Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James McMurray" data-source="post: 3453672" data-attributes="member: 743">No, what I realized is that we were talking past each other. You dismiss my posts as "no it's not denials." I ignore your math because it doesn't give the whole picture. Even if you show beyond a shadow of a doubt that orbs are always better than area spells against a single target it won't change the fact that 1) you don't always want to do straight damage and 2) single target encounters are not the only thing that ever happens.If a conjurer memorizes nothing but orbs and en evoker memorizes nothing but area spells and it turns out that they fight single critters constantly, the orb guy could very well be far ahead in damage. Of course, single target spells are supposed to do more damage, so that doesn't surprise me. However, if they turn out to fight nothing but groups, the orb guy is going to do nowhere near as much damage as the evoker. IMX, YMMV, etc. the single creature encounters, especially at higher levels, are not very common. With or without orbs the amount of damage a party can output when they only have one target means that a DM is frequently forced to toss multiple opponents out there just to get the fight to last a while.Again, if the world consists of nothing but single critters waiting around with "please nuke me" signs around their necks, the orbs are probably too strong. If most of those creatures have higher SR than average for their CR (or even outright immunity) then the orbs are almost certainly too strong. If that's the way your games go, I fully support an outright ban or nerf on orbs. It isn't the way my games go.</blockquote>

Verification