Post/Author/DateTime	Post
evilrafael 11-12-06, 10:29 PM	One thing I dislike in the supplements that came after the three core rulebooks is that they many times feel unbalanced in comparison to the punch you pack with the originals. My point tonight is about the "orb" spells. Orb of *insert energy type here* is a 4th level spell that deals 1d6/caster lvl damage without saving throw (max. 15d6). I'd hope a similar spell that deals max 25d6 could be found on the 6th level.... but it only appears on 8th level, Polar ray. Are the orbs broken or am I seeing things here?
Neutronium_Dragon 11-12-06, 11:14 PM	You're seeing things. ;) Seriously, it's not that the orbs are too powerful; it's that a lot of the core "blasting" spells don't measure up to their theoretical usefulness, and are generally considered to be a suboptimal type of spell to use, at least beyond very low level. Polar Ray is probably the single worst offender on that count.
Chrono Nexus 11-13-06, 12:52 AM	My orbs are spheres. I don't have orbs, period. I have something similar, but more similar to the spell flaming sphere- which is nearly identical in every respect but mechanics. In fact, I believe there was a note in the DMG or PHB that stated basing/creating multiple versions of the same spell- like a fireball that deals d3 instead of d6, or an orb of fire instead of a flaming sphere- was bad. Wiz's broke their own rules by publishing the orb spells, but that doesn't mean good DMs have to live with it. IMO- orb of force being nonmagical is BS.
Imban 11-13-06, 12:55 AM	Orb of Force is magical. What're you talking about? (Conjuration damage spells don't allow SR, but that's totally different. Also kinda lame, but eh.)
smrtgmp 11-13-06, 07:08 AM	The orbs arent broken. And polar ray is garbage.
Aeolus91 11-13-06, 07:19 AM	I hate it when Wizards breaks my orbs. In all honesty I didn't think they were broken at all. You scootch up one level from Fireball to get a wee bit more damage potential, and gaining a mildly useful secondary damage that allows a seperate save. Unless I'm missing something here. Whoa wait I am missing something here. No save? Not cool. No SR? Even less cool. Okay scootch these up to 5th level and i'm happy.
Gnarl 11-13-06, 07:30 AM	Well generally speaking, using a damage-dealing spell is one of the worst things to do in combat situations. The orb spells have their pros and cons. It doesn’t deal more damage than a fireball before level 11 and it only affects a single creature. Furthermore, you still have to touch to deal the damage which is far from happening 100% of the time. And finally, when compared to classes that rely on weapons to deal damage, the damage output isn’t that good for the spells. The nice thing about those spells is the ‘Spell Resistance: None’ part, especially for the Orb of Force version, but that’s pretty much all there is to those spells.
[GSV] Kirstar 11-13-06, 07:55 AM	ranged touch attack does not a balenced spell make. orb spells are stupid. getting rid of spell res for a ranged touch attack is silly. I know the argument that at high levels your touch ac is nice and high, but that isnt always teh case. the orb spells alter the entire system of spells. if you look at the core spells that offer no spell res cus they are conjuration then they are things like melf acid arrow ratehr than big evoc type spells that are called conjuration so they bypass spell res.
Licínio Miranda 11-13-06, 08:17 AM	Orbs are interesting, but on my game, they are the same, but don´t have secondary damage (like being dazed). Why Polar Ray is awful? Could someone explain that to me?
evilrafael 11-13-06, 09:33 AM	I didn't even see it offered no spell resistance before, I was rolling caster checks all the times I cast it. It looks even more broken now to me...
Kamikaze_Choo_Choo_Train 11-13-06, 09:42 AM	I don't see how the orb spells are considered broken. They deal the same amount of damage a fireball does (albeit with a higher damage cap), but they only affect a single target and are a level higher. That they ignore SR or that they have a secondary effect shouldn't change things all that much. Spell Resistance itself isn't as big of a problem as one might think. Monsters that have SR only show up less than half of the time. Even then usually an average caster level check will surpass it so really SR only hinders a caster a percentage of the times that it even shows up. So being able to surpass SR isn't all that great unless your DM likes using creatures with SR or if you face golems a lot. Also unlike fireball which always hits (except against evasion), the orb spell require a ranged touch attack which pure casters rarely have the bab or atk bonus to pull off consistantly. And if you miss that attack it's gone and you've wasted a spell and a round. So really I don't understand where these spells are considered broken.
[GSV] Kirstar 11-13-06, 10:46 AM	lets look at high level mosters in general. alot have spell res. lets look at the signeture creaure for this game The dragon. Say age 9 that 27-30 spell res. a good challenge to a lev 15 party... lets say a wizard has both the spell penetration feats thats +19 , so thats 9 to 12 on a d20 required to break the spell rest lets say a good 50% of spells resisted and ranged touch against a dragon..... lets no go there shall we.
Bladegeek 11-13-06, 10:53 AM	The orb spells are fine as is. So what on save or SR at 4th level spell. It is a range touch attack....you can still miss.
Tequila_Sunrise 11-13-06, 11:01 AM	I totally agree that the orbs are stupid. 1. That a spell only affects a single target is not a drawback; once your allies are in the thick of it with your foes, would you rather have fireball or orb of fire? Exactly. 2. Being a touch attack rather than a save is not a drawback especially at high levels; Dex and Rings of Pro are the only way a character can up their touch AC which makes it easy for casters to get thru. Do the math: even a high Dex character over twenty levels will get +13 (+3 Gloves, +2.5 lvl, +2.5 manual, +5 ring of pro) while a caster will get +13 AB (+10 base, +3 Gloves). So at worst a caster will still have a 50/50 chance of hitting. Monks of course break this rule, but they also rock at saves because they're just meant to be mage-killers. 3. Being an attack rather than a save provides the opportunity for critical hits. Won't happen very often, but it's still a plus. 4. The most abnoxious trait of the orbs is the fact that they don't allow SR; this is what really makes them just plain better than PHB evocs. I've got no problem with the idea of No-SR damage spells, but in such a case a serious drawback is required...maybe using d4s instead of d6s.
TheCobra 11-13-06, 11:48 AM	Well generally speaking, using a damage-dealing spell is one of the worst things to do in combat situations. I don't know. At least damage from spells stacks nicely with the damage the fighter types are doing. Unless, of course, nobody in the party is doing damage... 1. That a spell only affects a single target is not a drawback; once your allies are in the thick of it with your foes, would you rather have fireball or orb of fire? Exactly. Well, if they're in the thick of it, you're probably going to get -8 to hit on your ranged touch attack. This can be a problem. Being a touch attack rather than a save is not a drawback especially at high levels; Dex and Rings of Pro are the only way a character can up their touch AC which makes it easy for casters to get thru. Nah, there are also sacred/profane, luck, and insight bonuses to AC. Assuming custom items are used, epic folks should have at least +5 AC from each of those bonus types. I agree that the orbs are really good, though. Ignoring SR is great, especially at higher levels. Elemental damage becomes less and less useful though. At high levels, it's easy to get immunity to most/all elemental energy types, even if you don't allow multiple castings of energy immunity to give total protection.
Kimokeo 11-13-06, 01:01 PM	Ever since Arcane Mastery, who cares if a spell doesn't allows SR. Blowing feats on Spell Penetration isn't worth it.
Vegepygmy 11-13-06, 01:49 PM	The orb spells are definitely broken. Anyone who thinks "no SR, no save" isn't a big deal is playing a very different style of D&D than I am. .
crowclub 11-13-06, 02:38 PM	Do you guys that think Ranged Touch attack Spells are easy to hit with, use the rules regarding firing into combat (+4 AC) and cover from a person/monster/object (+4 AC) because if you are applying those rules correctly, you would realize that RTA's miss far more often than you seem to think.
TheCobra 11-13-06, 03:55 PM	Ever since Arcane Mastery, who cares if a spell doesn't allows SR. Blowing feats on Spell Penetration isn't worth it. Uh, that won't even help you get past the SR of a cleric of the same level who cast spell resistance. It's a great feat for dealing with critters with low SR, but doesn't help at all against the ones with high SR. because if you are applying those rules correctly, you would realize that RTA's miss far more often than you seem to think. At lower levels, yeah. Some big monsters (such as dragons) have stupidly low touch AC, though.
Vegepygmy 11-13-06, 04:29 PM	Do you guys that think Ranged Touch attack Spells are easy to hit with,Relatively, yes. use the rules regarding firing into combat (+4 AC)Yes. and cover from a person/monster/object (+4 AC)Yes. because if you are applying those rules correctly, you would realize that RTA's miss far more often than you seem to think.My experience differs from yours. I have found that RTA's rarely miss at the levels where SR matters. .
TheCobra 11-13-06, 04:37 PM	The sorcerer in a campaign I'm DMing misses RTAs all the time. His lowish DEX doesn't help, but it's mainly due to bad luck.
Gnarl 11-13-06, 04:49 PM	The orb spells are definitely broken. Anyone who thinks "no SR, no save" isn't a big deal is playing a very different style of D&D than I am. . I play a 25 point-buy average hit points every level, suggested wealth for character levels. I don't think you can get more average than that and I still consider 'no SR, no save' to be no big deal. My point is that there are lots of things to do against opponents with spell resistance. A well prepared wizard has at least one trick against each type of opponent. The orb spells only give the blasting wizard types a way to deal with individual high spell resistance monsters. (It is a nice multi situation spell for sorcerers though) A 7th level wizard deals a laughable average of 24 points of damage with these spell (provided that they hit). Fighters and rogues do nearly as much on their own, except they do it every round without expending any daily resources. So even if the ‘no SR, no save’ was broken, it’s not like the damage output was so high that it would ruin the game. The orbs are better than some spells, but they don’t do enough damage to ruin the game, nor are they so good that all wizards would want no other spells than those. Honestly, how many of you have actually seen these spells break a game?
TheCobra 11-13-06, 05:02 PM	A 7th level wizard deals a laughable average of 24 points of damage with these spell (provided that they hit). Yes, but there's also a chance the target will be dazed, at least by orb of fire. The other secondary effects aren't as amazing, but there's still something. Anyway, orbs are better at 11th-15th level than they are at 7th level.
Arien_Drajanuma 11-13-06, 06:00 PM	Anyway, orbs are better at 11th-15th level than they are at 7th level. True... besides, being only lvl 4 spells they leave a lot of room for metamagic... maximize an orb for a lvl 7 spell, meaning you have to be a 13 lvl caster at least, thats a maximized 13d6 for 78 dmg with NO saving throw, and roll the dice to see if victim gets in an even nastier position. Still, I agree with the fact that at mid-high lvls, damage dealing spells are not the best choice... disintegrate at high lvls is better used for other things than just blasting a fighter (IMO)
smrtgmp 11-13-06, 06:45 PM	The orb spells are definitely broken.They most certainly are not. Lets do some math, shall we? When you first gain access to them at 7th level (assuming wizard here) they average 24.5 points of damage on a successful attack roll. I'd be willing to bet the group's primary damage dealer is dwarfing that (assuming they're remotely competant). When they max out at 15th level, thats an average of 52.5 damage per hit. AT 15TH LEVEL!!! BFD. And lets not forget this is all at short range, which isn't exactly the safest place in the whole wide world. Anyone who thinks "no SR, no save" isn't a big deal is playing a very different style of D&D than I am.Anyone who thinks a paltry amount of damage once per round with an expendable resource is going to break the game is playing a very different style of D&D than I. Now, I understand those of you who have a problem with the flavor (especially Orb of Force), but the power level? Give me a break. Bad flavor does not equal broken.
evilrafael 11-13-06, 09:52 PM	Now, I understand those of you who have a problem with the flavor (especially Orb of Force), but the power level? Give me a break. Bad flavor does not equal broken. When I asked my question, the whole point was focused on the power of the spell in comparison to those in PHB. There's no spell like that in the PHB -- considerable damage, no SR, no save, possibility of dealing critical damage. Playing a blaster like me was slightly pointless until this spell came out. It's the best blaster spell on all levels, in my opinion (some are more deadly, yes, but for a 4th level slot it's bargain). I do recognize however that dealing roughly 50 pts of damage (up to 90 pts of damage if you maximize) is powerful enough but not unbalanced -- the warriors in my group are used to dealing that kind of damage on a full attack from the 7-10th level already.
Roland the Crownbreaker 11-13-06, 10:03 PM	Many of those effects you are worried about exist on a simple second level spell, from the PHB!! Ranged touch attack, potential for criticaL hitys, no save, and easy use of metamagic all apply to scorching ray, a second level spell. For two spell levels, you get to bypass SR, a slightly higher damage cap (12d6 vs. 15d6) and a secondary effect. Not really all that broken, IMO.
evilrafael 11-13-06, 10:09 PM	Well, scorching ray sure is nice.
[GSV] Kirstar 11-14-06, 04:11 AM	Scorching Ray Evocation [Fire] Level: Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Effect: One or more rays Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes You blast your enemies with fiery rays. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all bolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously. Yes, we know scorching ray is broken, but then its a Fr spell that slipped through unchanged. allow only 1 ray and its balenced.
smrtgmp 11-14-06, 05:08 AM	Only allow one ray and its worthless.
Neutronium_Dragon 11-14-06, 07:05 AM	Scorching Ray isn't an FR spell. You're thinking of Scorch (formerly Aganazzar's Scorcher). Scorching Ray is the half of Flame Arrow which was split off; Flame Arrow previously had two functions, and multi-function spells were split into separate ones with 3.5E. (On the flip side, this also netted us Polar Ray as a spinoff from one of the previous multi-function ice spells.)
Arien_Drajanuma 11-14-06, 07:17 AM	Only allow one ray and its worthless. Amen... perhaps balance it ruling out only 1 ray / target ?
Witch 11-14-06, 07:21 AM	Scorching ray is already balanced. There's no need for more limitations.
crowclub 11-14-06, 11:16 AM	Scorching ray is already balanced. There's no need for more limitations. Scorching Ray is a little overpowered for it's level but certainly not broken, it's just one of the best blasting spells around.
TheCobra 11-15-06, 04:04 PM	It's fire damage, and resistance applies to each ray. That helps to balance it.
Witch 11-15-06, 04:06 PM	Scorching Ray is a little overpowered for it's level but certainly not broken, it's just one of the best blasting spells around. It's not overpowered for its level. For some reason, when a spell does good -damage- people call it broken, not realizing that that damage hardly compares to other results of spells of the same level.
DarkRhystar 11-15-06, 04:25 PM	It's not overpowered for its level. For some reason, when a spell does good -damage- people call it broken, not realizing that that damage hardly compares to other results of spells of the same level. I think it's the fact that it's a damage spell that remains useful after you get your next level of spells. People always seem to have problems with those.
[GSV] Kirstar 11-15-06, 05:20 PM	Don't get me wrong I have no issue with the spell and allow as is. I still think the orb spells are broke
Witch 11-15-06, 06:01 PM	Kirstar;10651549']Don't get me wrong I have no issue with the spell and allow as is. I still think the orb spells are broke The orbs are -silly-. Not broken. Their damage is fine, really. It's not that extravagant. The no spell resistance part doesn't make sense, but it's still not insanely uber.
Quixotico 11-15-06, 07:00 PM	I saw it mentioned only once, so to mention it again, Orbs are all close-range spells. Comparing it to Fireball is a stretch. Orb of Cold Fireball Close Range Long Range Single Target Large AoE Touch Attack Auto-Hit
dragonfire8974 11-15-06, 08:02 PM	But fireball is supposed to be the Quitessential blasting spell. when you get something that trumps fireball in almost every situation (excepting the couple rounds when the enemies haven't gotten to you and you have spotted them cresting the horizon). -4 Ranged attack penalty is a nice thing compared to blasting all your teammates. but really, i'm of the opinion that blasting spells need to be a bit chaotic and uncontrolled or allow spell resistance. that's just IMO. if you wanna ignore two staples that limit a mage, you need to bump up some levels. i don't have a problem with orb of force (1d6/level max 10d6, no SR, no energy resistances, 4th level) because the damage cap is low for it's level so you sacrifice something for it (something considerable, not just "can't blow up everything." i think the energy spells should be like that. again, but that's just me
Vaelan 11-15-06, 09:41 PM	when you get something that trumps fireball in almost every situation (excepting the couple rounds when the enemies haven't gotten to you and you have spotted them cresting the horizon). Ranged touch attack spells are not even competing with Fireball, let alone trumping it. They are entirely different spells with different uses. As for the ease of hitting large monsters, such as dragons, there is a spell that changes their Natural Armor bonus to a Deflection bonus, which stops ranged touch attacks dead in their tracks. My only complaint is that they're Conjuration. Conjured elements would, rationally, act as they normally would. Forming into an orb and propelling itself towards a chosen enemy doesn't sound like acting normally to me. This implies a degree of manipulation, which is what Evocation is: the manipulation of energies. Change it to Evocation and SR: Yes and it is just fine, since, at its peak, it is comparable to an Empowered Scorching Ray, which would deal 3d6 more damage for an average of 10.5 more but have energy resistance applied to it two more times. An Empowered Scorching Ray tops out at much lower levels, though, which could make up for the fact that you're spending a feat and lacking a secondary effect.
Kresalak 11-15-06, 09:52 PM	Honestly, the Orbs suck. They do 1d6 per level, when monsters are getting an average of about 1d8+4 per level. Really, the only worthwhile part is the save or be dazed-but that's a Cantrip. You see, instead of casting an Orb, you could be throwing out Black Tentacles to win the battle, Solid Fog to win the battle, Confusion for them to Save or Die, Wall of Fire/Ice for battlefield control, Hallucinatory Terrain for battlefield control, Illusory Wall for the same, Phantasmal Killer to kill people, or Fear to make them save or be killed. As a wizard, you will ALWAYS have a better spell available. The only time blasting will ever be useful is at 5th and 6th level where Fireball matters and you don't have your awesome spells of doom that I listed above. Or maybe when you're a Shadowcraft Mage and your illusions are more real than the real thing.
scottt 11-15-06, 10:09 PM	The orb spells are definitely broken. Anyone who thinks "no SR, no save" isn't a big deal is playing a very different style of D&D than I am. . I generally play core books only but from what I understand of these orb spells, they aren't any more broken than the core spell Fire Seeds (grenade version). http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireSeeds.htm 6th level Druid/Fire/Sun spell, Range 100ft, No SR and No Save (for target), No SR and save for 1/2 within 10ft of target. Damage 1d6/CL up to 20d6 +1 per die. And if you want stupid damage then consider a maximized version of the Bomb version of the spell. Harder to target (give them to a fighter with Spring Attack) but at 64 + CL*8 damage to everything within 5' radius, reflex save for 1/2... Even at 17th level (200hp) that is a *lot* of damage even with a save for 1/2 and it isn't an easy save. Now if this was alright for the core game I don't see what is wrong with the orbs. The don't have the splash effect and they are more limited in damage.
Wonton2006 11-16-06, 12:15 AM	Ah, let's see. Scorching Ray is not broken. It is a nicely balanced spell. The thing about damage spells is that you can only use them in one way. Another level 2 spell, like Shatter, or even the level 1 Grease can come in handy so much more often if you have an imagination. Polar ray is crap. BS. A complete piece of :censored:. It's a level EIGHT spell, for god's sake. Some other stuff that a caster can do with spells of that level: Finger of Death - Sor/Wiz 7, insta-death, compared to polar ray's measly 25d6 at level twenty-five, averaging 87.5, and maxing at 150. Whoopee. Prismatic Wall - Sor/Wiz 8 - can kill multiple creatures, turn them to stone, turn them insane, and then send them to the nine layers of hell. :P Greater Shadow Conjuration - Sor/Wiz 7, can mimic an Orb of _____, and get you a bypass SR spell, that, admittedly, will do a little less damage than a Polar Ray (with a chance for 60%), but considering you're using a level seven spell to MIMIC a level 4 spell... Antimagic Field Sor/Wiz 8 - negates all of the above with one spell. ;) Now on to the Orbs. They, like, Scorching Ray are powerful spells. But not broken. RTAs miss pretty often, that's true. Wizzies and Sorcs have crappy BAB, an average Dex of usually about 13, and then there's that -4 penalty for firing into melee (which you'll almost always encounter). The nice thing is that touch ACs tend to be low, but, nevertheless, I usually hit about 1/2 of the time. No save and no SR is nice, it's basically an all-or-nothing. The damage is pretty nice, too, and there's a nice side-effect sometimes, but remember, it's only one target. If your DM's way of making up encounters is filing through books for something the CR of which equals the party level and throwing it at you, Orbs will work just great. However, what if he throws a CR 5, 3 CR 3s, and about 20 CR 1/2 minions at your party? Orbs won't do much, will they? The effects are nice, but the one target greatly limits it, so it's just about right at level 4.
progresslevel9 11-16-06, 12:41 AM	I heartily endorse this oppressive doctrine and/or product. Let me give further examples to the nay-sayers. Even restricted to the core books...which is a better, and more efficient use of a fourth level spell slot: An Orb? -or- Polymorph? Last I checked, a Hydra's natural attacks didn't allow a Save or SR, either. :D Oh, and If fireball is the quintessential blasting spell...then who the hell's business is it preparing Meteor Swarm?
Stanwick 11-16-06, 01:28 AM	True... besides, being only lvl 4 spells they leave a lot of room for metamagic... maximize an orb for a lvl 7 spell, meaning you have to be a 13 lvl caster at least, thats a maximized 13d6 for 78 dmg with NO saving throw, and roll the dice to see if victim gets in an even nastier position. Still, I agree with the fact that at mid-high lvls, damage dealing spells are not the best choice... disintegrate at high lvls is better used for other things than just blasting a fighter (IMO) Now this is just silly... 78 points of damage with now save or SR at lvl 13...Big Whoop. Lets see what else our mage could have done with that 7th lvl spell: -Summones a few Celestial lions or Polar Bears -Summon a Huge Elemental -Summon Djinni -Bigby's Grasping Hand -Force Cage -Prismatic Spray -Greater Shadow Conj. -Finger of Death -Limited Wish Thats just off the top of my head, Im sure that there are some that i've missed. Jeesh there are spells from 6th and 5th level i'd cast that would have way more effect on the battle than 78 points of damage, especially when you consider that anything you are gonna fight at that level is going to have over 250 HP. I just can't see the orb spells as being overpowered. Now saying that I should admit that in my campaign if a PC wants any spell not in the PHB he has to research or find it (yes this includes Clerics and Druids). As a result i tend to have few of those spells in my game. -Remember-Be Shiney. -Stanwick
Nelagend 11-16-06, 02:04 AM	Scorching ray is not broken if you assume its existence in your campaign world, which means that fire resistance 10 will be flying around a lot on NPCs. Polar Ray is only good if you sink Arcane Thesis into it in order to split it. Then it's 175 damage to one target for a 9th-level slot, which isn't bad at first glance. Of course, you just used a thesis that could have been applied to Enervate... I'd rather have an empowered split repeated enervate for an average of 14 negative levels than a split polar ray. For that matter, I can empower, split, and repeat a thesis orb and deal a LOT more than the polar ray - a 9th-level thesis orb of electricity will average 315 :eek: damage in an element that high level characters are less likely to bother becoming resistant to... so Polar Ray indeed is bad in the end on the damage scale. The ray spells, including orbs and enervate, are powerful because they're single-target, and fairly useless when you're facing a lot of weak enemies. They're also close-range, which means that in an outdoor plains encounter, Dimension Door will eat you if you're relying on orbs. They also suck when you're trying to kite something that refuses to aggro on the tank and can move your close range in one round. Air monoliths come to mind - you really want to dimension door about 800 feet out from those if they're determined to do some mage smashing. :rolleyes: Orbs are broken in a dungeon environment with small rooms, encounters consisting of small numbers of creatures, and few encounters per day. Outside of those conditions, they're good but balanced.
Derren S. 11-16-06, 04:20 AM	Orbs are broken in a dungeon environment with small rooms, encounters consisting of small numbers of creatures, and few encounters per day. Which is basically what D&D is about.
Wonton2006 11-16-06, 08:22 AM	Which is basically what D&D is about. Only if your DM has no imagination. If I had to fix Polar Ray, personally, I'd bring it down to level 6 (and to 20d6 max) and give it some extra effect. Or would that make it too much like an Orb?
[GSV] Kirstar 11-16-06, 10:55 AM	a couple of weeks ago a party in a 19th level campaign I play in had our first ever dungeon crawl. ever
Nessaj 11-16-06, 11:15 AM	You know...Hit points exist for a reason. Everyone always loves to say how crappy damage spells are and how they'd much rather turn someone to stone, or insane, or into a bunny. Fact of the matter is, all of these effects, while indeed superior, allow saves. It's one thing if your Flesh to Stone works. It's another if the enemy makes his save, and you just wasted a turn and a spell slot. Polar Ray depends on YOUR ranged touch attack, which you can affect (quickened true strike), as opposed to your enemy's saving throw, which, barring other spell effects, you cannot. Damage dealing spells have a place; I certainly wouldn't want to get smacked by a Polar Ray as a Wizard of any level.
Nitan 11-16-06, 11:38 AM	You know...Hit points exist for a reason. Everyone always loves to say how crappy damage spells are and how they'd much rather turn someone to stone, or insane, or into a bunny. Fact of the matter is, all of these effects, while indeed superior, allow saves. It's one thing if your Flesh to Stone works. It's another if the enemy makes his save, and you just wasted a turn and a spell slot. Polar Ray depends on YOUR ranged touch attack, which you can affect (quickened true strike), as opposed to your enemy's saving throw, which, barring other spell effects, you cannot. Damage dealing spells have a place; I certainly wouldn't want to get smacked by a Polar Ray as a Wizard of any level. One problem, aside from the Word spells, there is no difference between having 999999 HP and 1 HP in terms of fighting capability. In other words, even if your spell fails to end the encounter, if you can hamper the opponent you've just done more then HP damage would have during your turn. If you can get you Save or Dies (Or better, no saves and die) to work, then you've done more then a damage spell would have done.
Licínio Miranda 11-16-06, 11:50 AM	Now this is just silly... 78 points of damage with now save or SR at lvl 13...Big Whoop. Lets see what else our mage could have done with that 7th lvl spell: -Summones a few Celestial lions or Polar Bears -Summon a Huge Elemental -Summon Djinni -Bigby's Grasping Hand -Force Cage -Prismatic Spray -Greater Shadow Conj. -Finger of Death -Limited Wish Thats just off the top of my head, Im sure that there are some that i've missed. Jeesh there are spells from 6th and 5th level i'd cast that would have way more effect on the battle than 78 points of damage, especially when you consider that anything you are gonna fight at that level is going to have over 250 HP. I just can't see the orb spells as being overpowered. Now saying that I should admit that in my campaign if a PC wants any spell not in the PHB he has to research or find it (yes this includes Clerics and Druids). As a result i tend to have few of those spells in my game. -Remember-Be Shiney. -Stanwick It is just me, or everybody here thinks that a good spell is the one that kills the enemy in one round? So, if orb of something hits a monster and deals 75 points of damage on it, and it has 250 HP, that´s not good? Even with only 175 HP left? Do you all play Dungeons & Dragons SOLO?!! Because, 75 points of damage that one person from a party does in a round that´s a lot when you consider that there still is the Fighter, the Rogue and the Cleric left to hit.
Radagast 11-16-06, 12:14 PM	Damage dealing spells, while not the best option, still have their place. There are times when somebody in the party needs to deal damage NOW to a given target to kill it, rout it, force it to take a defensive stance, etc. Every caster needs some ways to deal precise direct damage - Evard's, Solid Fog, etc. all have the same area effect problems as Fireball in that you can hit your own people. The Orbs are a great way to do this. However, they are not broken and are fine as is, IMHO. Yes, they can deal a nice amount of damage for a spell of that level, but there's often a lot more dangerous stuff your caster could be doing than just dealing damage. Polar Ray is a joke. If it had some sort of catastrophic secondary effect, such as slowing the target, freezing them solid, etc. it would be worth considering. But for raw damage, there are soooooo many more things you could be doing at those levels.
evilrafael 11-16-06, 01:15 PM	Damage dealing spells, while not the best option, still have their place. There are times when somebody in the party needs to deal damage NOW to a given target to kill it, rout it, force it to take a defensive stance, etc. I started the thread because I do value damage spells. I see many of the guys here despise a good 90 pts of damage on a maximized orb. Our games here tend to have few enemies, many times you'll only have to fight once per session -- needless to say the final boss won't go phantasmal killed or flesh to stoned easily. In these situations, a man must do what man must do. The druid finds 'em ingredients, the cleric prepares the kitchen, the dervish slices them, my sorcerer fries 'em good.
Gnarl 11-16-06, 03:20 PM	You know...Hit points exist for a reason. Everyone always loves to say how crappy damage spells are and how they'd much rather turn someone to stone, or insane, or into a bunny. Fact of the matter is, all of these effects, while indeed superior, allow saves. Black Tentacles. Multiple targets, no save, no SR, no damage reduction, and a decent grappler, hey and it even deals damage! But I still use fireballs, I just love them. And I adore exposive cascade. I just love doing my share of the damage. Do you all play Dungeons & Dragons SOLO?!! Because, 75 points of damage that one person from a party does in a round that´s a lot when you consider that there still is the Fighter, the Rogue and the Cleric left to hit. You realize that by the time you'll be doing 75 points of damage with your orbs, you'll be either lucky and 12th level (empowered orb) or 13th level. I'm running a 25 point-buy average wealth per level game and our party fighter deals that much damage on average per round against critters their challenge rating. He usualy gets help from the cleric and the wizard's familiar but he still deals a lot of damage and keeps on tripping my monsters. I started the thread because I do value damage spells. I see many of the guys here despise a good 90 pts of damage on a maximized orb. Our games here tend to have few enemies, many times you'll only have to fight once per session -- needless to say the final boss won't go phantasmal killed or flesh to stoned easily. There you go, you just named the problem. Few enemies. Against a group of high level party of 4 players, single baddies simply don't make good challenges and all the rays do rock against them. I like putting a contingent ray deflection on them once in a while. I simply hate it when our party mage uses his empowered ray of enfeeblement on my dragons and the druid casts mass energy resistance in the same round. Even at challenge rating +5 they don't make much of a challenge. As a side note, if you aim at your opponent's weak saving throws, even at CR+5 you have a decent 30-40% chance to get that save or die spell to work. Just use two in a row, or try to lower its saves first: energy drain? fell frighten works fine too.
smrtgmp 11-16-06, 05:02 PM	But fireball is supposed to be the Quitessential blasting spell. when you get something that trumps fireball in almost every situation (excepting the couple rounds when the enemies haven't gotten to you and you have spotted them cresting the horizon). -4 Ranged attack penalty is a nice thing compared to blasting all your teammates.The orbs are SUPPOSED to be better than fireball. They're a level higher. And for the love of god, fireball isnt that great of a 3rd level spell. It certainly has its uses, but its far from the creme of the crop.
Roland the Crownbreaker 11-17-06, 04:11 AM	Personally, I know far, far to many DMs (as in, ALL of them) that refuse to let an encounter end quickly because of a save-or-die. Behind that screen, a "big boss" style monster can be counted on to always make its save against such magic for at least 3 to 4 rounds. Sometimes we don't even hear the dice roll. Don't assume they are always better when they are subject to the whim of the DM. (while I know everything is, stuff that tends to destroy all the work he put into an encounter too fast suffers those whims far more often than anything.... er, everything else.
Witch 11-17-06, 05:11 AM	Personally, I know far, far to many DMs (as in, ALL of them) that refuse to let an encounter end quickly because of a save-or-die. I might -sometimes-, if it's an extremely big battle, do that. But more than likely, in such a battle, they'll have their protections on, rather than me having to cheat it. Save-or-dies deserve their results - so though I don't necessarily like them, I do let them work.
[GSV] Kirstar 11-17-06, 05:28 AM	Then they are sad DM's I know that DM's are god for a game, but fudging dice so your BBEG doesn't die is lame, if done all the time. if your Dm insists on doing that then you do it too. for teh 1st 3 or 4 rounds bee immune to all the bad guys effects as well or demand that the DM role in front of you. Too many DM's see their BBEG as their own character and teh game as a competition against the players. I have nothing against fudging a roll for story purposes, but to just drag out a fight or to make things more dificult is silly. All that happens is that teh players adapt their strategy to the DM's lameness and never use save or die spells for the first few rounds knowing that the target will immune them
Quixotico 11-17-06, 11:32 AM	Fudging dice to make an epic battle run longer than 2 rounds is, in my opinion, encouragable, as long as it doesn't change the overall outcome. Fudging goes both ways. I've let the BBEG die without ever landing a hit (bad die rolls... a lot of them), I've let them be defeated as it would normally go, and I've given them an extra couple rounds by fudging and, once defeated, "fudged" a few healing potions into their belt. All in the name of the story.
Vaelan 11-17-06, 12:23 PM	Now this is just silly... 78 points of damage with now save or SR at lvl 13...Big Whoop. It comes out to about 50% of an average CR 13 creature's hitpoints, and that is ignoring pretty much anything with a d6 hitdie or lower that is a CR 13 creature. Lets see what else our mage could have done with that 7th lvl spell: You go on to list options that are only comparable over an extended period of time (see: a lot longer than it would take to kill the thing if you blasted it with an orb and let your party take care of the rest), get damage reduction, have substantial costs beyond the spell slot, or suffer from from the fact that most creatures are big nasty things with good Fortitude saves. I'm not particularly impressed. especially when you consider that anything you are gonna fight at that level is going to have over 250 HP. Check again. Most CR 13 encounters don't even come close to breaking 200. The only ones that have anything near 250 hitpoints are dragons, and the designers have explicitly stated that their CRs are lower than they should be to maintain their status as fearsome creatures and that the CRs assume nearly perfect preparation.
Neutronium_Dragon 11-17-06, 12:58 PM	Those other things also provide a massive meat-shield and peripheral abilities, or are facing equally HP-high as they are Fort-high opponents (which makes damage relatively less valuable too), or offer tactical control which otherwise does not exist (preventing a lot of damage in return). And while DR may apply against some of those, energy resistance equally applies against the orbs - and energy resistance and immunity is pretty darned common by 13th level. Of course, I haven't had to blow a feat slot on Maximize Spell to do any of these things, either. Using that same 7th level slot, I could just as easily toss an Empowered Firebrand for ~78.75 damage. Reflex and SR apply, but this time it's over a large and shapeable area, so I can blow a whole horde of opponents to smithereens. Or how about Reverse Gravity as another 7th level spell? That one does no-save, no-SR, no-resistance/DR, no-attack required damage to multiple creatures if used right, at longer range, and the potential damage for that one can reach equal or better values at high levels (for multiple targets) if you go for height rather than width, plus it tends to take creatures out of the action for a while even as it damages them (which means that I now have tactical control as well as damaging things). Are the orbs still good? Yes, but only because they're comparable to what other spells can do in overall impact rather than being substantially sub-par like most blasting spells tend to be.
starfire311 11-17-06, 02:14 PM	so it seems some people think the orb spells are broken because of flavor(this I agree with) Some people actually think that the impressive 1D6 per level is what breaks them(this I find laughable) Others think that replacing the save with a RTA breaks them(this is a common trade off in spells, and while overall it does favor the RTA being 100% successful more often, the RTA spell is also a 100% failure more often, i think it is balanced) Others site the lack of SR as being the breaking part(this I give the most credance to, personally I have no problem with it, but a spell that creates and manipulates energy into doing damage should probably be Evocation and not conjuration, thus allow SR, but if SR did apply it would really nerf these spells into being suboptimal IMO, if SR applied, scorching ray would be jsut as good as these, and an empowered scorching ray would be far better)
TheCobra 11-17-06, 03:47 PM	but if SR did apply it would really nerf these spells into being suboptimal IMO, if SR applied, scorching ray would be jsut as good as these, and an empowered scorching ray would be far better) Not far better. At 15th level, an empowered scorching ray does 63 damage on average, while an orb of fire does 52.5 damage. The orb of fire, however, also makes the target save or be dazed for one round. That's a pretty serious bonus. Also, fire resistance applies to each ray, so orb of fire would still be better against critters with fire resistance.
starfire311 11-17-06, 03:59 PM	Not far better. At 15th level, an empowered scorching ray does 63 damage on average, while an orb of fire does 52.5 damage. The orb of fire, however, also makes the target save or be dazed for one round. That's a pretty serious bonus. Also, fire resistance applies to each ray, so orb of fire would still be better against critters with fire resistance. that is at 15th level... how about looking at 7th level empowered scorching ray does 41 damage on average and an orb of fire does 24.5 damage. not even close
TheCobra 11-17-06, 04:30 PM	Yep, but the daze effect and fire resistance still would make orb of fire better at times.
tiercel 11-17-06, 07:55 PM	I don't think the general effect of the orbs (scaling no-save energy-typed direct damage to a single target, plus a save for a 1-round extra effect) is overpowered. I think it's about right for the spell level. Mechanically, I think the lack of SR is a problem. If you playtest these spells at 7th-11th level, you probably won't see a problem with this because you won't be running, generally, into that much SR at the middle to upper-middle levels. At high levels, though, being able to ignore SR is very powerful. Philosophically, I have greater problems. The spells "look and feel" like Evocations (big chunks of direct energy damage), and it waters down the school of Evocation to have Conjuration basically doing some of its job. The idea of having "pure nonmagical cold" as a throwable projectile seems more than slightly ridiculous to me. Why can a creature's spell resistance resist the fire from a spell like scorching ray or fireball, but not the fire from a spell like orb of fire? Together, the mechanical and philosophical problems make me believe that these spells are fine as written except that they should be Evocations and have "SR: Yes". Otherwise, you could have a Evocation-denied specialist wizard facing off against a "magic immune" golem inside an antimagic field and still blast it to death with his magical nonmagical orbs of pure force. [Note: "magic immunity" only acts like "infinite SR" and doesn't stop no-SR spells, and antimagic doesn't stop Instantaneous Conjurations.] ---------- My best guess as to the birth of these spells was that someone wanted to take the idea of melf's acid arrow and run with it. There are some problems with that though.... first of all, acid arrow (like virtually all Core damage-dealing Conjurations) deals damage over time, not all in one big burst. Secondly, at a philosophical level, nonmagical acid makes a lot more sense than a ball of concentrated pure nonmagical, say, cold. (You can buy nonmagical acid. Good luck buying, or finding, a chunk of pure nonmagical "cold".) That is because acid, while an "energy type" in D&D rules, has a material form which can exist independently of a sustaining medium or some kind of magic to hold it together. You could perhaps imagine nonmagical fire damage by using a ball of some kind of nonmagical superheated plasma or fuel-air explosive, but surely you'd need magic to sustain and hold the ball together long enough even for the "instant" it is being thrown, otherwise it would just dissipate. You could imagine some kind of ionized plasma for nonmagical electrical damage, but it has the same problem. (OK, you could appeal to the existence of ball lightning, simply because no one actually understands how that works.) But "pure nonmagical cold"? Or force? Additionally, I don't like the proliferation of no-SR direct damage effects (and spells/feats that make SR less relevant overall). Firstly, there is a slippery slope -- why use an Evocation fireball if you could use a Conjuration no-SR plasmaball? Why use enervation if you could instead "conjure a ball of pure nonmagical negative energy directly from the Negative Material Plane"? Secondly, SR doesn't mean very much when you can just blast supposedly spell-resistant creatures to death with your spells, with little or zero chance of having to worry about your spells failing. It means that creatures with SR are over-CR'd since one of their defenses has been reduced in value, and it widens the gap between spellcasters and nonspellcasters at higher levels. Traditionally, spell resistance has given nonspellcasters a role to play in high-level campaigns... if something like half or more of your spells might just roll right off that BBEG demon's back, there might actually be some value to having a Big Strong Fighter up in its face. If you can pretty much blow through its SR at will, though, it just makes Joe Fighter feel even more useless....
DarkRhystar 11-18-06, 01:05 AM	Secondly, at a philosophical level, nonmagical acid makes a lot more sense than a ball of concentrated pure nonmagical, say, cold. (You can buy nonmagical acid. Good luck buying, or finding, a chunk of pure nonmagical "cold".) But "pure nonmagical cold"? Think Subzero of Mortal Kombat. :)
[GSV] Kirstar 11-18-06, 07:59 AM	tiercel for galatic overlord :) you said it exactly right there dude evoc + sr make them balenced.... welll sort of
Neutronium_Dragon 11-18-06, 08:04 AM	Actually, you can buy nonmagical cold. Alchemist's Fire/Alchemist's Frost/Alchemist's Spark all produce it. (And no SR applies.) So perhaps what you're looking at is a really concentrated gob of the stuff being shot out at someone. Neutronium Dragon
Wonton2006 11-18-06, 12:10 PM	Removing SR would make sense, sure, but, like some people said, removing SR would horribly underpower them, compared to even an Empowered Scorching Ray. And spells are always supposed to be more powerful than lower-level spells metamagic-ed to the same level. Let's compare average damage, though. Level 7 Empowered Scorching Ray - 42 Orb of Fire - 31.5 Level 10 Empowered Scorching Ray - 42 Orb of Fire - 45 Level 11 Empowered Scorching Ray - 63 Orb of Fire - 49.5 Level 15 Empowered Scorching Ray - 63 Orb of Fire - 67.5 As you can see, at the levels when Scorching Ray just gets a new ray, it is much more powerful, and the Orb just manages to overtake it at the last level before a new ray. And when both spells max out, Orb of Fire is on top again (though not by much). Some would say that this is the way it should be, because Scorching Ray allows Energy Resistance multiple times, and also Orb of Fire dazes. However, in my opinion, Orb of Fire should be CONSISTENTLY doing more damage than Scorching Ray, and dazing, and being less affected by said ER. A metamagic feat should be able to give you new uses for your lower level spells, but a lower level spell should not be able to dwarf a higher level spell because of a metamagic feat.
[GSV] Kirstar 11-18-06, 01:07 PM	all you demonstrate there is that scorching ray is very good and so is empower. compare it against a different spell and it will be the other way round.
Roland the Crownbreaker 11-18-06, 04:14 PM	A metamagic feat should be able to give you new uses for your lower level spells, but a lower level spell should not be able to dwarf a higher level spell because of a metamagic feat. By that logic, we need to throw out fireball and lightning bolt, since at level 10, they empower to 15d6, while cone of cold only does 10d6. Or maybe just get rid of all meta-magic feats. Higher level spells normally have advantages over lower level ones even if the damage is the same. It may be that it is better at penetrating energy resistance, bypassing spell resistance, can affect more targets, has a secondary effect, or maybe it is just more selective in how it deals that damage. The total number of d6's rolled isn't the whole story. Keep in mind that meta-magic doesn't raise the DC of a spell (with the exception of hieghten spell), and doesn't raise the level of the spell either, so that empowered schorching ray is going to bounce of a lesser globe of invulnerability, while the orb will go right on through. Not to mention that an empowered, maximized, energy-admixtured scorching ray can still be counterspelled by an out-of-the-box version of the same spell. Meta-magic adds a lot more options, but there is a downside that people often forget about.
tiercel 11-18-06, 07:21 PM	However, in my opinion, Orb of Fire should be CONSISTENTLY doing more damage than Scorching Ray, and dazing, and being less affected by said ER. A metamagic feat should be able to give you new uses for your lower level spells, but a lower level spell should not be able to dwarf a higher level spell because of a metamagic feat. Let me try arguing the other side: By spending a feat, you can make a 4th level slot do similar, and occasionally more, damage with a 2nd level spell plus that feat, than you can with the 4th level spell alone. Advantages of using the fire orb (even as an Evocation SR-Yes spell): orb much better at punching through energy resistances; even fire resistance 10 pulls the teeth of scorching ray orb has a useful secondary effect added on. Yes there's a save and it's one round but dazing is a very useful effect -- as you get to higher and higher levels, combat is all about getting the most from your actions, and taking one away from an important enemy without having a spend a separate action yourself just to do so is a *good* thing.... plus, it is fairly hard to resist/be immune to dazing casting the orb just requires you to know the spell. getting your scorching ray to be empowered costs you one of your precious feats (over most of your character's campaign lifetime, he may only have as many as 4 or 5), or at least a metamagic rod -- orb doesn't have a 9000gp focus I think that orb of fire as a SR-Yes Evocation compares quite well to an empowered scorching ray, which tells me it is a reasonable 4th level spell which doesn't require the feat or gold investment of the latter. (Scorching ray is, after all, a quite good 2nd level spell, and if empower is worth its sticker price at all, empowered scorching ray should be a reasonable 4th level spell.)
Chrono Nexus 11-18-06, 10:18 PM	Energy Resistance of any kind only protects a subject against the first x number of points of damage of that type in a full round. It is not like DR in how it functions. This means the orbs series do not have a specific advantage over scorching ray when used against creatures with fire resistance. As soon as the first x points of energy damage are resisted in a round, the creature takes full damage from sources of the same energy type for the rest of the round.
Roland the Crownbreaker 11-18-06, 10:41 PM	Chrono, I think you are quoting 3.0 rules. In 3.5, energy resistance reduces each attack by that amount. So a monster with fire resistance of only 15 is going to laugh off a scorching ray, even an empowered one, unless the dice are rolling very well.
Chrono Nexus 11-18-06, 10:55 PM	Chrono, I think you are quoting 3.0 rules. In 3.5, energy resistance reduces each attack by that amount. So a monster with fire resistance of only 15 is going to laugh off a scorching ray, even an empowered one, unless the dice are rolling very well. Seriously?! O.0 *goes to check* Hmm. I see they changed it. That's a suprise... now it isn't totally useless!:)
Karak_Nechot 11-18-06, 11:06 PM	Only if your DM has no imagination. If I had to fix Polar Ray, personally, I'd bring it down to level 6 (and to 20d6 max) and give it some extra effect. Or would that make it too much like an Orb? I'd rather have a high level blasting option, personally. I'd keep it at 8th level, keep the damage as is, and have a Reflex save or be paralyzed as ice surrounds you. Maybe have the ice last for 1 round for every 4 caster levels, and even on a successful save, the target is slowed for 1 round/CL. Just something I'm kicking around.
Cold Napalm 11-19-06, 04:52 AM	My main complaint with the orb spells (and vitrolic sphere) spell is that it's making the conjuration school more blasty then evocation. I'm sorry, but conjuration is a powerful enough school as it is without it having to encroach on evocation's turf. It wasn't that bad in 3.0 when school specialization had teirs, but in 3.5, if you not gonna be a diviner, you'd have to be dumb not to pick conjuration since you can drop evoc without a second though with these blasty spells in that school.
Gnarl 11-19-06, 05:15 AM	Stop comparing numbers, it's useless. Try the blasted spells and come back with your feedback. It's the only thing that counts when defining balance. We have tried it in our games and it was no big deal. The spells are good but they didn't feel too good. Who else has tried them?
Cold Napalm 11-19-06, 05:22 AM	Umm just about evenyone tried them. And if you read my post and others, it's not even the numbers that is a problem for most people. It just makes the conjuration school TOO good (and a small issue with AMF). I mean the 3.5 magic school system was that all schools were now equal with the exception of divination and yet conjuration (a top tier school in 3.0) get the teleporation spells AND blasty spells along with summoning, some untility spells, some protection spell and it's BALANCED with the other schools...yeah right...and the level 20 fighter isn't underpowered. Somebody at wizards really must have a conjuration fetish going on.
Roland the Crownbreaker 11-19-06, 05:48 AM	Actually, putting Vitriolic Sphere into conjuration isn't that unbalancing. It is an acid based spell that does damage over multiple rounds, kind of like a souped up Acid Arrow. It fits right in with what used to be the few conjuration based direct damage spells. The wierd thing is, Flame Arrow (from which scorching ray comes from) used to be a conjuration spell before they balanced out the schools too. But I do agree that the orbs should have been evocation.
Cold Napalm 11-19-06, 05:59 AM	Well not quite on the vitrolic sphere...melfs does equal damage each round, vitolic does less each round to a max 3 round...also the duration on vitolic is instant not a duration like melfs (and as such ignore AMF). and it has a pretty big area of effect and a long range. Like one of these traits (instant, long range, area effect) in a conjuration spell isn't bad, but all 3 makes this spell too evocation like for my taste.
Gnarl 11-19-06, 11:49 AM	And if you read my post and others, it's not even the numbers that is a problem for most people. It just makes the conjuration school TOO good (and a small issue with AMF). I mean the 3.5 magic school system was that all schools were now equal with the exception of divination and yet conjuration (a top tier school in 3.0) get the teleporation spells AND blasty spells along with summoning, some untility spells, some protection spell and it's BALANCED with the other schools...yeah right...and the level 20 fighter isn't underpowered. Somebody at wizards really must have a conjuration fetish going on. I've read every single post and it's always 'it's overpowered because no SR', 'it's overpowered because it makes other schools less good', 'it's overpowered because...' And it's never 'it's overpowered because it makes my life as a DM tougher'. Most of the posts I've read show that some players think the spells don't fit into the game because it opens possibilities that weren't there before or because it doesn't fit with their view of the game.
Cold Napalm 11-19-06, 02:49 PM	Actually it allowing no SR in directly a result of the fact that this spell in in the wrong school.
smrtgmp 11-20-06, 04:56 AM	Be that as it may, it harldy makes them unbalanced from a mechanical standpoint.
Bladegeek 11-20-06, 11:02 AM	Now this is just silly... 78 points of damage with now save or SR at lvl 13...Big Whoop. Lets see what else our mage could have done with that 7th lvl spell: -Summones a few Celestial lions or Polar Bears -Summon a Huge Elemental -Summon Djinni -Bigby's Grasping Hand -Force Cage -Prismatic Spray -Greater Shadow Conj. -Finger of Death -Limited Wish Thats just off the top of my head, Im sure that there are some that i've missed. Jeesh there are spells from 6th and 5th level i'd cast that would have way more effect on the battle than 78 points of damage, especially when you consider that anything you are gonna fight at that level is going to have over 250 HP. I just can't see the orb spells as being overpowered. Now saying that I should admit that in my campaign if a PC wants any spell not in the PHB he has to research or find it (yes this includes Clerics and Druids). As a result i tend to have few of those spells in my game. -Remember-Be Shiney. -Stanwick Right on the money. 78 HP of damage vs. a spell that is save or Die? No way are they over powered. They are good at softening up targets for the Fighters/Barbarians to finish. It is a little refreshing to have a spell that does damage that has no Ref. save to half....like just about every damage causing spell in the book…... assuming that you hit the target first with your ranged touch…..you can still roll a 1. Not to mention just about every bad guy in the book has some kind of damage reduction or is immune to this or that energy. They are a niche spell. At 7th level you can cast them and they help blast bad guys. After 7th there utility drops a lot because the bad guys get big and harder at a faster rate than you get damage wise with your orbs.
tiercel 11-21-06, 06:00 AM	Right on the money. 78 HP of damage vs. a spell that is save or Die? No way are they over powered. I don't have a problem with the damage-no-save aspect so much as the damage-no-save-no-SR aspect. "Save or die" has a nasty habit of failing a lot -- if you are facing a significant outsider, you may be looking at ~50% chance of punching through SR and ~50% of defeating "all good saves" to land your knockout blow around 1 time in 4, and that's assuming your foe doesn't have any special immunity (death ward, mind blank etc.). Meanwhile that 78hp of damage WILL (almost always) work, and unlike most save-or-die spells, stacks with the efforts of the other party members to bring down the foe. That makes it very good -- negating SR is not only nonsensical from a consistency perspective, but also makes it pretty much *too* good to have an almost-guaranteed big hit even against high-SR creatures. They are a niche spell. At 7th level you can cast them and they help blast bad guys. After 7th there utility drops a lot because the bad guys get big and harder at a faster rate than you get damage wise with your orbs.I'd argue the opposite -- at 7th level, as Conjuration no-SR spells they work almost identically to if they were Evocation SR-allowed spells. At higher levels, they become more and more valuable as you face more and more significant and high-SR foes. I've read every single post and it's always 'it's overpowered because no SR', 'it's overpowered because it makes other schools less good', 'it's overpowered because...' And it's never 'it's overpowered because it makes my life as a DM tougher'. Most of the posts I've read show that some players think the spells don't fit into the game because it opens possibilities that weren't there before or because it doesn't fit with their view of the game.I'd argue that, first of all, making the magic system less plausible ("yeah, it looks like an Evocation spell, but it is really a Conjuration because, uh, we decided to call it one even though it works pretty much just like an existing Evocation, except we wanted some excuse to ignore SR") is a valid complaint. Anything that damages the verisimilitude of a game is something that a DM should worry about -- if you are going to have magic, it should be consistent. And, yes, it CAN make life as a DM tougher. You have to reconsider the challenge posed by any creature which has significant SR (or spell "immunity") as a defense, because that defense effectively does not exist against a whole set of non-Core spells. I'd go so far as to say that in a world of no-SR "Conjuration" orbs and similar magic, golems are unlikely to even exist. After all, golems are generally slow and lacking in ranged attacks -- they would be highly vulnerable to being destroyed at range if it were not from their spell "immunity" (and that, by the rules, you can't make solid adamantine arrows). In a world with no-SR orbs, it's not a matter of casters needing to back up their Big Hitters facing off against golems -- you just blast the magic-immune creature to bits with your magic before it can ever reach you. Furthermore, magic which ignores defenses specifically designed to resist magic means that nonspellcasters just fall *further* behind at higher levels. As I mentioned before, if you have to worry about a demon's SR when throwing spells at it, then Joe Fighter may have an important part to play when fighting the thing. If you can ignore SR by doing the equivalent of rubbing out "Evocation" and replacing it with "Conjuration" in your spellbook, then Joe Fighter might as well go make popcorn and watch you single-handedly blow up the magic-resistant demon with your magic just like everything else at higher levels.
Neutronium_Dragon 11-21-06, 08:04 AM	If you're facing an outsider which has SR and saves worth worrying about then it probably has energy resistances and immunities all over the place too. I hope that your Orb of X is the right one to affect it at all, and even if it is then you're looking at -10 damage due to the Resist 10 which it has instead. As for the balance - we already have this in the PHB cantrips. Acid Splash is 1d3 SR-no, whereas the other ones (Ray of Frost, etc) are 1d3 SR-yes. And again, Conjuration for the former and Evocation for the latter. Orb of Energy just takes that arrangement to 4th level rather than 0th. As I've pointed out, we already have nonmagical means to cause all of the energy types in damage - Alchemist's Fire/Frost/Spark and Acid all come as alchemical items, do energy damage, and SR doesn't apply to them. Conjuration spells like Orb of X may, for all that it matters, be conjuring up a really concentrated blob of that stuff and splatting it on the enemy.
Ian Demagi 11-21-06, 09:33 AM	Orbs are most broken in the hands of the PC class that they originally came in with: The warmage (and his sudden feats). A 18th level warmage with an Orb of Acid that is sudden empowered, sudden maximized, and twined does around 300 hit points of damage. Yeah , he burns an eigth level spell slot, but hit point dmamage is what he is all about anyway. There are not many non epic level monsters that are going to be able to suck that up, and even if they do, the teams fighter has a mighty big jump start on fininshing off BBEG. By themselves, I don't think the orbs are broken, but when you start piling on metamagic feats, things beging to look a little different. Ian
calvinNhobbes 11-21-06, 11:14 AM	My issue with many spells comes purely from flavor reasons (I mean despite all the rules and balancing issues, the whole point of the game is to come up with a fantasy world that is fun, believable, and consistent). The orb spells hurt the flavor of the different schools, but it is not their fault. The schools are poorly defined in many areas, and even when they seem to be clearly defined there are many other spells that don't seem to fit but were put there anyway. My view is that conjuration (creation) should be limited to creating non-living mass (example: stone, iron, non-living wood, acid, posions, water, fog, clouds, etc.) Evocation should be limited to creating, controlling, and destroying energy (ex. force and electrical effects), and can also affect temperature to produce cold or fire effects. What there really needs to be is combination spells. Something like ice storm or incendiary cloud should require knowledge of both conjuration (to create the water or smoke cloud) and evocation (to make ice or heat). However, this level of logic was not implemented when the schools were designed. So we are left with conjuration as a super school since it has the creation subschool giving it the god-like ability to create anything. Also, it is my oppinion anything dealing with creating, controlling, or destroying living matter or souls should belong to the Necromancy school (healing, raise dead, etc.). Necromancy does not have to be evil, altough WOTC seems to think so (See the spell posion, why is this a necromancy spell instead of conjuration when cloud kill is conjuration? Oh, that's right cause poison is supposed to be evil :rolleyes: )
tyrecian 11-21-06, 11:17 AM	i am not going to read this whole post... i am simply going to respond to the first page of what is obviously already bumped, and a rant-esque opinion page. First of all, i am totally envious of the orbs, and most of the stuffs from the CArc. We only use core PHB/DMG/MM so phaw! as a 4th level damage option they are really nice. Scrying to learn your enemy ahead of time, that morning you can pick from any of the damage types that you think might effect your particular future encounter. Secondly, they each do something other than simply damage. Thridly, they bypass SR. Usually our TPKs come from a situation where there is an enemy who has fairly unbeatable SR (30s usually, we were 8th level last time it happenned and the enemy was SR 32). We dont have the option of reducing SR on that enemy (another CArc spell /drool) so we simply cannot hit him with anything other than Melf's acid arrow (our wizzie was a Mystic Thurge who specialized in divination, but took necro as his opposing). he died fast, this particular enemy was that retarded mindflayer/sorcerer, so our party pretty much could do nothing after that. So who cares if they are broken or not. They offer a damage spell at 4th level for conjurors (which are known for bypassing SR anyways, why is this a gripe?). Hell if i had this spell in my campaign i would be wanding it pronto for those crazy demonic encounters (and wow sonic damage? hell yeah) maybe even empowerring it in scrolls =) i love the its broken/its not broken argument... I'll tell you boys what's broken... the system that comes out with new books and thousands of pages of erratta and new spell compendiums every month or so... /cry maybe i should trade in my Black Lotus for a new shiny DMG/PHB/MM... or prolly better used to get Complete Arcane, which seems to be insane (warlock? are you kidding?!?!?! wow finally a arcane archer worth having, eh?) and i hear that the Liras Mortis, or somesuch is absolutely fantastic if you want to build a pet-class wizzie... I understand that necros built in that can rival druids. so yeah enjoy your friggin orbs, you bunch of whiners, and remember us lowly wizards back here in the wilderness with our redneck polymorphing ways. Bah i am still using combos! what the hell?!?!? Hey is there really a feat that makes one metamagic feat cost no additional levels for that day? is that in CArc? With persistant spell? OMG how does a cleric ever die in ya'lls fancy realm of fun?!? course i would prolly still be fighting the MF, not to mention the Vrock (at least we had known about the MFlayer, the Vrock was quite the surprise... hehehe, oh bloody TPKs) anyways, yes i want these orbs.. mmm tasty orbs..... sooooo tasty......... i feel like such a backwoods retard of a wizard, Tyre PS i also want that 4th? maybe 5th level fire spell that is basically a fireball that you can target individual 5' squares with... firebrand, somethin' like that
tyrecian 11-21-06, 11:19 AM	oh sorry PPS the orbs are the reinstatment of Chromatic Orb from... was it first edition Unearthed? or maybe 2nd ADD tome of magic. Either way, we need Dimensional Fold or whatever that cleric travel spell was back too!!!!! so its not really broken, they are just throwin the old school players a bone... course these orbs are seperate spells .... if i remember rightly the other one was a lvl 1 orb that advanced as you did, in insane proportion to anything else you EVER got until prismatic wall lol nice nice
starfire311 11-21-06, 11:22 AM	Orbs are most broken in the hands of the PC class that they originally came in with: The warmage (and his sudden feats). A 18th level warmage with an Orb of Acid that is sudden empowered, sudden maximized, and twined does around 300 hit points of damage. Yeah , he burns an eigth level spell slot, but hit point dmamage is what he is all about anyway. lets do the math on this... 15D6 maximized = 90 15D6 empowered = 15D6*50% or 3.5*7.5= ~26 15D6 twinned = +15D6 or 3.5*15 = ~53 total damage from empowered maximized twinned orb of acid = 90+26+53=169 on average to get upto 300 averge damage this war mage would need a warmages edge of +131, that is quite impressive. yes if you have warmages running around with a +131 damage these spells can become quite good.
Cold Napalm 11-21-06, 04:08 PM	My issue with many spells comes purely from flavor reasons (I mean despite all the rules and balancing issues, the whole point of the game is to come up with a fantasy world that is fun, believable, and consistent). The orb spells hurt the flavor of the different schools, but it is not their fault. The schools are poorly defined in many areas, and even when they seem to be clearly defined there are many other spells that don't seem to fit but were put there anyway. My view is that conjuration (creation) should be limited to creating non-living mass (example: stone, iron, non-living wood, acid, posions, water, fog, clouds, etc.) Evocation should be limited to creating, controlling, and destroying energy (ex. force and electrical effects), and can also affect temperature to produce cold or fire effects. What there really needs to be is combination spells. Something like ice storm or incendiary cloud should require knowledge of both conjuration (to create the water or smoke cloud) and evocation (to make ice or heat). However, this level of logic was not implemented when the schools were designed. So we are left with conjuration as a super school since it has the creation subschool giving it the god-like ability to create anything. Also, it is my oppinion anything dealing with creating, controlling, or destroying living matter or souls should belong to the Necromancy school (healing, raise dead, etc.). Necromancy does not have to be evil, altough WOTC seems to think so (See the spell posion, why is this a necromancy spell instead of conjuration when cloud kill is conjuration? Oh, that's right cause poison is supposed to be evil :rolleyes: ) Actually, multiple school system was in place in 2nd ed and is now brought back in complete mage. It's a matter of the designers being DUMB and not learning from the mistakes of the past.
Ian Demagi 11-21-06, 04:47 PM	(15*6 +8)*1.5*2 98*1.5=147 *2=294 Why are you assuming that the metamagic feats do not stack? They are all sudden feats except twin spell which happens at the end? They do not add to spell level so they are "legal." Otherwise you would have a 13th level spell. Orb spell =4th Empowered +2 Maximized+3 Twined +4 So the warmage edge isn't 131, is it? Ian
Roland the Crownbreaker 11-21-06, 05:54 PM	I believe that the designers have stated that when you empower something that is also maximized, you are forced to roll for the extra damage. The empowered part isn't maximized too. The same logic applies to twinning the spell. The first 15d6 is maximized, the second part is rolled. If twinned and empowered, then only one part will be empowered, not both. However, I am working from memory, rather than the books.
Ian Demagi 11-21-06, 06:21 PM	Thats a question that I have received a couple of different answers on. I was told that the FAQ would support the way that I figured it, but the book implied the other way. I could see it the way you discribe as well. I think the only way to do what I am describing is with the sudden feats, otherwise you run out of spell slot levels and the casting time would be at least an entire round or more. Frankly, I think only a high level warmage would have the slots to spend this way unless you are mimmicking a sorcerer or wizard to be a warmage. Also I wondered about when do you add in the edge? Not overly important here, but I am thinking about a spell matrix and trying to get the warmage edge a number of times. If you can get to +10 on the edge (and improved edge), and link a spell matrix togther that is an extra 30 points of damage from just the edge & improved edge. I have always liked playing blaster type wizards which are so run down on this board that I try to improve them. Meta magic is the place to go for a lot of that. I emailed WotC to see if I can get a definative answer. Ian
starfire311 11-21-06, 06:27 PM	Why are you assuming that the metamagic feats do not stack? well they do technically stack, just not how people think they would... they all work off of the base spell, much like IC+Keen(yes I know they don't stack but if they did) does not = quadrupling of the crit range. empower increases the spell by 50%, maximize makes the spell 100% twin gives it to you an extra time. just like if you were to sudden empower and empower a spell you get +100% not +225% that you would get by applying the +50% to a spell that has +50% already on it. For example a spell that say does 100 dice of damage gets empowered it now does 150 dice of damage, if you sudden empower it, it now does 200 dice of damage not 225 dice of damage.
Ian Demagi 11-21-06, 06:58 PM	I follow your logic and it seems a reasonable interpretation of the rules, I just need to see where it says they work off the base spell- pertaining to the effect. To me, if it is all in "a batch" then the whole batch is modified. I see in the PHB that a spell opertates at its intial spell level (page 88), but I do not see where the effect is implied. I have asked wizards to give or point me to a ruling. Then again it depends on whether they are following the rules as written, or they go "oh crud this is broken" here's a chance to fix it. Ian
starfire311 11-21-06, 07:07 PM	I follow your logic and it seems a reasonable interpretation of the rules, I just need to see where it says they work off the base spell- pertaining to the effect. To me, if it is all in "a batch" then the whole batch is modified. I see in the PHB that a spell opertates at its intial spell level (page 88), but I do not see where the effect is implied. I have asked wizards to give or point me to a ruling. Then again it depends on whether they are following the rules as written, or they go "oh crud this is broken" here's a chance to fix it. Ian well the closest thing is the clause under maximize where it says that a a maximized empowered spell only gets the base damage maximized, and you still roll the other half damage.... this clause seems more a rules clarification than an expetion IMO, and unless you can say fiind a rule that says that effects are multiplicive and not additive, like everywhere else in the game, then I don't think they are multiplicive.
Ian Demagi 11-21-06, 07:33 PM	I see the clause, the benefit of the maximize and the seperately rolled empowerment, but- empowerment isn't rolled nor is the damage because it is maximized, its multiplied *1.5. When I started to rework the math then it said to muliply the empowered damage by 1.5. I am back at square one(argh!). So to continue with your example, ruffly 26 from and I guess you are twining only the base spell. hmmm, I am not so sure. I truly do see the rational of your arguement and it seems reasonable and fair. I also see my side also, and I feel that blaster type wizards have gotten hosed in 3.5, so I am trying to create way around it, or to put it differently make them more powerful. I will let you all know what WotC C/S says if they answer, Ian.
Ian Demagi 11-21-06, 07:59 PM	Either way the Orb is doing by your computation about 169 points of damage, thats good damage from where I am sitting. No spell resistance, no save -you suck it up if you can. That is going to kill most of the creatures in the MM except the most powerful Devils, Demons, Dragons, The Tarrasque, and the Nightwing-most of those are going to feel a significant ouch too. Granted you can only load this up once per day, but there are other spells too.This is not even taking into account things like red Dragon vulnerability to cold, that 170 becomes 340!Since the warmage has them all on demand pretty neat, or maybe at least mildly broken? Ian
Cold Napalm 11-21-06, 08:06 PM	How do you get 170 to 340 from 50% extra damage? Man you really have rules issues.
Nezkrul 11-21-06, 08:21 PM	well they do technically stack, just not how people think they would... they all work off of the base spell this is your opinion. this little tidbit does not appear in any printed wotc material or dragon magazine anywhere, and is actually a huge misconception of metamagic. metamagic, beyond the specific explained interaction between empower and maximize, is "you get what you pay for". twinned empowered maximized (+4 +2 +3) for +9 levels, my spell has all of the effects of all three metamagic effects. I have emailed custserv multiple times and they (meaning more than one guy/girl answering my question) have all said that beyond the empower/maximize interaction, metamagic stacks. And until WotC puts metamagic interaction into FAQ, this is what I have to go on. feel free to houserule, if you think +9 levels to a spell is broken, cuz it ain't happening till epic anyways where everything is broken. Oh wait, I'm sorry, its a twinned empowered maximized Acid Splash for a 9th level spell slot for (3 + 1d3x1.5) + (3 + 1d3x1.5). BORKEN!
Roland the Crownbreaker 11-21-06, 08:29 PM	Maybe just a bunch of house rules. (Unless you play RPGA, your chances of having house rules are about the same as NOT winning the lottery jackpot) Us old second edition players think Vulnerability = double damage because, well, that's what it used to be. Even reading my old 3.0 monster manual that's what it says. More rules changed in 3.5 than most people are aware of. (Even me at times) And until the clarifications came out, many people thought that empowered and maximized meant that the end total was maximized, not just the base amount. Personally I was suprised to find out that the useless 2E spell Otiluke's Freezing Sphere (make attack roll against full AC, save with dex bonus added negates) transformed into one of the most broken direct damage spells in 3E (touch attack, no save). Quite a jump.
Ian Demagi 11-21-06, 10:29 PM	Argh! Your right. It used to be doubled, really it did! My whole group has missed this for a year! Ian I have played this game so long all the versions start to run together...
Vaelan 11-21-06, 10:39 PM	All metamagic feats interact unless otherwise stated. This means that a twinned, empowered fireball shoots two empowered fireballs. If you Energy Admixture a Twinned fireball, you deal 120 damage, possibly split between two elements. You can find this ruling in the FAQ, since apparently people can't be bothered to see that a rule explicitly stating that two particular metamagic feats don't interact with each other implies that others do interact. A Twinned, Maximized, Empowered Orb cast at CL 15 deals 180+15d6(actually one-half of 30d6, but this is just easier) damage for an average of 232.5 damage. Energy resistance applies twice.
starfire311 11-21-06, 10:43 PM	this is your opinion. this little tidbit does not appear in any printed wotc material or dragon magazine anywhere, and is actually a huge misconception of metamagic. well the problem arises becasue thy feel they don't need to say how multiple metamagic feats are applied to a spell metamagic, beyond the specific explained interaction between empower and maximize, is "you get what you pay for". since I wrote my 1st post my opinion has completly changed, I agree with you now. I have emailed custserv multiple times and they (meaning more than one guy/girl answering my question) have all said that beyond the empower/maximize interaction, metamagic stacks. And until WotC puts metamagic interaction into FAQ, this is what I have to go on. personally I have little faith in custserv, but I must agree with them now. feel free to houserule, if you think +9 levels to a spell is broken, cuz it ain't happening till epic anyways where everything is broken. Oh wait, I'm sorry, its a twinned empowered maximized Acid Splash for a 9th level spell slot for (3 + 1d3x1.5) + (3 + 1d3x1.5). BORKEN! being overpowered was never an issue for me. now lets look at that 15th maximized twinned empowered energy orb 15D6 max to 90 15D6 empowered is about 26 damage twinned this gets to about 232 btw this does mean that an empowered, sudden empowered, Split, Sudden maximized, twinned, Scorching ray deals 8 rays, each ray is 24+(4D6*1.5*1.5)/2+warmages edge... for 318+WE damage if all 8 rays hit. not too shabby for a 8th level spell(this assumes a rod of empower), iif you have PB shot add upto 8 more damage if you have Specialization add upto 16 more. oh an an orb in an 8th level slot would not be split and and could be sudden empowered, empowered, sudden maximized, twinned (90+ (15D6*1.5*1.5)/2)*2 = 298+WE
Ian Demagi 11-22-06, 12:59 PM	Wouldn't it take over a round to cast then? Ian.
Witch 11-22-06, 01:02 PM	Wouldn't it take over a round to cast then? Ian. Why?
Ian Demagi 11-22-06, 01:05 PM	I guess I was assuming spontaneous caster using two meta magic feats, Ian.
Merestil Haye 11-22-06, 01:13 PM	I guess I was assuming spontaneous caster using two meta magic feats, Ian.The number of feats applied by a spontaneous caster is irrelevant. The question is "Were any metamagic feats applied?" The answer is yes whether 1, 3 or 27 were applied. The casting time increase is applied once.