Post/Author/DateTime	Post
THUNDER_CHILD 07-30-06, 07:58 PM	In complete arcane there are lesser and regular orbs that are conjuration and have NO SR and NO Save, my group says this is broken and that should not be allowed. Is there anything i could use to argue my point?
Thiez 07-30-06, 08:13 PM	I hate them too. If you want to fix them, change the school to evocation and allow SR.
THUNDER_CHILD 07-30-06, 08:19 PM	i dont want to loose them, they are quite handy and we are fighting drow. summoners can get around that restriction, why cant I?
Witch 07-30-06, 08:27 PM	The orb spells are widely considered overpowered. Some even consider them broken.
kjenks 07-30-06, 08:27 PM	They're fine. They're as potent as level 4 spells should be, no more. How about if you offer to ignore the "save or be dazed" or "save or be..." whatever effect?
Ryll 07-30-06, 08:40 PM	They are neither overpowered, nor broken. As has been hashed and rehashed many times...there is still the "to hit" roll, they are single target, they do "ok" damage. You will still be no where NEAR the damage of others in the group, and more often then not will be better served with AEs, or control/buff spells. These are spells that give the caster some options when facing very high SR creatures, and as such have a useful place and no need to be nerfed, banned, or changed...if they are given SR, then they are virtually useless and would never be used by the intelligent caster.
Limousine_Liberal 07-30-06, 08:46 PM	The reason they have no SR and no save is that they are supposed to be "conjured" blobs of fire, cold, acid, etc, that you merely "teleported" (so to speak) to your side and hurled at the opponent. While that "teleporting" is a magical effect, the acid is no more magical at the end of that journey than it was sitting in a sulfurous pool on some dungeon floor a moment before. If you summoned a celestial badger to fight for you and it bit a spell resistant creature, that creature would neither get a spell resistance check against the attack nor a saving throw. (The one application some people have a problem with on that score is the Orb of "Force", as where does one find a non-magical source of "force"? The best answer I have seen so far is "the warp drives of passing starships.") They are, without question, powerful spells as a result of their bypassing spell resistance, but their single target natures and, literally, "hit or miss" damage makes area spells superior in most cases. I've grown to love them as is and we've never really had a problem with them.
Willie the Duck 07-30-06, 09:00 PM	They are in no way overpowered. They have less utility (mostly in that they effect fewer enemies) than other direct damage or equivalent level, are not subject to spell focus:evocation as most are (and really, who has weapon focus:ranged touch?), and their secondary effects are often ineffective against the types of creatures you would want to use them on. The only advantages that they have going for them are that they use a ranged touch instead of a save for half (in the rare instance that is a good thing, touch ACs tend to be low, but so does your bab, and remember you have -4 to attack into melees, or -8 if your party's fighter also gives the enemy cover), and that SR doesn't work. They are spells specifically designed to be used only when you are going up against demons/devils/drow. That they ignore said creature's special defense is no more overpowered than wraithstrike allowing you to sneak attack undead:that's it's intended (and only) purpose!
Todd 07-30-06, 09:00 PM	The orbs are better than many other damage spells ... but damage spells are fairly weak overall in 3.5. A strong damage spell like the orbs are usually not as good as even the weaker save-or-die spells in most circumstances. The following chart has taken the monsters from the monster manual and has their average HP by CR. The third colum is how many spells doing CRd6 it would take to kill them (i.e. a 6d6 spell vs a CR6 foe). CR HP spell/kill 3 26 2.476190476 4 46 3.285714286 5 55 3.142857143 6 66 3.142857143 7 87 3.551020408 8 96 3.428571429 9 131 4.158730159 10 129 3.685714286 11 165 4.285714286 12 184 4.380952381 13 166 3.648351648 14 174 3.551020408 15 214 4.076190476 16 218 3.892857143 17 248 4.168067227 18 319 5.063492063 19 392 5.894736842 20 442 6.314285714 21 444 6.040816327 So a 1st level caster would have to use two or three spells doing 1d6 damage to kill a CR 1 foe. However a 10th level caster would have to use 3 or 4 spells doing 10d6 to kill a CR 10 foe ... and this TOTALLY ignores SR, Energy Resistance, etc. If you factor those in the numbers get much much worse as you level up. Essentially even great spells like the Orbs are a poor choice as you hit the higher levels. They may look buff at 8th level or so when direct damage spells are still fairly OK but after that you are generally far better off buffing the party to generate damage (Haste + melee pary members >> than Orb spells for generating damage) or using Save-or-Die spells that can end a fight in one casting.
Fiddlypoppin 07-31-06, 04:07 AM	The orb spells, the various ray spells, and anything with a ranged touch attack all have no save and usually don't allow SR, either. Check 'em out. It's supposed to be a balance for the fact that you need to make an attack roll, and that they only affect a single target. Most creatures are going to make their saving throws against your spells (unless it's their weak save), so having to hit a touch AC is often more reliable than counting on that failed save. So, if you absolutely, positively, HAVE to get that spell off on that one guy over there, then ranged touch attack spells are the way to go. Incidentally, Spell Compendium has several new additions to the ray family that you might consider checking out, if you like that sort of thing... Anyway, the point is that the various Orb spells are no more overpowered than any other ranged touch spell in D&D. Now, whether you consider ranged touch spells to be overpowered in general is another topic. However, as it stands, the Orb spells are in perfect alignment with other spells of a similar nature.
Milo HoBo 07-31-06, 04:17 AM	(The one application some people have a problem with on that score is the Orb of "Force", as where does one find a non-magical source of "force"? The best answer I have seen so far is "the warp drives of passing starships.") You magically conjure a non-magical orb of pure magical energy. :P I still am tickled pink by how funny that sounds.
Bopple 07-31-06, 04:24 AM	Well, almost all the ray spells have SR check, but these orb spells. While these are quite useful, I don't think they are overpowered, especially when considering the existence of Assay Resistance spell. The only problem that tickles me; they don't make sense. WTF is a 'nonmagical' orb of fire, electricity, or force? Utter nonsense. BTW, it's not fair to compare DD spells to save-or-die spells, at face value. Because; DD spells synergize with physical damage, while save-or-die spell do not. Most save-or-die spells become much less useful at higher level.
Arkan_Shadesfire 07-31-06, 04:57 AM	The only problem that tickles me; they don't make sense. WTF is a 'nonmagical' orb of fire, electricity, or force? Utter nonsense. Ever seen ball lightning? That's a nonmagical ball of electricity. Fire's a no-brainer, you see nonmagical balls of fire at concerts and pyrotechnic shows all the time. Really the only one that's hard to swallow is force, but when you think about it, it's just a shockwave. It's like the stone shape spell, the magic isn't creating the stone, just moving it around. So you're basically summoning a mass of fire or electricity or whatever and holding it in a magical container until you chuck it at your opponent. It's sort of like a "magic water balloon"... ...only with deadly, destructive energy instead of water. :D
Witch 07-31-06, 05:09 AM	And these "nonmagical orbs of fire" would be bunched up so good, and stick together that well, that you don't get a reflex save for half damage? A nonmagical orb of fire does not exist. There might be a nonmagical cone of fire, but that's something else entirely.
Bopple 07-31-06, 05:09 AM	Ball lightning? Learned a new thing. Thanks. But as for fire or force, I don't buy it. And if it's contained in a magical container, it's no longer nonmagical. Then it cannot penetrate AMF any more.
runestar 07-31-06, 05:31 AM	It's dnd, so it doesn't have to make complete sense. Just think of it as being held together by inertia or whatever law of psychics tickles your fancy. Dnd does not necessarily have to adhere to those laws as well. It's not as though tarrasque regeneration is possible by real life standards anyways. :rolleyes: Or if you watch those old cheesy martial arts films, see how the various protagonists can use their ki to propell globs of water at their enemies in the form of projectiles. Maybe something along that line or whatever. ;)
Bopple 07-31-06, 05:39 AM	Yeah, perhaps. But previous versions(from AD&D up until 3.5 core) followed the common sense for this matter. Conjuration handled acid only, and that indirectly. Only evocation could manipulate elemental damage in direct manner. Yes, those days are gone. But old habits never die easily, I guess.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-31-06, 05:40 AM	There is no reason to put this spell in Conjuration, it belongs in evocation. "summoning" actual fire? That's what Evocation does, it manipulates energy. That's what Fireball does, that's what Lightning bolt does, it's what Evocation does. Allow it to keep the no SR, but put any orb spell, as well as the other no SR damage spells, and put it in evocation. Conjuration can keep Vitriolic sphere, as you can actually summon actual acid, but when you summon energy, it's Evocation. End of discussion.
Arkan_Shadesfire 07-31-06, 05:42 AM	[edit]Man, people type fast around here... Look, the reason it's conjuration is because you can bypass spell resistance that way. Do you honestly think it would never occur to a bunch of uber-intelligent wizards to try something like that? Evocation works on a completely differant principal that conjuration, and if you read the entries on the subjects in the PHB, it explains exactly why this works. Basically, the line of thinking is: "If I manipulate mystical energies to create magical fire, it is subject to spell resistance, so why not just open a gate to the plane of fire overtop of the monster's head, and let some normal fire fall out on him?" That's the basic concept. It's like teleporting a rock into your hand and then throwing it--except that the rock is actually fire or electricity or whatever. Fireball doesn't summon flames, it creates them by mixing arcane energies--the same way mixing chemicals can create an explosion. But if you read the core rulebooks, it specifically says that normal matter or energy that is merely transported to you by a conjuration spell does not become magical, and SR does not applly to it. So you transport some flame or lightning or acid or whatever from someplace--there's bound to be some laying around somewhere in the multiverse--and then you chuck the stuff at your opponent. It's a simple concept, some people just don't like it, so they pretend it doesn't make sense to them--at least, I hope they're just pretending.
Alamanther's comeback 07-31-06, 07:20 AM	[edit]Basically, the line of thinking is: "If I manipulate mystical energies to create magical fire, it is subject to spell resistance, so why not just open a gate to the plane of fire overtop of the monster's head, and let some normal fire fall out on him?" That's the basic concept. It's like teleporting a rock into your hand and then throwing it--except that the rock is actually fire or electricity or whatever. Fireball doesn't summon flames, it creates them by mixing arcane energies--the same way mixing chemicals can create an explosion. No, it's not. Orb of fire is a Conjuration (Creation) spell, not a Conjuration (Teleportation) - it doesn't open a gate to the plane of fire, nor does it teleport an orb of magma from the bowels of a vulcano. It brings something into being which did not exist before. The reason why Conjuration (Creation) automatically penetrates SR or spell immunity while Evocation doesn't is that Conjuration (Creation) spells magically create non-magical energy or matter (even if that matter or energy is held together magically). Arguably, the orbs encroach on Evocation territory, but so do many other spells of the Conjuration (Creation) sub-school. Why is mage armor a Conjuration (Creation) spell while wall of force is an Evocation spell? Because the two schools can achieve similar effects through very different means. In terms of balance - yes, the orbs are powerful, but look at Melf's acid arrow and cloudkill: there are already powerful spells there that automatically bypass SR and spell immunity. The orbs do a lot of damage instantly, but they are close range (had they been Evocation, they would probably have had medium or long range). Also, intelligent creatures like drow are likely to be aware of the chink in their SR armor, protecting themselves with spells such as resist energy and protection from energy. Thus, the orbs, and other Conjuration (Creation) spells, give the caster some extra options when fighting monsters who are normally at an advantage against spellcasters, but I hardly think they are overpowered - energy resistance, various immunities, high touch AC, and sheer cunning are still at the monsters' disposal.
Milo HoBo 07-31-06, 07:27 PM	...Really the only one that's hard to swallow is force, but when you think about it, it's just a shockwave...No, that would be Orb of Sound. IIRC Force is pure magical energy.
Warduke 07-31-06, 07:28 PM	Orbs are definitely overpowered and if your Dm doesn't allow them than good for him. A general rule of comparisson is to compare CORE spells to spells in supplements. There is no spell in the PHB that even comes close to the orb spells. You can try to explain them however you want (could they or couldnt they work) but the bottom line is they are overpowered and have the potential to be broken. Low level so metamagic is easily applied. Low enough level to maximize and put in a wand. With no save, no SR, and can be duel wand wielded. Not to mention how many monsters are immune to acid? (Talking about acid orbs). Talk to me when your dual wielding acid orb wand wielding wizard takes over almost every encounter with autodamage. No thanks. As with most things in supplement books these spells, items, etc are put into books to get you guys to buy them. Some are fine others are overpowered. If your DM is smart enough to not allow alot of this stuff then just let it go.
Thamius 07-31-06, 07:42 PM	Knowing that orb-shooting adventurers are on their way, what half-intelligent wizard wouldn't prepare "Ray Deflection," and when high enough level do it as a Contingent Spell? For all things there is a balance... "Someone is shooting a spell with a ranged touch attack against me? I don't think so!" :cool:
Mystic Theurge 07-31-06, 07:48 PM	I am honestly amused by the whole "broken" vs. "not broken" arguments that come up on here. Personally, I don't think the Orb spells are either. In the campaigns I have played wizard type characters, I have to carefully budget my spells. In such cases I have to wonder if I am giong to be facing anything with SR (or other considerations) and have to prepare my spells accordingly (sorcerers, of course, don't face this dilema). I usually forgo the single target (but no SR) spells in favor of more damaging effects or buff spells. Obviously, if one knows they are going to face SR type creatures, it might be a good idea to sprinkle in a few non SR spells, but one doesn't want to overload on these things as you are sure to encounter situations where a more appropriate spell would be used. Ask yourself if you would rather cast a non SR type of spell at a creature that doesn't have SR to begin with. I am sure you will find more potent spells. Therefore, it is my opinion (take it for what it's worth) that the "Orb spells are broken" arguments are usually caused when a character encounters a creature with SR and the player is smart enough to try to avoid having to roll for SR, thereby ******* off the DM.
Warduke 07-31-06, 07:53 PM	Knowing that orb-shooting adventurers are on their way, what half-intelligent wizard wouldn't prepare "Ray Deflection," and when high enough level do it as a Contingent Spell? For all things there is a balance... Agreed, but you are now assuming the DM happened to purchase the supplement book the spell you are describing is in. Many times players buy a book the DM doesnt have, only later down the road does the DM realiaze his mistake as the balancing factor is not available to him. Or what of using stats premade for encounters? IE the monster manual, pre-done NPCs from various sources, module NPCs. Should the DM have to spend additional time and money to make sure his NPCs and monsters have the right "counter" for every spell, feat, item he deems overpowered? Bottom line is if your DM doesnt like it, then just move on. Arguing with the DM in general should be frowned upon. He is spending HIS time so you and your group can have fun. Why do some players never understand this and always want to make his job harder.
Mystic Theurge 07-31-06, 08:04 PM	Bottom line is if your DM doesnt like it, then just move on. Arguing with the DM in general should be frowned upon. He is spending HIS time so you and your group can have fun. Why do some players never understand this and always want to make his job harder. But this point is moot as well, since any DM worth his DMG will explain to the player, in no uncertain terms, what books are allowed in the game and would simply inform the player that such a spell does not exist when he tries to spring it on the DM. Problem solved. If a DM does NOT do this, he gets what they deserve, IMHO.
Warduke 07-31-06, 08:13 PM	But this point is moot as well, since any DM worth his DMG will explain to the player, in no uncertain terms, what books are allowed in the game and would simply inform the player that such a spell does not exist when he tries to spring it on the DM. Problem solved. To me it looks like this has already happened. The author of this thread says "his group" deemed the orb spells overpowered, but I am guessing it was the DM who made the final call. Now said player goes on the message boards looking for additional ammunition to agrue the DMs ruling. This kind of thing is just lame. If a player of mine came whining about a call I made saying "But DraGon$on 456 on the wizard boards says it is not overpowered blah blah blah" Id seriously think about removing said player from the group. Also I would never allow a full book to be usable unless it says Players Handbook on it. I have yet to see a supplement book that does not have at least a few over powered spells, PRCs, and or feats. Much better on a case by case basis. If a DM does NOT do this, he gets what they deserve, IMHO. Well even good DMs were rookies once. I don't think anyone who spends their extra time and money creating something fun for other people to enjoy, deserves annoying players.
Pandaemoni 07-31-06, 08:21 PM	The only problem that tickles me; they don't make sense. WTF is a 'nonmagical' orb of fire, electricity, or force? Utter nonsense. I think you have to keep in mind that, in the D&D universe, "fire" at least, is an element. It doesn't necessarily need "fuel" or "oxygen" (if oxygen even exists in a world that has four elements) or even "heat" to exist. Some elementals are made of it directly...they "are fire" rather than being "on fire". So, given that there is an elemental plane specifically for fire from which to summon the flame, that one doesn't bother me. As stated above, ball lightning does actually exist, so electricity is not a big shocker (pun alert!). An orb of electricity may come from somewhere else. What the non-magical "orb of force" and "orb of sound" are does bother me. While obviously sound is common enough, how do you "ball up" a sound? I prefer to think of it as targeted "blast" of sound at a single target, but where would one find such a powerful yet directional sound in nature? It seems more like some thing one might "evoke" as D&D uses the term. Orbs of Force are basiclly the same. There are "forces" out there, but it's rarely coherent and powerful enough to turn it into a weapon (let alone a "orb"), so it seems like it would be more likely created from nothingness (and hence itself be magical) than summoned from another location. Personally I do think the spells are overpowered, but I have to admit that they have not been a major problem in-game. In the grand sweep of things I see as overpowered (which is a lot of stuff), these spells are on the list, but they aren't terribly high on it.
Mystic Theurge 07-31-06, 08:56 PM	Now said player goes on the message boards looking for additional ammunition to agrue the DMs ruling. This kind of thing is just lame. Just as lame as the countless scores of complaints about things being overpowered in D&D. And even when I was a "rookie" DM I knew not to allow people to use rules that I didn't have (or at least was able to peruse on a regular basis). But to the novice DMs, they need to chalk it up as a learning experience and move on, else their games won't be enjoyable for long. I personally think the problem boils down to a DM spending alot more time than he needs to to tailor an encounter to fit the group, but when someone in the group comes up with a crafty way of easily overcoming the challenge, the DM pouts and starts banning things. One minute, the player asks the DM to approve something and the next thing, it's banned from the game because of a creative usage. Pretty soon, everyone's pouting and the game's no fun at all.
Warduke 07-31-06, 10:14 PM	I personally think the problem boils down to a DM spending alot more time than he needs to to tailor an encounter to fit the group, but when someone in the group comes up with a crafty way of easily overcoming the challenge, the DM pouts and starts banning things. One minute, the player asks the DM to approve something and the next thing, it's banned from the game because of a creative usage. Pretty soon, everyone's pouting and the game's no fun at all. Your now ranting about something that is not relevant to THIS thread. It has NOT been mentioned that the DM allowed it and now is changeing his ruling. His DM (group) said no and that isn't good enough for the author. Creative usage for defeating core monsters (NPCs) is in TEAMWORK and problem solving skills. Using some splat spell to overcome a challenge is not creative at all, in fact it is the direct opposite. It's bland and boring and the only one having fun at the table is the twink who casts it. Everything needed to defeat challenges in D&D are in the core books. Supplement books are good for a few things. 1. Flavor. Some PRCs, feats and spells are really good, granted 2. Unique games. Military campaigns, monster or undead characters, etc etc. There is some good material out there for unique campaigns. 3. Power gamers and Twinks 4. Players that cant hack a real D&D game and die without splat feats, spells, items, PRCs 5. Making WOTC lots of money Once again staying ON TOPIC for this thread means talking about the issue presented in THIS thread. We are not talking about some hypothetical situation like you keep refering to. Get a clue.
Mystic Theurge 07-31-06, 10:25 PM	Your now ranting about something that is not relevant to THIS thread. It has NOT been mentioned that the DM allowed it and now is changeing his ruling. His DM (group) said no and that isn't good enough for the author. Creative usage for defeating core monsters (NPCs) is in TEAMWORK and problem solving skills. Using some splat spell to overcome a challenge is not creative at all, in fact it is the direct opposite. It's bland and boring and the only one having fun at the table is the twink who casts it. Everything needed to defeat challenges in D&D are in the core books. Supplement books are good for a few things. 1. Flavor. Some PRCs, feats and spells are really good, granted 2. Power gamers 3. Players that cant hack a real D&D game and die without splat feats, spells, items, PRCs 4. Making WOTC lots of money Once again staying ON TOPIC for this thread means talking about the issue presented in THIS thread. We are not talking about some hypothetical situation like you keep refering to. Get a clue. This is what is amusing as well. Speaking of getting a clue, may I suggest you learn to read someone's post carefully before you start flaming? Perhaps an explanation for the less educated is in order: my previous post was only an indication of what I feel generally happens aropund the gaming table whenever a new book comes around. Player A asks if he can use it, and the DM says ok. He later chages his mind. If you feel this is off topic, that seems to be your malfunction, not mine. IMHO, it is the underlying struggle between players and DMs that needs not be. But if you want to get your underwear in a bunch, fine with me. BTW, when I read the OP, I see a question of wether or not the orb spells are broken or not, NOT wether or not the DM allowed them or not. Perhaps YOU should brush up on YOUR reading comprehension skills before you start to impugn mine.
Mechnomancer 07-31-06, 10:43 PM	Not to derail this thread any more, but if the orbs are not magical, could you hit an etheral creature with any of them asside from force? BTW, i always imagine force as kinetic energy.
Warduke 07-31-06, 11:09 PM	In complete arcane there are lesser and regular orbs that are conjuration and have NO SR and NO Save, my group says this is broken and that should not be allowed. Is there anything i could use to argue my point? Where do you not see that the spells in question are not (should not) be allowed. I mentioned earlier that I was taking the liberty of including the DM in this player's "group". Seems to me ,once again the, ruling was made and the author is looking to argue the ruling. Maybe Im wrong there but I doubt it. As far as the flaming goes, you deserved it. You can try to sound inteligent and use not so clever little insults without success all you want. I was addressing the initial poster and you decided you wanted to comment about my post using an irrelevent argument. By the way you describe how DMs "deserve what they get" my guess is you either... A) Have never run a game.......well that is B) Are jaded by another DM that decided upon reflection that something was too powerful he allowed in a game you played. (Boohoo poor you :weep: ) C) Are just one of those annoying people that think because they have an opinion its always right. D) All of the above In any event feel free to try to come up with something clever to say, I won't respond and you can flame away and feel like you got the last word. Im done hijacking this thread and bantering with you Potsy.
Ryll 07-31-06, 11:31 PM	Orbs are definitely overpowered and if your Dm doesn't allow them than good for him. A general rule of comparisson is to compare CORE spells to spells in supplements. There is no spell in the PHB that even comes close to the orb spells. You can try to explain them however you want (could they or couldnt they work) but the bottom line is they are overpowered and have the potential to be broken. Low level so metamagic is easily applied. Low enough level to maximize and put in a wand. With no save, no SR, and can be duel wand wielded. Not to mention how many monsters are immune to acid? (Talking about acid orbs). Talk to me when your dual wielding acid orb wand wielding wizard takes over almost every encounter with autodamage. No thanks. As with most things in supplement books these spells, items, etc are put into books to get you guys to buy them. Some are fine others are overpowered. If your DM is smart enough to not allow alot of this stuff then just let it go. Wrong on many counts... first....they are not definitely overpowered....they allow the wizard a better chance (there is the ranged touch attack to worry about) to do a fraction of the damage the melee types are doing, although the melee will do this every round, and the mage will run out of spells. The wands would work out to a lot of cash per damage, and would not be cheap. There would also be the ranged touch attacks, which will not always hit, and in the end, you will be again a second rate damage dealer at great monetary expense, plus the feat to use two wands. Even with the orb spells in game the wizard will not rule the group in damage, and will just be allowed to hold his own, otherwise, the only way he can do damage near the others is if you often enounter a large number of lower level enemy, where the AE spells shine. Our 10th level group regularly sees the melee types hitting 60 or more damage per round. The orb spells, with the range touch to hit, and the single target limitation are NOT all that powerful...they are just so-so... As of yet, there have been no real explanations that have showed these spells to be overpowered, just a few who think that SRs should make wizards near useless, and if a spell can be used, it is overpowered.
Warduke 08-01-06, 01:41 AM	If your 10th level melee types are averaging 60 points of damage per round they are either over twinked or over munchkined, take your pick. A melee character at that level should be able to deal out that much damage with a little luck and tactics, but not average it every round. You use the analogy that the wizard has the chance to miss his ranged touch attack. It can happen but against most things, especially big things this doenst happen often. Whereas a melee character will miss much more often, and dont forget the melee character is risking himself being toe to toe with whatever it is the group is fighting. Now two wands of Maximized Lesser Acid Orb will do 40 points of damage per hit. A dual wand wielder can use two and hit for 80 per round. Add in the fact he wont miss often, it is completely effective against SR, DR, and most AC types don't effect it (other than a high touch) and you have an overpowered effect. Is it expensive ....Yes Is it overpowered......Yes As of yet, there have been no real explanations that have showed these spells to be overpowered, just a few who think that SRs should make wizards near useless, and if a spell can be used, it is overpowered. You want one? Here you go. I know this will not apply to all encounters but here is a taste of the problem. I don't have all my books here, but I am pretty sure we can use your 10th level analogy. I am reletively certain a 10th level wizard can produce the above stated move. Dual Wand wield, Craft Wand, (I think those are the requirements, someone correct me if I am wrong). Ill give an example of a sample CR 17 Death Knight I am looking at right in front of me. The thing has a touch AC of 11 and 90 HPs and an SR of 22. This is a HARD fight for most groups, but not the one with the orb wand wizard. All that needs happen is ANY other group member does 10 or more damage and the Wizard wastes this CR17 creature almost without fail. Of course there are can always be other factors dont bother arguing those, someone can roll a 1, the deathknight can roll a 20 on its init, etc etc. Bottom line is more times than not this spell effect makes the entire encounter worthless. Not to mention a group of 10th level adventurers has no business even fighting a CR17 Deathknight, much less whiping one's boney arse. Average 10th level wizard has a +5 BAB, maybe +2 Natural Dex, add +1 for magic enhancers, add 1 for some sort of feat perhaps. Thats a +9. Believe me I am being generous here many munchkins will have a much better ranged touch than this. This means on anything but a 1 or 2 he will hit and do 80 points of auto damage. Now most spells, feats, PRCs, that are overpowered may not always end up being that way. A good DM however will find the combo that makes it overpowered and not allow it. Some DMs disallow the combo, I personally just disallow the feat (spell). If I can figure out at least one way to overpower (break) it I am sure the players can come up with multiple other combos to do it. If you would like me to give any further examples please let me know. Thank you drive through.....
Alamanther's comeback 08-01-06, 04:05 AM	That's a fairly good breakdown, Warduke, and I can definitely see the problem, but there are a lot of things you aren't taking into consideration. That deathknight, what's his other equipment? No ring of protection, ring of invisibility, armor of energy resistance, boots of speed, or other such item? Magical equipment is part of that CR 17, so don't remove that from the equation. After all, you clearly remembered it in the case of the wand wielder. A CR 17 monster can easily be poorly designed, with a lousy selection of feats and items, leaving huge chinks in its armor... In any case, a deathknight is likely to be a boss monster - he has the advantage of henchmen. The pcs aren't likely to catch him off guard and deal with him on his own. How will that wand wielder be able to launch her attack if harrassed by shadow minions? The boss monster has the advantage of being able to study the pcs in advance. Overreliance on a specific tactic will certainly make him take precautions. "Oh, that wizard seems to be doing very well with her two wands of maximized lesser acid orb, maybe I should dig out that ring of major acid resistance I was given when I went to slay the black dragon in the Nelathyr Swamp 200 years ago?" He might even have the pcs encounter a lonely, frightened woman scurrying about his castle, stealing from him to support her starving children (same said rogue also helps herself to a wand of maximized lesser acid orb). Now, unless the DM plans to have the pcs waylay the unprepared deathknight on his daily afternoon stroll, he should be able to even even out the balance issue presented by overreliance on a single tactic.
Warduke 08-01-06, 04:42 AM	Alamanther I agree there is always a way to make a single encounter more difficult for the PCs. That in and of itself doesn't make any game effect less powerful. Alot of things that happen in any real D&D game are spur of the moment. The players many times go off in directions the DM either didnt expect, or didnt have extra amount of time creating things for. This is why premade monsters, NPCs in various books are so useful. My definition of an overpowered effect is one that can easily defeat normal premade templates from core books. Especially when they effect EL encounters of +2 above the groups level or higher (like the Death Knight) example. When PCs begin to use overpowering effects then the DM either has to... 1) Spend more time creating unique and powerful creatures (encounters) to counter these effects 2) Fudge die rolls behind the screen to give the encounter a sense of difficulty. Neither of these is fun for a DM. As a player I would much rather have a DM running me through a game to spend his time working on plot lines, adventure hooks, meaningful dungeons, and other fun stuff, not how he can make x amount of custom monsters to hopefully challenge his munchk.........err players. :) Also dont forget that a DM that uses increased magic items to increase the difficulty of his monsters walks a slippery slope. When that monster is defeated those same items go to the characters. A few encounters like that can quickly make the party completely overpowered causing further problems.
Broken vacuum 08-01-06, 05:35 AM	If your 10th level melee types are averaging 60 points of damage per round they are either over twinked or over munchkined, take your pick. A melee character at that level should be able to deal out that much damage with a little luck and tactics, but not average it every round. You use the analogy that the wizard has the chance to miss his ranged touch attack. It can happen but against most things, especially big things this doenst happen often. Whereas a melee character will miss much more often, and dont forget the melee character is risking himself being toe to toe with whatever it is the group is fighting. Now two wands of Maximized Lesser Acid Orb will do 40 points of damage per hit. A dual wand wielder can use two and hit for 80 per round. Add in the fact he wont miss often, it is completely effective against SR, DR, and most AC types don't effect it (other than a high touch) and you have an overpowered effect. Is it expensive ....Yes Is it overpowered......Yes That small calculation ignores a lot of important parameters. The most important one is cost. You need to be 9th level to cast a 5d8 lesser orb, so the price of a wand of a maximised lesser orb would be 27,000 gp, which is more than a 10th level character can afford using the usual guideline of no item worth more than half the character's wealth. Reasonably speaking the character could make one himself for 13,500 gp and 1080 xp in 27 days. It is questionable whether the character should have enough cash and xp laying around to construct two of them, but for the argument's sake let us pretend so and consequently have the wizard in question spend 27,000 gp, 2160 xp and 54 days to get his two wands. Now let us look a little bit closer on Double Wand Wielder. The feat has Craft Wand and Two-Weapon Fighting as prerequisites and using two wands in a round costs you a full round action and three charges. The final cost for the wizard in question is four feats (Craft Wand, Two-Weapon Fighting, Double Wand Wielder and Maximise), 27,000 gp, 2160 xp and 54 days. That does not leave him with very much else. Finally it is not that easy to actually fire off two orbs successfully in a round with this method due to range. The range of the orbs from the wands are 45 feet and if we count in a 5-foot step the total range is 50 feet. This is within charge range for a lot of creatures, meaning when the wizard uses his wands the critter is already in melee. It also means that the wizard in all probability cannot position himself properly in the same round that he uses the wands. Unless the wizard took two additional feats, he takes -4 for firing into melee and unless the opponent is particularly unintelligent, it probably gains +4 to AC due to soft cover. He is not going to hit monsters with touch AC 10 more than half of the time, if even that. As for your Death Knight example, I do not know the statistics of it, but I doubt that it lacks special abilities to deal with this sort of thing. Looking in the plain old Monster Manual does not exactly leave me in awe of your double wand wielding wizard. In short, even if a DM allows the cash expenditure to make this possible by 10th level, it is not especially impressive. The orb spells are simply not overpowered or broken. This goes for both the lesser and ordinary ones. They follow the damage dice cap guidelines and they pay for their ability to penetrate SR by being short ranged. Being short ranged is a serious power down for touch attack spells at anything but possibly very high levels. As for conjuration vs. evocation that is mostly a flavour discussion and it does not really impact the balance of the spells that much.
Alamanther's comeback 08-01-06, 05:37 AM	Also dont forget that a DM that uses increased magic items to increase the difficulty of his monsters walks a slippery slope. When that monster is defeated those same items go to the characters. A few encounters like that can quickly make the party completely overpowered causing further problems. Craft Continget Spell - the gift that keeps on giving... Give the boss monster powerful treasure which the pcs can never lay their hands on. ;) I can see your point regarding the premade templates, but I don't think the DM should put too much faith in CR as a reflection of how challenging the creature is going to be. Okay, let's throw out the orbs for the sake of argument - they're too powerful - and go with the following example: Your 11th level party consists of one rogue, one rogue/cleric, one sorcerer, and one druid (I actually dungeonmastered this party; it also had a fighter, but he was down for the count). What would you rather face - a stone golem or a half-fiendish spirit naga? Let me tell you that the golem killed the rogue while the sorcerer frantically tried to damage it with telekinetically thrown objects (it was kinda fun). This was before the orbs were introduced. And the naga? Oh, they got her good, and her nycaloth father as well. My point is that the DM must always take the party's makeup into consideration when designing appropriate - the individual characters as well as the sum of characters. Certain combinations allow parties to squash monsters above their level with little effort (think clerics and undead). The trick is to find monsters that challenge the party's strengths, forcing them to vary their tactics. Don't assume that because a monster has a given CR that it will automatically be a suitable challenge for the party. Fiends have many forms of energy resistance, and often have high touch ACs as well; beholders have cones of antimagic, wherein spells cannot be cast and magic items don't; incorporeal undead have high touch ACs, and most attacks, including the orbs, work only 50 % of the time. All of these would make the double wand wielder seriously re-evaluate his tactics. And sometimes, the best challenge for a spellcaster is anpther spellcaster! :D
Llathos 08-01-06, 10:48 AM	I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the spell defenders on this one. It's just not that big of a deal. On paper it might look scary to you, but in reality it's dangerous as hell to get that close, they can still miss quite frequently if they don't take ranged attack feats, and the damage simply isn't that impressive. If they are close enough to hit with it, that means they are in range of a charge attack. Almost all the big nasty melee damage routines that don't require a full attack are charge attack builds. There's a good chance your mage will get dropped in a single round if he moves in that close. Oh, and it can be counterspelled...and energy resistences apply...etc. Also, when crafting an argument next time, try to avoid criticing a solid damage build melee for being munchkin, but then crunching together a dual-wand wielding mage with TWF feats and more money than allowed by the DMG to show why something is broken... Nobody is telling you what to do in your campaign. If you simply cannot see how the game is fine with these spells in play, then houserule them out. Just don't come here and expect everyone to agree with you about it.
Warduke 08-01-06, 11:27 AM	Also, when crafting an argument next time, try to avoid criticing a solid damage build melee for being munchkin Ive yet to see this "solid damage build" please advise. If you simply cannot see how the game is fine with these spells in play, then houserule them out. Well seeing as they are not core spells it would take a houserule to allow them in as far as Im concerned, which I am not allowing in my campaigns. Just don't come here and expect everyone to agree with you about it. I never thought most people would anyway. The general consesus on these boards is the CR system doesn't hold up. In rare cases this is true, but as a general rule of thumb it is not. In just about every case of (non epic) CR issues it is due to either non-core spells, abilities, feats (combos) or DM negligence. If you guys use the spell I could care less really. There are ALOT of things I dont allow in my games from splat books for various reasons that I am sure alot of you guys would defend with your collective dying breaths. To each his own. Once again my definition of overpowered is some sort of effect that cannot reasonably be closely reproduced using any sort of core ability. The orb lines do exactly that. SR was put into the game for a reason. The Spell Pen feats were put into the game for a reason. If as a DM you dont mind having low level spells overcome this core game mechanic that is your choice. When the same DMs claim the CR system is flawed though at the same time it sounds, forgive me, a little foolish.
savant_warlord13 08-01-06, 11:30 AM	In complete arcane there are lesser and regular orbs that are conjuration and have NO SR and NO Save, my group says this is broken and that should not be allowed. Is there anything i could use to argue my point? They deal little damage and require an attack roll. Magic missile allows SR, but requires no attack roll. Seeing as only some things have SR but everything has an AC, you might say that magic missile is more broken than orbs.
GouwsA 08-01-06, 12:38 PM	Question - Can precise shot be used for ranged touch attacks and can you also use this for wands. I do not see why not, to me it is how accurate you can point something and shoot.
Todd 08-01-06, 12:50 PM	Heh ... with some PrCs, Arcane Thesis, Snowcasting, and some metamagic I've see folks showing how Magic Missile can average something around 200 points of damage per casting. As for the warrior types ... I created a few characters for our group to play as part of a mini-adventure. The Barbarian / Frostrager averaged about 127.5 HP per round on two attacks and a rend, and that was before being buffed by the party divine caster or arcanist. If that happened then his output dramatically climbed. It's really not hard to make melee types dish out lots of damage. In fact they usually do it a lot better than the vanialla orb spells on any given level. It's only when you start stat stacking metamagic and finding ways to reduce metamagic cost (Incantatrix, Arcane Thesis, Pratical Metamagic, etc.) that the orbs can equal or exceed the melee types.
Witch 08-01-06, 12:51 PM	Question - Can precise shot be used for ranged touch attacks and can you also use this for wands. I do not see why not, to me it is how accurate you can point something and shoot. Yes, it can :)
Warduke 08-01-06, 01:57 PM	As for the warrior types ... I created a few characters for our group to play as part of a mini-adventure. The Barbarian / Frostrager averaged about 127.5 HP per round on two attacks and a rend I am still waiting to see a build that doesnt involve an overpowered PRC, feat combo that can accomplish this. If you are in fact comparing Orb spells, or any other supplement spell for that matter to another overpowered munchkin combo (melee or not) of course it will seem balanced. I can build munchkiny builds all day long that are much better than any core class too, it doesn't take skill it just takes the 30 bucks per book to do it. PRCS, feats, spells, that are blatantly more powerful than the core class on there own is the issue here. IMHO these things should be used for flavor and fun, not for creating a class/build/combo that unbalances the game. The trend seems to be getting worse with each book released and it seems most people now cant play the game without them.
smrtgmp 08-01-06, 02:51 PM	Oh give me a break. Do the math. Orbs are averaging 24.5 points of damage when a wizard first gets them at 7th level and 52.5 points of damage when the spells cap out at 15th level (assuming they hit). To a single target. Once per round. With a finite resource. That perfectly fits the damage cap for a 4th level single target arcane spell. If thats breaking your game, you're an incompotent DM. And you dont need any supplaments to produce a killer melee build. Take a look at the spirited charge feat sometime. A halfling on a wardog is a very scary thing if he takes the mounted charger feats to fruition.
Warduke 08-01-06, 05:49 PM	And you dont need any supplaments to produce a killer melee build. Take a look at the spirited charge feat sometime. A halfling on a wardog is a very scary thing if he takes the mounted charger feats to fruition. Is that the best you can do? Granted a halfling on a dog with spirited charge can do alot of damage. One of the few munchkiny melee core builds congrats. Is that honestly the best you can do? How many people are going to want to play that build? Unless that halfling is a paladin his little wardog isnt going to live long. And if he is a paladin he wont have many feats to stick in many other places taking the entire mounted tree. There is also the small fact that the a halfling paladin is a bit lame, but obviously you don't mind a bit of lamness in your game. That perfectly fits the damage cap for a 4th level single target arcane spell. I dont think anyone is saying, I know Im not, that the damage is overpowering. It is the no SR that makes this spell twink. There are times when in D&D certain characters are supposed to be semi useless in combat. Its how the system works. Talk to rogues fighting, undead, constructs, plants, etc Talk to fighter who missed repeatedly against a high AC monster Or a caster that (didnt take spell pen) and encounters a high SR creature Thats the whole point. Why take the spell pen feats if you can just bypass it with low level spells with no save? You wouldnt. This frees up the caster to use his feats to even further empower his character and override a crucial system in the core mechanic. Typically it is the people that dont truly understand the mechanics behind the actual core game of 3.5 (which are pretty damn good) that make these rediculous claims and arguments.
Witch 08-01-06, 06:21 PM	There is also the small fact that the a halfling paladin is a bit lame, but obviously you don't mind a bit of lamness in your game. What's so lame about it?
Mystic Theurge 08-01-06, 06:44 PM	Where do you not see that the spells in question are not (should not) be allowed. I mentioned earlier that I was taking the liberty of including the DM in this player's "group". Seems to me ,once again the, ruling was made and the author is looking to argue the ruling. Maybe Im wrong there but I doubt it. As far as the flaming goes, you deserved it. You can try to sound inteligent and use not so clever little insults without success all you want. I was addressing the initial poster and you decided you wanted to comment about my post using an irrelevent argument. By the way you describe how DMs "deserve what they get" my guess is you either... A) Have never run a game.......well that is B) Are jaded by another DM that decided upon reflection that something was too powerful he allowed in a game you played. (Boohoo poor you :weep: ) C) Are just one of those annoying people that think because they have an opinion its always right. D) All of the above In any event feel free to try to come up with something clever to say, I won't respond and you can flame away and feel like you got the last word. Im done hijacking this thread and bantering with you Potsy. This is very funny. I'm sure I've been running games since before you were in diapers, judging by the complete lack of maturity you have. In my games I allow pretty much anything the players can throw at me and I have absolutely no problems balancing things out. I'm sorry that you do. Perhaps you should turn in your DMG now, since you don't understand how to play the game. I did not flame you (though I can SHOW you flaming if that's what you want). All I did was make an argument. I am sorry you fail to see the relevance to the argument, but that just goes to show the lack of maturity, and dare I say, intelligence on your part. Take all the liberties you want, but the original post said nothing about the DM banning the spells. It was a request for arguments that can be made FOR the spells in question, which is precisely what I have been doing, albeit not on a direct level. Here's another relevant argument. Melf's Acid Arrow MUST be broken because it does not allow SR. That's a core spell for your simpleton mind to wrap around and it's only 2nd level <gasp!> It also lasts more than 1 round and can thereby disrupt spellcasters... oh the humanity of it all!
lord_khaine 08-01-06, 08:18 PM	what about getting back to discussing the orb spells instead of each other? anyway i must say i agree on that the orb spells hold the potential to be overpowered. to start with they do let the caster blast his target for a decent bit of damage, on a decent range with no save and no spell resistance, wich means that really the only standart defence is not being hit. then ok, you can start to stack up on stuff like resistance to elements or simular magical gear, but first of all it only means the caster either have to spend a round dispelling your resistance buffs, or just blast you with another type of orb. and for that matter i would claim a spell is to powerfull when forces the encounters to invest in magic items, only to counter that specific spell. of course, it gets even worse when you begin to aply metamagic to the orbs, a simple empower spell and we are suddenly talking about 18d6 no save no SR at lv 12, if we add a rod of metamagic to this we suddenly have a blast of 72+6d6 points of damage, enough to mortaly wound a lot of encounters of that lv
camble 08-01-06, 09:02 PM	Is that the best you can do? Granted a halfling on a dog with spirited charge can do alot of damage. One of the few munchkiny melee core builds congrats. Is that honestly the best you can do? How many people are going to want to play that build? Unless that halfling is a paladin his little wardog isnt going to live long. And if he is a paladin he wont have many feats to stick in many other places taking the entire mounted tree. There is also the small fact that the a halfling paladin is a bit lame, but obviously you don't mind a bit of lamness in your game. You asked for an example there is your example. Your come back is well yea but that character is lame come on guy who are you kidding. I dont think anyone is saying, I know Im not, that the damage is overpowering. It is the no SR that makes this spell twink. There are times when in D&D certain characters are supposed to be semi useless in combat. Its how the system works. There is one spell that is in the PHB that ignores SR that is pretty well known "melf's acid arrow". With the exception that the spell is damage over time it is comparable to the orb spells. Talk to rogues fighting, undead, constructs, plants, etc Talk to fighter who missed repeatedly against a high AC monster Or a caster that (didnt take spell pen) and encounters a high SR creature Have you ever had someone play a multiclass character in your game before? The eldritch knight or Arcane trickster would still be able to contribute successfully. Amoung many other combo's / prestige classes. These classes are what really make these spells insane since they give higher chances to hit, provide a increase in damage or both. If the fighter can't hit the High AC monsters who can? Thats the whole point. Why take the spell pen feats if you can just bypass it with low level spells with no save? You wouldnt. This frees up the caster to use his feats to even further empower his character and override a crucial system in the core mechanic. Typically it is the people that dont truly understand the mechanics behind the actual core game of 3.5 (which are pretty damn good) that make these rediculous claims and arguments. So you don't have to rely on the orb spells and there like to defeat SR especially important if the caster can't mem them like a specialist wizard
Todd 08-01-06, 09:25 PM	of course, it gets even worse when you begin to aply metamagic to the orbs, a simple empower spell and we are suddenly talking about 18d6 no save no SR at lv 12, if we add a rod of metamagic to this we suddenly have a blast of 72+6d6 points of damage, enough to mortaly wound a lot of encounters of that lv False. The average MM CR 12 encounter has 184 HP. It will take TWO maximized + empowered Orbs to kill one CR 12 encounter and the caster will only be able to pull that Max + Empower trick off three times per day. With the standard 4 encounters per day that means that ONE or maybe, at worst, two of them could be smoked by this tactic depending on spell selection and how many 6th level spells they have ... I could see a Sorcerer or Warmage MAYBE pulling this off but not most Wizard. I'll also point out that a Rod of Metamatic Maximize cost 54,000 gp and that standard wealth for 12th level is only 88,000 gp ... meaning that most 12th level casters would not have that kind of gear.
pmurray@bigpond.com 08-01-06, 10:22 PM	The only problem that tickles me; they don't make sense. WTF is a 'nonmagical' orb of fire, electricity, or force? Utter nonsense. Well, I see the difference between conjuration and evocation as being that conjuration summons a basically physical object, whereas evocation calls upon the platonic nature of things. Thus, "Orb of fire" calls into existence an actual orb of fire which is thrown at something (like a molotov cocktail); wheras fireball calls upon the nature of fireyness itself, of which physical fire is a mere shadow. Orb of fire burns because it is a lump of burning stuff (albeit conjured stuff), whereas fireball is a magical effect (to which SR applies). Force effects call upon not "fireyness" or "coldness" or even "electricityness", but on the fundamental nature of physicality itself: that physical objects exclude one another - you can't have two things in the same place at the same time. Physical objects cannot pass through the area occupied by a Wall of Force because there is something else there. OTOH: it's only a game, you know. :D
pmurray@bigpond.com 08-01-06, 10:33 PM	The average MM CR 12 encounter has 184 HP. It will take TWO maximized + empowered Orbs to kill one CR 12 encounter and the caster will only be able to pull that Max + Empower trick off three times per day. Agreed: 72+6d6 points against one opponent is not excessive spell damage at level 12. Wiz 12 gives you access to Disintegrate - 2d6 per caster level. It's level 6, same as or less than a Maximized Enhanced Orb. Sure you also need Assay Resistance and True Strike, but it's easily do-able. 72 seems a lot in comparison with what a fighter can do in one hit, but a fighter gets multiple hits round after round. A wizard gets to smoke one opponent (or a room full of mooks in one go). It is not overpowered or unbalanced at all.
CONMAN2469 08-01-06, 10:42 PM	Simple. "Orbs" are Wizards way of trying to balance Psionics. I had a friend who could deal 13D6 damage, no save, no S.R., yet he could do it 10 or 15 times a day (as long as noone actually hit him and forced him to spend power points). "There Psionic Resistance!" he'd scream, as I assured him fully he was cheating. Now I make my Wizard full of orbs and Rary's... Good mix, for a fighting Wiz! :D
KmartKommando 08-01-06, 11:13 PM	If all you throw at the party is a single nasty creature, then there's no reason not to memorize the orb spells. If there are tons of creatures around, that orb of insta-death starts to look less and less useful.
Nitan 08-01-06, 11:35 PM	Simple. "Orbs" are Wizards way of trying to balance Psionics. I had a friend who could deal 13D6 damage, no save, no S.R., yet he could do it 10 or 15 times a day (as long as noone actually hit him and forced him to spend power points). "There Psionic Resistance!" he'd scream, as I assured him fully he was cheating. Now I make my Wizard full of orbs and Rary's... Good mix, for a fighting Wiz! :D Does this post make no sense to anyone else? Or is it just me? The Orb spells are not overpowered. They just happen to make Evocation look even worse. That's their only crime. And 60 damage a round at 10th level? That's not munchkin at all. That's called being effective.
AvaronGansdell 08-02-06, 12:35 AM	wizard specialzation is compleatly broken at this point in the game..with one or two really good specialitys one or two really bad ones and a few that float in between changeing places baced on what books are being used. cojuration is usualy at the top now and evocation the bottom. ok you asked for a decent melee build. how about one useing strictly PHB. now for this to work lets assume you rolled a 16 or so as your high stat..not so unlikely infact its probebly going to happen. and with point buy its not too high. so 10th level. so it starts 16 then half orc for a 18 4th and 8th level raise it to 20. 2 levels barbarian/8 levels fighter (two classes with alot in common and easily to represent the savage who after being exposed to the civilized world starts to study its fighting styles or the educated fighter who lets his racial rage carry him in tough battles) so now feats 1st: extra rage (correction this one is from compleat warrior) 3ed:Cleave 6th:Great cleave 9th:anything really Fighter bonus #1:weapon focuse #2:Power attack #4:weapon specialization #6:Improved critical #8:Greater weapon focus so now for equipment anyone thing a lv 10 would have trouble getting +4 strenght Item and a +1 flameing Greatsword? so lets see attack bonuse is 10+7 from strenght+1 from magic+2 from feats +20 to attack. now rage and you get +22/+17 Full power attack now attacks are +17/+12 and you do 2d6+10 (strenght)+10 (power attack)+ 1 magical + 1d6 fire + 2 weapon specilzation. for an avarage of 32 damage per hit now for extream make the weapon a +1 shocking, flameing greatsword and the strenght was a natrual 18 with level and item now its a 26 rageing a 30. 2d6+15+10+1+2+1d6+1d6 avarage of 40 damage per hit and you have a +18/+13 attacks each avarageing 40 damage and if you kill you cleave for another one. this is far from the most mix maxed build possible and againts and adult white dragon (CR10) you need an 8 on your first attack and a 13 on your second to do an avarage of 80 damage to it. it has about 190 HP 3 or 4 rounds and you should probebly easily kill it alone. a clay golem bane of the wizards a CR 10 monster has only a 22 ac needing 4's on the first attack and 9's on the second. and yes it has DR10 but now your down to 30 damage avarage per hit and probebly will kill it in two turns suffering around 20 or so damage yourself.
smrtgmp 08-02-06, 03:27 AM	Is that the best you can do?You asked for an example and I gave you one. And before you start taking shots at a halfling mounted charger, maybe you should take a look at the numbers. First of all, as a small character, you can ride a medium mount, meaning you can go anywhere the party goes. Now combine spirited charge with a two handed power attack with a lance and you're getting a 6:1 power attack ratio. On a crit, it gets filthy. Give me complete warrior and it gets insane. All that takes is 3 feats (power attack, mounted combat and spirited charge), so even a paladin can get it off by 6th level. Granted a halfling on a dog with spirited charge can do alot of damage. One of the few munchkiny melee core builds congrats.How is that munchkiny, prey tell? Is it because it contradicts your previous statements, so therefore it must be a munchkin build, and therefore irrelevant to the conversation? Thats a sound argument if I ever heard one. :rolleyes: Is that honestly the best you can do? How many people are going to want to play that build? Unless that halfling is a paladin his little wardog isnt going to live long. And if he is a paladin he wont have many feats to stick in many other places taking the entire mounted tree.The best I can do? No. The best I can do will give you well over a hundred damage per hit, but I would need to dip into complete warrior to do so. And as noted above, it only takes 3 feats to be an effective mounted charger, so you can do it by 6th level with any warrior build. There is also the small fact that the a halfling paladin is a bit lame, but obviously you don't mind a bit of lamness in your game.Nice. You cant form a cogent argument so you fall back on opinion and insults. How is a halfling paladin lame (well, anymore than any other paladin, which I dont particularly like to begin with)? And who are you to pass judgement on a character concept that someone else happens to like? To each his own, I always say. I may not want to play the game in the same manner as my friends, but that doesnt mean I'm going to talk **** because they do things differently. All that matters to me is that we all have a good time. I dont think anyone is saying, I know Im not, that the damage is overpowering. It is the no SR that makes this spell twink.If the damage isnt overpowering, then how can bypassing SR make it so? When it comes down to it, the damage just isnt that impressive. In fact, against anything but an SR heavy creature, there will be a better spell for the job. Even against a high SR creature, its still going to take several orbs to take them down. God help you if there's more than a single enemy to deal with. The orbs are a trick you keep up your sleeve to use when you're out of other options. I can't speak for anyone else who plays primarily spell casters, but I cant remember the last time I ran out of other options. There are times when in D&D certain characters are supposed to be semi useless in combat. Its how the system works. Talk to rogues fighting, undead, constructs, plants, etc Talk to fighter who missed repeatedly against a high AC monster Or a caster that (didnt take spell pen) and encounters a high SR creatureYou dont play this game much, do you? Either that or you're not very good at it. Rogues have plenty of options when they cant sneak attack. If nothing else, they can go on the defensive and help provide flanking bonuses. Chances are they'll have a decent UMD score, meaning they can pull all sorts of rabbits out of their hats when conventional methods fail. Against a high AC enemy, a tank can still be increadiby useful because they can provide their allies with the time they need to launch an offensive. Furthermore, its rare for a dedicated tank to have trouble hitting an enemy unless said foe is several challenge ratings above the tank, in which case the whole party is probably having trouble. When it comes to casters, you clearly have no frigging clue what you're talking about. The only way a caster is ineffective against high SR enemies is if they have nothing but direct attack spells that have to punch through SR. Ever heard of buff spells? How about combat controll? I dont care what you throw at me. Unless I'm somehow prevented from casting entirely, I WILL contribute heavily to any given encounter. Thats the whole point. Why take the spell pen feats if you can just bypass it with low level spells with no save? You wouldnt. This frees up the caster to use his feats to even further empower his character and override a crucial system in the core mechanic. Typically it is the people that dont truly understand the mechanics behind the actual core game of 3.5 (which are pretty damn good) that make these rediculous claims and arguments.Yeah, because you clearly have a firm grasp on the rules. :rolleyes: You cant even look past the pre-defined cookie cutter class builds to see the plethora of options that dwell beneath the surface. Do you think all casters are blasters? Even before the supplaments were released, spell penetration was always low on my list of feats. You want to know why? Because I already had countless options when it came to dealing with high SR enemies. I can turn my allies into wrecking machines. I can sculpt the battlefield to my advantage. If all else fails, I can facilitate the party's retreat so that we live to fight another day. And dont take the "you dont truly understand the rules, so you're making stupid arguments" route. I know the rules like the back of my hands. I have nearly every single 3.5 book and I've read them all. Not only that, I have an insane memory. I can tell you what just about any spell does without cracking a book. I know the combat rules inside and out. Synergistic combinations jump off the page at me. You've been backed into a corner, and now you're snapping at everyone like a frightened dog. Face it. Everything you have said thus far has been ripped to shreds by several people. But go ahead and keep barking. At this point its fairly amusing.
Warduke 08-02-06, 04:29 AM	Good post Avaron. so now for equipment anyone thing a lv 10 would have trouble getting +4 strenght Item and a +1 flameing Greatsword? Well personally (I'm sure Ill catch hell for this) The items truly depend in my campaign. Buying whatever it is you want just doesn't happen. I use the random tables for most encounters, magic items for sale are not as common in my games as a typical Realms game for example. This part truly depends on the type of DM you are. Is it possible for that character to have those items at that level.....yes. Probable no. I won't even get into a talks about letting character's buy what they want as that could be a thread in and of itself. Of course crafting can end up making this more likely so we will go with those numbers. The damage on a character like that while nice is a little deceiving. First the fight/barb needs to get in on said dragon. Full attacks rarely happen on the first round. The barb also needs to be able to survive a breath weapon (which he should) and by the time he gets his full attack, may have to take one first. Anyone who has fought a dragon knows a full attack or two can really hurt most low AC melee types like raging barbs. We will go with your first example as it is probably more average. Since we are using an average dragon build. Now in two rounds lets for sake of argument say the fighter hits 2 times, the first time as he moves in, the 2nd on his first attack next round and misses his next attack (which he has a less a 65% chance to do, miss that is). That is an average of 32 points per round in two rounds. Now lets say he connects on both his attacks (same numbers) in the 3rd round. That is an average of 42.6 points of damage per round in 3 rounds. Really good damage, but not quite the 60 per round the other poster mentioned. This is all of course assuming he hits at all as bad die rolls could have him doing zero damage and he is up front fighting an upset dragon now. In these same three rounds the wizard can have fired off the same amount of damage with just the lesser orb maximized (40 per round) He will only miss on a 1 to hit the dragons 9 touch AC with no save, no sr, and little danger to himself. This is not even considering the other builds that can make this damage far higher. Also this without even using the energy type (fire) Mr White Dragon is susceptible to which would make it much worse. Now please I know this is the most basic of combat encounters. The fighter up front the mage in the back scenario. There are far too many other variables that I'm sure 50 posters can come up with. This is just a damage comparison so please let's forego the... But if the dragon does this.... or the What about if the wizard does this scenarios There is one spell that is in the PHB that ignores SR that is pretty well known "melf's acid arrow". With the exception that the spell is damage over time it is comparable to the orb spells. Nice try. 1) Acid Arrow is damage over time (which you said, Ill agree) 2) Even maximized it will only do 24 points per round (at level 10) 3) It's a second level spell (sorry no maximized acid arrows in a wand) 4) It has a longer range 5) There are not other energy types available
Aricandor 08-02-06, 04:37 AM	I just houseruled these spells to be Evocation [<element>] instead of Conjuration, with the exception for Orb of Acid which is left as is (Yes, including the "SR: No" in both cases). My only gripe with them is that they make evocation look even worse than already is; damage wise they're far from overpowered. What with Assay Resistance being available, the "SR: No" isn't really a problem either. In my opinion, the fun thing about magic is the option to contribute to combat in ways other than just dealing mindless damage anyway. :P This is what I've done to all "stupid" Conjuration (creation) spells that have popped up, including Arc of Lightning and Blast of Flame. Conjuration keeps acid damage, everything else is for evocation.
Mystic Theurge 08-02-06, 07:39 AM	The orbs are a trick you keep up your sleeve to use when you're out of other options. I can't speak for anyone else who plays primarily spell casters, but I cant remember the last time I ran out of other options. This is an excellent point, one I wish I had made earlier. Here's an anecdote to, perhaps, bolster the argument. I have a character that, at the time, I believe she was 10th level, 3 wiz, 3 clr, 4 Mystic Theurge. During a certain combat, one where she was already somewhat depleted of spells, we faced a very powerful drow priestess and a mind flayer. Unfortunately for me, I had not thought to include any of the Orb spells in my preperations because I had to budget my spells for other needs (being the only caster in the party required that I also be prepared to heal as well.) My point is this: unless I KNOW I am going to face something with SR, I don't feel comfortable preparing the Orb spells if I can prepare something more useful. They certainly would have been useful in that encounter, which is why I keep a scroll or two of orb spells handy, but considering that this character routinely has so many irons in the fire, it's nearly impossible to anticipate such things. On a round to round basis, she has to decide to either heal someone or to cast a damaging spell (or do something else altogether), with each decision that she makes being quite crucial. Needless to say, I love playing this character as it is a test of mental fortitude (and yes, sometimes I fail). To further argue, those whom I have gamed with have yet to load up on orb spells when THEY play arcane casters. If the Orb spells are so great, you should see players making builds centered on such spells, the way it sometimes happens with feats or prestige classes. I have yet to see this, though I will agree that just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Mystic Theurge 08-02-06, 07:47 AM	:rolleyes:
AvaronGansdell 08-02-06, 03:49 PM	yes that 32 damage a hit isent as good damage as the wizards 40 damage. ofcourse the barbarian dose crit on a 17-20 as opposed with the wizard on only a 20. and then there is the matter of the wizard fireing into combat which happens really often..and the opponent haveing cover. not a big issue against a dragon but against bob the evil fighter it could be tough. needing to hit a minimum of ac 14 with a -4 on his owen attacks.
camble 08-02-06, 04:04 PM	Nice try. Lets use the 10th level examples we have been using. 1) Acid Arrow is damage over time (which you said, Ill agree) 2) Even maximized it will only do 24 points per round 3) It's a second level spell (sorry no maximized acid arrows in a wand) 4) It has a longer range 5) There are not other energy types available 1) I am glad we can agree on that :) 2) I usually extend the spell. To do extra damage. ( It would only do 8 points of damage if it was maximized) 3) No but you can extend or empower it 4) It is longer range something else we agree on :) 5) Yes there is simply use energy substitution (beside acid is one of the better energy types) The spell isn't exactly the same but it has alot of similarities. It is a damage spell of the conjuration school that has no save and no SR.
tiercel 08-02-06, 11:12 PM	My problem with orbs is part of a larger problem I have with many of the supplement spells: SR isn't much of a defense any more. There has been a proliferation of no-SR direct damage spells in Complete X books and the Spell Compendium, not to mention assay resistance. The line between Conjuration and Evocation has been steadily blurred, to the point that you could reimagine almost any Evocation spell as a Conjuration spell with SR: No and maybe +1 spell level. There are, to my mind, at least a couple of significant issues with this: 1) CR. Most monsters with significant, or high, SR have that factored into their Challenge Rating. Since the Core Monster Manual, there have been any number of added game options to make SR easier to bypass, but few or no options to make SR harder to bypass. Quite arguably, SR isn't as good a defense as it was before the supplemental material, and so any significant-SR creature in a supplemental-using campaign is less of a challenge than before: it should have lower CR than it would have in a Core campaign. 2) "Magic wins." One of the issues with D&D is that sometime in the mid to mid-upper levels, spellcasters take prominence over nonspellcasters. Spell resistance has always been a way to give some importance to nonspellcaster warrior-type classes at the high levels -- the wizard can't count on his spells working on the powerful outsider or golem or whatever, so the fighter needs to step up. Reducing the efficacy of SR as a defense means that nonspellcasters are even less important; why bother the fighter when you can blast a "magic-immune" golem standing inside an antimagic field to death with your magic, by conjuring up magic nonmagical balls of "pure cold"? [Edit to add:] On the orb spells specifically: There are those who don't seem to have a problem with these spells, haven't seen them overused, don't think they are that big a deal. Well, honestly, I think that as Evocations with "SR: Yes" they aren't a problem. The thing is, that if you playtest orb spells in the 7th-10th level character range, you probably aren't facing a lot of SR-toting creatures, and so the orbs aren't packing their primary advantage. When you use orbs against non-SR creatures, they aren't a problem. The problem comes at higher CRs when more creatures have SR; you blithely blast magic-resistant or magic "immune" creatures to tiny bits with your magical nonmagic balls of pure energy. The obvious way to try to understand these spells is in relation to melf's acid arrow, but I think that's a false comparison. First of all, virtually no Core Conjuration spell does direct damage in one big burst -- they are almost all damage-over-time spells. (Acid splash is an exception, but it does so little damage that it would be more trouble than it's worth to have it do 1 point of damage per round for 1d3 rounds.) Second of all, acid is an "energy" that is a lot more straightforward to create in nonmagical form by itself. You can nonmagically create or buy a container full of actual physical acid. Other elements existing in some kind of nonmagical isolated pure form are much more problematic (e.g. "pure nonmagical cold", or sound, or force....) Third of all, there is a philosophical Conjuration vs Evocation problem. If Conjuration produce the same kind of effect in the same kind of way that Evocation does, what's the difference? In fact, why bother with Evocation? Why cast cone of cold when you can use the SR-No Conjuration blast of flame? Why cast fireball if you could instead create a SR-No Conjuration fuel-air explosive (conjures a nonmagical mist of fuel-air mixture and ignites it, for nonmagical fire damage)? Why, in fact, even cast enervation if you could whip up a SR-No Conjuration negative energy bolt which conjures up "pure nonmagical negative energy" from the Negative Material Plane? My point is that melf's acid arrow "feels" significant different from, say, scorching ray if nothing else because of its damage-over-time component, and its tie to an energy type which is readily nonmagical in pure form. Orb of fire, though, "feels" a lot more like a bigger scorching ray, yet is called Conjuration instead of Evocation, which makes little sense. There needs to be a better demarcation between schools than this; this demarcation was clearer before the supplemental spells than after them.
Nairalimis 08-03-06, 01:38 AM	Third of all, there is a philosophical Conjuration vs Evocation problem. If Conjuration produce the same kind of effect in the same kind of way that Evocation does, what's the difference? In fact, why bother with Evocation? That really says it all to me. The biggest, biggest, issue I see with the Orb spells is that they're Conjuration. I can live with the SR-ignoring, although I'd rather just give [Orb] type spells a bonus to bypassing SR, rather than outright immunity, or a lesser effect if they're beaten by SR.
pmurray@bigpond.com 08-03-06, 03:42 AM	How is that munchkiny, prey tell? Is it because it contradicts your previous statements, so therefore it must be a munchkin build, and therefore irrelevant to the conversation? Thats a sound argument if I ever heard one. :rolleyes: I believe it's called the "True Scotsman" argument.
pmurray@bigpond.com 08-03-06, 03:47 AM	What's the range increment on orb spells? One way to nerf them sonewhat would be to decrease that. After all - a sphere is one of the worst ballistic shapes around.
Merestil Haye 08-03-06, 04:10 AM	2) "Magic wins." One of the issues with D&D is that sometime in the mid to mid-upper levels, spellcasters take prominence over nonspellcasters. Spell resistance has always been a way to give some importance to nonspellcaster warrior-type classes at the high levels -- the wizard can't count on his spells working on the powerful outsider or golem or whatever, so the fighter needs to step up. Reducing the efficacy of SR as a defense means that nonspellcasters are even less important; why bother the fighter when you can blast a "magic-immune" golem standing inside an antimagic field to death with your magic, by conjuring up magic nonmagical balls of "pure cold"?I agree with most of your comments, and especially the philosophy. However, I do not agree that creatures in an AMF are vulnerable to these spells. My reasoning is simple; you conjure a small globe of whatever energy to yourself - fine, but what's stopping it from damaging you? The only answer you can give is "the magic of the spell." When you then propel it at the target, what keeps it from flying apart and dissipating harmlessly? Again, "the magic of the spell." What keeps it together in an AMF then? Nothing. It will dissipate harmlessly as soon as the trajectory of the orb intersects the AMF surface. My next campaign will houserule these spells as Evocation, make them SR : Yes, and either raise the damage die cap or die type. What's the range increment on orb spells? One way to nerf them sonewhat would be to decrease that. After all - a sphere is one of the worst ballistic shapes around.There is no range increment for the spells - or indeed any spell that takes effect at a distance from the caster. Just a range.
Broken vacuum 08-03-06, 08:00 AM	Well personally (I'm sure Ill catch hell for this) The items truly depend in my campaign. Buying whatever it is you want just doesn't happen. I use the random tables for most encounters, magic items for sale are not as common in my games as a typical Realms game for example. This part truly depends on the type of DM you are. I will call you out on this, but perhaps not for the reason you think. The problem is not that you limit the amount of magic items available to characters, the problem is that you use different rules for your wand wielding caster and others. A +4 strength item and the equivalent of a +2 weapon are cheaper together than one of your wands. (24,000 gp vs 27,000gp) and they are items that a melee-character would get reasonably early under most circumstances. The wands do however require a specific focus, which detracts rather much from the wizard's overall power. A wizard starting with 15 int needs a +4 intelligence item to get a bonus 5th level spell at 9th and 10th level and one of your wands will make that quite improbable, two quite impossible. This represent a major power-down in a lot of areas. Is it possible for that character to have those items at that level.....yes. Probable no. I won't even get into a talks about letting character's buy what they want as that could be a thread in and of itself. Of course crafting can end up making this more likely so we will go with those numbers. The chance is far higher than that of a wizard having a 9th level wand with a 4th level equivalent spell in it. The damage on a character like that while nice is a little deceiving. First the fight/barb needs to get in on said dragon. Full attacks rarely happen on the first round. The barb also needs to be able to survive a breath weapon (which he should) and by the time he gets his full attack, may have to take one first. Anyone who has fought a dragon knows a full attack or two can really hurt most low AC melee types like raging barbs. We will go with your first example as it is probably more average. Since we are using an average dragon build. Now in two rounds lets for sake of argument say the fighter hits 2 times, the first time as he moves in, the 2nd on his first attack next round and misses his next attack (which he has a less a 65% chance to do, miss that is). That is an average of 32 points per round in two rounds. Now lets say he connects on both his attacks (same numbers) in the 3rd round. That is an average of 42.6 points of damage per round in 3 rounds. Really good damage, but not quite the 60 per round the other poster mentioned. This is all of course assuming he hits at all as bad die rolls could have him doing zero damage and he is up front fighting an upset dragon now. In these same three rounds the wizard can have fired off the same amount of damage with just the lesser orb maximized (40 per round) He will only miss on a 1 to hit the dragons 9 touch AC with no save, no sr, and little danger to himself. This is not even considering the other builds that can make this damage far higher. Also this without even using the energy type (fire) Mr White Dragon is susceptible to which would make it much worse. Now please I know this is the most basic of combat encounters. The fighter up front the mage in the back scenario. There are far too many other variables that I'm sure 50 posters can come up with. This is just a damage comparison so please let's forego the... But if the dragon does this.... or the What about if the wizard does this scenarios Again, you are not being fair to the melee guy. You look at his potential troubles and completely ignore the potential problems the wizard has. As mentioned before, range is an important limitation to the wand. A white dragon has a land speed of 60 feet and the wands have ranges of 45 feet. As mentioned before this means that the critter will probably be in melee before you can use the wand, thus you take a -4 penalty. Since the dragon has an intelligence score of 10, it is intelligent enough to go for proper positioning, so +4 to AC for soft cover is quite likely. Your wizard with +8 to his ranged touch attack roll now hits 60% (when he is within range, that is), meaning approximately 24 points of average damage per charge. If the soft cover bonus does not apply, it means that the dragon can attack you its next turn (something that cannot be ruled out under any circumstances due to the poor range of the wand). And this is treating the dragon solely as a melee monster without even considering its fog-ability which is eminently useful in this instance. As long as you use different standards for your wand wielding wizard and everyone else, I doubt you will convince anyone.
tiercel 08-03-06, 08:41 AM	However, I do not agree that creatures in an AMF are vulnerable to these spells.Your reasoning is highly reasonable, and it would be my argument as well -- except the rules specifically say otherwise. From antimagic field:(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)The orb spells are Conjurations with "Duration: Instantaneous" and "Effect: One Orb of X", so presumably they are instantaneous conjurations whose effects (to wit, the actual orbs) are not affected by an AMF. Is this ridiculous? Well, yes -- but then I find the idea of them as Conjurations in the first place ridiculous. (If you are going to accept them as Conjurations that don't allow SR due to their "nonmagical magic" effects, you pretty much have to bite the bullet and allow them to penetrate antimagic too.)
pmurray@bigpond.com 08-03-06, 10:19 AM	There is no range increment for the spells - or indeed any spell that takes effect at a distance from the caster. Just a range. The orb spells to not take effect at a distance from the caster like hold person or the other "will save" spells. They summon an orb that "shoots towards the target" requiring a ranged touch attack. Page 175 of the PHB does not specify a range increment at all. According to the glossary at wizards Ray attacks have no range increment.. My comment is that if someone wants to nerf "orb of" spells, a range increment would be a believable way of doing it. Here's one house rule I found on the web: A ranged touch attack has a range increment of 20 feet for spells with close range, 40 feet for spells with medium range and 80 feet for spells with long range with no maximum range (though the spell's range is still limited). Each full range increment imposes a cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll. You can use a melee touch attack to deliver a ranged touch attack (to avoid the -4 penalty when shooting into melee combat) Having said that: surely you use your intelligence to point a spell, not your dexterity. IMO: you should get an attack bonus from your int (or cha) rather than your Dex.
Thiez 08-03-06, 10:56 AM	people who are intelligent or charismatic are good at pointing at stuff? Right.
1CentSage 08-03-06, 12:36 PM	I have no problem with the various (lesser) elemental orbs (except maybe that they diminish furhter the importance of SR as has already been pointed out and the AMF issue). Orb of force is another matter ... . No SR, no save, no energy resistance, no AMF, effective against incorporeal and etheral creatures and touch attacks are usually easy. It's an all in one spell, you do not have to think or weigh your options. Just take it and you know that whatever comes your way, you will be able to deal a reasonable amount of damage. Why even bother with the other orbs (their secondary effects being not that amazing anyway). That is why I view the spell to be at least "bad game design". Not to mention that it seems to be hardly consistent with the "philosophy" of conjuration spells.
Warduke 08-03-06, 12:58 PM	The chance is far higher than that of a wizard having a 9th level wand with a 4th level equivalent spell in it. I agree 100% that is why in the 10th level example the wizard is firing off one maximized orb per round at 40 points of damage each. The dual wand method does 80. ;) Again, you are not being fair to the melee guy. You look at his potential troubles and completely ignore the potential problems the wizard has. I disagree, out of 5 attacks in the three round example that was used I had the melee character hitting on 4 of 5 attacks. I did mention this was a comparrison strictly based on damage and not other circumstances. There are alot of things that can change the basic structure of that comparison for either character. Terrain, inititiative, dragon tactics etc etc. Its 100% pointless to debate those issues as there are way too many variables to form a valid argument on either side. As long as you use different standards for your wand wielding wizard and everyone else, I doubt you will convince anyone. I don't. About convincing others, I don't really care to be honest. Most players in the end never agree with the DM when he says no to a spell, feat, or PRC they want to play or like. That's just the nature of the game. If a few DMs on here disagree with me that's fine too. The three good DMs (myself included) I know and play with have a combined 50+ years worth of D&D experience, and concur on most my points brought up in this discussion. Take it for what it's worth.
Warduke 08-03-06, 01:37 PM	double posted here....read on :)
Merestil Haye 08-03-06, 01:50 PM	The orb spells are Conjurations with "Duration: Instantaneous" and "Effect: One Orb of X", so presumably they are instantaneous conjurations whose effects (to wit, the actual orbs) are not affected by an AMF. Is this ridiculous? Well, yes -- but then I find the idea of them as Conjurations in the first place ridiculous. (If you are going to accept them as Conjurations that don't allow SR due to their "nonmagical magic" effects, you pretty much have to bite the bullet and allow them to penetrate antimagic too.)I'm aware of the rules. I'm also aware that the spell descriptions start "An orb of [energy] about three inches across shoots from your palm ..." If there is no containment system the only person taking damage is the caster. The spell must be providing that containment system. Therefore until impact the nonmagical energy is magically contained. If there is a magical containment system, it cannot enter an AMF. I therefore will not permit Orbs to be fired into an AMF from outside, for that reason. If that is a houserule so be it. And as I said, in future campaigns the Orbs will be Evocation and subject to SR.
Broken vacuum 08-03-06, 02:14 PM	I agree 100% that is why in the 10th level example the wizard is firing off one maximized orb per round at 40 points of damage each. The dual wand method does 80. ;) Yes, and as you perhaps noticed I commented on the probability for weapon and strength item vs. one wand. Not two. You are essentially comparing 27k to 24k equipment. And the latter is a far cry from optimum for the situation. A +3 weapon and a +2 strength item would be cheaper and more effective if all you want to do is compare damage. I disagree, out of 5 attacks in the three round example that was used I had the melee character hitting on 4 of 5 attacks. I did mention this was a comparrison strictly based on damage and not other circumstances. There are alot of things that can change the basic structure of that comparison for either character. Terrain, inititiative, dragon tactics etc etc. Its 100% pointless to debate those issues as there are way too many variables to form a valid argument on either side. If you had used the same standard as for the wizard, the melee character should have hit every time. That is what you let the wizard do. I don't. About convincing others, I don't really care to be honest. Most players in the end never agree with the DM when he says no to a spell, feat, or PRC they want to play or like. That's just the nature of the game. If a few DMs on here disagree with me that's fine too. The three good DMs (myself included) I know and play with have a combined 50+ years worth of D&D experience, and concur on most my points brought up in this discussion. Take it for what it's worth. I prefer to go by what I can actually see and in this case that leaves me less than impressed. People play differently and that is as it should be, but when discussing whether a spell is appropriate for a game based on the published rules, all relevant aspects of said rules should be considered. What I see you do, is what most everybody that cries about broken ranged touch attack spells do; namely ignoring the drawbacks they actually do have. Throughout this thread you have consequently ignored range, attack penalty and cover bonus issues. These are the things that limit the usefulness of short ranged touch attack spells in games that follow the published rules. I realise that there are DMs that choose not to incorporate or enforce the relevant rules in their game, but the spells are balanced with these rules in mind. A spell is not to blame if a house rule makes it overpowered. Just remove the spell from your campaign and move on, but do not pretend that it is inherent in the spell. Furthermore, every spell should have moments when it shines, and single target ranged touch attack spells shine when facing single targets with low touch ACs; the only case people ever seem to consider. These spells are pretty useless when facing multiple opponents which is the situation where arcane casters are really needed. The point is that you are trying to get every whiff of damage out of a slightly too expensive item under optimum conditions at a level where it is at optimum power - the damage maximum has been reached and full BAB characters receive a third attack the next level. And the damage is still not impressive. Even a for the situation seriously unoptimised character does comparable damage. And you pretty much ignored the more damage intensive characters proposed in this thread without any valid reasons at all. To reiterate, these particular spells might be overpowered in your campaign, but unless you allow for the standard rules in your argument - with all that it entails in form of varied encounters, range and positioning bonuses and penalties and comparison to the damage output of other valid characters - it has no relevance for the power level of the spells in a game using those standard rules.
Warduke 08-03-06, 02:15 PM	Wow smrtgmp you edited your original post and I missed it up until now, please allow me to retort You asked for an example and I gave you one. And before you start taking shots at a halfling mounted charger, maybe you should take a look at the numbers. First of all, as a small character, you can ride a medium mount, meaning you can go anywhere the party goes. Now combine spirited charge with a two handed power attack with a lance and you're getting a 6:1 power attack ratio. On a crit, it gets filthy. Give me complete warrior and it gets insane. All that takes is 3 feats (power attack, mounted combat and spirited charge), so even a paladin can get it off by 6th level. When I said the mounted halfling paladin with sprited charge (your 3 feats) is capable of alot of damage what leads you to think I don't understand his damage potential? Seeing as you quoted that very line in your next argument I know you read it. How is that munchkiny, prey tell? Is it because it contradicts your previous statements, so therefore it must be a munchkin build, and therefore irrelevant to the conversation? Well originally the debate was that a previous poster's "melee characters" in his game were averaging 60pts of damage per round. Other than the mounted halfling paladin (fighter) which to be honest I completely forgot about I have yet to see these melee builds using core equipment, abilities, feats etc that are doing this. The reason I would call it a bit munchkin is I would venture a guess that most (not all) players that have ever played this build do it soley for the damage output. I can't imagine many wanting to play this character concept for the coolness factor, rp value, etc etc. I am an oldschool D&D player and I remember when the elf was a class. Someone wanting to play a halfling paladin riding a dog would have been laughed out of the game in those days. Times change obviously. If the rules worked differently somehow and the mounted halfling was not such a damage dealer (even in dungeons) on his dog, I wonder if anyone would still play it. This also depends on the type of game you play in honestly. I like fantasy but personally dont like the absurd. A full plated halfling riding a dog in a dungeon dealing more damage than the raging barbarian IMHO is absurd. Yes I know there are halfling paladins in the Realms too, doesnt make them any less goofy. Let me also say that when I wrote about various characters begin worthless in certain combat situations I worded this badly. I meant from a pure damage perspective as this is what the discussion thus far had been about.....damage. In fact you actually make my point for me genious ...thanks. The whole point of character weaknesses high AC, SR, Immunities, is for characters to do exactly what you mentioned. Use different tactics to make for interesting encounters. The rogue using his UMD is a fine example as is the Wizard buffing his team. If you look back at an earlier post I made I talked about how alot of new spells, feats, were bad because they bypass this essential part of the game (teamwork and problem solving). Face it. Everything you have said thus far has been ripped to shreds by several people. I have yet to see that be the case. You made a good case for your dog rider, but if you think that a sinlge example of an obscure build is justification that 10th level core melee characters can and should deal 60pts of damage (on average) than no amount of reason will make you see otherwise. And dont take the "you dont truly understand the rules, so you're making stupid arguments" route. I know the rules like the back of my hands. I have nearly every single 3.5 book and I've read them all. Not only that, I have an insane memory. I can tell you what just about any spell does without cracking a book. I know the combat rules inside and out. Synergistic combinations jump off the page at me. Understanding the rules back and forth and truly comprehending the core mechanic are two entirely different things. I could be wrong here but you sound like a player that knows quite a bit but has never run a game. The other side of the screen is a totaly different ballgame. Do you think all casters are blasters Of course not. That in fact once again is my point. Orbs let the casters keep blasting without much chance of failure against creatures specifically designed to oppose this. You've been backed into a corner, and now you're snapping at everyone like a frightened dog. Now this one is really funny. This is a discussion on a message board. Do you think I am somehow intimidated by someone's lack of understanding on good D&D mechanics? If I snap at somone or flame a bit that's just me. If your willing to come on a public message board and tell people you know what's up (like I have been doing too) , be prepared for the occasional poster to tell you you're full of (expletive deleted). I've got thick skin so I don't take it personally.
Warduke 08-03-06, 04:07 PM	You are essentially comparing 27k to 24k equipment. And the latter is a far cry from optimum for the situation. A +3 weapon and a +2 strength item would be cheaper and more effective if all you want to do is compare damage. Actually I wasn't. Being able to cast that spell for a 10th level wizard doesn't require he have a wand to do so (that just makes it even more convenient). The wizard has multiple options to achieve the same effect. He can cast that spell, if in fact you forgot that he is a spellcaster. He can have scrolls of said spell, which are relatively cheap to produce. The wand in question can be crafted by the wizard (an option the melee character doesn't have btw) If you had used the same standard as for the wizard, the melee character should have hit every time. That is what you let the wizard do. Come on are you serious? Against the creature in question (which I didn't choose btw) the wizard had a 5% chance to miss. If somehow you think comparing a 5% chance and a 65% chance to miss is the same you have just shown your complete inability to formulate a semi intelligent argument. Furthermore, every spell should have moments when it shines, and single target ranged touch attack spells shine when facing single targets with low touch ACs; the only case people ever seem to consider. These spells are pretty useless when facing multiple opponents which is the situation where arcane casters are really needed. Agree with the first part. I haven't said this before but I completely agree that the orb spells are not all that effective against multiple targets, and as with any ranged touch spell cover can be an issue. Just because the spell however is not great against multiple targets that doesn't mean it isn't overpowered in other situations. No damage spell is ever ideal in every encounter. Arcane casters are needed in just about every difficult encounter in some capacity. Multiple opponents or a single one, it matters little. And you pretty much ignored the more damage intensive characters proposed in this thread without any valid reasons at all. Characters? I did? I thought two characters were presented here. The Fighter/Barbarain was presented well, but still fell short of the 60 damage per round claimed before. Quite short by 16 points a round I believe. The mounted halfling I just re-addressed. Whether or not I like it actually makes no difference for the comparison. Yes the one optimized, unique, and obscure mounted halfling paladin can do it, but that is hardly justification that these spells are on par with a normal melee character's damage. Lastly D&D is about balancing characters in other ways outside of combat. The damage comparisons while fun don't tell the whole story. The core mechanic was made to let certain classes shine in certain combats, and others support. Lets also not forget certain classes really shine outside of combat, while others (Fighters, Barbs, and mounted halfling paladins) for example don't do as well. When I talk about the core mechanic it is more than just how many damage dice attack or spell x does. It is the game on a whole. The bottom line on the orb spells they make wizards more versital than they already are further taking the spotlight from other players during encounters where they should be less effective or playing the support role (hence overpowered). Players who either can't see this or refuse to are either selfish or ignorant. My intent of even responding to this thread was to voice the concerns from the DMs standpoint as well as the other players. In fact the author of this post originally said as much. MY GROUP THINKS ITS OVERPOWERED. If you have read this than you can't claim ignorance. So to all you casters out there that get their DMs to allow things like this, good for you. You can deal good damage in most encounters (even ones your really not supposed to) , have good skills outside of combat, great utilty spells that help solve puzzles, travel the world or the plains YOU CAN DO IT ALL. Just dont be surpised when you look over and the fighter is nodding off as you display your ominpotent selfish super mage YET AGAIN. Players will argue from here to eternity that they absolutley need THIS spell, or item, or feat. My players used to argue with me all the time wanting certain things out of supplement books (some allowed, some denied). Funny thing is each and every session they all clamor about how GREAT the night was and I have heard from more than one that I am the best DM they have played with. Each of these players are loooong time D&D guys. Take it for what it's worth, Im done.
smrtgmp 08-03-06, 04:26 PM	Wow smrtgmp you edited your original post and I missed it up until now, please allow me to retortActually, that was my 2nd post, and it was edited 10 minutes after it was originally posted, long before your subsequant reply. When I said the mounted halfling paladin with sprited charge (your 3 feats) is capable of alot of damage what leads you to think I don't understand his damage potential? Seeing as you quoted that very line in your next argument I know you read it.You said that it was too feat heavy for a paladin to pull it off. Clearly thats not true. Well originally the debate was that a previous poster's "melee characters" in his game were averaging 60pts of damage per round. Other than the mounted halfling paladin (fighter) which to be honest I completely forgot about I have yet to see these melee builds using core equipment, abilities, feats etc that are doing this.I imagine a melee gish could easily put out the same damage, especially when you throw in something obscene like polymorph. The reason I would call it a bit munchkin is I would venture a guess that most (not all) players that have ever played this build do it soley for the damage output. I'll agree with that. I certainly wouldnt play one. I can't imagine many wanting to play this character concept for the coolness factor, rp value, etc etc. I am an oldschool D&D player and I remember when the elf was a class. Someone wanting to play a halfling paladin riding a dog would have been laughed out of the game in those days.Yes, yes. You're not the only one who started back in the day. I must say, I always found it rather retarded that elf, dwarf and halfling were all classes (especially since there werent that many levels to work with). As if every member of the race would have identical progression. Times change obviously. If the rules worked differently somehow and the mounted halfling was not such a damage dealer (even in dungeons) on his dog, I wonder if anyone would still play it.I'm guessing it wouldnt be nearly as popular. But givin how much more powerful enemies have become, and how poorly the melee classes were designed in comparison, you can hardly blame someone for trying to eak out some sort of mechanical advantage. I like fantasy but personally dont like the absurd. A full plated halfling riding a dog in a dungeon dealing more damage than the raging barbarian IMHO is absurd.Who said they have to wear full plate? I imaging them as more of a light cavalry type. But thats beside the point. I dont know about you, but I can see a sharp point being propelled at high velocity doing more damage than a sword stroke. Yes I know there are halfling paladins in the Realms too, doesnt make them any less goofy.You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesnt make it law. Let me also say that when I wrote about various characters begin worthless in certain combat situations I worded this badly. I meant from a pure damage perspective as this is what the discussion thus far had been about.....damage.No aspect of the game exists in a vacume. In any discussion involving the balance of spells, you have to examine all the options of an equivalent level, not just those which most closely mirror the spell in question. In fact you actually make my point for me genious ...thanks. The whole point of character weaknesses high AC, SR, Immunities, is for characters to do exactly what you mentioned. Use different tactics to make for interesting encounters. The rogue using his UMD is a fine example as is the Wizard buffing his team. If you look back at an earlier post I made I talked about how alot of new spells, feats, were bad because they bypass this essential part of the game (teamwork and problem solving).And the orbs somehow negate the need for teamwork? Are you kidding me? They do crap for damage. You're better off buffing your team mates nine times out of 10. The orbs just dont do enough damage to make them broken, regardless of whether or not they bypass SR. Furthermore, any time you face more than a single enemy, there will always be a better spell to cast. DD spells suck to begin with, for a couple of reasons. First, damage progression hasnt changed since the days of yore, but HP totals have skyrocketed. Now I'm not saying thats a bad thing. I always thought it was lame that a 3rd level spell (fireball) could easily wipe most enemies off the board. Next, unlike most other spells, DD spells have to punch through more defenses, namely saving thows (or touch AC), energy resistance, AND SR. Other spells have to get through a save/touch attack and SR. The damaging spells were sub-par to begin with. Making them jump another hurdle is like a kick in the crotch to blasters the world over. I dont particularly like blasters, as I concider them to be boring, but that doesnt mean that they shouldnt be a viable (or should I say equivalent) option should someone want to play one. I have yet to see that be the case. You made a good case for your dog rider, but if you think that a sinlge example of an obscure build is justification that 10th level core melee characters can and should deal 60pts of damage (on average) than no amount of reason will make you see otherwise.Right. Because the only thing I mentioned was the mounted halfling. The rest of the post must have been randomly arranged letters without semblance of meaning. Understanding the rules back and forth and truly comprehending the core mechanic are two entirely different things. I could be wrong here but you sound like a player that knows quite a bit but has never run a game. The other side of the screen is a totaly different ballgame.I've been DMing for nearly 20 years. In fact, until recently, I ran games more than I played in them. When I take a look at a new spell, the first thing I think of is how it would affect my game world. When I saw the orbs, I said "finally, some DD spells that would actually be worth casting from time to time." Is the flavor horrendous? Yes, without a doubt, especially in the case of orb of force. The first thing I did was move them to evocation (with the exception of orb of acid). But that doesnt make them broken. I would like to note that as a house rule I have made it so that elemental spells (which doesnt include orb of force) are not subject to SR, and then moved all the blaster spells back to evocation. I have yet to have a single balance related problem with this in the 2 or so years I have been using said rule. Of course not. That in fact once again is my point. Orbs let the casters keep blasting without much chance of failure against creatures specifically designed to oppose this.Yes, they can blast away. BFD. The damage is still average at best, and wont break anyones game. Personally, if my wizard PCs are spending an action to average 3.5 damage/CL against a single target (assuming they even hit, which is hardly a given when you concider their BAB) they're making my job a lot easier. They would be far more effective if they used their spells in an intelligent manner rather than throwing a fist full of d6's at one foe at a time. Now this one is really funny. This is a discussion on a message board. Do you think I am somehow intimidated by someone's lack of understanding on good D&D mechanics?From what I've seen, you wouldnt know understanding of good D&D mechanics if they slapped you in the face. Your idea of "broken" is absurd, at least when it comes to the orbs. They are situational at best, and the damage output is unimpressive. Yeah, that will break a campaign wide open.
Warduke 08-03-06, 04:48 PM	Ok I said I was done with this thing and I am only posting because I've been misquoted. Feeling a bit Terrel Owensish I guess. :rolleyes: You said that it was too feat heavy for a paladin to pull it off. Clearly thats not true. OK I never said this Einstein. If your gonna quote me then at least do it right. Check the post with this in it, you will notice it has not been edited today. Since you havn't shown the good sense to quote me correctly, allow me to quote myself. Unless that halfling is a paladin his little wardog isnt going to live long. And if he is a paladin he wont have many feats to stick in many other places taking the entire mounted tree. A 10th level Halfling Paladin gets 4 feats. 3 going to his mounted tree for the damage. Leaving one (see above statement) left to put somewhere else.
smrtgmp 08-03-06, 04:51 PM	I would also like to mention that I find it a bit odd that you're trying to limit the comparisson of a non-core spell to core only spells and melee builds, for a couple of reasons. First, you're assuming that the core books are well balanced, which is clearly not the case. Compare a core only fighter to a core only cleric or druid. Second, when examing a non-core spell and its impact on the game, why would you ignore the non-core matierial with which it was presented? The complete books and the PHB 2 (just to name a few) gave melee guys a real shot in the arm and helped to compensate for the short end of the stick they received in the core books. IMO, ignoring those supplaments while examining another seems to be a folly.
tiercel 08-03-06, 04:54 PM	DD spells suck to begin with, for a couple of reasons.It's true that DD spells tend to be suboptimal choices -- but they aren't always bad. Yeah, OK, they can be support spells when "just a bit more damage" is need in a given round -- but area of effect spells are still worth it. They can clear out or at least severely weaken large number of smaller foes, and while they generally aren't going to insta-kill monsters of CR of something like your level.... they weaken all of them. In general AoE DD is something nonspellcasters can't really do (and divine casters generally do somewhat less well). Still, there is a case to be made that DD spells should be suboptimal. If a wizard can consistently do more damage than an archer can with his arrows, it renders the archer kinda useless. After all, a dedicated warrior-type archer is a delivery vehicle for single-target direct damage, without too many other tricks generally. A "blaster" mage on the other hand, still generally has the option to fly, teleport, and toss around the occasional utility or battlefield control spell even if he's focused on DD. Making mage DD even consistently equal to, much less better than, nonspellcasting DD just exacerbates the whole "Magic Wins" problem of D&D. As I mentioned above, I believe that the point of SR (particularly at the higher CR monsters) is to try and give the "hitter" characters continued relevancy. Facing monsters which have a reasonable chance to make his spells outright fail, a mage will once again at least partly depend on his fighter friend to help out while he tries to land a few telling magical blows. Allowing a mage to simply bypass this mechanic makes nonspellcasters even less relevant at the upper levels than they were before.
smrtgmp 08-03-06, 04:54 PM	OK I never said this Einstein. If your gonna quote me then at least do it right. Check the post with this in it, you will notice it has not been edited today. Since you havn't shown the good sense to quote me correctly, allow me to quote myself.Way to ignore the heart of the issue. That makes for a compelling argument.
smrtgmp 08-03-06, 04:59 PM	@tiercel: I'm not saying DD spells are without use. Area nukes are good for taking out mooks, and adding damage to the party output will never be useless. I just feel that they are situational, and harldy the be all end all of spellcasting. From what I've seen, a dedicated archer will always be a welcome addition to any party. Their ability to get off a full attack each and every round is not to be overlooked.
Mystic Theurge 08-03-06, 05:18 PM	Of course not. That in fact once again is my point. Orbs let the casters keep blasting without much chance of failure against creatures specifically designed to oppose this. Keep blasting away, huh? How many 4th level spells do you think a 10th level arcane spellcaster has (using your example)? Unless you're talking abuot the lesser orbs (the only orbs a 10th level caster is going to be able to reasonably cast), MAYBE the caster will be able to fire off one or two orbs, and that is if the player prepares poorly, IMO. Most arcane casters I know are going to leave room for other, niore important 4th level spells, such as Dimensional Anchor or Dimension Door, just to name a couple. Also, how in the world is a 10th level caster going to be able to maximize a 4th level spell? You must be talking about the lesser orbs, which aren't really all that to begin with. Speaking of wands, the only way I can see a maximized wand being effective is if it were crafted by a higher level wizard who added the maximize feat to the wand, making the cost for such a wand insane. And to make two of them? That's just being unreasonable, IMO. You seem to boast about YOUR many years of gaming experience (maligning the experience others have on this board that disagree with you), but it seems to me that you couldn't string encounters together to save your life. If ALL the monsters I am going to face have SR, than you bet I am going to prepare spells that help bypasss SR. But if I face mainly monsters that have a VARIETY of abilities that keep me on my toes, odds are that I'm not going to have all the right spells prepared at the end of the day, and maybe, just maybe, I might actually have to make a roll to defeat SR. That's the way a GOOD DM crafts an adventure.
Warduke 08-03-06, 05:20 PM	Damn you......just when I am trying to get away and actually get some work done you suck me back in. :weep: First, you're assuming that the core books are well balanced, which is clearly not the case. Compare a core only fighter to a core only cleric or druid. I agree the fighter does get the short end of the stick with strict core rules at higher levels. The Cleric was intentionally made powerfull because he is the most crucial component to a successfull party. The druid being the secondary core healer is much the same. In older versions of D&D the cleric could at times turn into the healbot and most players typically dont have fun in that role. Enter spontanious casting and the cleric is much more fun to play in combat, but the additional power is the result. The clerics complete lack of skills makes up for this a bit though. Second, when examing a non-core spell and its impact on the game, why would you ignore the non-core matierial with which it was presented? The complete books and the PHB 2 (just to name a few) gave melee guys a real shot in the arm and helped to compensate for the short end of the stick they received in the core books. IMO, ignoring those supplaments while examining another seems to be a folly. First and foremost we are comparing how a non core spell stacks up against core spells. The melee aspect of the argument came after. Even so why would you introduce a non core melee feat to sustain your argument? The challenges (creatures) needing to be overcome are balanced on core abilities, spells, feats, and classes unless you are using other material. Having a generic debate on a non core ability (spell) and using the argument that feat or combo xyz from The Complete Twink (insert appropriate title) can counter or is better than that is rediculous. Not every group has every book (although we do).
Warduke 08-03-06, 05:45 PM	Keep blasting away, huh? How many 4th level spells do you think a 10th level arcane spellcaster has (using your example)? Unless you're talking abuot the lesser orbs (the only orbs a 10th level caster is going to be able to reasonably cast), MAYBE the caster will be able to fire off one or two orbs, and that is if the player prepares poorly, IMO. Most arcane casters I know are going to leave room for other, niore important 4th level spells, such as Dimensional Anchor or Dimension Door, just to name a couple. Uhh more than likely 4 at 10th level. A good wizard will have most his utilty spells on scrolls. In the example used the wizard shot 3 4th level spells during an equal CR battle. Averaging that he will fight 3 more equal CR encounters before he rests his spells will prolly look like this. 4/5/5/4/1/2(3) depending on intel. This of course is without counting any and all scrolls, wands he may posses. Sorry but the resources arent all that dwindeled. and with the earlier comparsion he did 120 points of damage (with almost no chance of failure) to a creature with 189 HPs. Also, how in the world is a 10th level caster going to be able to maximize a 4th level spell? You must be talking about the lesser orbs, which aren't really all that to begin with. Speaking of wands, the only way I can see a maximized wand being effective is if it were crafted by a higher level wizard who added the maximize feat to the wand, making the cost for such a wand insane. And to make two of them? That's just being unreasonable, IMO. 13.5 each it's already been discussed, good job reading the entire discussion. You seem to boast about YOUR many years of gaming experience (maligning the experience others have on this board that disagree with you), but it seems to me that you couldn't string encounters together to save your life. If ALL the monsters I am going to face have SR, than you bet I am going to prepare spells that help bypasss SR. But if I face mainly monsters that have a VARIETY of abilities that keep me on my toes, odds are that I'm not going to have all the right spells prepared at the end of the day, and maybe, just maybe, I might actually have to make a roll to defeat SR. That's the way a GOOD DM crafts an adventure. I didn't boast about anything until I was called out as being some sort of kid, by you in fact. Disagreements happen, grab your sack and be man without all the crying. Everyone has jumped on me when they disagree, good for them (you) The difference is you don't hear me whining like a 14 year old girl who's prom date didn't show up. Do us all a favor go play your Mystic, I need all the wizzy/cleric spells in the book with only 2 caster levels missing plus I need additional splat spells to compensate for my complete lack of problem solving skills Theurge, and quit the crying.
camble 08-03-06, 06:57 PM	First and foremost we are comparing how a non core spell stacks up against core spells. The melee aspect of the argument came after. Even so why would you introduce a non core melee feat to sustain your argument? The challenges (creatures) needing to be overcome are balanced on core abilities, spells, feats, and classes unless you are using other material. Having a generic debate on a non core ability (spell) and using the argument that feat or combo xyz from The Complete Twink (insert appropriate title) can counter or is better than that is rediculous. Not every group has every book (although we do). That seems to be your own comparison don't try to push your standard off on everyone else. The thread started off with this reply. In complete arcane there are lesser and regular orbs that are conjuration and have NO SR and NO Save, my group says this is broken and that should not be allowed. Is there anything i could use to argue my point? We don't know the specifics of the game. I would assume that they are using material beyond just the core books since the group discussed those paticular spells from complete arcane. Instead of saying "you know we don't use that book". 13.5 each it's already been discussed, good job reading the entire discussion. That is assuming the person has the feats to make it there self so you are half right. Good job copying half the relevent info
Warduke 08-03-06, 07:17 PM	That seems to be your own comparison don't try to push your standard off on everyone else. Nor does it say "My DM allows the other members to use multiple feat, spell, PRC combinations from alot of different sources." The orb spells are in 3 different sources that I know of. Complete Arcane, The Miniature's Handbook, and the Spell Compendium. Once again you can argue that other effects from dozens of books are more powerful and many times you would be correct. If you can't find a common way to analyze the effect however (comparing against a core effect) what's the point. This thread could be 100 pages long and contiue back and forth with "but this feat does this, and this spells does that" without ever ending. Plus the average encounter is the common denominator here in the fact that almost all DMs use CORE monsters a decent amount of the time if not exclusively. Is this really so difficult to grasp? That is assuming the person has the feats to make it there self so you are half right. Good job copying half the relevent info Your just arguing for arguments sake with this one dude. Sorry I don't give each one of you clowns equal response time.
camble 08-03-06, 07:36 PM	Is it dificult to grasp that spells and feats can be balanced within there own context. The ability to bypass SR in DD spells has been out for awhile in the CORE BOOKS. WoTC figured they would bring out a couple more of the same in there new books. What is the big deal. You have whaffeled on what sets you off on the spells. you even went so far as to say it was only the ability to bypass SR I dont think anyone is saying, I know Im not, that the damage is overpowering. It is the no SR that makes this spell twink. There are times when in D&D certain characters are supposed to be semi useless in combat. Its how the system works. Now we are back to the damage. It has been stated many times now that DD spells especially single target DD spells are ineffecient in most encounters. So what is it you don't like about the spells. I don't have much problems with them. Except the Force orb spell and to a lesser extent the sonic orb but the other spells seem to be ok. I have more issues with them on a logic stand point then anything
Mystic Theurge 08-03-06, 10:00 PM	I didn't boast about anything until I was called out as being some sort of kid, by you in fact. Disagreements happen, grab your sack and be man without all the crying. Everyone has jumped on me when they disagree, good for them (you) The difference is you don't hear me whining like a 14 year old girl who's prom date didn't show up. Do us all a favor go play your Mystic, I need all the wizzy/cleric spells in the book with only 2 caster levels missing plus I need additional splat spells to compensate for my complete lack of problem solving skills Theurge, and quit the crying. Are you a COMPLETE ass? You seem to be, therefore you are. The person on this thread that's acting like a whining brat is YOU. YOU are the one who implied that certain individuals on this board don't know what they are doing, you got called on it and now you, the idiot savant of the board, are unhappy about it. At this point I have NO choice but to conclude you MUST be a child. Perhaps it's time for YOU to grow up, moron. Do us all a favor and PLEASE., PLEASE, PLEASSSSE, turn in your DMG, because it seems all you can do is start with the insults as soon as someone pokes the slightest hole in your inane arguments.
Warduke 08-03-06, 10:58 PM	[QUOTE]Are you a COMPLETE ass? You seem to be, therefore you are. The person on this thread that's acting like a whining brat is YOU. [QUOTE] Listen little girl. This whole whine fest of your's started with an innocent tiny bit if flaming on my part. You talked about DMs getting what they deserve if they don't do things your way blah blah. All I said was get a clue. Next you come back insulting my inteligence among other things. If you can't handle the fire without crying, don't feed the flames. [QUOTE] YOU are the one who implied that certain individuals on this board don't know what they are doing, you got called on it and now you, the idiot savant of the board, are unhappy about it. [QUOTE] Some don't (know what they are talking about), some had good imput (even a few of the guys I argued with), it's my opinion chucklehead, if you don't like it don't, that's your right. The funny thing is you somehow try to interpret my mood by text now? I am unhappy about what? I could give a rat's a$$ what some d bag whiner like you or any other poster here for that matter thinks about anything I say or do. I am not upset at all, in fact your crying was amusing the first few posts, now it just borders on sad. I don't post here to get a sense of validation to my life because some other uber goober agrees with how I think the game should be played. Jesus your pathetic. As far as people not knowing what they are doing? I think that is the majority of D&D games. I've been playing/DMing off and on for over 20 years and it always boils down to the same thing. Just about every D&D game I have ever played sucks badly. Most DMs are just whiny no life creeps like you that think they know something because they read the rules. This is comming from a large population area like L.A. playing under DMs of various ages and experience. Pick up games from adds at game stores up to and including pay to play games at conventions like Gen Con. Most had one thing in common......they sucked. So when 4 or 5 people disagree with my way of thinking it doesnt phase me because guess what, I bet their game sucks too. Now I have been fortunate enough to meet a SELECT few people that were pretty cool and I have a longtime buddy who knows whats up. Our group doesn't consist of crying players that don't feel powerful enough if they can't have every spell given to them from the Spell Compendium. Or those that complain in their best Erckel voice for 20 minutes about this spell and that. Now to all you other non-whiny nerds out there I apologize. Being a nerd can be cool, just don't be the annoying model like Mystic Splurge. In conclusion you can hate me and call me what you want buddy. In fact being that your pretty much the prototype of what I despise in a DM/Player that in fact encourages me that you don't like me. I know I was a bit rough on your prissy sensibilities but it needed to be said. I'll leave you with a quote from a great wiseman..... "If I offended you oh I'm sorry, but maybe you needed to be offended. Well here's my apology and one more thing........P H U K Y O U !!!!!"
tiercel 08-03-06, 11:24 PM	Ignoring personal attacks and pressing on.... The ability to bypass SR in DD spells has been out for awhile in the CORE BOOKS.There are a few, but very few. Virtually all of them are damage-over-time spells, not "one big burst" spells -- in fact, I believe the *only* Sor/Wiz DD SR-No Spell that does its damage in one heap is the lowly acid splash (because it would be kind of silly to track 1 damage for 1d3 rounds, presumably). The single big exception on all lists is on the Druid (and Fire and Sun clerical domain) list: fire seeds. It is a freakishly good spell, but one spell does not a trend make. (Some might go so far as to say it is an aberration -- and wonder exactly why SR applies against a fiery magical explosion but not a *stored* fiery magical explosion.) There is one much more limited exception: quench. I am not entirely sure why it is SR: No, other than maybe its sharply limited use; philosophically it makes little sense to me.
camble 08-03-06, 11:53 PM	I never said that there where alot of them simply that it is not completely new and unheard of. So WoTC decided to add a few more along similar lines. On a slightly unrelated note: ___________________________________ The game is constantly evolving with the new books that carry new ideas. They are not for everyone. Each group has to make a collective decision and decide if it is for them. whether or not someone uses a paticular rule, spell, feat or idea does not make them a good or bad player. This is a game and the only scale you have to compare to is if everyone is having fun END OF STORY.
Warduke 08-03-06, 11:56 PM	Tirecel walks through the flames and delivers another good post. Funny how know one even acknowledges his brilliance. Good job.
Ehelonna 08-04-06, 01:40 AM	Now two wands of Maximized Lesser Acid Orb will do 40 points of damage per hit. A dual wand wielder can use two and hit for 80 per round. Add in the fact he wont miss often, it is completely effective against SR, DR, and most AC types don't effect it (other than a high touch) and you have an overpowered effect. Is it expensive ....Yes Is it overpowered......Yes If price is no object, you can do better. That same wizard with two wands of empowered scorching ray, CL11, and dish out an average of 126 points of damage per round... and other than the dual wand wielding it is straight out of the player's handbook. The lesser orb spell allows you to bypass SR, but it is at a cost of 1/3 of your damage output... hardly overpowering. You can make the argument that in a campaign where cash is so easy to come by that you don't even bother tracking it, that dual wand wielding is overpowered, but unless every creature has high SR, the lesser orbs aren't. There are very few campaigns were 10th level adventurers are willing to consume magical resources at the rate of 1,080 gp per round as your caster is doing. :cool:
Ehelonna 08-04-06, 01:53 AM	They deal little damage and require an attack roll. Magic missile allows SR, but requires no attack roll. Seeing as only some things have SR but everything has an AC, you might say that magic missile is more broken than orbs. You left out the fact that magic missile can hit ethereal and incoporeal creatures with no miss chance and is MEDIUM range. MM can also target multiple creatures if there is a need, and MM is not subject to energy resistance or immunities.
Warduke 08-04-06, 02:27 AM	That same wizard with two wands of empowered scorching ray, CL11, and dish out an average of 126 points of damage per round... and other than the dual wand wielding it is straight out of the player's handbook. The lesser orb spell allows you to bypass SR, but it is at a cost of 1/3 of your damage output... hardly overpowering. I guarantee you if Wizards put out a feat that let a caster reduce the damage by 1/3 on any DD spell but removed the SR from it, half the casters that play would take it. The other half would claim it's broken. At higher levels SR is much more of a factor than an extra 40 points of damage. In one of my earlier posts I gave an example of a CR17 death knight. That death knight had a SR of 25. Shooting that many scorching rays at a high SR creature like that would have more than half fail on average, 14 or better. Fire is also one of the least dependable energies at higher levels.
Ehelonna 08-04-06, 03:01 AM	I guarantee you if Wizards put out a feat that let a caster reduce the damage by 1/3 on any DD spell but removed the SR from it, half the casters that play would take it. The other half would claim it's broken. At higher levels SR is much more of a factor than an extra 40 points of damage. In one of my earlier posts I gave an example of a CR17 death knight. That death knight had a SR of 25. Shooting that many scorching rays at a high SR creature like that would have more than half fail on average, 14 or better. Fire is also one of the least dependable energies at higher levels. Your original post had SR 22, which would drop the average damage to 63... less of a decrease than 126 vs. 80. The bit about fire being the least dependable energy... is completely negated by the fact that energy substitution has a level adjustment of zero. An empowered, acid substituted, wand has the same cost as a standard wand. The orbs are not overpowered or in any way broken. They are a nice addition. One of my characters actually uses them on occasion. She is an elven evoker (it would be much nicer if they were evocations). Her most memorable use of the spell was when she scored a critical hit on a half-fiendish red dragon with an orb of cold. The "no SR" bit has come in to play a few times, but the short range of the orb spells has had MUCH more effect on her usage of the spells than the SR... and she is level 16. If there was a metamagic feat to allow a wizard to ignore spell resistance on DD spells but reduced the damage of those spells by 1/3 I don't think that I would bother taking that feat. Some wizards would take that feat... but I'd bet that is was far less popular than empower or even silent spell.
syl_karagh 08-04-06, 04:32 AM	I've been reading the entire thread and IMHO I think you are one of those guys who never admits defeat, even when you are cornered. You stand cool and patient, trying to prove your point; but, focussing only in that... proving your are right. This blinds you. IMHO, you are just a brat hidding inside a man's mask :embarrass [QUOTE=Warduke][QUOTE]Are you a COMPLETE ass? You seem to be, therefore you are. The person on this thread that's acting like a whining brat is YOU. [QUOTE] Listen little girl. This whole whine fest of your's started with an innocent tiny bit if flaming on my part. You talked about DMs getting what they deserve if they don't do things your way blah blah. All I said was get a clue. Next you come back insulting my inteligence among other things. If you can't handle the fire without crying, don't feed the flames. This obviously is an insult to deviate conversation. YOU are the one who implied that certain individuals on this board don't know what they are doing, you got called on it and now you, the idiot savant of the board, are unhappy about it. [QUOTE] Some don't (know what they are talking about), some had good imput (even a few of the guys I argued with), it's my opinion chucklehead, if you don't like it don't, that's your right. The funny thing is you somehow try to interpret my mood by text now? I am unhappy about what? I could give a rat's a$$ what some d bag whiner like you or any other poster here for that matter thinks about anything I say or do. I am not upset at all, in fact your crying was amusing the first few posts, now it just borders on sad. I don't post here to get a sense of validation to my life because some other uber goober agrees with how I think the game should be played. Jesus your pathetic. As far as people not knowing what they are doing? I think that is the majority of D&D games. I've been playing/DMing off and on for over 20 years and it always boils down to the same thing. Just about every D&D game I have ever played sucks badly. Most DMs are just whiny no life creeps like you that think they know something because they read the rules. This is comming from a large population area like L.A. playing under DMs of various ages and experience. Pick up games from adds at game stores up to and including pay to play games at conventions like Gen Con. Most had one thing in common......they sucked. So when 4 or 5 people disagree with my way of thinking it doesnt phase me because guess what, I bet their game sucks too. Now I have been fortunate enough to meet a SELECT few people that were pretty cool and I have a longtime buddy who knows whats up. Our group doesn't consist of crying players that don't feel powerful enough if they can't have every spell given to them from the Spell Compendium. Or those that complain in their best Erckel voice for 20 minutes about this spell and that. Now to all you other non-whiny nerds out there I apologize. Being a nerd can be cool, just don't be the annoying model like Mystic Splurge. In conclusion you can hate me and call me what you want buddy. In fact being that your pretty much the prototype of what I despise in a DM/Player that in fact encourages me that you don't like me. I know I was a bit rough on your prissy sensibilities but it needed to be said. I'll leave you with a quote from a great wiseman..... "If I offended you oh I'm sorry, but maybe you needed to be offended. Well here's my apology and one more thing........P H U K Y O U !!!!!" Hehe another insult... well Warduke, as your nick implies, you are a duke of war; because you are such a small crap than you'll never be a king of war...just a little duke.
Mystic Theurge 08-04-06, 10:24 AM	Listen little girl. This whole whine fest of your's started with an innocent tiny bit if flaming on my part. You talked about DMs getting what they deserve if they don't do things your way blah blah. All I said was get a clue. Next you come back insulting my inteligence among other things. If you can't handle the fire without crying, don't feed the flames. Um, wrong. Once again, you have proven yourself to be completely illiterate. I have NEVER said that DMs get what they deserve what they get for "not doing things my way." Have your mother read the post again for you S L O W L Y so that you might understand. Personally, I am not holding out much hope. Some don't (know what they are talking about), some had good imput (even a few of the guys I argued with), it's my opinion chucklehead, if you don't like it don't, that's your right. The funny thing is you somehow try to interpret my mood by text now? I am unhappy about what? I could give a rat's a$$ what some d bag whiner like you or any other poster here for that matter thinks about anything I say or do. I am not upset at all, in fact your crying was amusing the first few posts, now it just borders on sad. I don't post here to get a sense of validation to my life because some other uber goober agrees with how I think the game should be played. Jesus your pathetic. And yet, you keep coming back for more. That's not giving a rat's :censored: for sure. It's interesting how you seem to feel that I was the one who first insulted you, as if you think the whole board is out to get you or something. Paranoia or simply fatheadedness? You make the call. Personally, I wouldn't flatter yourself if I were you. As far as people not knowing what they are doing?. Personally, I just think it's you who doesn't know what you're doing, but that's me. Liike you said, you don't care. But here I am waiting for the next irate post. As far as your experience is concerened? <yawn> I only brought experience up because, once again, you opened your trap, not me, but then you couldn't hack it. Perhaps you should shut your hole, huh? (Right.) Now I have been fortunate enough to meet a SELECT few people that were pretty cool and I have a longtime buddy who knows whats up. Our group doesn't consist of crying players that don't feel powerful enough if they can't have every spell given to them from the Spell Compendium. Or those that complain in their best Erckel voice for 20 minutes about this spell and that. Again, a clear lack of understanding on your part. I hardly ever use the Orb spells, myself. If anything, I find them to be weak. Not that you will actually read this, it appears you only read whatever you want and gloss over the important things. As far as me whining is concerned, I think that's one more case of you thinking yourself more important than you really are. As if YOU could discern MY mood by what you read. At least I don't resort to silly namecalling unless provoked. Now to all you other non-whiny nerds out there I apologize. Being a nerd can be cool, just don't be the annoying model like Mystic Splurge. Ah, how creative, Warpuke. :rolleyes: Acuse me of immaturity, and then go on to prove your own. In conclusion you can hate me and call me what you want buddy. In fact being that your pretty much the prototype of what I despise in a DM/Player that in fact encourages me that you don't like me. Right back atcha. If I recall correctly, and once again, it was YOU who started this whole thing. And since I won't take it lying down, you seem to have a problem by me not being intimidated by you. I don't dispise you. I feel sorry for you, much like I pitty an idiot. If you think that my standing up for myself is hatred for you, you must have SOME complex going on and I would recommend professional help. As for the rest of the posters on this board, I do NOT feel I need to apologize for my posts. I am merely speaking up agianst something I feel is wrong to begin with. Take that for what it's worth.
Mystic Theurge 08-04-06, 10:28 AM	You left out the fact that magic missile can hit ethereal and incoporeal creatures with no miss chance and is MEDIUM range. MM can also target multiple creatures if there is a need, and MM is not subject to energy resistance or immunities. I could be mistaken, but off the top of my head, I do believe MM is long range.
Todd 08-04-06, 11:19 AM	I guarantee you if Wizards put out a feat that let a caster reduce the damage by 1/3 on any DD spell but removed the SR from it, half the casters that play would take it. The other half would claim it's broken. At higher levels SR is much more of a factor than an extra 40 points of damage. In one of my earlier posts I gave an example of a CR17 death knight. That death knight had a SR of 25. Shooting that many scorching rays at a high SR creature like that would have more than half fail on average, 14 or better. Fire is also one of the least dependable energies at higher levels. Complete Arcane, the same book that has the most recent version of the Orb spells, also has Assay Resistance at 4th level which will give +10 to all checks to overcome SR against a single foe. It also has the Arcane Mastery feat which can be used to take 10 on rolls to overcome SR ... which will make the check automatic in many cases. Moving outside that the Minatures Handbook, where the Orbs first appeared, also contains the Marshal base class which has an aura that lets all party members add his Cha to rolls to overcome SR. A party with a Marshal ... or even a Sorcerer who dipped into Marshal to get this arua will not have nearly as much trouble with SR even if they don't use the Orbs. Even the PhB has PLENTY of SR: No spells of various types that can be better than the Orbs in many circumstances. This include the direct damage conjuration Acid Arrow spell already mentioned. I could go on but do I really need to? The fact that the Orbs are SR: No is helpful but hardly makes them the best choice for a Wizard or Sorcerer to use regularly even if you decide to nerf all the other ways to overcome SR. Finally damage is nice but many times disabling or putting a lasting effect on a foe is even nicer.
GiliusThunderHead 08-04-06, 02:48 PM	The fact that no one could come up with a melee build that can do the 60HPS average per round they claimed (other than the halfling paladin) but guys can make builds using Frost Ravager PRCs etc etc doing 150 per round tells the whole story. Splat has totally screwed up the game, and the WotC money-*****s are driving this push to absolute lameness. 3.5 is no longer a game system but a garbage heap of power-gaming material. Also Mystic Thuerge, you commented on everything else in Wardukes thread except this: "Do us all a favor go play your Mystic, I need all the wizzy/cleric spells in the book with only 2 caster levels missing plus I need additional splat spells to compensate for my complete lack of problem solving skills Theurge." Seems about right according to my reading of the class Mystic-Thuerge. If thats the type of D&D you play, a few self righteous and overly self-indulgent clowns sitting with thier 7 splat books at hand, then fine. If some people want to run a clean game without the mountain of CRAP that WoTC has rushed out the door in the last couple years, then thats fine too. But what I dont get how the heck you can repeatedly, yes repeatedly, counter splat crap with more splat crap, I believe Wardukes opinion was based on comparison to CORE mechanics. The problem is, with all the non-core splat that is out there, you gamers seem to lose your ability to even consider that some people might not like or want to play Lame-ass overpowered/splat/munckinny games. See barbarian frost-ravager doing 150HPs damage per round as an example. YOu cant even compare splat stuff to core, a huge portion would be broken or overpowered if introduced into a "core" game. Of course you can always go down the slippery slope of allowing more and more rediculous PRCs, splat feats, splat spells, splat equipment.... blah blah blah..... Oh and if the CR system is not working in your campaign, what does that tell you... kindly remove your heads from your proverbial power-gaming arses and play right. hehehe --GiliusThunderHead
syl_karagh 08-04-06, 03:01 PM	Complete Arcane, the same book that has the most recent version of the Orb spells, also has Assay Resistance at 4th level which will give +10 to all checks to overcome SR against a single foe. It also has the Arcane Mastery feat which can be used to take 10 on rolls to overcome SR ... which will make the check automatic in many cases. Moving outside that the Minatures Handbook, where the Orbs first appeared, also contains the Marshal base class which has an aura that lets all party members add his Cha to rolls to overcome SR. A party with a Marshal ... or even a Sorcerer who dipped into Marshal to get this arua will not have nearly as much trouble with SR even if they don't use the Orbs. Even the PhB has PLENTY of SR: No spells of various types that can be better than the Orbs in many circumstances. This include the direct damage conjuration Acid Arrow spell already mentioned. I could go on but do I really need to? The fact that the Orbs are SR: No is helpful but hardly makes them the best choice for a Wizard or Sorcerer to use regularly even if you decide to nerf all the other ways to overcome SR. Finally damage is nice but many times disabling or putting a lasting effect on a foe is even nicer. You are right Todd, there are lots of spells with SR:No, and many of them can effectively disable a foe. Consider Grease, Obscuring Mist, Transmute rock to mud (and then transmute mud to rock), transmute stone to flesh (very nice buring a foe ), reverse gravity (a very nasty spell BTW, no SR and no save if you are on open ground), Acid Fog, Evards black tentacles (very useful in combat and has a medium range and on top of all is a 4th level spell), flame arrow (cast it on the ranger or any with a bow for an extra damage with every arrow ^ ^ ), forcecage (no save, no sr, force effect, 2 hrs/level duration), limited wish (only duplicating spell with SR:No; yo can duplicate spells with SR but here is used only to duplicate spells with SR:No. The list grows larger by the fact you can duplicate spells from other class spells list), solid fog, summon monster spells (provide allies), wall of force, wall of iron, wall of stone. All of the above are core. :D
syl_karagh 08-04-06, 03:11 PM	The fact that no one could come up with a melee build that can do the 60HPS average per round they claimed (other than the halfling paladin) but guys can make builds using Frost Ravager PRCs etc etc doing 150 per round tells the whole story. Splat has totally screwed up the game, and the WotC money-*****s are driving this push to absolute lameness. 3.5 is no longer a game system but a garbage heap of power-gaming material. Also Mystic Thuerge, you commented on everything else in Wardukes thread except this: "Do us all a favor go play your Mystic, I need all the wizzy/cleric spells in the book with only 2 caster levels missing plus I need additional splat spells to compensate for my complete lack of problem solving skills Theurge." Seems about right according to my reading of the class Mystic-Thuerge. If thats the type of D&D you play, a few self righteous and overly self-indulgent clowns sitting with thier 7 splat books at hand, then fine. If some people want to run a clean game without the mountain of CRAP that WoTC has rushed out the door in the last couple years, then thats fine too. But what I dont get how the heck you can repeatedly, yes repeatedly, counter splat crap with more splat crap, I believe Wardukes opinion was based on comparison to CORE mechanics. The problem is, with all the non-core splat that is out there, you gamers seem to lose your ability to even consider that some people might not like or want to play Lame-ass overpowered/splat/munckinny games. See barbarian frost-ravager doing 150HPs damage per round as an example. YOu cant even compare splat stuff to core, a huge portion would be broken or overpowered if introduced into a "core" game. Of course you can always go down the slippery slope of allowing more and more rediculous PRCs, splat feats, splat spells, splat equipment.... blah blah blah..... Oh and if the CR system is not working in your campaign, what does that tell you... kindly remove your heads from your proverbial power-gaming arses and play right. hehehe --GiliusThunderHead Right now I need to work, but responding your post I'll make a build just to prove that 60 hp per round limit can be broken so easily at 10th level.
IbanezNinja 08-04-06, 03:16 PM	Oh and if the CR system is not working in your campaign, what does that tell you... kindly remove your heads from your proverbial power-gaming arses and play right. hehehe ZOMG MY DND IS BETTER THAN YOURS!!11!1! But no, seriously, just about everything you said is flat out wrong. You know nothing about min-maxing and you know nothing about game balance. A barbarain frost rager doing 120 damage a round is nothing really. Do us all a favor go play your Mystic, I need all the wizzy/cleric spells in the book with only 2 caster levels missing plus I need additional splat spells to compensate for my complete lack of problem solving skills Theurge. For the record, Mystic Thurge is a terrible class and anyone going through it is a trooper. [EDIT] By terrible, I mean powerwise. Anyone who suffers all that caster loss is gonna be sad, real sad.
GiliusThunderHead 08-04-06, 05:43 PM	But no, seriously, just about everything you said is flat out wrong. You know nothing about min-maxing and you know nothing about game balance. A barbarain frost rager doing 120 damage a round is nothing really. I can definitely reach over 60hps per round damage with a core build,. Here it is: Half Orc Barb with a nat 18 Str, +2 Racial, with a +4 belt of Str, Power attacking (-5attk/+10damage) with my + 2 Vicious Great Axe, for which I have focus and specialization, while hasted by my boots of speed. That would give me an average of 39 damage per hit, with 3 attacks on a full attack at: +17/+17/+12 Assuming full attacks and 2 hits per full attack, thats 78 per round, 117 if all 3 hit, not bad. 12,000gp Boots, 18,000 Weapongp, Belt of Giants Str +4 16,000gp so ... chain shirt+1 will round out his belongings. NO resistance rings, no cloaks, no potions or anything else assuming character wealth at lvl 10 is 49k. AC17 / ac15 when raging / 82hp (102hp when raging) so this guy needsa great healer behind him or to move in & out quick, and hopefully someone in his party can "dispel magic" his conditions due to his weak saves... So while yes they can feasably do sick damage A Barb that just stands in front doing full attacks like that wont live to get to 11th level HEHE, AHAH, LOL..... --GiliusThunderHead "It is said that they are deceivers, that they murder people in the night, I know nothing..."
smrtgmp 08-04-06, 07:50 PM	Damn you......just when I am trying to get away and actually get some work done you suck me back in. :weep:Yes. Dance, puppet. I agree the fighter does get the short end of the stick with strict core rules at higher levels. The Cleric was intentionally made powerfull because he is the most crucial component to a successfull party. The druid being the secondary core healer is much the same. "The classes arent balanced, but they did it on purpose, so its OK." What a great argument for the inherent balance of core material. First and foremost we are comparing how a non core spell stacks up against core spells.Are we? I must have missed that in the original post. Would you care to point out that stipulation laid down by the OP? Even so why would you introduce a non core melee feat to sustain your argument?Because we're discussing non-core material. Why would you take one spell from a new book and compare it against core only spells while ignoring all the other material from the same book that contains the spell in question? And for the record, when it comes to 4th level spells, there are several core spells that I would take in a heartbeat over the orbs. Dimension Door, Black Tentacles, Polymorph, Enervation, just to name a few. The challenges (creatures) needing to be overcome are balanced on core abilities, spells, feats, and classes unless you are using other material.Yet they are clearly using other material, given that the title of the thread contains "Complete Arcane." Having a generic debate on a non core ability (spell) and using the argument that feat or combo xyz from The Complete Twink (insert appropriate title) can counter or is better than that is rediculous. Not every group has every book (although we do).With a few notable exceptions (namely divine metamagic), I have yet to encounter many things from the Complete Books that I am leary of as a DM. Of all the complete books, I'd say CW has the least amount of bannable material. And since the core melee guys need a leg up, it seems only logical that we would include the material from said book in a discussion that involves a spell from the same series of books. And while it is certainly true that not everyone has all the splat books, that is irrelevant to this conversation. Given the thread's title, it is apparent that the OP is using at least one splat book (if he wasnt, this thread wouldnt even exist), and in my experience games which feature one Complete book tend to use them all. The material in D&D doesnt exist in a vacume. To assume it does results in **** poor playtesting (when they even do playtesting).
smrtgmp 08-04-06, 07:55 PM	Do us all a favor go play your Mystic, I need all the wizzy/cleric spells in the book with only 2 caster levels missing plus I need additional splat spells to compensate for my complete lack of problem solving skills Theurge, and quit the crying.Have you actually looked at the mystic theurge? You end up 3 CLs behind on both sides of the equation, which is a HUGE hit to power. While your wizard buddy is throwing around 5th level spells at 9th level, you're still making due with 3rd level spells. God, what a munchkin. :rolleyes: As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is willing to play a MT from low levels has a set of balls the size of cantelopes. Its a hard road to follow, and not for the faint of heart. You are relegating yourself to a support role for most of your adventuring career, which means you're probably a good team player. Not exactly the type to which I would apply the appelation of "munchkin."
smrtgmp 08-04-06, 08:00 PM	Nor does it say "My DM allows the other members to use multiple feat, spell, PRC combinations from alot of different sources."So you think he is only allowing one PC access to a single spell from a single splat book? My, what a likely scenario. The orb spells are in 3 different sources that I know of. Complete Arcane, The Miniature's Handbook, and the Spell Compendium.And tome and blood. But clearly the source of the spell he is using is CA, since its in the title. Isnt literacy fun? Plus the average encounter is the common denominator here in the fact that almost all DMs use CORE monsters a decent amount of the time if not exclusively. Is this really so difficult to grasp?emphasis mine. Got any evidence to back that up? Or are we now presenting speculation as fact? Your just arguing for arguments sake with this one dude.Pot, meet my good friend Kettle.
smrtgmp 08-04-06, 08:07 PM	I guarantee you if Wizards put out a feat that let a caster reduce the damage by 1/3 on any DD spell but removed the SR from it, half the casters that play would take it. The other half would claim it's broken.OK, I'll bite. Start a new thread on this board. Present your theoretical feat, and lets examine the feedback. At higher levels SR is much more of a factor than an extra 40 points of damage. In one of my earlier posts I gave an example of a CR17 death knight. That death knight had a SR of 25. Shooting that many scorching rays at a high SR creature like that would have more than half fail on average, 14 or better. Fire is also one of the least dependable energies at higher levels.Math wants to be your friend. Maybe the two of you should become better aquainted. A 17th level caster needs an 8 or higher to beat SR 25, not a 14. But hey, you were close.
smrtgmp 08-04-06, 08:10 PM	I could be mistaken, but off the top of my head, I do believe MM is long range.Its medium. Magic Missile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicMissile.htm).
CryoSilver 08-04-06, 08:33 PM	Off topic: smrtgmp; there is a feat in DMG2 that allows a lvl 1 wizards to cast a second lvl spell, meaning you only lose 1 caster lvl of cleric in the theurge build. On topic: I fail to see how the orbs spells are unbalanced, when you consider that the touch attack is partially offset by 2 facts: wizards have crappy to hits, and if the party fighter is in melee, the attack suffers a -4 penalty, unless the wiz sinks a feat in Precise Shot. The damage is on par, and ignoring SR? No big deal, IMO.
Mystic Theurge 08-04-06, 08:49 PM	Also Mystic Thuerge, you commented on everything else in Wardukes thread except this: The fact that I didn't comment merely menas I didn't NEED to comment. He can mock my name all he wants, it only shows his level of immaturity. However, there ARE a few claims you have made that I would like to address. First of all, just because I am defending the Orb spells does not mean that I use them. I said this several times, actually. Secondly, just because I am defending the Orb spells does NOT mean that I own all the splat books and must depend on them to make a good character. In fact I have run and have participated in MANY core only games and I have done perfectly fine in those. Thirdly, you tell me that I keep using non-core arguments to support non-core scources, yet MOST of my arguments have been based on CORE material. The only arguments I believe I have used non-core material is when I have argued the relative ineffectiveness of the spells. Warduke, on the other hand HAS been using plenty of non-core arguments to back up his claims (duel wand wielding, for example). As for the rest of this, I'm going to let it slide for now, thinking perhaps you haven't read all the posts.
tiercel 08-04-06, 08:59 PM	...Assay Resistance...Arcane Mastery...Marshal base classIn my original post I talked about the proliferation of spells and abilities (not all of them, notably Marshal) that weaken SR, and why this can be a problem generally. If you use all of these abilities and additional no-SR direct damage spells, it just weakens the value of SR as a defense. Creatures with significant SR have that built into their CR -- so if you add a bunch of rules weakening one of their primary defenses, you have reduced their challenge (and so quite arguably they should have a lower CR and give less XP). Also, the easier you make it to do direct damage ignoring SR, the less relevant you make nonspellcaster hitter-type characters. Such characters often find themselves in danger of fading into irrelevancy at the higher levels anyway -- if you let spellcasters trump them at the one thing they might have an advantage for at higher levels in Core (physically whomping on highly magic-resistant critters), you just make the disparity worse. Even the PhB has PLENTY of SR: No spells of various types that can be better than the Orbs in many circumstances. This include the direct damage conjuration Acid Arrow spell already mentioned.There are very few direct damage no-SR spells in Core, and most of them are damage over time. Acid arrow isn't going to swing a battle very quickly, at 2d4 per round. The only major exception is fire seeds, which is a very strong spell even at 6th level. Yes, there are non-direct-damage Core "SR: No" spells, but those cause me less philosophical problems -- if you create a physical wall that doesn't need magic to continue to exist, it's a lot easier to see why that doesn't allow SR. These tend to be more battlefield-control spells, and they are great and useful and they don't step all over the identity of Evocation spells and the specialty of nonspellcasting hitter-type characters. They are very useful and helpful against SR foes, but (for the most part) don't win the fight by themselves, just make it easier for the hitters to do so. No, orbs aren't the end-all be-all spell to go to all the time, especially at the mid and mid-high levels, but the higher in level you get the better the orbs get, as more and more of your foes have SR. Given the choice between a good spell that *might* work or might roll off SR like water off a duck's back, and a decent spell that *will* work, you'll pretty much take a guaranteed hit every time. You're right -- if you allow all the feats and abilities and other spells that nearly nerf SR out of existence, then railing against orbs is a little pointless. That's why from the beginning I have been characterizing the orbs as part of a greater problem.
Mystic Theurge 08-04-06, 09:00 PM	Its medium. Magic Missile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicMissile.htm). I stand corrected. <bows>
camble 08-04-06, 10:44 PM	In my original post I talked about the proliferation of spells and abilities (not all of them, notably Marshal) that weaken SR, and why this can be a problem generally. If you use all of these abilities and additional no-SR direct damage spells, it just weakens the value of SR as a defense. Creatures with significant SR have that built into their CR -- so if you add a bunch of rules weakening one of their primary defenses, you have reduced their challenge (and so quite arguably they should have a lower CR and give less XP). It has been said many times before the spellcaster is making better use of his time supporting his group with buff spells rather then hit a SR target with any DD spell. Besides there are some really nasty core spells that aren't effected by SR like evard's black tentacles. There are new spells and feats that increase the effectiveness of monstrous opponents in the splat books as well. For example there is a spell that changes a natural armor bonus to a deflection bonus. Lets see how many ranged touch attacks get through to hit that dragon from earlier.
IbanezNinja 08-05-06, 03:43 AM	Lame-ass overpowered/splat/munckinny games. See barbarian frost-ravager doing 150HPs damage per round as an example. I can definitely reach over 60hps per round damage with a core build, Here it is: Half Orc Barb with a nat 18 Str, +2 Racial, with a +4 belt of Str, Power attacking (-5attk/+10damage) with my + 2 Vicious Great Axe, for which I have focus and specialization, while hasted by my boots of speed. That would give me an average of 39 damage per hit, with 3 attacks on a full attack at: +17/+17/+12 Assuming full attacks and 2 hits per full attack, thats 78 per round, 117 if all 3 hit, not bad. I assume you ment a a barbarian fighter, as you need fighter levels to take weapon spec...but still. I thought you were arguing that around that much damage a round was broken? Because the frost rager brought up earlier could do around 120 a round, which is about what your build can do...so why were you complaining? I'll admit, you know more than I gave you credit for but I'm still confused. :confused: If you know that you can easily do that much damage with core stuff, why did you call splat stuff overpowered and muchkiny if you know you could do the same stuff with core?
smrtgmp 08-05-06, 04:36 AM	Off topic: smrtgmp; there is a feat in DMG2 that allows a lvl 1 wizards to cast a second lvl spell, meaning you only lose 1 caster lvl of cleric in the theurge build.I assume you're referring to Precocious Apprentice, which is actually in the campaign chapter of Complete Arcane, along with Collegate Wizard. It should be noted that said feat does not allow early access to mystic theurge, as it specifies that once you gain access to 2nd level spells you lose the bonus spell provided by the feat. As such, once you gain access to 2nd level cleric spells, you lose the free 2nd level wizard spell, thereby no longer qualifying for the PrC. This has been discussed in depth on the CO boards, and the designers emphatically stated that they had included said language to prevent such early entry. That being said, from a purely mechanical standpoint, it would still work with the cerebromancer PrC from the XPH, as the other half of the equation never gets any spells.
Broken vacuum 08-05-06, 05:44 AM	Actually I wasn't. Being able to cast that spell for a 10th level wizard doesn't require he have a wand to do so (that just makes it even more convenient). The wizard has multiple options to achieve the same effect. He can cast that spell, if in fact you forgot that he is a spellcaster. Yes, it of course makes sense to blow all his high level spells on single target damage spells. It is not like you ever need Dimension Door, Improved Invisibility, Evard's Black Tentacles etc. A 10th level wizard with high enough intelligence has 4 4th-level spells - not enough to drop even one 189 hp creature with 40 hp a pop (if you manage to hit). He does have 3 5th level spells of course, but then you have to give up those juice 5th-level spells. With a grand total of 7 4th- and 5th-level spells you can drop one 189 hp creature a day, using up five of them - one wonders what you do the other approximately three encounters that day. He can have scrolls of said spell, which are relatively cheap to produce. You do know that the base price for the scrolls in question would be 900gp? Five of those means 4,500gp, or 2250 and 90 xp. At an average of 5,800gp per encounter that might be acceptable, but even with a Heward's Handy Haversack you need a move action to retrieve each scroll. No moving in the same round you retrieve it. But then again who needs to move when the range of the spell is a staggering 45 feet? I am certain that 60 feet base land speed creature is just going to sit there within 45 feet of you for five rounds with nothing between it and you, not even a melee character. The wand in question can be crafted by the wizard (an option the melee character doesn't have btw) Because we all know caster characters never craft anything but things they intend to use themselves and no magic item can ever be found bought or bartered for, this must be a perfectly adequate argument. Come on are you serious? Against the creature in question (which I didn't choose btw) the wizard had a 5% chance to miss. If somehow you think comparing a 5% chance and a 65% chance to miss is the same you have just shown your complete inability to formulate a semi intelligent argument. Could you not at least pretend to read my posts? I have mentioned several times that the chance for the wizard to miss is distinctly higher than what you claim. Penalty for firing into melee and soft cover is part of the game however much you try to ignore it. The range of the spells make these conditions extremely likely to occur. As long as you refuse to even consider this your argument lacks any sort of viability. If you ever manage to actually consider this - something I am starting to doubt - you have to relate it to the equivalent miss chance provided for by SR. In case of the adult white dragon, that has an SR of 18, that means that a SR: yes spell has a 'miss' chance of 35% at 10th caster level. Your 10th level wizard with ranged touch attack bonus of +8 firing into melee and having to deal with soft cover has a 40% miss chance with his chosen SR: no spell.
Warduke 08-05-06, 04:12 PM	If you ever manage to actually consider this - something I am starting to doubt - you have to relate it to the equivalent miss chance provided for by SR. In case of the adult white dragon, that has an SR of 18, that means that a SR: yes spell has a 'miss' chance of 35% at 10th caster level. Your 10th level wizard with ranged touch attack bonus of +8 firing into melee and having to deal with soft cover has a 40% miss chance with his chosen SR: no spell. From the PHB.. Big Creatures and Cover Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you. Please learn the basic combat rules before you try to make a point. Soft cover is not much of an issue with anything larger than Med. Shooting into melee can be negated by feat selection. Thank you drive through.
smrtgmp 08-05-06, 08:32 PM	You do realise that the rules regarding larger creatures and cover only apply to melee attacks, yes? The quote you provided specifies as much. Big Creatures and Cover Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you. Ranged attacks play by the following rules. To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).And yes, I can take precices shot to midigate the penalty for fireing into melee. Of course, I have to take point blank shot first. Maybe its just me, but that doesnt strike me as being an overly practical thing to do, given all the other feat options at my disposal. Oh yes, and because its too delicious to pass up: please learn the basic combat rules before you try to make a point. :P
Deathmond 08-05-06, 09:43 PM	You do realise that the rules regarding larger creatures and cover only apply to melee attacks, yes? The quote you provided specifies as much. Quote: Originally Posted by 3.5 srd Big Creatures and Cover Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you. Ranged attacks play by the following rules. Quote: Originally Posted by 3.5 srd To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC). And yes, I can take precices shot to midigate the penalty for fireing into melee. Of course, I have to take point blank shot first. Maybe its just me, but that doesnt strike me as being an overly practical thing to do, given all the other feat options at my disposal. Oh yes, and because its too delicious to pass up: please learn the basic combat rules before you try to make a point. Couldn't you just aim for one of the squares the monster takes up that isn't blocked by something?
Osedox 08-05-06, 09:47 PM	Couldn't you just aim for one of the squares the monster takes up that isn't blocked by something?I think that was his point.
Broken vacuum 08-06-06, 06:39 AM	Couldn't you just aim for one of the squares the monster takes up that isn't blocked by something? Nothing in the text really indicate that. The exception for big creatures - with the associated mechanic of having the option of choosing a square - is expressly only applicable for melee attacks. In the basic text there is no exception made for creatures that occupy multiple squares and no suggestion that you get to choose anything except a corner in your own square when it comes to ranged attacks. If there were not meant to be any difference between melee and ranged attacks in this regard it makes absolutely no sense to specify that only melee attacks are covered by the exception for big creatures.
smrtgmp 08-06-06, 07:50 AM	My point exactly. It seems counterintuitive, but the language is pretty clear that the above rules only apply to melee attacks.