No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?

[James McMurray]

But they are immune to effects that require a fortitude save unless they also work on objects.

Damaging spells work on objects. There's a whole section in the rules about how energy types interact with hardness.

 

[Elethiomel]

Damaging spells work on objects. There's a whole section in the rules about how energy types interact with hardness.

Hmm, good point. But that leaves me confused as to why the [object] descriptor exists.

 

[James McMurray]

Because not all spells are damaging spells?

 

[IanB]

Hmm, good point. But that leaves me confused as to why the [object] descriptor exists.

In this case, if it had been used, it would presumably be to indicate that the secondary effects of the orbs affect objects.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think my players may have a different definition of stupid than yours, given this plan involving giving AOOs to a creature with a vorpal weapon.

Who said anything about giving an AoO?

Take a 5 foot step so that I can target the side squares of the large creature without the -4 penalty.

 

[IanB]

Who said anything about giving an AoO?

Take a 5 foot step so that I can target the side squares of the large creature without the -4 penalty.

You know, I started to write a note in response to this, but it really is a digression. I am not trying to convince you anyway; I was just providing the first bit of data leading to my conclusions about *my* game. You already appear to have come to your own conclusions, so my data will probably not be useful to you. That is perfectly fine.

I will say that I have to wonder if most DMs are enforcing the ranged cover rules properly, given how consistently it is being dismissed as irrelevant by people.

 

[Rystil Arden]

You know, I started to write a note in response to this, but it really is a digression. I am not trying to convince you anyway; I was just providing the first bit of data leading to my conclusions about *my* game. You already appear to have come to your own conclusions, so my data will probably not be useful to you. That is perfectly fine.

I will say that I have to wonder if most DMs are enforcing the ranged cover rules properly, given how consistently it is being dismissed as irrelevant by people.

Against the size Large Balor, it likely is irrelevant, but it admittedly depends on just how many allies you have, how big they are, and where they are positioned.

 

[IanB]

Against the size Large Balor, it likely is irrelevant, but it admittedly depends on just how many allies you have, how big they are, and where they are positioned.

When talking about cover, large+ creatures actually typically have an easier time getting it against ranged attacks. Remember, the 'choose one square' rule for cover with larger creatures is for melee attacks, not ranged attacks. With ranged attacks, you have to trace to every corner of every square of the large+ creature to check cover. Terrain counts as well.

When talking about the firing into melee penalty, it is easier to avoid that with a large+ creature, yes.

I also play a lot of DDM, so I may be more used to using/abusing the cover rules than most DMs, though.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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 ).

Those are some options. Of course, the DM has free reign, so if he REALLY wanted to, he could just say that he is immune or has energy resistance against that particular spell. He doesn't have to explain WHY or HOW this particular BBEG is being unaffected (or less affected) by the spells. Perhaps a Wizard cohort buffed him up a couple hours ago, and then left to run an errand. So we have a Fighter with Wizard buffs on (Energy Resistance, Spell Immunity, etc.) and again, it's not like the DM has to explain every defense an NPC has against the players.

If Orb spells are not broken, why would the DM have to craft BBEGs with specific defenses against it?

He certainly doesn't have to do that, but the option is always open to him. Have you never had a BBEG that had Improved Evasion? That pretty much cancels out all AE spells. So it's not like you are specifically designed him to avoid the PC Wizard's Fireball spell which he uses all the time. That's just a particular defense he has. Against Scorching Ray, he's not so defensive. Same with the Orbs. A particular BBEG might have a particular defense agains that, but not against AE spells. Again, it's not like the DM has to explain an NPC's defenses to the PCs before, during or after the encounter...

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).

There are several spells which deal damage or harm an opponent in other ways which bypass saving throws. Why are Orbs so special in this regard?

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.

Isn't that the DM's job though? To make challenging encounters? To think of ways around the PC's offense and defense? Sometimes the PCs will wipe the floor with NPCs, other times it will be a close call.

If you are running an encounter straight from a module, those encounters do not take into account all the variant books and such that are out, so often times the DM will have to improvise if he wants that encounter to be more challenging. If the DM makes up his own encounters, he is already altering the way the NPCs will react to the PCs to begin with, so he just has to take certain things into account. Whether it is Orb spells, Wraithstrike, or what have you. That's part of being a DM.

 

[Rystil Arden]

When talking about cover, large+ creatures actually typically have an easier time getting it against ranged attacks. Remember, the 'choose one square' rule for cover with larger creatures is for melee attacks, not ranged attacks. With ranged attacks, you have to trace to every corner of every square of the large+ creature to check cover. Terrain counts as well.

When talking about the firing into melee penalty, it is easier to avoid that with a large+ creature, yes.

I also play a lot of DDM, so I may be more used to using/abusing the cover rules than most DMs, though.

That's incredibly interesting--you're absolutely right, but I must have auto-errataed it to fix the ridiculous implications (I imagine if you got a question about it into the FAQ, they'd do the auto-errata as well, though of course it would not count). I don't want a colossal dragon hiding from my ranged attacks behind a mouse Choosing one square of the larger creature for ranged attacks as well as melee attacks makes a lot more sense.