Do you think the ___ Orb line of spells are too powerful?

Are the ___ Orb line of spells, most recently in the Spell Compendium, to powerful?

  • Yes, very over powered / I ban them.

    Votes: 26 22.8%
  • Yes, moderately to strong for their level.

    Votes: 44 38.6%
  • I'm not sure, but they make me uneasy...

    Votes: 16 14.0%
  • They are fine as is.

    Votes: 28 24.6%
  • They are horrible spell choices. / underpowered

    Votes: 0 0.0%

Infiniti2000 said:
IMO, any spell that allows an attack roll is subject to abuse with critical threats, etc. That last thing I want to see is 20d6 no save for half no SR for a measly 4th level spell. But, I could be wrong.

I still get a dirty look from my wife when anyone reminds her of the raging orc barbarian who rolled a natural 20 to hit followed by a natural 20 to confirm with his x3 critical battleaxe and full power attack. What can I say? "Crit happens." At least the orbs are 20/x2.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

KarinsDad said:
People might not be bothered when their PCs throw these around, but just let a bunch of NPCs start chucking them at the PCs and see if your players think that are ok then. ;)

Hmm... five npc's targeting us each once for d6 pel level (max 15d6 ot 10d6 with a force orb) or the same npcs hitting us with area effect spells, for 5 attacks against each of us, each one doing similar damage with a save for half. Even if I make all my saves, the orbs would be my preference, as the area effects would do about 2.5x the damage to each of us!

I suppose I'd feel differently if I had evasion or an apropriate resistance... just as I'd feel differently if I had a very high touch AC.
 


gnfnrf said:
For PC use, anyway, I did some extensive analysis on the Orb spells using a notional run through Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, which I posted in this thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=196274

My conclusion was that more often than not, an area evocation was a better choice.

--
gnfnrf

I was waiting for someone to talk about that thread. And your analysis then was enlightening and really helpful.

But for me, the reason I ban these spells as they are written has nothing to do with how they are or are not broken. It is about the feel of the game. To me, a wizard should have almost no way to overcome a golem or affect a target in an anti magic field. If a wizard can just pick an equally useful spell to overcome a major weakness that has been in the game from the very beginning then you are changing the very makeup of D&D. That is why I ban those spells as written.

Just change them to evocation and have SR affect them. But give them a bonus to overcoming it (say +4). That way they are very useful against stuff with high SR but not against things that are designed to be immune to magic.

Immunity to magic should darn well mean immunity to magic after all.
 

borc killer said:
Just change them to evocation and have SR affect them. But give them a bonus to overcoming it (say +4). That way they are very useful against stuff with high SR but not against things that are designed to be immune to magic.

Immunity to magic should darn well mean immunity to magic after all.

I think I might have a talk with the party spellcasters and bring about this change.
 

KarinsDad said:
Well, they are practically identical to other range touch energy spells with no save except:

1) They have no Spell Resistance. This is big at high levels. The main defense against Orbs at high level is having cover/concealment (or the caster rolling a one which is unlikely) or having mega-hit points and the latter will not last long. Even energy resistance is somewhat limited against them since some casters like Warmages can pick and choose which to cast.
This point I agree with. I would probably change it to Evocation (SR: Yes) or slow the scaling of damage.
2) Most of them have an additional one round effect (or in the case of Orb of Force, it does a lot more damage than other comparable Force spells instead and has few defenses and can blow through incorporeals). "Oh, I dazed you? Great. I get to Orb you again next round and there is nothing you can do about it.". Not exactly the same as save or die, but close enough.
The secondary effect requires a touch attack and a save, so there's a decent chance it will fail. The secondary effect probably is still on the high side of the power curve for a 4th level single target spell.
3) They blow through Golems.
Which is why I want the nerf above.
4) If interpreted one way, they blow through Antimagic Fields.
See above nerf.
5) If interpreted one way, they stick around forever. "Hey Johnny, come play with this Orb of Fire".
See above nerf. (I know, I'm getting repetitive. :) )
6) They are Conjuration energy spells that are stronger than any similar Evocation energy spells. That's just plain wrong.
Did I mention my nerf? :p If you want me to keep them as conjuration, then I'd scale the damage back to 1d6/two levels.
7) At high level, they often do 50+ points of damage which results in a save versus massive damage. Even if the save is easy to make, anyone can roll a one and there are even high level opponents who might have a 25% or more chance of missing a DC 15 Fort save. It's not always 5%.
To get 50+ points of damage regularly, we're probably looking at 15th level or so and 8th level spells. If your 15th level mage is choosing to do damage and can't trigger a massive damage save, he needs to rebuild his character.

You could also hit 50 damage at about 11th level with Empower. If that makes it overpowered, Fireball is even more so, since it's a level lower and will do about the same damage from a 11th level caster. To a group of enemies.
8) Like other range touch spells, they do double damage on a successful critical. And, sneak attack damage adds to them. Although this is true for other range touch spells and not unique to Orbs, the fact that there are few defenses against them means that about 4% of the time, they are nearly an insta-kill spell (shy of extenuating circumstances and in addition to the massive damage chance). The other range touch spells are not quite this bad due to fewer defenses (and lower damage caps).
4% is your estimate of how often it criticals or sneak attacks? You could say the similar things about Enervation. An average of 5 negative levels (from a Enervation critical) is going to make most people quite unhappy. Especially if it's followed with a save-or-suck spell.
9) They do what no other 4th level (or higher) spell does: extend a single target energy attack to 4th level which raises the damage cap to 15D6. One set of balance to high level area effect energy spells are that a) they have saves for half damage, b) they have spell resistance, c) they have situations in which casting them is harmful to the party. This spell does not have these limitations and introduces a damage power level beyond what normally can consistently be done at higher level.
The DMG guide for damage caps gives 15d6 for a 4th level, single target spell. Single target spells increase their damage caps one level before area effect spells do.

Usually, the caster can get off the area effect spell and not hit any friendlies. In the last campaign I ran (level 3-12 with 6 PCs), the PC's were only hit with friendly fire about twice. Both times it was the raging barbarian who was uninjured before the fireball.
10) Orbs are also a great mop up spell since they tend to do average damage most every time and there are few defenses against them. The Fighter wounded the BBEG? Great. Mop him up with an Orb. Round one or two, the BBEG is dead. Next. ;)
With the evocation nerf, there are more defenses. Also, the damage is as average as for a fireball or cone of cold. Do you generally dislike high-level, single target, ranged touch spells because it makes it easy to mop up the bad guy?
11) Metamagic to improve damage? Orbs are low enough level that Empower and Maximize can both be placed on them even without Metamagic Rods or Sudden Metamagic feats or Arcane Thesis or Incantatrix metamagic abilities.
The same thing applies to fireball and cone of cold. If you just want to maximize damage, there's no reason to cast cone of cold below 14th level if you opponents don't have evasion. Empowered fireball will beat it, no matter how likely they are to save.

They're nice evocation spells. Fix that problem and they're perfectly reasonable.
 

I voted fine as is... To make them really broken/overpowered, you have to go out of your way. And if someone is spending feat choices to boost a spell, why not let them? They've invested in the feat.

A lot of complaints I see about "broken" things on this message board (ToB classes/maneuvers, spells, feats, PrCs, etc.) I have never had any bad experiences with. A lot of the "broken" arguements are contrived, theories and "what ifs". Most of the time, in actual game play, none of the supposed "broken" elements never come into play. That's been my experience anyway. YMMV.
 

udalrich said:
4% is your estimate of how often it criticals or sneak attacks?

Criticals: 5% chance of rolling a 20, 80+% chance of hitting afterwards on range touch.

udalrich said:
The DMG guide for damage caps gives 15d6 for a 4th level, single target spell. Single target spells increase their damage caps one level before area effect spells do.

Yes, I know. But what is less obvious is the synergies at higher levels. The author of that table just put a table together. He did not consider the synergies at those higher levels because the core spells do not go that high for single target damage.

Sure, someone can Empower Fireball and Quicken Fireball pretty easily. But, that's only 82 points of damage with two saves, two spell resistances, no massive damage save, etc. Empowered Orb and Quickened Orb is 128 points with zero saves and zero resistances. Many 15th level opponents cannot take 128 points of damage with two saves versus massive damage to boot. And that's if neither of those spells critical where virtually no 15th level opponent survives. This situation is one where most 15th level opponents die against two metamagicked spells maybe 80% of the time. Next. ;)

Unlike other single target spells, the Orbs cross that barrier into the 15D6 cap. This is somewhat unexplored territory for a spell that has virtually no defenses (even cover and concealment just means that the caster picks a different spell than an Orb spell). Even Cone of Cold has 3 different defenses. The Orbs have one real defense: Energy Resistance. They also have miss chance, but chances are the caster can detect that and choose a different spell.

udalrich said:
They're nice evocation spells. Fix that problem and they're perfectly reasonable.

I do not disagree. I am ok with your nerf and it is the same one I've used in the past (and IRRC, I think Nail uses it).
 

gnfnrf said:
For PC use, anyway, I did some extensive analysis on the Orb spells using a notional run through Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, which I posted in this thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=196274

My conclusion was that more often than not, an area evocation was a better choice.

--
gnfnrf

Note that gnfnrf's (useful) analysis that evocations stay balanced with orbs includes levels 9, 10, and 11.
The data presented in this thread are similar: orbs' damage output is in line with evocations until level 11 or so. At level 13 and higher, orbs become much more powerful than evocations. This is because SR becomes a much more important factor at that point.

The common fix of changing the orbs to SR: Yes largely reverses the trend.
My solution is to change the damage cap to 10d6 max; this keeps the orb's niche intact but also makes them balanced again at high levels.
 

borc killer said:
Just change them to evocation and have SR affect them. But give them a bonus to overcoming it (say +4). That way they are very useful against stuff with high SR but not against things that are designed to be immune to magic.
Sounds like a good fix :)
 

Remove ads

Top