Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Darth Doom 05-16-05, 10:01 AM	Hi all, Generally spellcasters scream when they hear the words "An enemy Golem...", as they realise even spells that could raize villages to the ground are useless against them. However, while skimming through these boards, absorbing information here and there, Ive noticed a few people saying things like "Wizards and Sorc's dont fear golems anymore now that they have their orb of choice spell.." and the like. My question is, what is this Orb spell people speak of? And howcome it works against Golems who are meant to be immune to magic and magical effects. Any help will be much appreciated.
Keenath 05-16-05, 10:22 AM	The Orb spells are found in Complete Arcane. Pick the one that matches your element of choice (Orb of Acid, Orb of Fire, etc). It deals 1d6/level to a single target, requires a ranged touch, and no save, no SR. Well, okay, there IS a save, but it doesn't do anything to stop the damage. Each orb has an additional affect you have to save against. For instance, Acid might cause sickness for a short time from the fumes, while Electricity may cause metal armor to become magnetic and entangle the wearer. The golem-killing aspect isn't so much the new orb spells as the new, full explanation. In 3.0, Golem magic resistance was not defined in the book except to say that they're immune. But that didn't take into account, for example, getting hit by a Telekinetically thrown rock, or Conjuration spells which theoretically create something nasty, but aren't making a magical spell actually hit the enemy. As of 3.5, Magic Immunity is specified as being basically an unbeatable SR. It says they're entirely immune to the effect of any spell that allows SR, in addition to the usual Construct rules (immune to anything with a Fort save unless it also affects objects, etc). So, for example, an Acid Arrow can burn an iron golem, because it's no save, no SR. Actually, that isn't so much a change as a clarification, since the Sage said a couple of times previously that Golems just have unbeatable SR, and non-SR spells can be used to destroy them. So, y'know, wizards don't HAVE to wet their pants when they see a golem. Unless they want to. And a Conjuration specialist is actually a golem-killing machine!
Teron Gorefiend 05-16-05, 10:34 AM	The orb spells really steal what little thunder the evocation school has, and I wouldn't allow them - but maybe that's just me.
crazysamaritan 05-16-05, 10:39 AM	The orb spells really steal what little thunder the evocation school has, and I wouldn't allow them - but maybe that's just me. evocation makes things go BOOM! and conjuration makes things appear, but conjuration gets a more effective boom!? yeah, doesn't make sense here, either.
the Jester 05-16-05, 12:48 PM	The orb spells are horribly broken.
tarkin 05-16-05, 01:11 PM	The orb spells are weak compared to area effect spells. Yes, they are pretty good as attacks against a single, visible target, with SR, but with a low ranged touch AC, but so what. Area attack spells do far more damage, against creatures that you can not even see, regardless of their AC. Explosive Cascade for example, will do FAR more damage, on average. As a player, I usually end up memorizing one of the orb spells, not more. They simply are not worth it.
Ilium 05-16-05, 01:42 PM	I don't think the Orb spells are overpowered, but I do re-classify them as evocations in my game.
WunderGoat 05-16-05, 01:53 PM	Orb spells are balanced, but are on the high end of level 4. I've moved them up to level 5. Sadly, their description leads me to think that they are conjuration. Orb spells are a powerful specialty spell, useful for killing rouges and pounching though SR. Fireball and the like are better form a damage standpoint, but orbs are better for actually doing damage vs, certain targets. Compare them to otto's irrestable dance. The orbs can be countered with resists (not the focre one) and touch AC. OID can be countered by a touch AC and also requires teh caster to be right there next to you to use it. Granted OID's effect is far better than an orbs. The biggest way that orbs come up as being broken is the application of metamagic to them. The orbs came from 3.0 are were ported directly to 3.5. With the addition of sudden feats in the same book, it became very very easy to abuse Orbs. Where most other boom spells allow for reflex half, the orb just nails one person very hard.
IMarvinTPA 05-16-05, 02:03 PM	I've always heard these as Orbs of Energy, not Orbs of Choice. As for how combat works for our party, usually we focus on one or two guys at a time until they're down. So these spells work well for our needs. Especially if they're hit-point wells. Its all in their application and need. IMarv
green_yawgmoth 05-16-05, 02:54 PM	I don't think the Orb spells are overpowered, but I do re-classify them as evocations in my game. I just use the Tome & Blood version. Evocation, and they can be split up into different sized orbs, so long as they do at least 1d6 damage. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
tiercel 05-16-05, 07:06 PM	The orb spells are weak compared to area effect spells. Yes, they are pretty good as attacks against a single, visible target, with SR, but with a low ranged touch AC, but so what. Area attack spells do far more damage, against creatures that you can not even see, regardless of their AC. At lower levels, orbs aren't very special -- they aren't terrible, but they are roughly in line with spells like scorching ray. Except, of course, they are in the wrong school. When you start running into critters with significant or high SR (or, of course, magic "immunity") is when they become powerful. A significant SR creature will often have SR of something like its CR + 11, which means most of your spells have at least a 50% chance of failing utterly. Orbs completely ignore this. As you get higher and higher in level, you run into more and more creatures and NPCs with SR, and the orbs become more and more attractive. In my opinions, orbs are simply wrong as written, and in my campaign I allow them but as Evocations with SR: Yes. They are philosophically wrong: "I'm shooting gouts of magical energy, which does damage all at once, just like an Evocation, but they are Conjuration and so not subject to SR... nyehhhhh, stupid Evokers." They are also wrong in game balance: a sorcerer or warmage of less than a clay golem's CR can reduce it to rubble in only a few rounds, single handedly. Who would bother burning a feat and burning tens of thousands of gold and the accompanying XP cost to create a creature that can be annihilated by a small selection of spells that slice right through its vaunted "immunities"? Even orbs aside, I'm a little uncomfortable with "immunity" just meaning anything that has "SR: No" can slice right through. Generally constructs have terrible saves, so glitterdust can take one right out of commission. Being a construct doesn't protect against being blind from a non-Fort save effect, and generally constructs aren't capable of anything other than melee, so a blind construct is easy prey.
Vanigo 05-17-05, 09:38 PM	In my opinions, orbs are simply wrong as written, and in my campaign I allow them but as Evocations with SR: Yes. Doesn't that make them a bit weak? The damage cap is only slightly higher than scorching ray, so without the lack of SR there's not a lot to reccomend them. I'd add the spiffy dividability thing that was in the 3.0 version.
redraven 05-17-05, 10:03 PM	Generally constructs have terrible saves, so glitterdust can take one right out of commission. Being a construct doesn't protect against being blind from a non-Fort save effect, and generally constructs aren't capable of anything other than melee, so a blind construct is easy prey. Or even worse: Grease. Constructs have a 50% chance of not being able to move in the round and a 25% (or more, depending on their Reflex saves) chance of falling prone. From a 1st level spell. Even the small area doesn't hinder the spell's effectiveness as long as the grease is somewhere between you and the golem. Enlarging the effect or casting it multiple times typically allows you to dismantle the golem at your leisure.
tiercel 05-17-05, 10:43 PM	Doesn't that make them a bit weak? The damage cap is only slightly higher than scorching ray, so without the lack of SR there's not a lot to reccomend them. I'd add the spiffy dividability thing that was in the 3.0 version. I don't have my Complete Arcane in front of me at the moment, but I seem to recall that the lesser Orbs have about the same damage as magic missile, but require attack rolls. Ranged touch attacks aren't too bad, though there is a chance of missing (but also a small chance of a crit). Yes, in general, magic missile is probably better (but then, it is arguably a wee bit strong for a 1st level spell). The orbs are still viable choices in various situations though: for warmages, who can dial up the flavor they want, particularly against creatures with energy vulnerabilities; for tricksters, for ranged sneak attack damage (since there's an attack roll); for hitting creatures with energy vulnerabilities; and for fighting enemies with the shield spell or a brooch of shielding. As for the full-fledged Orbs, they are a direct-damage spell that has the chance to inflict a status ailment on a failed save. That's not terrible. I'll grant you, it's not exactly my cup of tea, but I don't play Evokers either. If someone really liked these spells but wanted dividability back in exchange for the sanity clause of Evocation and "SR: Yes", I don't know if that would be hideously bad. (Obviously it makes the "status ailment" part of the spell much more powerful, though I seem to recall it's pretty short-lived.) As for grease vs golems... yeah. Ouch. At least philosophically, I can understand why grease is "SR: No". Glitterdust is a little more confusing -- if it is "SR: No" because it creates physical particles that do the blinding, how do they blind a nonliving creature? (Completely cover the eyes?) Why is it a Will save instead of a Reflex save (turn head, close eyes) or a Fort save ("tear up" and wash the irritants out of your eyes)? Of course if you both grease and glitterdust the golem then it's doubly toast.
Bopple 05-17-05, 11:03 PM	Another nonsense about orb spells; They do secondary effects like - sickening, deafening, dazing, or blinding. But what kind of logic is behind that? How can mundane fire daze a foe, while even mighty Meteor Swarm cannot do it?
Grayequus 05-18-05, 10:38 AM	Its not mundane fire, and it does that because the original researcher designed the spell that way. Meteor swarm wasn't. Its not a question of how 'powerful' the fire is, its wether or not it was researched with the added effect.
djinni 05-18-05, 11:47 AM	Why is it a Will save instead of a Reflex save (turn head, close eyes) or a Fort save ("tear up" and wash the irritants out of your eyes)?. it's probably because it is a pattern that the target focuses on, after it's been brought ot you attention you can't help but look at it.
Dungeon Master 05-18-05, 12:04 PM	Its not mundane fire, and it does that because the original researcher designed the spell that way. Meteor swarm wasn't. Its not a question of how 'powerful' the fire is, its wether or not it was researched with the added effect. That makes no sense. Fire is fire, acid is acid, and they ought to have the same effect.
Grayequus 05-18-05, 12:11 PM	D&D is -not- like the real world. Magic Jar makes no sense either, by physics. nor does Wish. Its magic, it operates by different rules than those we know. You can research a fire spell that dazes, if you care to, there.
djinni 05-18-05, 12:14 PM	That makes no sense. Fire is fire, acid is acid, and they ought to have the same effect. Fire doesn't automatically set things on fire when it touches them therefore some spells don't set stuff on fire...an orb of fire might explode in a blinding flash, of white fire, meteor storm is just yellow burning rocks. yes fire is fire but there are many types of fire, which type of fire would you like to discuss first? just like there are different forms of acid, when you drink water you are drinking acid, and soda, yeah lets not go there... the acid orb can explode in a noxious fumes, the acid doesn't stick around since it changes into noxious fumes, to deal additional damage to the target's armor etc... so which one of those would you like to discuss first?
Thanatos02 05-18-05, 12:17 PM	Meh. I consider the additional effect to be associated to the element, but not a direct result of it. The additional effect of the Orb spells seems to me to be researched to be inline with the elemental paradigm and the spell infused with the effect in addition to the damage the spell causes. I don't have a problem with the Orb spells, but SP applied in the game we played, so I don't think it was a problem. My character was a Sorcerer anyway, so it really doesn't make a difference if that's the case. Also, I do believe I only had access to one type of Orb, because we were using 3.0, and to the best of my memory, they were all split up. It seems like the right way to go with it anyway. Interesting side-note. The Lesser Orb spells don't carry the side-effect, but they do have a d8 die applied to them. Which is weird. I use them over Magic Missle, because they're a nice alternative, I think Magic Missle is over-used, and they give much more flavor - IMHO. YMMV.
Bopple 05-19-05, 01:15 AM	Orb itself is mundane, if not, it cannot bypass SR, save or AMF. As it doesn't disperse in AMF, we should be able to make an orb with fire, acid, or ect, with ordinary means. And we should be able to daze/deafen/ect when we hit a foe with it. But can we? Is there any rule remotely similar to it, at least? Magic, RPG, D&D system, or ect is not identical to our world. But it should have internal consistency, at least.
Aracor 05-19-05, 11:50 AM	The best thing about the orb spells by FAR is this: 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. Technically does this mean a character could cast a bunch of Orb of Force spells and then throw them at people like painful basketballs without taking up that day's spell slots? How much does an orb of force weigh, anyway? Could you shape them into bricks somehow and build a house out of them? Yeah, that's an odd line of questioning. But pertinent. I find the easiest way to deal with that is to stick them into evocation rather than conjuration. ~Aracor