No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?
- Thread starter Matrix Sorcica
- Start date
IanB said:
Your analysis here is skewed. It discusses only one creature and that one, one of the best touch ACs once it puts up defenses. The creatures that an Orb user would target would not be ones with miss chances (of which you had 3). However, until they get those defenses up, all of the creatures you listed are reasonable targets.
Pre-defenses up, those targets have touch ACs of:
10 11 16 6 10 11 13 9 10 6 16 17 = 11.25 average
BAB 10 basically handles most of these except for 3 of these creatures and Dex/Size/Magic, etc. can easily handle the rest.
Post-defenses (typically after round one unless the PCs are ambushed) and excluding the miss chance ones where the PC caster can consciously choose to use more favorable spells:
10 14 20 6 17 13 10 20 21 = 14.6 average
The best 3 creatures have touch AC 20+, but most do not.
And it makes sense for a party of higher level PCs to use tactics (and possibly code words) so that the Fighter moves away from a Balor so that the Wizard can blast him with an Orb. Players do not have to play their PCs stupid.
Rystil Arden
First Post
To add to what Karinsdad said, Balors are size Large, and depending on the party setup and choices, it is reasonably likely that you'll have a spot to target that isn't considered firing into melee due to the 10-foot rule.
Hey all,
Not to be a jerk, but I'm not real keen on reading 10 pages to get in the mix here, so I'll be concise and preface this with a blanket apology if I mention something that's been said already.
In the long term, I think the orb spells are arguably balanced based on their inability to deal damage to more than one target. A fireball catches what (?) 52 squares in a tablegrid? If there's a viable target in each square, the fireball puts out 520d6 (avg. 1820 points, maxed 3120 points) in one shot. Sure, it's distributed and divided evenly to each square, but that's part of the point, isn't it? A fireball can deal oodles of damage across the board where an orb can guarantee a sizable amount of damage to one target.
Things you have to concede on the issue, and I mean everyone:
1) No SR means affecting golems and not having to worry about high-SR foes; this is good but not a deal-breaker. There are (a few) high-end baddies with no considerable magic resistance.
2) Touch attack doesn't set this spell apart from most others. Polar ray is a touch attack, ED is a touch attack... what's the big deal? These spells ignoring physical armor is almost a given, to me at least, given the fact that I can't really think of any other way to do it. If the orb of fire touches you, you burn. End of argument.
3) Having a higher damage cap (all 'cept orb of force, since force damage is so hard to resist) is part-and-parcel for being a level higher. The fact that there's no SR is 'balanced' against lower level evocations by the single-target restriction
4) There are so many rules and spells and conditions out there that people can keep pulling out of the hat that there's no way to conclusively prove whether the orbs are 'broken' or not.
5) The additional effects of the spells is, IMO, what pushes the envelope on their design. Orb of electricity is fine enough, adding a blinding (or whatever) ability to it is edging on too much icing on the cake.
6) Twin and Admix are frickin' terrible metamagic feats and should be stricken from the record, saving us all a lot of needless back-and-forth on how jacked-up a spell can be made, thus proving or disproving someone's opinion on the issue of balance. I know that we can't very well ignore these feats, but they need to be taken with a grain of salt, since all these feats serve is to lead to these kinds of issues: namely that once you start slapping Admix and Twin onto spells, especially like the orbs, you start to grit your teeth. Going for the orb spells might seem intuitive, but it's more the fault of these feats than the spell itself. Stand alone, empowered or maximized or both, the orb spells are worth the price of copying to the spellbook, but throw in these metamagics and you wake up a whole can of worms.
Not to be a jerk, but I'm not real keen on reading 10 pages to get in the mix here, so I'll be concise and preface this with a blanket apology if I mention something that's been said already.
In the long term, I think the orb spells are arguably balanced based on their inability to deal damage to more than one target. A fireball catches what (?) 52 squares in a tablegrid? If there's a viable target in each square, the fireball puts out 520d6 (avg. 1820 points, maxed 3120 points) in one shot. Sure, it's distributed and divided evenly to each square, but that's part of the point, isn't it? A fireball can deal oodles of damage across the board where an orb can guarantee a sizable amount of damage to one target.
Things you have to concede on the issue, and I mean everyone:
1) No SR means affecting golems and not having to worry about high-SR foes; this is good but not a deal-breaker. There are (a few) high-end baddies with no considerable magic resistance.
2) Touch attack doesn't set this spell apart from most others. Polar ray is a touch attack, ED is a touch attack... what's the big deal? These spells ignoring physical armor is almost a given, to me at least, given the fact that I can't really think of any other way to do it. If the orb of fire touches you, you burn. End of argument.
3) Having a higher damage cap (all 'cept orb of force, since force damage is so hard to resist) is part-and-parcel for being a level higher. The fact that there's no SR is 'balanced' against lower level evocations by the single-target restriction
4) There are so many rules and spells and conditions out there that people can keep pulling out of the hat that there's no way to conclusively prove whether the orbs are 'broken' or not.
5) The additional effects of the spells is, IMO, what pushes the envelope on their design. Orb of electricity is fine enough, adding a blinding (or whatever) ability to it is edging on too much icing on the cake.
6) Twin and Admix are frickin' terrible metamagic feats and should be stricken from the record, saving us all a lot of needless back-and-forth on how jacked-up a spell can be made, thus proving or disproving someone's opinion on the issue of balance. I know that we can't very well ignore these feats, but they need to be taken with a grain of salt, since all these feats serve is to lead to these kinds of issues: namely that once you start slapping Admix and Twin onto spells, especially like the orbs, you start to grit your teeth. Going for the orb spells might seem intuitive, but it's more the fault of these feats than the spell itself. Stand alone, empowered or maximized or both, the orb spells are worth the price of copying to the spellbook, but throw in these metamagics and you wake up a whole can of worms.
Rystil Arden
First Post
FWIW, I refuse to concede 6, 4, and parts of 3 and 1 of the "things you have to concede"
Pssthpok said:
Interesting point.
It is balanced to kill the BBEG the DM spent 3 hours crafting with a Twin Orb spell in a single round with him having no defenses whatsoever because you didn't also kill all his mooks as well. Hmmm.
Btw, in a reasonable discussion, one cannot ignore the synergies of the rest of the game system (including metamagic) just because excluding it supports the conclusion that one wants to make.
RigaMortus2
First Post
KarinsDad said:Interesting point.
It is balanced to kill the BBEG the DM spent 3 hours crafting with a Twin Orb spell in a single round with him having no defenses whatsoever because you didn't also kill all his mooks as well. Hmmm.
Why would a DM spend 3 hours crafting a BBEG and NOT give him any defenses? Especially since he is the DM and (assumingly) knows what spells/powers/abilities/feats/skills/items all his players have?
Hmmm... I am making a BBEG. I know Bob likes to use Orb of Force a lot, so I won't take any defenses to prevent this, we'll just see how it goes.
I can see this spell being used to great lenths on mooks and maybe MBEGs (Minor Bad Evil Guys), but a BBEG encounter is supposed to be dirty and gritty and down to the wire (if at all possible). I would think a DM putting that much time into creating one would find defenses around killer spells or combos.
RigaMortus2 says it all. If the DM can't prepare around the banality of his PCs, then it's his problem, not the orb spells that are affecting his game. I mean, c'mon... entropic shield is a 20% miss chance on those spells, SR or not. Mirror image is a tremendous defense against those spells, SR or not.
I think people are trying to pick on the orbs regardless of the possible counters to them, instead concentrating solely on the mechanic of the spells in an insulated fashion, rendering them and their ability to deal with the RAW as-is impotent in the face of a few conjuration effects that, by definition, are largely kosher.
Sure, you can counter the counters, but this isn't arms race, it's a discussion about whether or not the orbs are too powerful. If they were AOEs... yes, but they're not. Single target ranged touch: conjurers have a poor BAB, the spells are readily countered by illusions and abjurations, and if the BBEG is so poorly wrought that the PCs can admix-twin-empower-max orb of acid them in two rounds, they deserve it.
I think people are trying to pick on the orbs regardless of the possible counters to them, instead concentrating solely on the mechanic of the spells in an insulated fashion, rendering them and their ability to deal with the RAW as-is impotent in the face of a few conjuration effects that, by definition, are largely kosher.
Sure, you can counter the counters, but this isn't arms race, it's a discussion about whether or not the orbs are too powerful. If they were AOEs... yes, but they're not. Single target ranged touch: conjurers have a poor BAB, the spells are readily countered by illusions and abjurations, and if the BBEG is so poorly wrought that the PCs can admix-twin-empower-max orb of acid them in two rounds, they deserve it.
Last edited:
RigaMortus2 said:
I was being facetious, but if you really want an answer:
It depends. What if the BBEG is a fighter type? Do you give him a Cloak of Major Displacement knowing that the PCs will probably acquire said item? There are not that many items that significantly protect against Orbs and which a DM might want fall into the PC's hands.
Or do you give him a Wizard cohort with instructions: "I know that Bob likes to use Orb of Force, so cast Displacement on me first round."? Sounds kind of railroady (wish I had a better non-existent word for that
).If Orb spells are not broken, why would the DM have to craft BBEGs with specific defenses against it?
Nobody talks about crafting BBEGs with specific defenses against Fireball because Fireball already has at least one defense that all NPCs already have (i.e. a saving throw). The BBEG does not need a specific defense against Fireball. General defenses (e.g. high hit points and a decent Reflex save) might suffice (situation depending).
But Orbs have so few significant defenses that the DM would have to purposely alter his BBEG and/or scenario, just to take them into account. He doesn't have to do that for Fireball.
Bad argument. BBEGs should be default have a strong defense against the party's strengths, either through environment or preparation. To do otherwise is to invite the sort of thing that causes the misconception that certain effects/items/spells are overpowered when in reality all it takes is proper planning and equipping. It's not 'railroading' to defend your BBEG against the sleeve-card of the PC arcane spellcaster, it's 'intelligent'.
Similar Threads
