No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?

[Rystil Arden]

Cool. Most GMs I know would allow it because it's already balanced by being a feat, so you don't have to sweat over it. Instead of spending a feat you're spending money for an extremely limited use of the feat. Like I said though, feel free to dismiss it. It doesn't really change anything about picking a strong spell, giving the caster foreknowledge of his enemy's weaknesses, and then slapping that enemy (who coincidentally has an abyssal touch AC) with a spell specifically designed to fight that enemy. Energy Substitution works just as well for that sort of stacked setup.

My initial analysis gave both casters, Connie and Evan, an average attack in that they attacked with an energy type that the creature neither resisted nor was weak against, electricity, not cold. Interestingly, Connie does so much damage that she is better off using cold despite Energy Resistance, though Evan is better using Electricity because his attacks are weaker than Connie's and likely to be saved against. Also, if they both used Electricity and the dragon resisted Electricity, Connie would still be okay, but Evan would be completely ruined.

As to the touch AC, you did see the post where Karinsdad went through the entire SRD for you and calculated the touch ACs of every monster to show you what percent have different thresholds of touch AC, right?

 

[Notmousse]

And Connie can shrug and use an Orb of Force, while Evan is stuck with that 50% incorporeal miss chance unless he uses a metamagicked Magic Missile (which has terrible damage potential). Besides, Ghost Dragons are a whole lot rarer in published and homebrewed adventures I've seen than the regular variety.

There's more force spells now than Magic Missile.

BTW metamagics further skew the numbers in your favor since the evoker is using his highest spell slot and thus can not use any of those neat metamagic feats. Not only that but it's 6 feats for a 15th level wizard. Did neither of them want to do anything aside from chuck magic?

 

[James McMurray]

I saw a few posts with numbers in them, but doubt the veracity of them. I avoided replying to those posts because I didn't want to say so, but since you brought it up I feel I have to.

 

[Rystil Arden]

There's more force spells now than Magic Missile.

BTW metamagics further skew the numbers in your favor since the evoker is using his highest spell slot and thus can not use any of those neat metamagic feats. Not only that but it's 6 feats for a 15th level wizard. Did neither of them want to do anything aside from chuck magic?

I tried the Evoker with Metamagics also in my very first example. He does less if he uses metamagicked Cone of Cold, Fireball, Delayed Blast, etc, as I pointed out, because Meteor Swarm doesn't allow a Reflex save if it hits.

Did neither of them want to do anything aside from chuck magic?

Well, they're Wizards, right? That's what they do. Evokers especially (and although Conjurers sometimes do other things, Connie is specifically created to be a wannabe Evoker blaster, though she is better than the actual Evoker thanks to Orbs)

 

[James McMurray]

There's more force spells now than Magic Missile.

BTW metamagics further skew the numbers in your favor since the evoker is using his highest spell slot and thus can not use any of those neat metamagic feats. Not only that but it's 6 feats for a 15th level wizard. Did neither of them want to do anything aside from chuck magic?

A 15th level wizard has 10 feats available (6 from levels + 4 bonus feats from class). This assumes he never picks up a PrC of course.

 

[hong]

BTW metamagics further skew the numbers in your favor since the evoker is using his highest spell slot and thus can not use any of those neat metamagic feats. Not only that but it's 6 feats for a 15th level wizard. Did neither of them want to do anything aside from chuck magic?

Well, that would be why Rystil said a long time ago, in a thread you apparently haven't fully read:

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).

 

[Notmousse]

If Orbs ruin the game against enough monsters, it doesn't matter that they aren't too much better against others and suck against a few. That's like saying that the following spell isn't unbalanced because it won't kill ghosts (or anything except orcs!):

Level 1 Spell: Power Word Orcbane
Range: Long
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V
Targets: All orcs in range
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: None

Effect: This spell destroys all targets. This is not a death effect, they are just destroyed. For the purposes of Orcbane, Gruumsh and other orc deities count as an orc, as do half-orcs due to the orc-blooded special ability.

Love the hyperbole, keep it up!

If you want to weaken you case with these absurd instances in any case.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I saw a few posts with numbers in them, but doubt the veracity of them. I avoided replying to those posts because I didn't want to say so, but since you brought it up I feel I have to.

Now we really are going in circles--you already brought up this point 4 pages ago:

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

and Plane Sailing replied to you:

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?

EDIT: Thanks hong It's frustrating to keep making the same points I already made

 

[Kmart Kommando]

So, how is comparing an Orb to a Fireball proving anything? If the wizard is throwing down fireballs at a single target, then they are nerfing themselves.

Maximimizing Fireball yields 30 or 60 points. Maximizing the Orbs yields 90 points (180 for a critical, 0 for a miss).

I wouldn't toss a fireball at less than 3 targets, so the numbers jump to 90-180 for your Maximized Fireball.

A regular Orb spell does avg 52.5 dmg, while a Sculpted Fireball (Same 4th level slot) hitting 5 targets (reasonable, since 4 10ft cubes covers plenty of ground) does 175, with saves for half, or 87.5 with all targets saving.

Winner: Fireball

If one of the targets evades the fireball, then you pop him with an Orb.

With Orb spells, you pretty much need Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, or you'll miss too often.

I'd much rather have Whirling Blade than an Orb Spell, but then, I like to mix it up and melee sometimes.
here's one to tear down: Sculpted Whirling Blade

 

[Rystil Arden]

Love the hyperbole, keep it up!

If you want to weaken you case with these absurd instances in any case.

Actually, it was intentionally absurd. What I just did there is a logically valid argument. Check here: reductio ad absurdum

In this case, you made the following logical statement:

Okay, I admit that it murders all dragons and similar low touch AC high SR monsters. But that's a special case you chose. There are some things that it is terrible against, like ghosts. So it is balanced.

So I used reductio ad absurdum--your argument is that as long as something doesn't work against some enemies, it is balanced, so that should apply in the extreme (I was nice--I could have made it kill everything except orcs, but I made it even more specialised than orbs--Orcbane works against a small minority of things, but it ruins the game if those are your opponents).

Your argument doesn't stand up in the extreme case, as you then admitted.

(If you didn't click the link, the most familiar case of reductio ad absurdum is:

Father- Why did you start smoking?
Daughter - All my friends were doing it.
Father- You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too? )