No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?

[James McMurray]

It's not ignored...it's just not easily refutable.

I ignored it because there was no math, just numbers. Tossing out floats doesn't impress me without also explaining where they came from.

 

[Notmousse]

I ignored it because there was no math, just numbers. Tossing out floats doesn't impress me without also explaining where they came from.

Not only that, but it still ignores that the Evoker's shtick is in taking out hordes of mooks or units of minions as much if not moreso than on one one situations. Furthermore there's going to be more low level enemies than high level ones.

 

[charlesatan]

Deathe Ward makes you immune to death effects and negative energy, which includes Enervation.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that creatures don't usually have death ward on. Mind blank yes, death ward no. Of course the undead type are immune to negative energy so that's already a bunch of creatures that's immune to it. But aside from them, few creatures in the MM have outright death ward cast on them or have some such immunity.

 

[Drowbane]

All were Sudden feats, and I believe sudden twin was in CMage or CArcane. If not then the player pulled a fast on on the GM.

Sudden Twinned doesn't exist in any WotC products (that I could find). Perhaps your DM houseruled it in?

 

[Plane Sailing]

I ignored it because there was no math, just numbers. Tossing out floats doesn't impress me without also explaining where they came from.

What additional explanation are you looking for? The fact that average damage on a d6 is 3.5, so an attack that does 8d6 damage will produce 28 damage on average? The %age chance that the 20th level caster will overcome the great wyrms spell resistance? That is where the basic maths behind Rystil's illustration comes from.

Which bit of their derivation is obscure?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Not only that, but it still ignores that the Evoker's shtick is in taking out hordes of mooks or units of minions as much if not moreso than on one one situations. Furthermore there's going to be more low level enemies than high level ones.

That sounds like a bit of retroactive shticking to me

The traditional Evokers shtick has always been causing direct damage. Limiting it to be an anti-mook shtick because some designer gave conjurers a better single-target direct damage spell doesn't make sense (and gives even less reason to be an evoker than normal).

Mook-clearing spells are only any good if there are mooks to clear (and that isn't always the case - IMX it isn't even often the case) AND you have an opportunity to do it before the rest of your party get into melee. Once melee is joined, ranged touch or targetted damage spells become the best way of participating in your chosen fashion (big booms for the evoker - or at least that is what the recruiting pamphlets said...)

Cheers

 

[Rystil Arden]

What additional explanation are you looking for? The fact that average damage on a d6 is 3.5, so an attack that does 8d6 damage will produce 28 damage on average? The %age chance that the 20th level caster will overcome the great wyrms spell resistance? That is where the basic maths behind Rystil's illustration comes from.

Which bit of their derivation is obscure?

I agree--it's all pretty transparent. Oh, and I forgot to apply SR to the level 20 Evoker's Quickened Cone of Cold last night. With that in mind, the Evoker loses by even more.

 

[charlesatan]

Sudden Twinned doesn't exist in any WotC products (that I could find). Perhaps your DM houseruled it in?

It never existed. The "Sudden" feats were applied only to the PHB metamagic feats, with Sudden Quicken having the most prerequisites.

 

[Felix]

If you insist on being insulting that's a fine interpretation.

They've created spells that fit nicely into one school, but put it in another that doesn't jive unless you treat the rules as guidelines, which you do in this case (the "rules pirate" was a joke, if that didn't come accross; I recently watched Pirate of the Carribean if you missed the reference).

If you're going to have rules, you may as well treat them as such. Those spells were either made in ignorance of the rules presented, or they were careless: I figure assuming the second option the more comforting and less insulting vis a vis the folks who make the game.

But whatever the reasons for it making it into the book, it hasn't been changed yet, so either they're fine with it or they don't care enough to issue an erratta.

WotC has been lackadaisical about issuing errata about many things that don't make sense; I would hesitate to accept something I have a problem with because they haven't erratad it.

 

[James McMurray]

What additional explanation are you looking for? The fact that average damage on a d6 is 3.5, so an attack that does 8d6 damage will produce 28 damage on average? The %age chance that the 20th level caster will overcome the great wyrms spell resistance? That is where the basic maths behind Rystil's illustration comes from.

Which bit of their derivation is obscure?

Perhaps the part where the guy that requires SR spells to perform his "schtick" doesn't have Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Assat Resistant, some form of Caster Level boost, or any of the millions of other things that an actual 20th level caster facing a dragon is likely to have. I didn't feel like backtracking the numbers to see which of those (if any) he'd accounted for.