to accept the fact that WotC screwed up and go with the literal RAW interpretation that does not have this conundrum and accept the fact that there are no Conjuration Creation general rules for non-creatures and non-objects (which is still reasonable). A lack of rules does not present a conundrum or inconsistency. It just means that the actual non-object / non-creature Conjuration Creation rules do not exist and hence we should default to the more general magic rules in those cases.

Changing the rules creates the inconsistency. Hence, I reject your change RAW proposal as not reasonable.


----------



## Hypersmurf

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not really. I just decided to focus on the instantaneous creation portion of it (i.e. 2 spells) because that is what is most applicable to the Orb discussion.
> 
> The rest of your point, although interesting, is not pertinent to Orbs.




Certainly it is.

You can't focus on the instantaneous creation portion of it (that is, orbs aren't creatures or objects) when _the same issue_ applies to their membership in the school (that is, orbs aren't creatures or objects).



> Funny. I have seen hundreds of posts by you where you purposely do *not* want to change the wording of what WotC wrote and go with a more literal RAW interpretation.




Not when there is an unresolvable contradiction.

We have spells in the Creation subschool that do not manipulate matter to create a creature or object.  The Creation subschool description states that spells in the Creation subschool manipulate matter to create a creature or object.

There is a contradiction that cannot be resolved without changing _something_.



> So, WotC screwed up a lot (logical fallacy: appeal to probability, we should change the text because so many spells have an error).




I don't consider that a logical fallacy.  



> Personally, I prefer to accept the fact that WotC screwed up and go with the literal RAW interpretation that does not have this conundrum and accept the fact that there are no Conjuration Creation general rules for non-creatures and non-objects (which is still reasonable). A lack of rules does not present a conundrum or inconsistency.




There _is_ a rule.  

"A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates."

That's not a lack of rules for creation spells that create non-creatures and non-objects; that's a rule for a lack of creation spells that create non-creatures and non-objects.  The fact that creation spells that create non-creatures and non-objects exist, in contravention of this definition, _is_ the inconsistency.

If we make the wording in the subschool description consistent with the wording in the school description - that is, replace 'objects and creatures' with 'objects and effects' - the inconsistency goes away.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nail

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I question the veracity of this for the 3.5 MM (and hence, question it for the other books as well).



Huh.

I'll work on it again.  I'm just taking the data that's there....perhaps I made a mistake.  That, too, would be interesting.....but of a different sort.


----------



## Nail

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Can you redo your calculations for the 3.5 MM?



I see the problem.  I'll bet it doesn't change much, but it is an error.

MonsterForge (the spreadsheet I'm extracting the data from) has 336 monsters from the MM 3.5e in it.  Dragons are excluded - because of the difficulty in stat-ing them, I assume. Creatures that advance by _class level_ are not there (elves, dwarves, hobgoblins, harpies, ogres, etc).  Templates are removed.  

Everything else is there.  All vermin, of all sizes, for example.  All animals.  All elementals of all sizes. Etc.

Keep in mind MonsterForge wasn't built to do what I'm doing to it.  It was built to advance monsters.  And monsters that can have class levels can have equipment...and can have higher touch ACs.

Given those limitations, the average touch AC for the MM 3.5e from this data set is AC ~12.





I have another data set that includes much of what MonsterForge excludes.  I'll combine the datasets, and see what I get.

FWIW.    I still suspect the average touch AC is around 12, and that touch AC doesn't change noticibly with CR.

But I could be wrong.  <shrug>


----------



## KarinsDad

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> There _is_ a rule.
> 
> "A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates."




But that rule only applies to objects and creatures.

It is inapplicable to the discussion at hand.

Who is changing RAW now?



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If we make the wording in the subschool description consistent with the wording in the school description - that is, replace 'objects and creatures' with 'objects and effects' - the inconsistency goes away.




And creates an even worse inconsistency. Orbs are both magical and non-magical when they hit their target.

Compared to the lack of conjuration creation energy rules, that is a pretty big inconsistency (in fact, I do not really see an inconsistency with Conjuration Creation and its spells as much as I see a missing rule).

Not only that, but replacing "objects and creatures" with "objects and effects" drops creatures from the Conjuration Creation school completely. You are *adding* a new inconsistency for Phantom Steed to resolve your (supposed) inconsistencies for non-object conjuration creations (which can be easily resolved by just realizing that there are no conjuration creation non-objects non-creature explicit rules).


And even if one changes the general conjuration creation rules to objects, creatures, or effects (by cumulatively adding the Conjuration School rule with the Conjuration Creation Subschool rules), it still does not imply that one should change the instantaneous conjuration creation rule to objects, creatures, or effects.

So, even doing it for the non-instantaneous cases (31 out of 33 of the rest of the spells in the PHB) does not mean that one should do it for the instantaneous cases.

In fact, the easiest way to resolve your inconsistency is to just claim that the Conjuration Creation spells in the book are Conjuration Creation spells. Period. End of story. No need for the instantaneous energy one in the PHB to match the object and creature rule. That's a rules change.


It's pretty obvious that WotC never considered allowing Orbs to bust through AMFs, or they would have mentioned it somewhere. Hence, I consider your position on this to not match RAW nor match designer intent. It appears to just be your preference and has nothing to do with rules at all.

When we add the fact that Conjuration Creation Instantaneous spells just flat out should not create (more potent than Evocation) Energy Effects (and many people agree that WotC foobared on this), it just seems nonsensical to change yet another literal RAW rule to make Orbs even more potent.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Nail said:
			
		

> I still suspect the average touch AC is around 12, and that touch AC doesn't change noticibly with CR.
> 
> But I could be wrong.  <shrug>



It should change quite a bit for monsters with class levels and equipment.  As you go up CRs, I'd expect touch ACs to increase with levels due to Dex-boosting items -- more or less cancelled out by mages' Dex-boosting items -- and deflection items.  The bonus from deflection items isn't generally going to keep pace with the mages' base attack bonus.

The NPC wizard in the DMG has these touch ACs:
Levels 1-6: 12
Levels 7-12: 13
Level 13: 14
Levels 14-20: 15

The NPC fighter tops out at a 15, the cleric at an 11, and the rogue at a 20.


----------



## KarinsDad

Nail said:
			
		

> I see the problem.  I'll bet it doesn't change much, but it is an error.




It changes a lot. There are 120 Dragon low touch ACs in the MM.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> MonsterForge (the spreadsheet I'm extracting the data from) has 336 monsters from the MM 3.5e in it.  Dragons are excluded - because of the difficulty in stat-ing them, I assume. Creatures that advance by _class level_ are not there (elves, dwarves, hobgoblins, harpies, ogres, etc).  Templates are removed.




336 touch AC 12 monsters plus 120 touch AC 8.2 dragons yields an average touch AC of 11.

336 * 12 + 120 * 8.2 = 5016 / 456 = 11

Considering that there are still 73 other missing creatures from your data, ...


----------



## Slaved

Nail said:
			
		

> Templates are removed.




That seems like a pretty big change too. Adding those back in would probably take a whole lot of time though.


For the thread in general though I do not know if orbs are overpowered or not, they might be or they might not be but it seems possible that the orbs could be overpowered and normal evocation could be underpowered. If the comparison is based off of normal evocation while normal evocation is underpowered I certainly would not want to move the orbs down to the same level as something underpowered.


----------



## Nail

Slaved said:
			
		

> That seems like a pretty big change too. Adding those back in would probably take a whole lot of time though.



You ain't kiddin'.

I've run outta time tonight.  As a first pass (excluding dragons), MonsterForge data set excludes 73 monsters.  I can put those back in.....but not tonight.


----------



## Nail

Good Morning.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It changes a lot. There are 120 Dragon low touch ACs in the MM.
> 
> 
> 
> 336 touch AC 12 monsters plus 120 touch AC 8.2 dragons yields an average touch AC of 11.
> 
> 336 * 12 + 120 * 8.2 = 5016 / 456 = 11
> 
> Considering that there are still 73 other missing creatures from your data, ...



I've added in the data from monsters other than dragons (dragons....dragons are a pain to enter, to say the least).

The new average touch AC is (336*12+120*8.2+70*11.2)/526 = 11

Is that much different from what I first typed?   

Nope.


----------



## Slaved

Nail said:
			
		

> dragons....dragons are a pain to enter, to say the least




Try entering ghosts. I am sure those would be great fun!


----------



## KarinsDad

Nail said:
			
		

> The new average touch AC is (336*12+120*8.2+70*11.2)/526 = 11
> 
> Is that much different from what I first typed?




When talking averages over 500 creatures, sure, I think there is a difference between 11 and 12.

Game-wise, it means a level or two (items and magic depending) before an arcane caster gets most creatures at his 95% level.

But, it's not a huge difference. Now, which creatures were not in the other books you calculated?


----------



## shmoo2

Nail said:
			
		

> Good Morning.
> I've added in the data from monsters other than dragons (dragons....dragons are a pain to enter, to say the least).




Nail,
Could you provide me with your updated data set?
I have an idea to use the data to compare orbs vs. evocations once again.

Thanks,
Nat


----------



## IanB

*More touch AC wankery*

I realize this thread is pretty much dead at this point but given that it was the thread that prompted me to do this little bit of "analysis" I thought I'd post it up.

I'm still trying to decide whether or not to allow the orb spells as-is in my game. To that end I decided to take a look at touch ACs for high level opponents (CR 15 and up.) I changed the rules a bit from Nail's version though:

- I'm excluding dragons, because we know they have crappy touch ACs anyway, but they're also spellcasters, and if I decide to allow orb spells, then it is easy enough to have the dragons take anti-orb spells into account in their spell selection.

- I'm excluding good aligned monsters, because my parties simply don't fight them very often at all.

- I'm including anti-orb abilities and SLAs that affect touch AC or add a miss chance into my review, as long as they're printed in the monster description.

So far I've only done this for the monsters in the SRD, as that's what I have access to at work, and I have more important things to do when I'm at home. 

One thing I've learned from this is just how few high-CR monsters there are in the MM that aren't dragons!

*CR 15* 

Inevitable, Marut - base touch AC 10, no relevant SLAs

Mummy Lord - base touch AC 11, _shield of faith_ takes it to 14

*CR 16*

Devil, Horned - base touch AC 16, dispel good/chaos puts it at 20 vs those alignments

Stone Golem, Greater - base touch AC 6, no relevant SLAs

Nightshade, Nightwalker - base touch AC 10, _haste_ puts it at 11, _deeper darkness_ adds 20% miss chance

*CR 17*

Aboleth Mage - base touch AC 11, has multiple options for 20% or 50% miss chances due to spells (does it really need blur AND displacement AND greater invis?)

Demon, Marilith - base touch AC 13, _unholy aura_ puts it at 17

Formian, Queen - base touch AC 9, _ shield of law_ puts it at 13

Frost Giant Jarl - base touch AC 10, no modifiers

*CR 18*

Nightshade, Nightcrawler - base touch AC 6, _haste_ puts it at 7 (awesome), _deeper darkness_ gives 20% miss chance

*CR 19*

No non-dragon monsters at CR 19 in the SRD (!).

*CR 20*

Demon, Balor - base touch AC 16, _unholy aura_ puts it at 20

Devil, Pit Fiend - base touch AC 17, _unholy aura_ puts it at 21

Tarrasque - base touch AC 5, but I would probably rule orbs are covered by the 'reflect' effect


Via this half-assed analysis, I think I'm going to allow them, pending an examination of the touch ACs in the higher ends of the adventure paths. Barring dragons, there's a pretty good mix of creatures they'll be good and bad against, and I didn't take into account factors like energy resistance when I was going through here.


----------



## Diirk

IanB said:
			
		

> Via this half-assed analysis, I think I'm going to allow them, pending an examination of the touch ACs in the higher ends of the adventure paths. Barring dragons, there's a pretty good mix of creatures they'll be good and bad against, and I didn't take into account factors like energy resistance when I was going through here.




Eh? I count 3 things they're "bad" against (4, counting the aboleth mage which has horrible touch AC and may or may not get the benefit of its SLAs), the demons and devils. Now examine the SR and resistances of those demons and devils and explain to me how orbs aren't a good option compared to the alternatives ?

(admittedly the balor's SR is a bit on the low side, but he probably won't be failing too many saving throws either)

Keep in mind for CR 20, a touch AC of ~20 isn't really that bad; you get 10 of that from BAB alone, even as a wizard.


----------



## IanB

Diirk said:
			
		

> Eh? I count 3 things they're "bad" against (4, counting the aboleth mage which has horrible touch AC and may or may not get the benefit of its SLAs), the demons and devils. Now examine the SR and resistances of those demons and devils and explain to me how orbs aren't a good option compared to the alternatives ?
> 
> (admittedly the balor's SR is a bit on the low side, but he probably won't be failing too many saving throws either)
> 
> Keep in mind for CR 20, a touch AC of ~20 isn't really that bad; you get 10 of that from BAB alone, even as a wizard.




A touch AC of 20 really is pretty rough. I am not expecting my wizards to spend feats to get to precise shot, so it will be reasonably common for the wizard to be taking a -4 for shooting into melee against these opponents. Giving the wizard what is, in my opinion, a generous +15 touch attack at level 20, they are going to miss a balor in melee on 40% of orb attacks without even taking the possibility of cover into account. If the balor has cover as well it goes up to a 60% chance to miss.

What I *do* see most wizards in my games take is spell penetration and greater spell penetration. With a total level check of +24 against the SR 28 balor, overcoming SR is a much better bet. Against the SR 32 pit fiend, it is a similar chance of success to the orb (you need an 8 for SR vs. a 6 on your attack roll if you get the pit fiend out in the open with no cover or melee.) That seems fine to me, especially given the unlikeliness that I'm ever just going to toss an unsupported balor against a level 20 party.

Like I said, I'm not totally done with the analysis. In particular I want to look at what humanoid type opponents are going to be running for their touch ACs/miss chances/etc before I make the final call, but based on the SRD numbers, I think the orb spells are within reason (albeit certainly at the high end!)

Note that I've already said I'm banning the 'metamagic takes 1 less level' feat, which to me is a bigger problem.


----------



## James McMurray

If you take any PrCs for your wizard you're unlikely to get +10 from BAB alone. IMX most 20th level arcane casters have a +8 or +9 BAB from having 2-3 PrCs. Certainly you can build to compensate for it if that's your goal.


----------



## IanB

James McMurray said:
			
		

> If you take any PrCs for your wizard you're unlikely to get +10 from BAB alone. IMX most 20th level arcane casters have a +8 or +9 BAB from having 2-3 PrCs. Certainly you can build to compensate for it if that's your goal.




IMC I use the fractional BAB rules, so that typically isn't a problem for characters.


----------



## Diirk

IanB said:
			
		

> A touch AC of 20 really is pretty rough. I am not expecting my wizards to spend feats to get to precise shot, so it will be reasonably common for the wizard to be taking a -4 for shooting into melee against these opponents. Giving the wizard what is, in my opinion, a generous +15 touch attack at level 20, they are going to miss a balor in melee on 40% of orb attacks without even taking the possibility of cover into account. If the balor has cover as well it goes up to a 60% chance to miss.
> 
> What I *do* see most wizards in my games take is spell penetration and greater spell penetration. With a total level check of +24 against the SR 28 balor, overcoming SR is a much better bet. Against the SR 32 pit fiend, it is a similar chance of success to the orb (you need an 8 for SR vs. a 6 on your attack roll if you get the pit fiend out in the open with no cover or melee.) That seems fine to me, especially given the unlikeliness that I'm ever just going to toss an unsupported balor against a level 20 party.




You also didn't take into account damage lost from the monsters making their saving throws (which will be alot of the time). So what your suggesting is that for a wizard specialized for area effects (and similar; auto hit, but SR and presumably saves will apply) the orb isn't really a significantly worse option (and possibly a better option) against those opponents that you've designated as "bad orb targets".

Now look at those targets again, but imagine a wizard that doesn't totally neglect his ranged touch. Point Blank and Precise Shot are fairly staple for wizards in games I've played, as is 14 starting dex. Throw in a +4 dex item, +10 BAB (just multiclass at even levels and you don't even need fractional BAB), its not unreasonable to have a buff or 2 up such as heroism. Thats +16 already. If you were dedicated you could easily get more (+1 for within 30', +1 for small sized races, +1 for races with dex bonuses, +1 weapon focus, other buffing spells etc).


----------



## James McMurray

Diirk said:
			
		

> +10 BAB (just multiclass at even levels and you don't even need fractional BAB),




Huh? How does multiclassing at even levels change x + 0 to x + 1?


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Huh? How does multiclassing at even levels change x + 0 to x + 1?



 Multiclassing at even levels means that you never lose out on BAB.  Imagine a Wizard10 who multiclassing to a PrC at level 10 (even level).  He gets 5 from Wiz, 5 from PrC = 10.  What if he starts at level 11 (odd level) he gets 5 from Wiz still and 4 from PrC, total 9.


----------



## IanB

Diirk said:
			
		

> You also didn't take into account damage lost from the monsters making their saving throws (which will be alot of the time). So what your suggesting is that for a wizard specialized for area effects (and similar; auto hit, but SR and presumably saves will apply) the orb isn't really a significantly worse option (and possibly a better option) against those opponents that you've designated as "bad orb targets".
> 
> Now look at those targets again, but imagine a wizard that doesn't totally neglect his ranged touch. Point Blank and Precise Shot are fairly staple for wizards in games I've played, as is 14 starting dex. Throw in a +4 dex item, +10 BAB (just multiclass at even levels and you don't even need fractional BAB), its not unreasonable to have a buff or 2 up such as heroism. Thats +16 already. If you were dedicated you could easily get more (+1 for within 30', +1 for small sized races, +1 for races with dex bonuses, +1 weapon focus, other buffing spells etc).




The point here is, what is staple for wizards with the players you play with is not directly relevant to what the consequences will be in my game. I am only trying to decide if it is safe for the spells to be allowed _in my game_. I provided my little extra bit of data merely to help other people come to whatever conclusion they feel is appropriate for _their_ game.

I have never seen an arcane caster besides a warlock take precise shot in my game or any of the games I play in. Should my players start defying my expectations and building twinked out warmage orb-blasters, I will possibly have to revise my position on orb balance, but I am no longer trying to answer the question "are orbs broken" in a vacuum. That argument is pretty well played out. There are tons of pages of for/against for that in this thread. What I have moved on to is, having learned what I can from this discussion, are they too powerful to allow in _my_ game? As other DMs may find my conclusions useful, I put them here.

Also you'll note that I ran my numbers with a +15. In my game, I would expect a 'normal' wizard build to be a little worse than that at his ranged touches. Probably in the +12 to +14 range at level 20.


----------



## Diirk

In that case, I mostly agree with you. Under normal circumstances orbs aren't horribly broken, altho I do feel that the SR: No is completely unnecessary and does somewhat trivialize a number of opponents.

(And that they're in the wrong spell school)


----------



## KarinsDad

IanB said:
			
		

> A touch AC of 20 really is pretty rough. I am not expecting my wizards to spend feats to get to precise shot, so it will be reasonably common for the wizard to be taking a -4 for shooting into melee against these opponents. Giving the wizard what is, in my opinion, a generous +15 touch attack at level 20, they are going to miss a balor in melee on 40% of orb attacks without even taking the possibility of cover into account. If the balor has cover as well it goes up to a 60% chance to miss.




Your analysis here is skewed. It discusses only one creature and that one, one of the best touch ACs once it puts up defenses. The creatures that an Orb user would target would not be ones with miss chances (of which you had 3). However, until they get those defenses up, all of the creatures you listed are reasonable targets.

Pre-defenses up, those targets have touch ACs of:

10 11 16 6 10 11 13 9 10 6 16 17 = 11.25 average 

BAB 10 basically handles most of these except for 3 of these creatures and Dex/Size/Magic, etc. can easily handle the rest.

Post-defenses (typically after round one unless the PCs are ambushed) and excluding the miss chance ones where the PC caster can consciously choose to use more favorable spells:

10 14 20 6 17 13 10 20 21 = 14.6 average

The best 3 creatures have touch AC 20+, but most do not.


And it makes sense for a party of higher level PCs to use tactics (and possibly code words) so that the Fighter moves away from a Balor so that the Wizard can blast him with an Orb. Players do not have to play their PCs stupid.


----------



## Rystil Arden

To add to what Karinsdad said, Balors are size Large, and depending on the party setup and choices, it is reasonably likely that you'll have a spot to target that isn't considered firing into melee due to the 10-foot rule.


----------



## Pssthpok

Hey all, 

Not to be a jerk, but I'm not real keen on reading 10 pages to get in the mix here, so I'll be concise and preface this with a blanket apology if I mention something that's been said already.

In the long term, I think the orb spells are arguably balanced based on their inability to deal damage to more than one target. A fireball catches what (?) 52 squares in a tablegrid? If there's a viable target in each square, the fireball puts out 520d6 (avg. 1820 points, maxed 3120 points) in one shot. Sure, it's distributed and divided evenly to each square, but that's part of the point, isn't it? A fireball can deal oodles of damage across the board where an orb can guarantee a sizable amount of damage to one target.

Things you have to concede on the issue, and I mean everyone:
     1) No SR means affecting golems and not having to worry about high-SR foes; this is good but not a deal-breaker. There are (a few) high-end baddies with no considerable magic resistance.
     2) Touch attack doesn't set this spell apart from most others. Polar ray is a touch attack, ED is a touch attack... what's the big deal? These spells ignoring physical armor is almost a given, to me at least, given the fact that I can't really think of any other way to do it. If the orb of fire touches you, you burn. End of argument.
     3) Having a higher damage cap (all 'cept orb of force, since force damage is so hard to resist) is part-and-parcel for being a level higher. The fact that there's no SR is 'balanced' against lower level evocations by the single-target restriction
     4) There are so many rules and spells and conditions out there that people can keep pulling out of the hat that there's no way to conclusively prove whether the orbs are 'broken' or not. 
     5) The additional effects of the spells is, IMO, what pushes the envelope on their design. Orb of electricity is fine enough, adding a blinding (or whatever) ability to it is edging on too much icing on the cake.
     6) Twin and Admix are frickin' terrible metamagic feats and should be stricken from the record, saving us all a lot of needless back-and-forth on how jacked-up a spell can be made, thus proving or disproving someone's opinion on the issue of balance. I know that we can't very well ignore these feats, but they need to be taken with a grain of salt, since _all these feats serve is to lead to these kinds of issues_: namely that once you start slapping Admix and Twin onto spells, especially like the orbs, you start to grit your teeth. Going for the orb spells might seem intuitive, but it's more the fault of these feats than the spell itself. Stand alone, empowered or maximized or both, the orb spells are worth the price of copying to the spellbook, but throw in these metamagics and you wake up a whole can of worms.


----------



## Rystil Arden

FWIW, I refuse to concede 6, 4, and parts of 3 and 1 of the "things you have to concede"


----------



## KarinsDad

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> In the long term, I think the orb spells are arguably balanced based on their inability to deal damage to more than one target.




Interesting point.

It is balanced to kill the BBEG the DM spent 3 hours crafting with a Twin Orb spell in a single round with him having no defenses whatsoever because you didn't also kill all his mooks as well. Hmmm.  


Btw, in a reasonable discussion, one cannot ignore the synergies of the rest of the game system (including metamagic) just because excluding it supports the conclusion that one wants to make.


----------



## RigaMortus2

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Interesting point.
> 
> It is balanced to kill the BBEG the DM spent 3 hours crafting with a Twin Orb spell in a single round with him having no defenses whatsoever because you didn't also kill all his mooks as well. Hmmm.




Why would a DM spend 3 hours crafting a BBEG and NOT give him any defenses?  Especially since he is the DM and (assumingly) knows what spells/powers/abilities/feats/skills/items all his players have?

Hmmm...  I am making a BBEG.  I know Bob likes to use Orb of Force a lot, so I won't take any defenses to prevent this, we'll just see how it goes.

I can see this spell being used to great lenths on mooks and maybe MBEGs (Minor Bad Evil Guys), but a BBEG encounter is supposed to be dirty and gritty and down to the wire (if at all possible).  I would think a DM putting that much time into creating one would find defenses around killer spells or combos.


----------



## Pssthpok

RigaMortus2 says it all. If the DM can't prepare around the banality of his PCs, then it's his problem, not the orb spells that are affecting his game. I mean, c'mon... entropic shield is a 20% miss chance on those spells, SR or not. Mirror image is a _tremendous defense_ against those spells, SR or not.
I think people are trying to pick on the orbs regardless of the possible counters to them, instead concentrating solely on the mechanic of the spells in an insulated fashion, rendering them and their ability to deal with the RAW as-is impotent in the face of a few conjuration effects that, by definition, are largely kosher.
Sure, you can counter the counters, but this isn't arms race, it's a discussion about whether or not the orbs are too powerful. If they were AOEs... yes, but they're not. Single target ranged touch: conjurers have a poor BAB, the spells are readily countered by illusions and abjurations, and if the BBEG is so poorly wrought that the PCs can admix-twin-empower-max orb of acid them in two rounds, they deserve it.


----------



## KarinsDad

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Why would a DM spend 3 hours crafting a BBEG and NOT give him any defenses?  Especially since he is the DM and (assumingly) knows what spells/powers/abilities/feats/skills/items all his players have?
> 
> Hmmm...  I am making a BBEG.  I know Bob likes to use Orb of Force a lot, so I won't take any defenses to prevent this, we'll just see how it goes.
> 
> I can see this spell being used to great lenths on mooks and maybe MBEGs (Minor Bad Evil Guys), but a BBEG encounter is supposed to be dirty and gritty and down to the wire (if at all possible).  I would think a DM putting that much time into creating one would find defenses around killer spells or combos.




I was being facetious, but if you really want an answer:

It depends. What if the BBEG is a fighter type? Do you give him a Cloak of Major Displacement knowing that the PCs will probably acquire said item? There are not that many items that significantly protect against Orbs and which a DM might want fall into the PC's hands.

Or do you give him a Wizard cohort with instructions: "I know that Bob likes to use Orb of Force, so cast Displacement on me first round."? Sounds kind of railroady (wish I had a better non-existent word for that  ).


If Orb spells are not broken, why would the DM have to craft BBEGs with specific defenses against it?

Nobody talks about crafting BBEGs with specific defenses against Fireball because Fireball already has at least one defense that all NPCs already have (i.e. a saving throw). The BBEG does not need a specific defense against Fireball. General defenses (e.g. high hit points and a decent Reflex save) might suffice (situation depending).

But Orbs have so few significant defenses that the DM would have to purposely alter his BBEG and/or scenario, just to take them into account. He doesn't have to do that for Fireball.


----------



## Pssthpok

> If Orb spells are not broken, why would the DM have to craft BBEGs with specific defenses against it?




Bad argument. BBEGs should be default have a strong defense against the party's strengths, either through environment or preparation. To do otherwise is to invite the sort of thing that causes the misconception that certain effects/items/spells are overpowered when in reality all it takes is proper planning and equipping. It's not 'railroading' to defend your BBEG against the sleeve-card of the PC arcane spellcaster, it's 'intelligent'.


----------



## Pssthpok

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> FWIW, I refuse to concede 6, 4, and parts of 3 and 1 of the "things you have to concede"




That's your call, but they're largely true. 

1) True. It's good, but it's not the end of the world some of you are making it out to be.
3) With which parts do you disagree?
4) True. We can even bat this back and forth all day, but it would only prove my point.
6) Name one damage-dealing spell that can't be tricked out to hell and back with these feats and I'll bow out. 


*crickets*....



I'll let you get back to me on that one.


----------



## KarinsDad

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> I mean, c'mon... entropic shield is a 20% miss chance on those spells, SR or not. Mirror image is a _tremendous defense_ against those spells, SR or not.




I mean, c'mon... 

What percentage of monsters have Entropic Shield or Mirror Image?  

What percentage of Rangers, Fighters, Rogues, Druids, Monks, Barbarians, or Paladins have Entropic Shield or Mirror Image?

Do all BBEG encounters have to have a small army of mook spell casters, just to make Orb spells balanced? If so, there is something definitely wrong with them.


----------



## KarinsDad

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Bad argument. BBEGs should be default have a strong defense against the party's strengths, either through environment or preparation. To do otherwise is to invite the sort of thing that causes the misconception that certain effects/items/spells are overpowered when in reality all it takes is proper planning and equipping. It's not 'railroading' to defend your BBEG against the sleeve-card of the PC arcane spellcaster, it's 'intelligent'.




Actually, it is a perfectly reasonable argument.

Your argument is effectively that there are no unbalanced elements to the game whatsoever because the DM can counter anything.

Well, duh! That doesn't mean a game element is not unbalanced, that just means that the DM can fudge whatever he wants, no matter how implausible for the situation.


----------



## Rystil Arden

> That's your call, but they're largely true.




You can say that all you like, but making a claim of truth without backing in does not prove it to be so.  If that was the case, the pro-Orb people would have won this argument long ago 

1) Of course it isn't the end of the world--it's an RPG.  Claiming that others are saying this is a strawman.  However, the Orb spells make the average game of D&D _less_ fun.  That is all it takes to make a fix a good idea--you don't need the end of the world.

3) The no-SR is not balanced at all by single-target restriction.  You yourself mention Polar Ray.  That spell allows SR and is single-target.

4) I know you haven't read the whole thread--my point is that we need to _not_ go into crazy splatbooks to make factors either way that probably cancel each other out.  If you have to do all that just because of one spell, you've already proven that the Orbs are broken.

6) Huh?  Twin and Energy Admixture are not that good.  Honest!  Particularly if you think Empower is balanced.  Empower gives you 50% extra damage for +2 levels.  Admixture gives you +100% damage for +4 levels--it's exactly the same gain to cost ratio, just expanded.  Energy Admixture + Fireball gives you 20d6 as a level 7 spell.  So does just casting Delayed Blast Fireball.  The feats are perfectly fine.


----------



## Rystil Arden

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, it is a perfectly reasonable argument.
> 
> Your argument is effectively that there are no unbalanced elements to the game whatsoever because the DM can counter anything.
> 
> Well, duh! That doesn't mean a game element is not unbalanced, that just means that the DM can fudge whatever he wants, no matter how implausible for the situation.



 Aye, in fact, this argument is a corollary of Oberoni's Fallacy, which is that nothing is unbalanced because the GM can always win, through Rule 0 if necessary.

In a similar vein, if Splatbook X creates the 1st-level spell "You Win" that destroys all your enemies instantly with no save, SR, or any other protection and Splatbook Y creates the spell "Protection from Everything", which makes a touched target immune completely to "You Win" and all other spells, that doesn't make "You Win" balanced.  It just makes the game less fun, as the GM is basically forced to have every single enemy protect against "You Win" (and the PCs have to do so also), and anything that doesn't have up that protection just loses.  Worse, a Dispel Magic means the end of the fight as well.


----------



## Pssthpok

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Do all BBEG encounters have to have a small army of mook spell casters, just to make Orb spells balanced? If so, there is something definitely wrong with them.




No, but the option is there, so this gross overpowered nature of the orb spell group is being overplayed by its opponents.


----------



## Pssthpok

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, it is a perfectly reasonable argument.
> 
> Your argument is effectively that there are no unbalanced elements to the game whatsoever because the DM can counter anything.
> 
> Well, duh! That doesn't mean a game element is not unbalanced, that just means that the DM can fudge whatever he wants, no matter how implausible for the situation.




And my argument will stand under any circumstances where yours won't. A clever DM won't worry about one group of conjuration spells; they certainly won't come crying to the boards to try and change everyone else's mind on using those spells.

'Imbalance' only really sticks as a label on things that are absolute-hands-down-must-haves, and the orbs just aren't that good. Yeah, they do damage with no SR, but single-target spells aren't always the cream of the crop and there are many times when damage just isn't the answer to an encounter. Even when it is, the orbs spells aren't always the best option. I mean, arguably, Improved Initiative is more 'imbalanced' because I see it in more builds than I see the orb spells.


----------



## Deset Gled

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> 'Imbalance' only really sticks as a label on things that are absolute-hands-down-must-haves, and the orbs just aren't that good.




"Broken" is the term that I would use for something that is absolute-hands-down-must-have.  "Unbalanced" just means it's somewhere in the gray area of not being balanced as well as it should be.  I don't consider the orbs to be broken, but I consider them to be about as well balanced as this complete breakfast.


----------



## Pssthpok

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> You can say that all you like, but making a claim of truth without backing in does not prove it to be so.  If that was the case, the pro-Orb people would have won this argument long ago




I think I've made clear why I feel my points are true, but we can go back and forth. En garde! 



> 1) Of course it isn't the end of the world--it's an RPG.  Claiming that others are saying this is a strawman.  However, the Orb spells make the average game of D&D _less_ fun.  That is all it takes to make a fix a good idea--you don't need the end of the world.




I haven't put words in anyone else's mouth, I'm just stating what I consider a fact. Just because the orbs don't acknowledge SR -- since the magic involved conjured non-magical substances -- doesn't spell 'end-game' to me. Yes, it's a powerful option, but one that has very elementary defenses.



> 3) The no-SR is not balanced at all by single-target restriction.  You yourself mention Polar Ray.  That spell allows SR and is single-target.




Polar Ray does 10d6 more damage and similarly offers no save, however; no one is complaining about that here. Why? SR, apparently, and maybe spell level. SR is a golden idol that to tread on is tantamount to insulting? Really, is polar ray's spell level saving it from scrutiny? If the orb spells were 7th level or 8th level, with an appropriate increase in damage (say 20d6 for the elements and 15d6 for the force) would this thread be 10 pages long?



> 4) I know you haven't read the whole thread--my point is that we need to _not_ go into crazy splatbooks to make factors either way that probably cancel each other out.  If you have to do all that just because of one spell, you've already proven that the Orbs are broken.




No need for the splatbooks; stick to the Core Rules. And you don't *have* to do it, but the very fact that it could be done will only go to prove _nothing_ but the fact that two resourceful and clever debaters will never win the other over to their side given a strong enough well of resources from which to draw their counter points. This means that the orb argument is dead in the water and comes down to subjective scrutiny. In my mind, the orb spells are too easily countered to cause such a fuss. But that argument goes out like a moth in a flame as soon as someone acquiesces to Twin and Admix.



> 6) Huh?  Twin and Energy Admixture are not that good.  Honest!  Particularly if you think Empower is balanced.  Empower gives you 50% extra damage for +2 levels.  Admixture gives you +100% damage for +4 levels--it's exactly the same gain to cost ratio, just expanded.  Energy Admixture + Fireball gives you 20d6 as a level 7 spell.  So does just casting Delayed Blast Fireball.  The feats are perfectly fine.




Yes, the math looks good on paper, but these feats stack until the cows come home. Admix fire and acid? Sure. Empower twice? No. Twin and admix? Sure. Empower more than once?

Lemme check one more time...

... uh... no. With a good setup these feats start to look cheesy; take them into epic and they stink up the whole house. Twin is broken because it's Quicken without the loss of another spell slot or swift action for the round. Yeah, it only doubles up one spell, so tactical options are out, but who needs tactics when you're flinging two admixed orbs with each action?

So, no: Admix and Twin are not fine, they are strongly open to serious abuse and are the primary cause of spells like polar ray or the orbs looking too powerful on the table. But its not their fault, these spells. It's the fault of boxed-in DMs and cheesy metamagic feats.


----------



## Pssthpok

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> "Broken" is the term that I would use for something that is absolute-hands-down-must-have.  "Unbalanced" just means it's somewhere in the gray area of not being balanced as well as it should be.  I don't consider the orbs to be broken, but I consider them to be about as well balanced as this complete breakfast.




That's a lot of sodium! 

But seriously, I don't know how well I like that definition, because it leaves most of 3.5 in the grey area of imbalance. And that, my friends, makes this entire discussion moot.


----------



## Deset Gled

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> That's a lot of sodium!
> 
> But seriously, I don't know how well I like that definition, because it leaves most of 3.5 in the grey area of imbalance. And that, my friends, makes this entire discussion moot.




I hardly think it makes the OP's question moot, but it does shift the discussion more towards this one: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=194436


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Polar Ray does 10d6 more damage and similarly offers no save, however; no one is complaining about that here. Why? SR, apparently, and maybe spell level. SR is a golden idol that to tread on is tantamount to insulting?



1) Polar Ray has a CAP that is 10d6 higher.  It CAN, in extreme circumstances, do 10d6 more damage...  but for most casters it will not. 
2) The higher spell level means that you can metamagic the orbs.  A Maximized Orb of Cold is a lower level than Polar Ray, and even for a 25th-level caster the orb does more damage on average. 
3) You need an 18 Int to cast Polar Ray.  You need a 14 Int to cast a Maximized Orb of Cold.  Might not matter much for PCs, but it may for NPCs, multiclassed casters, PCs suffering from ability drain, PCs in a low-point-buy or 3d6-in-order system, etc.

So, in general, Orb of Cold is MUCH stronger Polar Ray already... and then we have the SR issue.


----------



## KarinsDad

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> And my argument will stand under any circumstances where yours won't.




Your argument is a copout. It takes more thought to analyze the information and less thought to say "no problem, as DM I can just do whatever I want, regardless of plausibility".



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> A clever DM won't worry about one group of conjuration spells; they certainly won't come crying to the boards to try and change everyone else's mind on using those spells.




It's called discourse, not crying. If you cannot understand the difference, maybe you shouldn't cry about it.  

People come here to discuss differing points of view (and yours is fine for you), but an opinion of DM fiat is not backed up with any real balance facts, hence, it is IMO an unsupported and even irrational opinion.

And blowing off these types of balance discussions is not the sign of a "clever DM".



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> 'Imbalance' only really sticks as a label on things that are absolute-hands-down-must-haves, and the orbs just aren't that good. Yeah, they do damage with no SR, but single-target spells aren't always the cream of the crop and there are many times when damage just isn't the answer to an encounter. Even when it is, the orbs spells aren't always the best option. I mean, arguably, Improved Initiative is more 'imbalanced' because I see it in more builds than I see the orb spells.




I have not seen an arcane caster since Complete Arcane come out who has not taken at least one Orb spell. So, they pretty much are must have spells.

When 3E first came out nearly 7 years ago, Improved Initiative was a big deal for many people and often put into rogue and arcane builds. In the last 4 years, I have not seen it taken and never see it in builds anymore. When analyzed (going back to concept of studying and comprehending game elements, not just blowing analysis off), it just does not supply the bang for the buck of other feats. Granted, much of this is probably due to the "bigger, badder, better" concept of feats in latter splat books. There are just too many great feat options anymore that a fairly decent one like II is no longer in the running.

However, I could see II making a comeback as Nova capability starts increasing in splat books. Orbs by themselves are not Nova, they are just almost auto-hit. But for casters who can manage to up the power of the Orbs with appropriate metamagic and other abilities to Nova and even Supernova levels, it is quite reasonable for II to be a strong choice for that type of caster. But for most caster concepts where they may or may not succeed with their spells (i.e. not near auto-hit), it is just not that necessary.


----------



## James McMurray

Why do people continue to use Polar Ray as an example? It sucks. Next to it Scorching Ray looks broken because maximized it's 3 levels lower and does almost as much damage (which you can spread around to 3 targets if you need to).


----------



## Pssthpok

So, aggravated dispositions aside, what is the end solution that the nay-sayers think will 'solve' the 'imbalance' of the orb spells? 

Spell Resistance? Sometimes, the caster will penetrate SR, so will the problem still exist? 

No save versus damage? Sometimes, the target will fail the save, so will the problem still exist?

Touch attack? How many other spells would have to change?

Or splatbooks in general?


----------



## IanB

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> 6) Huh?  Twin and Energy Admixture are not that good.  Honest!  Particularly if you think Empower is balanced.  Empower gives you 50% extra damage for +2 levels.  Admixture gives you +100% damage for +4 levels--it's exactly the same gain to cost ratio, just expanded.  Energy Admixture + Fireball gives you 20d6 as a level 7 spell.  So does just casting Delayed Blast Fireball.  The feats are perfectly fine.




I don't have Energy Admixture at hand. Does it let you do 20d6 at 13th level with that 7th level spell slot? Because if so, that is quite significantly different and better than delayed blast fireball doing 20d6 seven levels later.

It feels more and more to me that the problems with the orb spells are actually problems with metamagic.


----------



## Rystil Arden

IanB said:
			
		

> I don't have Energy Admixture at hand. Does it let you do 20d6 at 13th level with that 7th level spell slot? Because if so, that is quite significantly different and better than delayed blast fireball doing 20d6 seven levels later.
> 
> It feels more and more to me that the problems with the orb spells are actually problems with metamagic.



 Yes it does, but the DC is 4 lower and you lose out on the Delayed Blast aspect, so it is perfectly reasonable in general (against opponents that might have failed the save, the 20% increase in chance to make the save nearly cancels out the gain in damage, and what is level is reasonable for a feat, plus at every level after 13 Delayed Blast gets better and better compared to Admixtured Fireball).  But hey, Empower Spell lets you cast a 15d6 Fireball as a level 5 spell at level 10 (rather than a 15d6 Cone of Cold at level 15), so it's the same deal.  Psst's argument that Empower is not broken and Admixture/Twin are is deceptive, and he has to use Epic levels as an example because of it.  Particularly, his claim that they stack is rather pointless--the best you're going to do is cast a Twinned Admixtured level 1 spell as a 9th-level slot.  No thanks, I want my Meteor Swarm


----------



## James McMurray

IanB said:
			
		

> I don't have Energy Admixture at hand. Does it let you do 20d6 at 13th level with that 7th level spell slot? Because if so, that is quite significantly different and better than delayed blast fireball doing 20d6 seven levels later.




It lets you do 26d6 20d6 at 13th level. Basically it doubles the dice on a energy damage spell by adding another element to the mix. At 15th level you'll be doing 30d6. IIRC the cost is 4 spell levels.

As an interesting comparison, the epic metamagic feat Enhance Spell also costs four levels, but rather than flat out doubling the damage it adds 10 levels to the damage cap, meaning you'd still have to actually have those caster levels. Compared to Twin and Admixture the epic feat is pathetic.

edit: forgot we were talking about 7th level spell slots, although there's probably a 15d6 capped thiurd level spell out there somewhere that could be used with admixture to deal the 26d6.


----------



## Rystil Arden

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It lets you do 26d6 20d6 at 13th level. Basically it doubles the dice on a energy damage spell by adding another element to the mix. At 15th level you'll be doing 30d6. IIRC the cost is 4 spell levels.
> 
> As an interesting comparison, the epic metamagic feat Enhance Spell also costs four levels, but rather than flat out doubling the damage it adds 10 levels to the damage cap, meaning you'd still have to actually have those caster levels. Compared to Twin and Admixture the epic feat is pathetic.
> 
> edit: forgot we were talking about 7th level spell slots, although there's probably a 15d6 capped thiurd level spell out there somewhere that could be used with admixture to deal the 26d6.



 Arguing using epic feats is not really effective at all, since they were 3.0.  Some of the epic feats would suck as regular feats, and many of them have regular feats that are purely better than they are in 3.5.


----------



## IanB

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Yes it does, but the DC is 4 lower and you lose out on the Delayed Blast aspect, so it is perfectly reasonable in general (against opponents that might have failed the save, the 20% increase in chance to make the save nearly cancels out the gain in damage, and what is level is reasonable for a feat, plus at every level after 13 Delayed Blast gets better and better compared to Admixtured Fireball).  But hey, Empower Spell lets you cast a 15d6 Fireball as a level 5 spell at level 10 (rather than a 15d6 Cone of Cold at level 15), so it's the same deal.  Psst's argument that Empower is not broken and Admixture/Twin are is deceptive, and he has to use Epic levels as an example because of it.  Particularly, his claim that they stack is rather pointless--the best you're going to do is cast a Twinned Admixtured level 1 spell as a 9th-level slot.  No thanks, I want my Meteor Swarm




Well... unless you get Easy Metamagic or Arcane Thesis or whatever into the mix too, right?

Then suddenly an admixtured empowered orb is possible, or a twinned admixtured fireball?


----------



## Rokes

I can't believe no one has mentioned _Ray Deflection_ (SpC p.166)

Completely negates all ranged touch attacks.  Goodbye Orb Sorcerer, goodbye Beholder.

I admit that it's a small bandaid vs. these orb spells.  But the look on the DMs face when my fighter-mage cast this vs. a Beholder was priceless.


----------



## Pssthpok

IanB said:
			
		

> I don't have Energy Admixture at hand. Does it let you do 20d6 at 13th level with that 7th level spell slot? Because if so, that is quite significantly different and better than delayed blast fireball doing 20d6 seven levels later.
> 
> It feels more and more to me that the problems with the orb spells are actually problems with metamagic.





DING!! Give this man the Kewpie doll, he just nailed it on the head.


----------



## IanB

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Your analysis here is skewed. It discusses only one creature and that one, one of the best touch ACs once it puts up defenses. The creatures that an Orb user would target would not be ones with miss chances (of which you had 3). However, until they get those defenses up, all of the creatures you listed are reasonable targets.




Absolutely. I'm not arguing the orbs are going to be _useless_ against things with high touch ACs. I'm saying they're not going to be slam dunks. I'm not denying the orbs are strong options. Strong options, I'm ok with. (I worry a lot about the non-core metamagic feats though, as those seem to be too much.)



> And it makes sense for a party of higher level PCs to use tactics (and possibly code words) so that the Fighter moves away from a Balor so that the Wizard can blast him with an Orb. Players do not have to play their PCs stupid.




I think my players may have a different definition of stupid than yours, given this plan involving giving AOOs to a creature with a vorpal weapon.


----------



## Rystil Arden

IanB said:
			
		

> Well... unless you get Easy Metamagic or Arcane Thesis or whatever into the mix too, right?
> 
> Then suddenly an admixtured empowered orb is possible, or a twinned admixtured fireball?



 True!--don't allow Thesis; that's what's broken, not Twin Spell or Admixture.  Orbs are, as we have shown, broken without those feats, though.


----------



## IanB

By the way, a house rule I've been considering that helps soften the hit that golems take from orb spells (if you consider that the straw that broke the camel's back in this case):

Take DR away from golems, give them hardness equivalent to their former DR (or material type, pending some testing there), and apply the normal rules for energy damage vs. objects (when the energy damage is from an ignores-SR source.)


----------



## Henry

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> So, aggravated dispositions aside, what is the end solution that the nay-sayers think will 'solve' the 'imbalance' of the orb spells?
> 
> Spell Resistance? Sometimes, the caster will penetrate SR, so will the problem still exist?




For me, this or a save for half would fix it totally. The ranged touch attack is such a low barrier that I've never seen it an issue; the majority of monsters have lousy touch ac's, more lousy than a wizard's ability to boost his touch attack bonus, to the point where it might as well automatically hit.

So the chance for a half-save or an SR negation would be fine with me. The spells aren't completely unsaveable, they're just slightly over that line of "too darned good". As I noted, sorcerers in our campaigns especailly are taking them left and right.


----------



## Henry

IanB said:
			
		

> I think my players may have a different definition of stupid than yours, given this plan involving giving AOOs to a creature with a vorpal weapon.




And if that fighter has tumble, he's good to go!

Plus, the wizard worth his salt who frequently uses ranged touch attacks will certainly have precise shot. It's too good NOT to have for a touch-attacker.


----------



## Elethiomel

Why does everyone assume the Orbs work against Golems?
 - They have a fortitude save.
 - They do not have the [Object] descriptor.


----------



## IanB

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Why does everyone assume the Orbs work against Golems?
> - They have a fortitude save.
> - They do not have the [Object] descriptor.




Golems are creatures, not objects.


----------



## Elethiomel

IanB said:
			
		

> Golems are creatures, not objects.




But they are immune to effects that require a fortitude save unless they also work on objects.


----------



## James McMurray

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> But they are immune to effects that require a fortitude save unless they also work on objects.




Damaging spells work on objects. There's a whole section in the rules about how energy types interact with hardness.


----------



## Elethiomel

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Damaging spells work on objects. There's a whole section in the rules about how energy types interact with hardness.



Hmm, good point. But that leaves me confused as to why the [object] descriptor exists.


----------



## James McMurray

Because not all spells are damaging spells?


----------



## IanB

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Hmm, good point. But that leaves me confused as to why the [object] descriptor exists.




In this case, if it had been used, it would presumably be to indicate that the secondary effects of the orbs affect objects.


----------



## KarinsDad

IanB said:
			
		

> I think my players may have a different definition of stupid than yours, given this plan involving giving AOOs to a creature with a vorpal weapon.




Who said anything about giving an AoO?

Take a 5 foot step so that I can target the side squares of the large creature without the -4 penalty.


----------



## IanB

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Who said anything about giving an AoO?
> 
> Take a 5 foot step so that I can target the side squares of the large creature without the -4 penalty.




You know, I started to write a note in response to this, but it really is a digression. I am not trying to convince you anyway; I was just providing the first bit of data leading to my conclusions about *my* game. You already appear to have come to your own conclusions, so my data will probably not be useful to you. That is perfectly fine.

I will say that I have to wonder if most DMs are enforcing the ranged cover rules properly, given how consistently it is being dismissed as irrelevant by people.


----------



## Rystil Arden

IanB said:
			
		

> You know, I started to write a note in response to this, but it really is a digression. I am not trying to convince you anyway; I was just providing the first bit of data leading to my conclusions about *my* game. You already appear to have come to your own conclusions, so my data will probably not be useful to you. That is perfectly fine.
> 
> I will say that I have to wonder if most DMs are enforcing the ranged cover rules properly, given how consistently it is being dismissed as irrelevant by people.



 Against the size Large Balor, it likely is irrelevant, but it admittedly depends on just how many allies you have, how big they are, and where they are positioned.


----------



## IanB

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Against the size Large Balor, it likely is irrelevant, but it admittedly depends on just how many allies you have, how big they are, and where they are positioned.




When talking about _cover_, large+ creatures actually typically have an easier time getting it against ranged attacks. Remember, the 'choose one square' rule for cover with larger creatures is for melee attacks, not ranged attacks. With ranged attacks, you have to trace to every corner of every square of the large+ creature to check cover. Terrain counts as well.

When talking about the _firing into melee_ penalty, it is easier to avoid that with a large+ creature, yes.

I also play a lot of DDM, so I may be more used to using/abusing the cover rules than most DMs, though.


----------



## RigaMortus2

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It depends. What if the BBEG is a fighter type? Do you give him a Cloak of Major Displacement knowing that the PCs will probably acquire said item? There are not that many items that significantly protect against Orbs and which a DM might want fall into the PC's hands.
> 
> Or do you give him a Wizard cohort with instructions: "I know that Bob likes to use Orb of Force, so cast Displacement on me first round."? Sounds kind of railroady (wish I had a better non-existent word for that  ).




Those are some options.  Of course, the DM has free reign, so if he REALLY wanted to, he could just say that he is immune or has energy resistance against that particular spell.  He doesn't have to explain WHY or HOW this particular BBEG is being unaffected (or less affected) by the spells.  Perhaps a Wizard cohort buffed him up a couple hours ago, and then left to run an errand.  So we have a Fighter with Wizard buffs on (Energy Resistance, Spell Immunity, etc.) and again, it's not like the DM has to explain every defense an NPC has against the players.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If Orb spells are not broken, why would the DM have to craft BBEGs with specific defenses against it?




He certainly doesn't have to do that, but the option is always open to him.  Have you never had a BBEG that had Improved Evasion?  That pretty much cancels out all AE spells.  So it's not like you are specifically designed him to avoid the PC Wizard's Fireball spell which he uses all the time.  That's just a particular defense he has.  Against Scorching Ray, he's not so defensive.  Same with the Orbs.  A particular BBEG might have a particular defense agains that, but not against AE spells.  Again, it's not like the DM has to explain an NPC's defenses to the PCs before, during or after the encounter...



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Nobody talks about crafting BBEGs with specific defenses against Fireball because Fireball already has at least one defense that all NPCs already have (i.e. a saving throw).  The BBEG does not need a specific defense against Fireball. General defenses (e.g. high hit points and a decent Reflex save) might suffice (situation depending).




There are several spells which deal damage or harm an opponent in other ways which bypass saving throws.  Why are Orbs so special in this regard?



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But Orbs have so few significant defenses that the DM would have to purposely alter his BBEG and/or scenario, just to take them into account. He doesn't have to do that for Fireball.




Isn't that the DM's job though?  To make challenging encounters?  To think of ways around the PC's offense and defense?  Sometimes the PCs will wipe the floor with NPCs, other times it will be a close call.

If you are running an encounter straight from a module, those encounters do not take into account all the variant books and such that are out, so often times the DM will have to improvise if he wants that encounter to be more challenging.  If the DM makes up his own encounters, he is already altering the way the NPCs will react to the PCs to begin with, so he just has to take certain things into account.  Whether it is Orb spells, Wraithstrike, or what have you.  That's part of being a DM.


----------



## Rystil Arden

IanB said:
			
		

> When talking about _cover_, large+ creatures actually typically have an easier time getting it against ranged attacks. Remember, the 'choose one square' rule for cover with larger creatures is for melee attacks, not ranged attacks. With ranged attacks, you have to trace to every corner of every square of the large+ creature to check cover. Terrain counts as well.
> 
> When talking about the _firing into melee_ penalty, it is easier to avoid that with a large+ creature, yes.
> 
> I also play a lot of DDM, so I may be more used to using/abusing the cover rules than most DMs, though.



 That's incredibly interesting--you're absolutely right, but I must have auto-errataed it to fix the ridiculous implications (I imagine if you got a question about it into the FAQ, they'd do the auto-errata as well, though of course it would not count).  I don't want a colossal dragon hiding from my ranged attacks behind a mouse   Choosing one square of the larger creature for ranged attacks as well as melee attacks makes a lot more sense.


----------



## KarinsDad

IanB said:
			
		

> When talking about _cover_, large+ creatures actually typically have an easier time getting it against ranged attacks. Remember, the 'choose one square' rule for cover with larger creatures is for melee attacks, not ranged attacks. With ranged attacks, you have to trace to every corner of every square of the large+ creature to check cover. Terrain counts as well.




Actually, this is not quite accurate.

The actual rules quote is:



> To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s *square* passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).




This states "square". Singular.

This says nothing about creatures that occupy more than a single square.

The following quote:



> Similarly, when making a *melee* attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.




This rule says nothing about ranged attacks.

Hence, we have no rule (TMK) that discusses ranged attacks versus large creatures. The rule just does not exist.


So, a DM can make up a rule, or use one of these two rules. At a range of 5 feet, I see no difference between melee attacks and range attacks for the second rule. Creature A is attacking large creature B from the same square with either a melee or ranged attack, so why should the cover rule be different? Does the wall to the archer's left stop arrows when he is firing to the right, even though it would not do so for the fighter swinging his sword?

The second rule also makes more sense. The colossal dragon should not be able to hide behind a human, any more than an ogre should be able to hide behind a mouse.


----------



## Votan

James McMurray said:
			
		

> You mean to say you thought I was serious? Of course I was making the point that telling someone if they can't disprove someone's numbers they automatically agree with them. I assumed that would have been obvious to everyone reading due to the fact that I chose 50 (or thereabouts) as my supposed average touch AC. I could have used fewer books and a more reasonable number if I'd actually been trying to lie about it and use the inflated average as an argument int he ongoing orb debate. You'll note I never once referred to it except while making a point about the burden of proof being on the one making the claim.




True, but as a rhetorical device it has the downside of not being plausible.  What is plausible about averaqge touch AC of 11 arguments is many creatures have an AC of this magnitude.  On the other hand, I am not aware of single example of touch AC > 50 in a non-epic book.  

The mean lying outside of the range of the data is an easy way to diagnose an error.  

People seem to have put some effort into averaging these things to make a point.  I actually disagree with the point that they are making but I respect that they are putting effort into trying to show it effectively.


----------



## two

*Orbs Best when you need it!*

One thing that has been lost in all this interesting (for the most part) discussion is the fact that the orb spells are strongest, and most useful, WHEN THE SITUATION IS MOST DIRE.

Using the Orb spells vs. 1-4 opponents, particularly at mid or high levels (10+), is very, very strong.  If there are 4 opponents, you can likely take one out immediately with a meta-magicked Orb (if 4 make a reasonable challenge, they can't all have really high HP).  Taking out 1/4 of the opponents in one round is highly effective.

With 3, 2, or 1 opponent it is even more clear.

In mixed battles, with 10 mooks, 2 sub-monsters, an 1 major monster, the orb blaster should be able to take out the sub-monster in one round, and the major monster in 2 rounds.  Just ignore the mooks for a while.

The ONLY time the orb blaster is unhappy is when faced by 5+ similarly powered monsters.  Taking out one a round isn't that powerful.  

On the other hand, an attack by 10 cr-appropriate monsters isn't a big deal.  Sure, fireball is effective in this case, but so are a lot of other spells (acid fog, etc.).  When you increase the numbers to 15 or 20, the power of each individual mook decreases. Yeah, the blaster mage is great at these sorts of things.  But the party, as a whole, is likely not in much danger, and the orb slinger has a lot of other useful options (cloud spells, etc.).

When the orb master really shines is, well, WHEN YOU NEED HIM MOST.

Going up against some nasty high HP monster with magical defenses... or a high AC fighter type with great saves... etc.

I can think of a thousand monsters that make fireballers unhappy (high reflex save, mid-or-high SR, elemental immunities).

I can only think of a few SITUATIONAL setups where the Orb guy is unhappy.  (the only monster that the orb guy hates is incorporeal undead types with high touch ac.)

At the end of the day, when the going gets tough, the Orb blaster has all his best features highlighted:  lots of no save no sr damage to a single target with a near auto-hit.

At the end of the day, when the going gets tough, the evoker has all his weakest features highlighted:  reflex save and SR (and elemental immunity).


----------



## Diirk

two said:
			
		

> I can only think of a few SITUATIONAL setups where the Orb guy is unhappy.  (the only monster that the orb guy hates is incorporeal undead types with high touch ac.)




People keep mentioning this, but bar the touch ac incorporeal isn't much of a hindrance if you don't want it to be ; transdimensional spell metamagic from Complete Arcane lets you avoid any  incorporeal miss chance for a +1 adjustment.


----------



## glass

Diirk said:
			
		

> People keep mentioning this, but bar the touch ac incorporeal isn't much of a hindrance if you don't want it to be ; transdimensional spell metamagic from Complete Arcane lets you avoid any  incorporeal miss chance for a +1 adjustment.



The problem isn't the incoporeal miss chance; Orb of Force deals with that handily anyway. It is the fact that incorporeals gain a deflection bonusequal ot their Charisma bonus (minimum 1).

However, even this isn't that big a deal, because even 'high' touch ACs are rarely that high as to be as much of a problem as a save and spell resistance.


glass.


----------



## James McMurray

Votan said:
			
		

> True, but as a rhetorical device it has the downside of not being plausible.  What is plausible about averaqge touch AC of 11 arguments is many creatures have an AC of this magnitude.  On the other hand, I am not aware of single example of touch AC > 50 in a non-epic book.
> 
> The mean lying outside of the range of the data is an easy way to diagnose an error.
> 
> People seem to have put some effort into averaging these things to make a point.  I actually disagree with the point that they are making but I respect that they are putting effort into trying to show it effectively.




Would you have been happier if I'd said the average was 18? It still would have worked, but more people might have thought I was serious, which would have ruined the example. But, if it makes you feel better, please feel free to go back, reread it, and pretend I said 18 (or whatever number makes you happy).


----------



## Nail

IanB said:
			
		

> When talking about _cover_, large+ creatures actually typically have an easier time getting it against ranged attacks. Remember, the 'choose one square' rule for cover with larger creatures is for melee attacks, not ranged attacks. With ranged attacks, you have to trace to every corner of every square of the large+ creature to check cover. Terrain counts as well.



Huh!

That....that is not a "rule" I use.     

In any event, firing an orb at something with cover changes the average touch AC to 15.  Whoop-dee-dee.


----------



## KarinsDad

Nail said:
			
		

> In any event, firing an orb at something with cover changes the average touch AC to 15.  Whoop-dee-dee.




Well, they have a point. There will be situations where the enemy effectively has a +4 bonus to touch AC for cover and/or a +4 bonus to touch AC for being in melee.

However, like other apects of this, a lot of this is in the control of the PCs. The PC using the Orb can often move so that soft cover from allies no longer exist, his allies can move around opponents do that soft cover no longer exist, the PC can take the Precise Shot feat, the PC or his allies can move so that the large creature does not get the in melee bonus, etc.

And finally, in these "unfavorable situations", the PC caster can choose to do something else and wait to blast when he can either create the appropriate opportunity, or try to change the situation, or even blast at the penalty.

So sure, the +4 or +8 bonus for the enemy will occasionally be a factor in the game, but the PCs can control to a large degree how much of a factor it is.

For the most part, it is going to be PC Orb Slinger against touch AC 8 to 14.


Even in these "unfavorable situations", having a 60% to 80% chance to hit with an Orb at 7th level is still typically better than having a 40% to 75% chance to hit with a Will save spell where it is not obvious what type of Will save the opponent might have. And against some opponents like Oozes, Dragons and most Undead, it's a no brainer.


----------



## Votan

My question is whether the reference cateogry makes sense.  We are comparing the ability of conjurers to do damage to that of Evokers.  That Orbs are better than the standard (seemingly underpowered) Evocation spells shows only that either:

1) Orbs are overpowered
2) Evocation spells are underpowered 

I tend to think that #2 is more true than #1 given the other spell options that are around and the impact that they can have.


----------



## Nail

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So sure, the +4 or +8 bonus for the enemy will occasionally be a factor in the game, but the PCs can control to a large degree how much of a factor it is.



True.

And I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been very strict about cover vs ranged attacks in my games.  (I've changed my ways for our current game....)



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Even in these "unfavorable situations", having a 60% to 80% chance to hit with an Orb at 7th level is still typically better than having a 40% to 75% chance to hit with a Will save spell where it is not obvious what type of Will save the opponent might have.



That's a point worth repeating.

Tangentially: Knowledge (whatever) can usually get you Type" information about a creature pretty easily (re: MMIV).  That should let you know fairly well what kind of good/poor saves a monster has.


----------



## Nail

Votan said:
			
		

> I tend to think that #2 is more true than #1 given the other spell options that are around and the impact that they can have.



So.....a few spells aren't overpowered (Orbs), but instead _hundreds_ of other spells are underpowered (evocations)?

Huh.  Okay.......


----------



## DungeonMaester

Is it to make up for Bo9S prehaps?

---Rusty


----------

