No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?

[KarinsDad]

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.

Actually, this is not quite accurate.

The actual rules quote is:

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

This states "square". Singular.

This says nothing about creatures that occupy more than a single square.

The following quote:

Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.

This rule says nothing about ranged attacks.

Hence, we have no rule (TMK) that discusses ranged attacks versus large creatures. The rule just does not exist.


So, a DM can make up a rule, or use one of these two rules. At a range of 5 feet, I see no difference between melee attacks and range attacks for the second rule. Creature A is attacking large creature B from the same square with either a melee or ranged attack, so why should the cover rule be different? Does the wall to the archer's left stop arrows when he is firing to the right, even though it would not do so for the fighter swinging his sword?

The second rule also makes more sense. The colossal dragon should not be able to hide behind a human, any more than an ogre should be able to hide behind a mouse.

 

[Votan]

You mean to say you thought I was serious? Of course I was making the point that telling someone if they can't disprove someone's numbers they automatically agree with them. I assumed that would have been obvious to everyone reading due to the fact that I chose 50 (or thereabouts) as my supposed average touch AC. I could have used fewer books and a more reasonable number if I'd actually been trying to lie about it and use the inflated average as an argument int he ongoing orb debate. You'll note I never once referred to it except while making a point about the burden of proof being on the one making the claim.

True, but as a rhetorical device it has the downside of not being plausible. What is plausible about averaqge touch AC of 11 arguments is many creatures have an AC of this magnitude. On the other hand, I am not aware of single example of touch AC > 50 in a non-epic book.

The mean lying outside of the range of the data is an easy way to diagnose an error.

People seem to have put some effort into averaging these things to make a point. I actually disagree with the point that they are making but I respect that they are putting effort into trying to show it effectively.

 

[two]

Orbs Best when you need it!

One thing that has been lost in all this interesting (for the most part) discussion is the fact that the orb spells are strongest, and most useful, WHEN THE SITUATION IS MOST DIRE.

Using the Orb spells vs. 1-4 opponents, particularly at mid or high levels (10+), is very, very strong. If there are 4 opponents, you can likely take one out immediately with a meta-magicked Orb (if 4 make a reasonable challenge, they can't all have really high HP). Taking out 1/4 of the opponents in one round is highly effective.

With 3, 2, or 1 opponent it is even more clear.

In mixed battles, with 10 mooks, 2 sub-monsters, an 1 major monster, the orb blaster should be able to take out the sub-monster in one round, and the major monster in 2 rounds. Just ignore the mooks for a while.

The ONLY time the orb blaster is unhappy is when faced by 5+ similarly powered monsters. Taking out one a round isn't that powerful.

On the other hand, an attack by 10 cr-appropriate monsters isn't a big deal. Sure, fireball is effective in this case, but so are a lot of other spells (acid fog, etc.). When you increase the numbers to 15 or 20, the power of each individual mook decreases. Yeah, the blaster mage is great at these sorts of things. But the party, as a whole, is likely not in much danger, and the orb slinger has a lot of other useful options (cloud spells, etc.).

When the orb master really shines is, well, WHEN YOU NEED HIM MOST.

Going up against some nasty high HP monster with magical defenses... or a high AC fighter type with great saves... etc.

I can think of a thousand monsters that make fireballers unhappy (high reflex save, mid-or-high SR, elemental immunities).

I can only think of a few SITUATIONAL setups where the Orb guy is unhappy. (the only monster that the orb guy hates is incorporeal undead types with high touch ac.)

At the end of the day, when the going gets tough, the Orb blaster has all his best features highlighted: lots of no save no sr damage to a single target with a near auto-hit.

At the end of the day, when the going gets tough, the evoker has all his weakest features highlighted: reflex save and SR (and elemental immunity).

 

[Diirk]

I can only think of a few SITUATIONAL setups where the Orb guy is unhappy. (the only monster that the orb guy hates is incorporeal undead types with high touch ac.)

People keep mentioning this, but bar the touch ac incorporeal isn't much of a hindrance if you don't want it to be ; transdimensional spell metamagic from Complete Arcane lets you avoid any incorporeal miss chance for a +1 adjustment.

 

[glass]

People keep mentioning this, but bar the touch ac incorporeal isn't much of a hindrance if you don't want it to be ; transdimensional spell metamagic from Complete Arcane lets you avoid any incorporeal miss chance for a +1 adjustment.

The problem isn't the incoporeal miss chance; Orb of Force deals with that handily anyway. It is the fact that incorporeals gain a deflection bonusequal ot their Charisma bonus (minimum 1).

However, even this isn't that big a deal, because even 'high' touch ACs are rarely that high as to be as much of a problem as a save and spell resistance.


glass.

 

[James McMurray]

True, but as a rhetorical device it has the downside of not being plausible. What is plausible about averaqge touch AC of 11 arguments is many creatures have an AC of this magnitude. On the other hand, I am not aware of single example of touch AC > 50 in a non-epic book.

The mean lying outside of the range of the data is an easy way to diagnose an error.

People seem to have put some effort into averaging these things to make a point. I actually disagree with the point that they are making but I respect that they are putting effort into trying to show it effectively.

Would you have been happier if I'd said the average was 18? It still would have worked, but more people might have thought I was serious, which would have ruined the example. But, if it makes you feel better, please feel free to go back, reread it, and pretend I said 18 (or whatever number makes you happy).

 

[Nail]

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.

Huh!

That....that is not a "rule" I use.

In any event, firing an orb at something with cover changes the average touch AC to 15. Whoop-dee-dee.

 

[KarinsDad]

In any event, firing an orb at something with cover changes the average touch AC to 15. Whoop-dee-dee.

Well, they have a point. There will be situations where the enemy effectively has a +4 bonus to touch AC for cover and/or a +4 bonus to touch AC for being in melee.

However, like other apects of this, a lot of this is in the control of the PCs. The PC using the Orb can often move so that soft cover from allies no longer exist, his allies can move around opponents do that soft cover no longer exist, the PC can take the Precise Shot feat, the PC or his allies can move so that the large creature does not get the in melee bonus, etc.

And finally, in these "unfavorable situations", the PC caster can choose to do something else and wait to blast when he can either create the appropriate opportunity, or try to change the situation, or even blast at the penalty.

So sure, the +4 or +8 bonus for the enemy will occasionally be a factor in the game, but the PCs can control to a large degree how much of a factor it is.

For the most part, it is going to be PC Orb Slinger against touch AC 8 to 14.


Even in these "unfavorable situations", having a 60% to 80% chance to hit with an Orb at 7th level is still typically better than having a 40% to 75% chance to hit with a Will save spell where it is not obvious what type of Will save the opponent might have. And against some opponents like Oozes, Dragons and most Undead, it's a no brainer.

 

[Votan]

My question is whether the reference cateogry makes sense. We are comparing the ability of conjurers to do damage to that of Evokers. That Orbs are better than the standard (seemingly underpowered) Evocation spells shows only that either:

1) Orbs are overpowered
2) Evocation spells are underpowered

I tend to think that #2 is more true than #1 given the other spell options that are around and the impact that they can have.

 

[Nail]

So sure, the +4 or +8 bonus for the enemy will occasionally be a factor in the game, but the PCs can control to a large degree how much of a factor it is.

True.

And I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been very strict about cover vs ranged attacks in my games. (I've changed my ways for our current game....)

Even in these "unfavorable situations", having a 60% to 80% chance to hit with an Orb at 7th level is still typically better than having a 40% to 75% chance to hit with a Will save spell where it is not obvious what type of Will save the opponent might have.

That's a point worth repeating.

Tangentially: Knowledge (whatever) can usually get you Type" information about a creature pretty easily (re: MMIV). That should let you know fairly well what kind of good/poor saves a monster has.