No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?

[James McMurray]

What is good for the goose is good for the gander..... meaning if PC's can use them so can the BBEG as long as its available to both sides can anything really be broken?

Yes.

 

[PallidPatience]

meaning if PC's can use them so can the BBEG as long as its available to both sides can anything really be broken?

Yes.

 

[IcyCool]

What is good for the goose is good for the gander..... meaning if PC's can use them so can the BBEG as long as its available to both sides can anything really be broken?

Yep, and in most cases that means that the Sorceror, Wizard, or Rogue will be sitting that encounter out, as he'll be the first to eat enough unstoppable damage to kill him outright.

 

[IanB]

What I'm not sure of is why the 'orb spells are overpowered' side (I'm sort of waffling between both camps myself) continually seems to dismiss ranged touch attacks as being autohits.

They're not even close to that! I've played a warlock of significant level who had spent quite a few resources on making his ranged touch attacks better, and I still missed noticeably often. A wizard/sorcerer is almost certainly going to be less accurate with their ranged touch attacks.

Even a touch AC of 15 isn't anything close to a gimme for a wizard much of the time; for a wizard or sorcerer who hasn't invested a bunch of feats into ranged attacks, hitting people with these ranged touch spells is going to be a similar challenge to SR when you start factoring in AC from cover and penalties for firing into melee. (And that isn't even getting into miss chances from bad illumination or other sources.)

I think this is a significant flaw in the arguments as presented, and the fact that it is being ignored makes the 'anti-orb' case a lot less compelling to me. I dunno, maybe I accidentally skipped a page somewhere in the middle, but it doesn't seem like something that should just be glossed over as irrelevant.

(I definitely agree that they're thematically problematic. I'm just not totally sure they're broken in terms of game balance.)

 

[PallidPatience]

There are a relatively few types of creatures that will have a touch AC anywhere near comparable to their normal AC. Those monsters do not include assumed common encounters for high level play, including powerful giants, dragons, and other large monsters whose main level of defense is the high natural armor bonus that is ignored by touch attacks. At the same time, many of these creatures also have SR (especially dragons). It is this second level of defense, not the natural armor bonus, which is used against touch-attack spells.

 

[Rystil Arden]

What I'm not sure of is why the 'orb spells are overpowered' side (I'm sort of waffling between both camps myself) continually seems to dismiss ranged touch attacks as being autohits.

They're not even close to that! I've played a warlock of significant level who had spent quite a few resources on making his ranged touch attacks better, and I still missed noticeably often. A wizard/sorcerer is almost certainly going to be less accurate with their ranged touch attacks.

Even a touch AC of 15 isn't anything close to a gimme for a wizard much of the time; for a wizard or sorcerer who hasn't invested a bunch of feats into ranged attacks, hitting people with these ranged touch spells is going to be a similar challenge to SR when you start factoring in AC from cover and penalties for firing into melee. (And that isn't even getting into miss chances from bad illumination or other sources.)

I think this is a significant flaw in the arguments as presented, and the fact that it is being ignored makes the 'anti-orb' case a lot less compelling to me. I dunno, maybe I accidentally skipped a page somewhere in the middle, but it doesn't seem like something that should just be glossed over as irrelevant.

(I definitely agree that they're thematically problematic. I'm just not totally sure they're broken in terms of game balance.)

As PallidPatience says, there are many high-CR creatures with excellent saves, terrible touch AC, and high SR. The things that have terribly high touch ACs tend to be Monk/Rogue NPCs and incorporeals, and that's about it except edge-case things with weird Deflections in there (Nymph for one). In my examples, I always factored in the chance for the orb to miss. However, the orb always only missed on a 1.

 

[Notmousse]

Yes, I figured that out in post 224. As I said there, regardless of the math, you aren't going to care, so I'm not going to go to the effort of producing more. I think that the two sides are represented fairly well here based on their respective merits (examples, rationale, and numbers vs "No it's not" denials) for anyone lurking to read it. The question is this: is the OP satisfied? If so, we can probably be done here.

Why do you feel the need to snipe at the people opposed to your position rather than their position? Does it make you feel better, or are you hoping that we'll stop having our opinion if you insult our position?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Why do you feel the need to snipe at the people opposed to your position rather than their position? Does it make you feel better, or are you hoping that we'll stop having our opinion if you insult our position?

This post I'm quoting has been the first so far that is an ad hominem attack. James McMurray has agreed that he doesn't care about the math--the Orbs work in his game, and he's okay with that, and we've agreed to disagree. Please don't make ad hominem attacks, particularly when both people involved have settled it and you're a bystander. It stirs the pot for no reason.

 

[FireLance]

Huh?

Wow, that's a weird nerf. I agree such a nerf is not the right direction.

[Tangent]I think the main reason for the change was that multiple astral constructs took up too much time at the gaming table, as the player had several creatures to control. It was as much a game-play issue as it was a balance issue.[/Tangent]

 

[Notmousse]

You insulted the position I take and I asked why in like tone.

I went to check your math the other day, but could not find 'Easy Metamagic', so I can only presume it's either in a book I don't have access to (mostly campaign books and third party), or doesn't exist. I can't argue a point where a crucial bit of information isn't available.