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

[borc killer]

Sounds like a good fix

Thanks

It does seem to work so fare. It sucks so bad when the party wizard can't do ANYTHING against a drow/demon/death knight or what have ya. First you have to break their SR then the save (which they make a heck of a lot of the time) so it is nice to have something that is limited but useful and can do darn good damage, but at the same time not letting it over come every defense.

This really came to a head when my current players ran into a Fang Dragon with a Ring of Evasion on. The wizard cast 1-2 spells ever round and did 0 damage in a fight that went for over 10 rounds. Bad rolls on some SR checks and the dragon could not miss its save without rolling a 1 on the spells that made it through. After that I decided there should be a middle ground on the Orbs.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

The problem with these types of analyses are that the assumption is made that multiple targets can get attacked by an AoE spell.

That is often not true. It's really an apples vs. oranges comparison since the scenarios are different. AoOs tend to be cast early on during combat and once melee starts in earnest, they tend to be somewhat unusable.

A tricked out caster with just a single feat Precise Shot can fire his Orbs more or less every single round. It doesn't take much to move so that soft cover is not an issue.

Sure, an area effect spell that affects 2 or more opponents will by definition do more overall damage. But, that does not make Evocation better than Conjuration. It makes maybe one or two AoE spells per encounter (if one gets lucky enough to use them at all) slightly better and then several rounds of spells less worthwhile as the Orbs mop up on the Scorching Rays.

 

[Drowbane]

Can you give me an example of why you think Arcane Thesis is overpowered? I've had a look at the feat, and it's not really any different from something like Metamagic Focus or one of the other feats that reduces metamagic penalties. The +2 caster level is nice, though.

Pinotage

The broken (or "merely overpowered") lies in that it appears to apply a -1 to each metamagic feat you use with it.

For the record, I think its just poorly written and should only give the +2 CL, and takes off 1point from the first (and only first) meta-feat you use with it. Still a good feat, not borken.

No, Arcane Thesis isn't broken. It's overpowered.
That's why we call the feat "Overpowered Fireball" in our group and limit it to fireballs only.

Spoiler

Okay, that's not really true, but the wizard that has the feat fits the description

A few ways to make Arcane Thesis... amusing. I'll use fireball since you brought it up.

Arcane Thesis: fireball + energy sub: cold = 2nd level spell.

Arcane Thesis: fireball + energy sub: cold + Empower = an empowered coldball as a 3rd level spell.

Arcane Thesis: fireball + energy sub: cold + empower + maximize + twinspell = 8th level spell (without thesis, this is a 12th level spell).

Yeah, I'm just off. Arcane Thesis is just a little overpowered.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I agree. And often it's the same small group of people claiming it's all broken (on paper). Not saying that is happening in this thread, just a trend I noticed.

 

[Mistwell]

The problem with these types of analyses are that the assumption is made that multiple targets can get attacked by an AoE spell.

That is often not true. It's really an apples vs. oranges comparison since the scenarios are different. AoOs tend to be cast early on during combat and once melee starts in earnest, they tend to be somewhat unusable.

A tricked out caster with just a single feat Precise Shot can fire his Orbs more or less every single round. It doesn't take much to move so that soft cover is not an issue.

Sure, an area effect spell that affects 2 or more opponents will by definition do more overall damage. But, that does not make Evocation better than Conjuration. It makes maybe one or two AoE spells per encounter (if one gets lucky enough to use them at all) slightly better and then several rounds of spells less worthwhile as the Orbs mop up on the Scorching Rays.

KD, that's why the first analysis ran it through actual modules.

I think at some point, the theoretical should be trumped by the actual. When the guy takes the time to run it through modules, that data should be considered superior to purely theorizing.

 

[shmoo2]

I agree. And often it's the same small group of people claiming it's all broken (on paper). Not saying that is happening in this thread, just a trend I noticed.

That's a hard to 'trend' to see then, since, with over 90 replies, 56% of the respondents to this poll say the orbs are too strong. Only 25% say they are fine as is. Not the 'same small group'.

'On paper' descriptions of game element balance (such as presented in other threads by gnfnrf and myself) have the power to supply evidence beyond mere anecdotes of limited play experience.

In any case, many posts have described in play (not 'on paper') examples of orb over powered-ness disrupting play.

Let me add another:
My group recently completed the Shackled City campaign. The party wizard took orb of cold, and used it intermittently from 9th to 12th level or so. Over the last several adventures of the campaign (starting maybe with the end of 'Soul Pillars') the orb (with energy substitution) became the primary offensive spell used by the PC. This was because the orbs were obviously more powerful than the other options. Several set piece encounters became notably easier with the orbs available. I nerfed the spell before the campaign ended, and I'm glad I did because the SCAP climax would have been anti-climactic otherwise.

 

[KarinsDad]

Let me add another:
My group recently completed the Shackled City campaign. The party wizard took orb of cold, and used it intermittently from 9th to 12th level or so. Over the last several adventures of the campaign (starting maybe with the end of 'Soul Pillars') the orb (with energy substitution) became the primary offensive spell used by the PC. This was because the orbs were obviously more powerful than the other options. Several set piece encounters became notably easier with the orbs available. I nerfed the spell before the campaign ended, and I'm glad I did because the SCAP climax would have been anti-climactic otherwise.

Let me add another:
20th level PC Cleric of Mystra (with all the cool toys) in an Antimagic Field gets surprised by two lower level arcane casters. They throw two Evocation spells at her. Nothing happens. Initiatives are rolled. She rolls lower than they do. They throw two orbs at her and she dies in the beginning of round one.

Minimally, an erratta should state that Orbs do not break through Antimagic anymore than any other damaging spell.

 

[KarinsDad]

KD, that's why the first analysis ran it through actual modules.

I think at some point, the theoretical should be trumped by the actual. When the guy takes the time to run it through modules, that data should be considered superior to purely theorizing.

Not the way he did it.

In each encounter, I assume that an area evocation can encompass half of the foes, plus one more foe half of the time, to a minimum of one foe. For most encounters, this is conservative for the first round of combat (the provided tacmaps indicate that more foes could be caught) but it may be generous in later rounds.

It was armchair do area effect spells every single round. This is worse than normal theorizing since it made a blantantly invalid assumption. AoE energy spells do not fire off every single round in anyone's game. Players are typically lucky to get 2 off in an encounter. And, half or half plus one of the surviving enemy every single round.

Let's take the case of 6 opponents. In a real game, they might or might not all be in the area effect for round one. After that, they tend not to be. In his analysis, half were in it round one, half round two (which is best case scenario equivalent for a real game two rounds with half each or one round with all of them), half round three, etc. until gone.

In real games, an arcane caster often might not even be in the room yet on the first round (they tend to stick back in most games) to blow up a bunch of enemies before they can move in for melee attacks. Lots of encounters end up with zero AoE energy spells being cast. Other times, an arcane caster can get all of the enemies in a round one AoE, but it doesn't average out to 1/2+ of the opponents every single round. Not even close. Not IME and probably not in most people's experience either.

Although a lot of effort was put into the analysis, it's flawed.

The fact that Orbs were superior 35% and AoE were only superior 55% of the time with such an obvious skew towards AoE spells shouts at how powerful Orbs are.


Plus, it did not take into account the secondary effect of the Orbs. That was just dropped on the ground.


It also did not take into account the tactical advantage of killing one opponent being worth more than injurying two (and sometimes three).

ThirdWizard put this major point best in that thread:

Say you're fighting 5 enemies. Tactic 1 is to attack one enemy at a time with focused fire until they die, rinse, repeat. Tactic 2 is to deal equal damage to everyone, so that they die at the same time. Assuming you can kill 1 enemy a round with Tactic 1 by the end of each round, the enemies will get 5+4+3+2+1 actions against you, 15 total. In order to get the same number of actions against you with Tactic 2, you have to kill all the enemies on round 3, or over fifty percent more damage per round (about 1.66 times).

And, even if you get this damage output with area effects, Tactic 2 is still inferior, since it will be harder for a cleric to keep up with the damage, enemies can retain flanking longer, its harder to move around, etc, through the battle. Also, you're taking those 15 actions against you over 3 rounds instead of over 5 rounds.

All in all, I find your conclusion flawed because it is based on a flawed and skewed analysis.


Note: AoE spells have scenarios where they are better. No doubt about it. AoE spells are great when applicable. However, those scenarios tend to be at best one or two rounds per encounter, not every single round. Single target range touch spells like Orbs (especially combined with Precise Shot) tend to have a lot more rounds per encounter where they can be effective.

 

[gnfnrf]

Not the way he did it.

It was armchair do area effect spells every single round. This is worse than normal theorizing since it made a blantantly invalid assumption. AoE energy spells do not fire off every single round in anyone's game. Players are typically lucky to get 2 off in an encounter. And, half or half plus one of the surviving enemy every single round.

I'd just like to clarify something, here. I did not assume that an area evocation (or orb) would be cast every round. I chose a formula to decide how many foes to consider that the AoE affected the moment it was cast, regardless of what round that was.

No caster of 9th to 10th level can cast a 3rd or 4th level spell in every round of every fight, regardless of its targeting or effects. The analysis is just to determine what happens on the rounds that they do.

Let's take the case of 6 opponents. In a real game, they might or might not all be in the area effect for round one. After that, they tend not to be. In his analysis, half were in it round one, half round two (which is best case scenario equivalent for a real game two rounds with half each or one round with all of them), half round three, etc. until gone.

In real games, an arcane caster often might not even be in the room yet on the first round (they tend to stick back in most games) to blow up a bunch of enemies before they can move in for melee attacks. Lots of encounters end up with zero AoE energy spells being cast. Other times, an arcane caster can get all of the enemies in a round one AoE, but it doesn't average out to 1/2+ of the opponents every single round. Not even close. Not IME and probably not in most people's experience either.

Just to repeat, I wasn't looking at repeated application of the spell on each round. I was trying to calculate an average effect when cast on some round. I did make a reality check to test its viability; during two sessions of RHoD, whenever the party warmage cast either an area evocation or an orb, I checked the number of area evocation targets possible. The results of that count were pretty close to the formula.

I also tried to solicit advice on the formula to use, and received no help. What, in your experience, is the average fraction of foes in an encounter that can be caught in a fireball or lightning area effect, given normal tactical play by both sides? I'm happy to recalculate for it.

Although a lot of effort was put into the analysis, it's flawed.

Absolutely. There is no way of doing a perfect analysis. However, I did my best with the tools I had available.

The fact that Orbs were superior 35% and AoE were only superior 55% of the time with such an obvious skew towards AoE spells shouts at how powerful Orbs are.

Don't forget the area evocations in question are one spell level lower than the orbs, and the module in question is filled with creatures with SR.

Plus, it did not take into account the secondary effect of the Orbs. That was just dropped on the ground.

Yep. There was no way to include that factor in the analysis, particularly since I never even chose which orb was being cast (which would then require energy resistance to play a role, where the area evocations dominate, since they can be affected by lesser rods of energy substitution).

It also did not take into account the tactical advantage of killing one opponent being worth more than injurying two (and sometimes three).

I disagree with this assertion. While sometimes, an orb can kill one opponent whereas a fireball can injure three, other times (the majority of non critical hits on unwounded foes), neither spell can kill anyone outright. If the foes are already wounded, the extra expected damage of an orb is often wasted on overkill, whereas the fireball can finish off multiple foes at once. Which of these circumstances is more likely is outside the realm of the analysis I did.

I'm not approaching this from a preconceived advocacy position; in fact, I expected to discover that Orbs would be very powerful compared to area evocations, and I was surprised when they were not.

I reiterate, I'd like to refine the model I built, so if you have an alternative way to calculate the number of foes caught in a fireball/lightning bolt, please suggest it and I'll see what the results are.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'd just like to clarify something, here. I did not assume that an area evocation (or orb) would be cast every round. I chose a formula to decide how many foes to consider that the AoE affected the moment it was cast, regardless of what round that was.

No caster of 9th to 10th level can cast a 3rd or 4th level spell in every round of every fight, regardless of its targeting or effects. The analysis is just to determine what happens on the rounds that they do.

It works out to the same thing though. You assumed that in every single encounter in that module, an AoE energy spell could be used. But, that will not happen in many games. That's an assumption that drastically skews the data from a real game. However, in practically every single encounter in that module, an Orb spell could be used.

You are basically saying "No matter how many rounds of area effect, I will have the same number of rounds of Orbs. But, at least one per encounter." And, you analyzed it for every encounter, regardless of the likelihood of that occuring in a real game. You made the likelihood 100% for every single encounter in that module that an AoE could be used. But in a real game, that does not usually happen. 100% of encounters is way too high.

On a per spell basis when either spell can be used, your analysis is ok.

On a per encounter basis, your analysis is skewed towards AoE energy spells.

And people like Mistwell are invalidly using your analysis to support a position that is not accurate.


In real games, Orb spells can and often happen on multiple rounds, especially with an Orb specialist (like a Warmage). Orb spells have an additional effect. And Orb spells have a tendency to decrease the number of opponents more often (unless we are talking total mooks who cannot handle AoE energy damage at all and cannot make their saves).

In real games, AoE energy spells tend to be cast once per encounter max (on average give or take) with an AoE energy specialist except at higher levels (when Shape Spell can be used). When used, they are very nice. Multiple opponents wounded allows for an easier time for the rest of the team. But, they are not used that often. For example, it is nearly impossible to use AoE energy spells in cramped quarters without hitting an ally. IME, Lightning Bolt tends to be one of the better AoE spells since it is possible to get multiple enemies with it more often, even sometimes in cramped quarters. And, of course, Shaped spells are pretty nice. But many AoE spells are only usable if the combat area is 20+ feet in diameter (usually more) and enemies are congregated towards one side.


Your analysis is fine if used only on a: Which spell averages more damage in "if either spell can be used" scenarios?

But in many gaming scenarios, either spell cannot be used. Orbs can be used in many more rounds than AoE energy spells, probably by a factor of 3 to 1. The main thing that would prevent an Orb from being used is cover / concealment. And, that does happen. Just not as often as limiting factors to AoEs.


And, I do not have a suggestion on how to improve that for you except for you to make a disclaimer that this is only valid in "if either spell can be used" scenarios. You analysis is fine for what it is, but it is a small subset of all combat rounds and hence skews the data if supporting a which spell is better position.