No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?

[Someone]

Charlesatan, I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. The compaints about the Orb spells are that they do damage comparable to other Evocation, energy-based, single target spells of frequently higher level and allows far less defenses than them. This makes the orbs objectively better than those evocations. The auto-kill and such arguments are admittedly red herrings: both evocations and orbs can kill, so what? The point is that the orbs can deal damage much easily, since they only have to hit and deal with energy resistance VS having to hit, deal with energy resistance and deal with SR.

 

[charlesatan]

Charlesatan, I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. The compaints about the Orb spells are that they do damage comparable to other Evocation, energy-based, single target spells of frequently higher level and allows far less defenses than them. This makes the orbs objectively better than those evocations. The auto-kill and such arguments are admittedly red herrings: both evocations and orbs can kill, so what? The point is that the orbs can deal damage much easily, since they only have to hit and deal with energy resistance VS having to hit, deal with energy resistance and deal with SR.

If the auto-kill argument is something we can drop, then I'm glad. It's one less thing to debate about. Which was my point with my previous posts.

Second, I don't want to get into an argument which is overall better: a ranged touch attack or a saving throw against a spell. The former is an all-or-nothing gambit: if it hits, you're dealt full damage. If it doesn't, nothing. A saving throw on the other hand is the reverse: at worse, it's half damage. At best, it's full damage. But never under any circumstances is a ranged touch attack an auto-hit. At best there's a 5% chance for failure. But I don't think that will always be the case (certainly there will be chances when that will be the case but there will also be scenarios when you will only have 5% chance to hit). For me the ranged touch attack vs saving throw is a stylistic choice. Depending on the opponent the former might be a better choice than the latter but it is far from "all the time the former trumps the latter".

Third, they're both energy based. Okay. For me Abjuration, Conjuration, and Evocation had energy subtypes. Evocation just tends to have more of them.

Fourth, I'm not denying that the Orb spells aren't great single target spells. They are. But so what? I don't think single target spells are the forte of Evocation. It's spells that damage multiple targets. And the Orbs don't occupy that particular niche. It's giving the chance to do 10d6 damage at multiple targets for 15d6 at just one.

Fifth, what I think is the heart of the argument is that the Orb spells ignores SR. Evocation spells simply don't have such a counterpart. That I think is what we should be discussing. Not the other "red herrings". And even assuming the Orbs are imbalanced, it's not dethroning the school of Evocation. I still can't hit multiple targets with the Orb spells at the same damage output. Evocation can.

 

[Someone]

No, a ranged touch attack isn't a guarantedd ht, and a reflex ST means normally that you're going to deal some damage. But overall, starting at medium levels a ranged touch attack is vastly better than saving throws.

However, the crux of the matter isn't even this, or the fact that orbs aren't fireballs. The point is that the orbs, which are conjurations, are better than similar evocation spells. By similar I mean ranged touch, energy damage dealing spells. And they are better because they deal similar or more damage, and allow less defenses. I doesn't mater that there are other spells in the evocation school that deal area damage: orbs are good enough (and then some) to be part of the evocation school. As an analogy, suppose Necromancy had a 1st level spell mostly identical to charm person, only that it doesn't allow spell resistance. That the enchantment school still has Mass Suggestion doesn't change the fact that the new necromancy spell is better than Charm person.

 

[Henry]

No, a ranged touch attack isn't a guarantedd ht, and a reflex ST means normally that you're going to deal some damage. But overall, starting at medium levels a ranged touch attack is vastly better than saving throws.

IMO, this point bears emphasizing. The Attack bonus for a touch attack, even for wizards and sorcerers, goes up MUCH faster than the Touch AC of most opponents faced at higher levels (levels above 8th or 9th, anyway). 95-100% of the opponents in the MM have touch AC's below 16, and PROBABLY half of them have touch AC's below 10; a mid-level spellcaster has a touch attack in the +4 to +8 range, meaning I fail one time out of 4 or 5 to deliver full effect (damage, anti-magic, charming, etc.) When I play spellcasters I seek out touch attack spells. I don't consider it a drawback, I consider it an advantage.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I doesn't mater that there are other spells in the evocation school that deal area damage: orbs are good enough (and then some) to be part of the evocation school. As an analogy, suppose Necromancy had a 1st level spell mostly identical to charm person, only that it doesn't allow spell resistance. That the enchantment school still has Mass Suggestion doesn't change the fact that the new necromancy spell is better than Charm person.

Well said, my friend

 

[KarinsDad]

charlesatan, I'm wondering--do you play at higher levels? If so, do you fight against by-the-book monsters? If so again and you use the Orb spells as written in their gloriously-broken no-SR splendour, do you honestly see people using Polar Ray? Because I'm here from experience with play in that level, and I can tell you that SR is a major factor and the orb spells (metamagicked up to snuff) break the game at high levels if the SR isn't changed.

Thanks for trotting out the overwhelming one sided math Rystil. I usually try to go to the math to prove points, but did not have time to do so at work this week.

Course, charlesatan totally ignored the math, but whatever.


I'd like to point out another issue that pro-Orb people will blow off as well, but to me it is another worthwhile advantage of Orbs.

Energy damaging spells which have SR and/or saves (specifically Reflex saves) have non-detectable defenses which can negate them completely. For example, a high SR or Improved Evasion (or even such a high Reflex save that half damage is often ensured). The caster often does not know until he casts the spell (and maybe even not necessarily then) that the spell has a high chance of failure. This is even true for spells like Scorching Ray which have both a ranged touch attack and SR.

However, energy damaging spells like the Orbs which only have a ranged touch attack tend to have detectable defenses which can negate them completely. In other words, a miss chance. Invisibility or Blur or concealment or cover or even Displacement are often noticable. The caster tends to know ahead of time that his opponent is invisible and the spell has a high chance of failure, so he can intelligently choose to cast a different spell instead.

So in addition to the Orbs averaging more single target energy damage than most single target energy damaging Evocation spells as illustrated, they also have a selection advantage. The caster incorrectly chooses a single target energy damage spell less often with the Orbs. If the caster can clearly see the target (shy of some more unusual magic), he can typically damage the target.


And of course as someone else pointed out, with a ranged touch attack, that is mostly under the control of the caster. He can bump up his to hit and damage with spells and feats and PrC special abilities in order to become a ranged touch attack specialist. It is mostly under his control. Most opponents are not anti-ranged touch attack specialist such that they can defend against this and most opponents do not have extremely high touch ACs. For most opponents, even ones with high hit points, Orb spells are deadly.


As both of these points illustrate, controlling your odds is a major advantage of ranged touch spells. As single target energy damage spells, Orbs have the best of all worlds.

 

[James McMurray]

So is claiming that it disappears immediately after use. Indefinite means that something lasts until some other factor changes it. Unfortunately, that is not defined by the rules.

You're right. The rules don't declare that fire needs fuel. LOL

Maybe not for you, but can you list a single target Evocation spell that does energy damage and does not have SR?

No, but I haven't read every book. It isn't important, either. I also can't name an evocation spell that targets a single creature and grants them negative levels, but I can name a telepathy (i.e Enchantment) psionic power that does it (Mindwipe). Crossovers happen.

Instead of a max of 15D6 for a 4th level spell, it's typically a max of 8D6 (and often less) for a 6th level spell.

Assuming minimum caster level of 11, Acid Fog deals 22d6 damage in an area, it's just spread out over time.

No, but it does have SR. At 15th level, a 4th level Orb spell does the same damage as an 8th level Polar Ray spell, but the Orb spell does not have SR and has a special condition if a save is failed. Granted, the Polar Ray does more damage at higher levels, but consider: at 15th level, the 4th spell is considerably better than the 8th level spell.

The conjurer is better with a 4th level spell than an evoker is with an 8th level spell for an energy damage spell which is the evoker's specialty.

That's just plain imbalanced.

Yep, Polar Ray blows chunks as an 8th level spell. I definitely agree with you on that.

And this is important how? AMF has a radius of 10 feet. It is extremely rare when an enemy spell caster is within that range.

I've only very rarely seen someone activate an AMF when they weren't within range. Doing it outside of 10' from the enemy caster is usually a stupid idea, because he can just leave. If you want to hurt him instead of just forcing him to cast fly and drop rocks on your head you have to cast it when you're within range.

The problem is that Antimagic Field is a 6th level spell that is supposed to be the ultimate protection versus cast spells (at the cost of losing the caster's only spells and magic items) and a 1st or 4th level spell can blow through it.

OMG!!!! I just realized you're right!!!! Quick, everyone sign my petition to ban Acid Splash! It's waaay too powerful for a cantrip. It does the same damage as Ray of Frost, but is more likely to stop a regenerater, and ignores AMF!!! EEEEEK!

 

[KarinsDad]

Assuming minimum caster level of 11, Acid Fog deals 22d6 damage in an area, it's just spread out over time.

Yes, and because of that, often spread over no targets. Most of the time, opponents leave it as quickly as possible. Now, it is possible to put Wall spells around it so that opponents cannot get out, but typically opponents in Acid Fog take anywhere between 2D6 and 8D6 damage max and if they have Energy Resistance Acid 10 or higher, they often take no damage whatsoever.

I've only very rarely seen someone activate an AMF when they weren't within range. Doing it outside of 10' from the enemy caster is usually a stupid idea, because he can just leave. If you want to hurt him instead of just forcing him to cast fly and drop rocks on your head you have to cast it when you're within range.

Stupid???

Have you actually played this game at high level? I've seen AMF used in a lot of ways to prevent enemy attacks from affecting PCs.

Examples: Dispelling Wall, Symbol spells, surprise round spells, supernatural abiliites from undead, breath weapons, gaze attacks, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on and on and on.

Since it lasts 10 minutes per level and is dismissable, it's one of the best overall defensive spells in the game. People who do not use it this way are basically clueless on how powerful it really is. Sure, if the Sorcerer or Wizard or Cleric then wants to cast a spell in a combat, he has to dismiss it and that takes a Standard Action (although he can still often cast a swift or Quicken spell if he wants). But in the meantime, AMF prevents most of the unexpected nasty stuff that can happen before the party can react. And it saves on a boatload of Heal and Restoration-like spells. Having one caster dedicated to this level of defense is huge in the game.

And since it merely suppresses spells and magic items and does not dispel them, a caster can buff up before casting AMF and the instant he brings it down, all of his buffs are up.


All of your sarcasm aside (it's really not necessary and makes your position look less tenable, not more), you really do not know what you are talking about with regard to AMF.

 

[Notmousse]

So is claiming that it disappears immediately after use. Indefinite means that something lasts until some other factor changes it. Unfortunately, that is not defined by the rules.

And when conjuring fire you need fuel to sustain it, or like all other non-magical fire it goes out.

Conjured cold is filled by ambient heat, conjured acid becomes inert after burning something, conjured electricity discharges, conjured sound shoots away at roughly 750mph (so not even a monk sould catch it!) harmlessly, conjured force dissipates due to it's unstable properties.

In short it goes away because it hits.

 

[Rystil Arden]

1) Yes, I play at high levels. It's actually my preferred area of play. =)

2) Yes, I would use Polar Ray. Because I can use Twin Spell Split Ray on Polar Ray and not on the Orb spells (because as much as they are like rays, they simply aren't). That's not to say I'd never used Orbs. But the question is a) will I be facing creatures with SR/spell immunity and b) how many. In the absence of a), I'll be using Polar Ray. If they have spell immunity, I'll use the orb. If they have spell resistance, it depends on b) which i'll get to later.

3) I'm not saying that an attack roll isn't better than a saving throw. But if you've ever played D&D, you'll also know how you'll hit on a roll of 5 and above yet you managed to roll 4,3,2, and even the dreaded 1. And again, once they're in melee and firing into melee penalties and cover applies, I'm more hesitant to fire a ray (especially when there's a chance I'll hit an ally). If the dragon in the example used the spell Scintillating Scales which turns their nat armor into a deflection bonus (dragons can cast spells too!), I wouldn't be hitting them in the first place unless I rolled a 20.

4) The dragon example is biased towards the Orb user in the sense that it's a single target. If I were facing multiple opponents (even if they have SR), I'll most likely still be using a Delayed Blast Fireball or Chain Lightning (plus whatever metamagic feat). As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the strength of Evocation in my opinion is its ability to tackle multiple foes. If I were facing single targets, I could depend on other schools (Enchantment, Necromancy).

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. The dragon actually has a lower SR for its CR. With spell penetration I have a good chance of penetrating the SR (I'd probably even invest in an item that boosts my caster level or those that helps beat SR). If various books are allowed, I'd cast Assay Resistance in the first place to give me a +10 bonus to the caster level check. Actually optimally speaking, I'd never use Meteor Swarm. It's not as cost efficient as I'd like it to be. I'd honestly actually use Polar Ray (plus whatever metamagic) on it or a lower-level evocation spell (delayed blast, etc.).

Enchantment? Necromancy? At high levels, a good percentage of enemies are virtually immune to both (at least the good single-target stuff) either naturally or due to Death Wards and Mind Blanks. And they still allow SR.