No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?


log in or register to remove this ad


Nail said:
I've House Ruled that all "orb" spells are [Evocation] spells. That means these spells don't ignore SR.

Interestingly enough, Orb of Force is reprinted in a sidebar with the Force Missile Mage prestige class in Dragon Compendium as an Evocation spell... but it still has a "Spell Resistance: No" line.
 

Nail said:
Like, for example, noting that conjured Orbs of Force stick around after they are created? :)

I've already mentioned that I house rule Orb of Force for aesthetic reasons, but wouldn't freak out if a GM opted not to. HAving a tiny orb of force around with no listed damage won't do much good. I suppose if you could talk your GM into letting them be used as sling ammunition you might have a cheap source of low damage weapons to use against the ethereal and incorporeal, but even that relies on the GM being a nice guy.

Does the spell give dimensions for the orb itself, or just say "you create an orb."?
 

James McMurray said:
I've already mentioned that I house rule Orb of Force for aesthetic reasons, but wouldn't freak out if a GM opted not to.
I'm not sure anyone's freaking out here....but I could be wrong. :)

James McMurray said:
HAving a tiny orb of force around with no listed damage won't do much good.
You must realize what a silly precident that would set. :lol:

"Dad, how did the Orb Desert get it's name?"

"Well son, mages have been casting Orbs of Force for millenia, and...."

:heh:




James McMurray said:
Does the spell give dimensions for the orb itself, or just say "you create an orb."?
Orbs "about 3 inches across".
 

Henry said:
That would be reserved for Arc of Lightning and Blast of Flame, which do cover areas with no SR listed. The Orbs aren't the end-all and be-all, but they do step on the evoker's toes in a way that makes the Conjurer specialist probably now the best specialist in the game. If I were playing a specialist I'd easily pick Conjurer over evoker, because they get not only summonings, but a wide variety of damage and area spells, and Teleportations/dimdoors/plane shifts, and quite a few defensive spells as well (such as the wall spells, obscuring mist, and mage armor).

Just checked the two out. Their damage caps is lower for what their spell level should be. Of course that's meaningless at the level you get them but it stops scaling as you get higher.

Arc Lightning - 5th-level spell - 15d6 points of damage. Perhaps a bit more flexible in area covered but the range is also short.

Blast of Flame - 4th-level spell - 10d6 points of damage. Actually has a range that's quite good, a 60-foot cone.

P.S. I'd get Illusionist and conceivably get the best of both worlds. =)
 

Nail said:
I'm not sure anyone's freaking out here....but I could be wrong. :)

Never said they were. you seem to have developed a habit of replying to things I haven't said in the last few threads. :)

You must realize what a silly precident that would set. :lol:

"Dad, how did the Orb Desert get it's name?"

Like I said, I house rule it. But if a GM wants an Orb Desert, that's fine with me so long as I either never go there or it's a fun place to go.

Orbs "about 3 inches across".

That could cause problems then, but not in my games. :)
 

Henry said:
While true, there is an orb (orb of Force, as noted) that does bypass that. Orb of Force is to me the most egregious offender, but the others, having previously been only evocation's province, still rankle me a bit. In fact, weren't these spells all Evocations when they originally appeared in Tome and Blood?

Yes they were. But they also suffered from the flaws of "Scorching Ray" at the time which is they both required a touch attack and a Fort save to negate half the damage.
 

James McMurray said:
So you don't follow the principal that specific rules override general ones? Or do you only follow it when you like the results?

Who said anything about what I follow or don't follow?

I have no problem with specific rules overriding general rules. I have a problem with blatant rules inconsistency.

James McMurray said:
Like I said, I house rule it.

The fact is, one shouldn't have to house rule it. The rules should be internally consistent. There is no reason to make rules internally inconsistent other than laziness.

The 3E designers used a lot of effort in an attempt to make the rules internally consistent and flow and give us a better product than we previous had, and then some later designer just blows off that hard work.

Energy = Evocation
Matter = Conjuration Creation
Teleportation = Conjuration Teleportation, etc.

There is absolutely no reason to cross the school boundaries in such a blatant fashion. Sure, sometimes a spell concept fits in multiple boundaries. In that case, the one that fits best should be used. Not one that does not fit at all.


A few years back, some Forgotten Realms designer created a 3E Conjuration Creation spell called Create Magic Tattoo. It had several cool effects in it: Transmutation, Abjuration, Necromancy, etc.

Unfortunately, it had no Conjuration effects in it whatsoever. Some people justified it by stating that the Tattoo was being conjured. In reality, the spell called for the tattoo itself to be crafted by the spell caster ahead of time: no conjuration involved.

If anything, it should have gone into the Universal school because it had effects from so many schools of magic in it. Or, it should have had one of the schools chosen that matched it best.

But, when some designer ignores the rules and just creates a spell that doesn't match the rules (no matter how cool), WotC should correct and errata it. IMO.


You appear to think that rules inconsistency is fine. I don't. YMMV.
 
Last edited:

I always think of the orb spells this way. Objects from the elemental planes or paraelemental planes, or quasi-elemental planes. There are normal creatures made of fire in the fire plane. Boats of fire in the fire plane, why not orbs. Then the spell conjures them. poof. Elemental semi-sentience that dosen't mind being tossed.
 

Remove ads

Top