No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?

[Rystil Arden]

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.

The feats are not a good idea for comparison because then I can give the Conjurer two different feats (she has no need for them after all) that make her massively more powerful than the Evoker, and then we'd have to decide whether it was just because of feat choice (I've been down that road before). In reality, taking Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration in a game with Orbs is idiotic because you can save two feats (a massive savings, since Spell Penetration and its Greater cousin tend to be taken using high-level feat slots since they don't help much at low levels) for a BETTER benefit by just casting the Orbs instead. Assay Resistance is a whole other round's worth of actions. With Orb average damage, if the rest of the party is doing anything, the dragon is dead by round 2 of attacks (and this includes the 15th-level Conjurer vs the vastly stronger Dragon, the Orbs are just that powerful). The damage is already around 25% of the dragon's total per round for the Conjurer only.

 

[James McMurray]

So it's not a good idea to give a character that requires the ability to penetrate spell resistance abilities which allow them to penetrate spell resistance before discussing their ability to penetrate spell resistance?

In reality, taking Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration in a game with Orbs is idiotic because you can save two feats (a massive savings, since Spell Penetration and its Greater cousin tend to be taken using high-level feat slots since they don't help much at low levels) for a BETTER benefit by just casting the Orbs instead.

So now you're saying that with the existence of orbs spell resistance no longer matters at all?

Assay Resistance is a whole other round's worth of actions.

Not if you use the printed casting time of One Swift Action instead of hamstringing yourself by casting it slower.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Every source of fire I've seen requires fuel, from torches to lamps to lanterns to alchemist's fires. While not written out explicitely I believe that it wouldn't be against the RAI (not to mention the dreaded common sense) that fire needs fuel.

I think the "common sense" arguement gets thrown out the window as soon as you discuss magic which creates an orb of flame out of thin air.

And, unless you were one of the game designers, it's kind of hard to argue RAI. Perhaps the RAI is that they should be Evocation, not Conjuration? Or that when they wrote the rules on the Conjuration school of magic, they "really didn't mean" the only two things you could conjure had to be either a creature or an object. Only the game designers can really say what the intent of it was, all we can do is speculate and house rule.

That's why I prefer to discuss RAW in situations like these...

 

[James McMurray]

It's definitely true that RAW never states explicitly that nonmagical fires require fuel, but I'm incredibly surprised it's actually sparked debate.

 

[Rystil Arden]

So it's not a good idea to give a character that requires the ability to penetrate spell resistance abilities which allow them to penetrate spell resistance before discussing their ability to penetrate spell resistance?



So now you're saying that with the existence of orbs spell resistance no longer matters at all?



Not if you use the printed casting time of One Swift Action instead of hamstringing yourself by casting it slower.

So it's not a good idea to give a character that requires the ability to penetrate spell resistance abilities which allow them to penetrate spell resistance before discussing their ability to penetrate spell resistance?

No, I'm saying that taking them leads the discussion to a place of comparing feat optimisation where it probably shouldn't go (because if I use those two feats for the Conjurer to make the Conjurer even stronger, you could then claim that it's only because of those two feats).

So now you're saying that with the existence of orbs spell resistance no longer matters at all?

Why yes. Yes I am. In fact, you've hit the nail on the head. For direct damage anyway, and that's what we're talking about here. The spells are just that broken. Notice that they do slightly more damage than the Evoker in the example before applying SR. There is no possible reason to prepare Polar Ray over Twinned Orb of X (uses the same slot for much more damage even without SR, and extremely more damage with SR). With Orbs in existence (if you don't take the better way out and houserule them to allow SR, of course), SR no longer matters because your staple attack spell doesn't allow it. The old spells that ignore SR deal tidbits of damage over time, and often less than the Evocation spell does up front even after all the time (unless the enemies are somehow forced to stay in an area spell), so you actually have to think about which to pick. Orbs are right now, they do slightly more damage without SR, and they ignore SR. Thus they make SR obsolete. Let's examine the possible situations if you don't believe:

The Old Way when Orbs didn't exist--

Situation 1: Enemy doesn't have SR--Optimally you would cast an Evocation, since they do much more damage than the Conjuration equivalents and they do it right now. You have to prepare some Evocations so that you can do this though. If you're stuck with only Conjurations you're in trouble.
Situation 2: Enemy has SR--Optimally you would cast a Conjuration spell that ignores SR, but if you're any good at caster level, the Evocation with the SR chance actually looks attractive here too, but either way, the presence of SR lowers your damage output.

Now With Orbs:

Situation 1: Enemy doesn't have SR--Cast Orb and do slightly more damage or cast Evocations for slightly less--we should prepare the Orbs in case of below, though
Situation 2: Enemy has SR--cast Orb, ignore the SR, and do massively more damage than the Evocation, and the same as the Orb did to the no-SR guy. Because we prepare the Orb either way, SR didn't matter at all--it is rendered irrelevant.

 

[RigaMortus2]

It's definitely true that RAW never states explicitly that nonmagical fires require fuel, but I'm incredibly surprised it's actually sparked debate.

I don't know about you, but when discussing the RULES, I actually like to use the RULES. Not mix in "real world" physics (unless they are actually defined somewhere in the game RULES). YMMV

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is no possible reason to prepare Polar Ray over Twinned Orb of X...

... assuming one permits Twin Spell to be applied to a spell with neither Target nor Area entry...

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

It's definitely true that RAW never states explicitly that nonmagical fires require fuel, but I'm incredibly surprised it's actually sparked debate.

It's a debate over how rigorously you decide to apply the Conjuration (Creation) Instantaneous duration spell rule.

The rule says they stick around.

Common sense says they need something to burn to be non-magical.

The two don't jive; this is a problem with the spell, not the rule.

 

[Rystil Arden]

... assuming one permits Twin Spell to be applied to a spell with neither Target nor Area entry...

-Hyp.

To be fair, the 7th-level Maximised Orbs do more damage than Polar Ray, as does the 6th-level Empowered Orbs, so you don't need Twin Spell to beat them.

 

[SlagMortar]

Common sense says they need something to burn to be non-magical.

Note that the rules also say the fire from the orb of fire is magical because it has a 50% chance - because its a spell - of affecting an incorporeal creature and incorporeal are immune to all non-magical attack sources. By the rules, orb of fire makes magical fire that is not subject to spell resistance.