No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?

[charlesatan]

And with a Conjuration spell, you need line of effect to the point of origin of the effect. The point of origin of the effect is your palm, which is not inside the AMF; you have line of effect to the point of origin. And after that, as the effect of a Conjuration [Creation] with an instantaneous duration, the orb no longer relies on magic for its existence, and is thus unaffected by the AMF when you make you ranged touch attack with it.

If you were inside the AMF when you cast the spell, it would be a different story.

-Hyp.

Thanks for clarifying. =)

 

[Hypersmurf]

2) Yes, I would use Polar Ray. Because I can use Twin Spell on Polar Ray and not on the Orb spells (because as much as they are like rays, they simply aren't).

Uh...?

The Twin Spell feat has no must-be-a-Ray requirement.

In fact, I'm not convinced it works on Rays (or Orbs) at all; per the feat text, it allows a spell to take effect twice in the same area or on the same target simultaneously. A Ray spell (or an Orb) has neither area nor target; rather, it has an effect. (This would disallow the Split Twinned Maximized Enervation mentioned above, since Enervation, as a spell with neither target nor area, would not be a valid subject of the Twin Spell feat.)

If it does, in fact, allow a Ray to be duplicated, with both rays using the same attack roll to strike at a single opponent, then it certainly would allow the same for an Orb.

Did you mean the Split Ray feat instead?

-Hyp.

 

[charlesatan]

Uh...?

The Twin Spell feat has no must-be-a-Ray requirement.

In fact, I'm not convinced it works on Rays (or Orbs) at all; per the feat text, it allows a spell to take effect twice in the same area or on the same target simultaneously. A Ray spell (or an Orb) has neither area nor target; rather, it has an effect.

If it does, in fact, allow a Ray to be duplicated, with both rays using the same attack roll to strike at a single opponent, then it certainly would allow the same for an Orb.

Did you mean the Split Ray feat instead?

-Hyp.

Sorry, was thinking of Split Ray and typing Twin Spell. You're right. Split Ray has the advantage of merely two spell levels higher for the same effect.

I expect Twin Spell to work on Rays (and Orbs) for that matter because as far as I know, they still qualify as having the same target, and the sentence following that first line says that any variable characteristic (including attack rolls) apply. But I could be wrong. If that's the case, the Maximized, Empowered, Twin Split Ray Enervation route.

 

[Hypersmurf]

5) In the case of the dragon, honestly, I wouldn't be using either Evocation or Conjuration. If I was of nongood alignment, I'd be casting a Split Ray Twinned Maximixed (Rod) Enervation.

Leaving aside the question of Twinned ray spells, why the non-good stipulation?

-Hyp.

 

[charlesatan]

Leaving aside the question of Twinned ray spells, why the non-good stipulation?

-Hyp.

Missed your last part, edited my previous post to cover the ground on Twin Spell.

Checking the SRD, it's not listed there, but I could vaguely remember that Enervation had the [evil] subtype. Will check the PHB when I get home.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I expect Twin Spell to work on Rays (and Orbs) for that matter because as far as I know, they still qualify as having the same target, and the sentence following that first line says that any variable characteristic (including attack rolls) apply. But I could be wrong. If that's the case, the Maximized, Empowered, Twin Split Ray Enervation route.

They don't have a target, they have an effect; there are spells that do have a target that require an attack roll (like Shocking Grasp, for example).

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Checking the SRD, it's not listed there, but I could vaguely remember that Enervation had the [evil] subtype. Will check the PHB when I get home.

It doesn't; and even if it did, there's no prohibition on a wizard or sorcerer casting a spell with a descriptor opposed to his own alignment as there is for clerics and druids.

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think we've shown that it's not.

Actually, I don't think you've even scratched the surface in attempting to show that it isn't. I don't find a single one of your arguments convincing in any way (especially if you try to take KD to task for not addressing something that he has already addressed at length earlier in the thread - it isn't reasonable to expect someone to restate every part of every argument in every post in a thread).

p.s. first time I've heard anyone singing the praises of polar ray, which I've universally seen derided in the past.

 

[charlesatan]

It doesn't; and even if it did, there's no prohibition on a wizard or sorcerer casting a spell with a descriptor opposed to his own alignment as there is for clerics and druids.

-Hyp.

It seems I imagined the [Evil] descriptor. As a player I don't want to cast evil spells for roleplaying purposes (unless it's the Protection from ... spells).

 

[charlesatan]

Actually, I don't think you've even scratched the surface in attempting to show that it isn't. I don't find a single one of your arguments convincing in any way (especially if you try to take KD to task for not addressing something that he has already addressed at length earlier in the thread - it isn't reasonable to expect someone to restate every part of every argument in every post in a thread).

I also feel the same way about re-stating about everything I said. If his argument is that it's imbalanced because a) it deals 15d6 points of damage, b1) it's a ranged touch attack/auto-hit and b2) it has no save, and c) that because of the right metamagic feats it's an instant-kill, then I'm saying a) there are other spells that deal 15d6 points of damage, b) it's far from an auto-hit and the fact that orb only targets 1 creature while evocation spells are capable of targeting multiple targets, and c) the same evocation spells can auto-kill using the same logic of metamagic feats.

If he's arguing that it's imbalanced because of the fact that it ignores SR and does considerable damage, then I'm all for it (discussing about it). I just want to get rid of the excess clutter above which I think is not the source of the imbalance -- the fact that it ignores SR is.

Of course if you think that a spell that fulfills a), b), and c) but has SR is still imbalanced, then feel free to correct me.

p.s. first time I've heard anyone singing the praises of polar ray, which I've universally seen derided in the past.

Admittedly I've enjoyed it back in 3.0 when it was Otiluke's Freezing Sphere. But we got Scorching Ray from Flame Arrows so...