Orbs vs. Evocations II- with level by level data

[shmoo2]

Just wanted to say: great job.

Hey thanks!

The numbers back up what my gut, and playing experience, have told me.

As was mentioned previously, it is not uncommon for party members to go up again monsters with a higher CR than the party level. Not unusual at all -- particularly in climactic battles.

Orbs do better as CR rises compared to Evocation; it would be fun to see the average damage vs. an opponent 2, 3, or 4 higher than the party/PC level. We know what the result will be. The orbs will have a really huge advantage.

The ratios for a level 11 wizard vs. 'all' CRs:

CR	ratio
7	1.24	
8	1.24
9	1.40
10	1.58
11	1.47	
12	1.86	
13	2.30	
14	3.06	
15	2.49
16	5.01

Again, things get wacky at high levels with the orbs ability to ignore SR. And a level 11 wizard is unlikely to fight multiple CR 14 or CR 15 monsters at once. In a BBEG battle, orbs rule. Vs. mooks the party would beat easily anyway, use evocations.

In retrospect, these numbers actually backed up experience IMC also: the orbs have become 'must haves' only at later levels as we've progressed through the SCAP (were at level 16 now).

I actually expected the orbs to be better at lower levels, though. As calculated however, they seem reasonable to me until level 12 or so. A definite trade off exists as described by the 'orbs are balanced' folk- high damage get through SR vs. lower damage, SR, multiple hits. At high levels though the trade off becomes seriously skewed towards the orbs.

That's why I think a 10d6 damage cap would work well: keep the orb's no SR niche, but also keep interesting trade offs in the game.

 

[Corsair]

Though a BBEG with mirror image can make the orb useless.

 

[Stalker0]

Again, congrats for all the hard work.

That said, there's one thing people should consider strongly before decrying this as definitive evidence, it could be wrong If someone's up to it, anyone want to recheck the math so we know this table is accurate?

 

[KarinsDad]

Though a BBEG with mirror image can make the orb useless.

Yeah, every BBEG has one of those in his pocket. Ditto for all monsters.

 

[KarinsDad]

Did you take into account the -4 for shooting into melee?
Did you take into account the cover bonus monsters get from your party-mates?
Between those, I really think you are overestimating the hit chance of Orbs.

Did you take into account that when your party members are in melee with the monsters, orbs are only penalized but area-effect spells may be totally unusable?

I just had to quote this (let alone the fact that those penalties can be avoided with proper tactics and/or feats).

It's amazing to see the blinders people have when doing an analysis.

Nicely said BM.


shmoo2, great job here!

 

[KarinsDad]

If someone's up to it, anyone want to recheck the math so we know this table is accurate?

I think I just heard a volunteer!

 

[Al'Kelhar]

I missed the original discussion on the merits or otherwise of the orb spells, but thought I'd just put in my 2c.

While the excellent stats provided above establish the relative benefit of orb spells over evocation spells, it seems clear to me that the designers of the spells simply realised that SR combined with energy resistance and escalating hit points in 3E truly stuffed the archetype blaster mage, and wanted to compensate somehow without revising the SR mechanic - which by the time Complete Arcane came out, was far too deeply embedded in the ruleset. That is, I reckon the orb spells are a deliberate attempt to make damage-dealing arcane spellcasters viable at higher levels. The designers did this by shoe-horning a type of spell - the instantaneous effect energy damage spell - into the wrong school of magic. And even then they broke the general spell design principle that energy damage Conjurations are subject to SR.

I've adopted three house rules in order to properly categorise energy damage spells and make their use sensible at higher levels:
- spells causing energy or force damage instantaneously (even if they have non-instantaneous secondary effects, e.g. nausea, deafness, stunning etc.) are Evocation spells;
- spells causing energy or force damage over time are Conjuration spells, and are always subject to SR (which is checked the first time the resistant creature becomes subject to the spell, e.g. by entering its area of effect);
- the energy damage from Evocation spells is not subject to SR (although any non-eneregy damage secondary effect is).

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[TYPO5478]

The key stat is the ratio between orb damage and evocations- it's how many monsters need to be caught in the Area of Effect for evocations to be worth it.

So, basically what we're supposed to learn from these numbers is that if you can hit two or more creatures with an area spell then the area spells are better than the Orb spells; but if you can only hit one, the Orb spells are better?

Is it just me, or is that conclusion really obvious?

Why would you waste an AoE spell on a single target anyway?

 

[wildstarsreach]

Did you take into account the -4 for shooting into melee?
Did you take into account the cover bonus monsters get from your party-mates?
Between those, I really think you are overestimating the hit chance of Orbs.
Did you take into account the ability of area effect attacks to harm more foes?

Most of our groups recent wizard builds, have been with point blank shot and precise shot. These 2 feats serve make the orbs better than they are on paper.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In a BBEG battle, orbs rule. Vs. mooks the party would beat easily anyway, use evocations.

I like this line. It suggests 'in difficult fights, use orbs. In easy fights you would win anyway, use evocations'. No wonder the evokers guild has serious self-esteem problems nowadays