Interestingly, there's been some official discussion about the Spell Compendium:
The spells [in the Spell Compendium] did not undergo the same level of scrutiny for balance and rules work as the spells in the SRD, and there's a LOT of confusing stuff in those spells that, if you get deep into the way the rules work there, cause more harm than good. The Spell Compendium is a great resource for expanding spellcaster options, but not a great source for lessons in balanced spell design.
Basically, you can use it, but it's up to the DM to think about things carefully. The "printing press" above is one example, but I'm sure there are others.
My big bone on those spells is that they are conjuration spells and no SR. Should be evocation and with SR and they would be fine.The evoker's weak enough. I have to put in with the folks who say all the energy types and such CAN create imbalance in a game.
I once played a one-time game with a group. We pre-rolled 20th level characters, but I didn't have the SC, and went with core spells for my wizard.
The sorcerer, with the SC spells I'd never heard of, made it so I didn't even have to be there. That stuff is powerful. If you're cool with it, enjoy.
I again played with a group that advised me to take "legion's fire shield," a fire shield you could cast on your whole party. The DM got tired of us doing that, and, after we considered maybe making it higher level, or nerfing it in some other way, just tossed it and I chose another spell for my sorcerer.
He blew s&@t up! Not weak at all, even with just core magic. He was built as a blaster and destroyed tons of monsters, particularly the big stupid ones that would have eviscerated the fighter without some ranged damage.
The common notion is not that blaster are weak, but that they are weak compared to whatever else their peers could be doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you do use spell compendium, watch out for those orb spells (orb of ...) and other ranged touch spells like bolt of glory. Hitting a touch AC is usually damn easy, they have no spell resistance and no save, so they can be real nasty. If I let them in my game again I'd wouldn't allow them to be immune to spell resistance.
Oh, and by the way, bolt of glory allows spell resistance.
My big bone on those spells is that they are conjuration spells and no SR. Should be evocation and with SR and they would be fine.The evoker's weak enough. I have to put in with the folks who say all the energy types and such CAN create imbalance in a game.
Not sure why you think adding spells to evocation is somehow weakening the school. I suggested it for exactly the opposite reason.
Not sure why you think adding spells to evocation is somehow weakening the school. I suggested it for exactly the opposite reason.
I think, by making the spells subject to SR, even if you are putting them under evocation, you're not really strengthening the evoker. You're just giving him one more set of blaster spells that can simply fail - either because he misses the touch attack or because he fails to overcome SR.
Not sure why you think adding spells to evocation is somehow weakening the school. I suggested it for exactly the opposite reason.
Let's compare, shall we, keeping in mind that you called for them to lose their SR bypassing?
First let's compare magic missile vs lesser orb of sound (because sound is the closest energy type to comparing favorably with force). Everything I don't mention in these comparisons is identical between the two spells:
Range: Long vs Close. Major advantage to magic missile.
Damage: 5d4+5 (average 17.5) vs 5d6 (average 17.5). Magic missile is more consistent and has a higher minimum, but lesser orb of sound has a higher maximum. No significant advantage.
Energy Type: Force vs sonic. Force is the superior energy type, as even fewer things are resistant to it than to sonic, and force doesn't have a miss chance against incorporeal opponents. Advantage to magic missile.
Chance to hit: Automatic vs ranged touch. Ranged touch is usually an easy hit, but nothing is as easy as automatic. Major advantage to magic missile.
Number of targets: 1-5 vs 1. Advantage to magic missile.
Overall: Not even a contest. Magic missile wins by a mile.
The other orbs compare better on damage vs an unresistant target, but energy resistances aren't that uncommon even at low levels, so they're a gamble.
Now, there isn't a good non-area-effect damaging Evocation at 4th level in either the core rules or in the Spell Compendium, so this comparison won't be quite so cut-and-dry. I'm going to use a scorching ray vs orb of fire as that's the closest comparison I can find:
Level: 2 vs 4. Advantage to scorching ray.
Damage: 12d6 (average 42) vs 15d8 (average 67.5). Advantage to orb of fire.
Chance to hit: 3 ranged touch vs ranged touch. Scorching ray is more likely to hit at least once. It also has three times the chance to crit. Slight advantage to scorching ray.
Number of targets: 1-3 vs 1. Advantage to scorching ray.
Additional effects: None vs Fort save or be dazed for 1 round. Advantage to orb of fire.
Overall: Orb of fire is better, but it's also 2 spell levels higher; you'd expect it to be better by a more significant margin. Note that this was even closer in 3.5 when scorching ray had 4 rays maximum for 56 average damage.
If you do use spell compendium, watch out for those orb spells (orb of ...) and other ranged touch spells like bolt of glory. Hitting a touch AC is usually damn easy, they have no spell resistance and no save, so they can be real nasty. If I let them in my game again I'd wouldn't allow them to be immune to spell resistance.
Yes, the introduction of Conjuration spells which don't allow SR and make as much damage as evocation spells are a big problem.
Let's compare, shall we, keeping in mind that you called for them to lose their SR bypassing?
First let's compare magic missile vs lesser orb of sound (because sound is the closest energy type to comparing favorably with force). Everything I don't mention in these comparisons is identical between the two spells:
Range: Long vs Close. Major advantage to magic missile.
Damage: 5d4+5 (average 17.5) vs 5d6 (average 17.5). Magic missile is more consistent and has a higher minimum, but lesser orb of sound has a higher maximum. No significant advantage.
Energy Type: Force vs sonic. Force is the superior energy type, as even fewer things are resistant to it than to sonic, and force doesn't have a miss chance against incorporeal opponents. Advantage to magic missile.
Chance to hit: Automatic vs ranged touch. Ranged touch is usually an easy hit, but nothing is as easy as automatic. Major advantage to magic missile.
Number of targets: 1-5 vs 1. Advantage to magic missile.
Overall: Not even a contest. Magic missile wins by a mile.The other orbs compare better on damage vs an unresistant target, but energy resistances aren't that uncommon even at low levels, so they're a gamble.
Now, there isn't a good non-area-effect damaging Evocation at 4th level in either the core rules or in the Spell Compendium, so this comparison won't be quite so cut-and-dry. I'm going to use a scorching ray vs orb of fire as that's the closest comparison I can find:
Level: 2 vs 4. Advantage to scorching ray.
Damage: 12d6 (average 42) vs 15d8 (average 67.5). Advantage to orb of fire.
Chance to hit: 3 ranged touch vs ranged touch. Scorching ray is more likely to hit at least once. It also has three times the chance to crit. Slight advantage to scorching ray.
Number of targets: 1-3 vs 1. Advantage to scorching ray.
Additional effects: None vs Fort save or be dazed for 1 round. Advantage to orb of fire.
Overall: Orb of fire is better, but it's also 2 spell levels higher; you'd expect it to be better by a more significant margin. Note that this was even closer in 3.5 when scorching ray had 4 rays maximum for 56 average damage.
Orb of fire also has the advantage of not allowing SR, which scorching ray allows. Also Fire resistance will apply on each ray of Scorching Ray, and only once for Orb of Fire, which can easily make scorching ray useless.
But I still think that Scorching Ray is too powerful for his level. When I see the nerf of ray of enfeeblement which makes it useless, I don't understand that Scorching Ray didn't change.
Anyway, I disgress. My problem with orb of fire and others particulary orb of cold, is that they're far better than polar ray. The fact that they're four levels lower, and that you can empower or maximize or even quicken them compared to polar ray is a big problem. Also they have a supplementary effect on top on damage.
Orb of fire also has the advantage of not allowing SR, which scorching ray allows.
Did you even read the first line in my post, or, for that matter, read the poster I was quoting and responding to? "keeping in mind that you called for them to lose their SR bypassing"
eh do not think that was him that said that.
It was.
My big bone on those spells is that they are conjuration spells and no SR. Should be evocation and with SR and they would be fine.
eh ya quoted selios not ogre. Anyhow the book has some good stuff but you need to work before you allow it into a game with core only stuff 3.5 or PF as it quickly marks the core as underpowered and a poor mans list next to it
eh ya quoted selios not ogre. Anyhow the book has some good stuff but you need to work before you allow it into a game with core only stuff 3.5 or PF as it quickly marks the core as underpowered and a poor mans list next to it
Care to back that up with some actual analysis? That's an awful broad claim.
I only have what I saw it play. I don't do number yall can do that. What I saw was core being underpowered next to alot of the spells in that book. The book isn't balance or hell play tested it seems. If you like it cool more power to ya. But in my game the book is banned, I may allow something in from it but only after looking it over and re balancing it most likly
Did you even read the first line in my post, or, for that matter, read the poster I was quoting and responding to? "keeping in mind that you called for them to lose their SR bypassing"
So if I understand correctly, you say that orb spells are not good/interesting without actually bypassing SR ?
That may be true for 1st level ones, but not for 4th level ones. As I said about polar ray. Also orb spells have another effect than damage.
So if I understand correctly, you say that orb spells are not good/interesting without actually bypassing SR ?
Yep. Without the ability to bypass SR, the 1st level ones are universally worse than magic missile and the 4th level ones barely compare favorably to a 2nd level evocation.
As I said about polar ray. Also orb spells have another effect than damage.
So does polar ray. And, for the record, polar ray has been the poster child for crappy evocation spells since 3.0. You might say it's the iconic crappy evocation spell. Comparisons based on "well, it's stronger than polar ray!" are better placed as the punchline of a comedy routine than as part of an actual balance discussion.
Not only do I use the Spell compenduim, I use all of the complete books, the four role ones, complete mage, the races books, stone,wild and destined and playershand book two and the minis handbook.
My game runs fine.
I have used the knight and the scout, as is they worked fine.
Also the Favoured soul with a bloodline from the sorcerer.
There is quite a bit of spell slinging.
Here is the thing.
Its your game allow what you want edit what you want.
But yeah the book has run fine for me.
Yep. Without the ability to bypass SR, the 1st level ones are universally worse than magic missile and the 4th level ones barely compare favorably to a 2nd level evocation.
As I said, I agree with 1st level ones, not for 4th level ones, for the reason I posted earlier.
So does polar ray. And, for the record, polar ray has been the poster child for crappy evocation spells since 3.0. You might say it's the iconic crappy evocation spell. Comparisons based on "well, it's stronger than polar ray!" are better placed as the punchline of a comedy routine than as part of an actual balance discussion.
That's funny. You compare spells from SC to spells from SRD to judge their efficiciency and balance, but not polar ray which is a crappy evocation spell.
That's funny. You compare spells from SC to spells from SRD to judge their efficiciency and balance, but not polar ray which is a crappy evocation spell.
You could compare polar ray to just about any spell in the book and come up "spell X is overpowered compared to polar ray!". Polar ray isn't a way to say other spells are overpowered, it's a way to say other spells suck; if you found a spell that didn't make polar ray seem incredibly weak, then that spell would be underpowered.
You could compare polar ray to just about any spell in the book and come up "spell X is overpowered compared to polar ray!". Polar ray isn't a way to say other spells are overpowered, it's a way to say other spells suck; if you found a spell that didn't make polar ray seem incredibly weak, then that spell would be underpowered.
Well so I could use your argument for any spell...
Yes, you could use my argument that any spell that does not hold up well to polar ray is underpowered. Feel free to do so. Polar ray is an excellent measuring stick for sucky spells.
Yes, you could use my argument that any spell that does not hold up well to polar ray is underpowered. Feel free to do so. Polar ray is an excellent measuring stick for sucky spells.
Thanks, but I think I will use the SC for measuring spells that are overpowered. ;)
Sure, as long as you understand that you didn't understand my argument, by making such an assertion.
Sure, as long as you understand that you didn't understand my argument, by making such an assertion.
I think I have understand well your point. That's not a reason to agree blindly to it. ;)
Because the 1st level wizard would never get tired of doing this menial task when he can alter the forces of the universe if someone would let him get out of the local Nex Kinkos . . .
I don't buy that any wizard would sit around indefinitely to do this sort of work, at least not enough that they would replace the need for printing presses. I can see a wizard having his apprentice copy books for his personal use, but not a wizard sweat shop to mass produce books.
Sometimes I think there is a bit of a disconnect between being able to do something, according to the rules, and the reality of if something would be done in a given setting just because its possible.
Being that there were entire monasteries of cloistered monks who did this all day long for their entire lives in the real world? Yeah, I think you could get people to do it. Don't forget that they might not have anything approximating reality bending power - all it takes is an average of a 10 in INT or CHA, which means you could teach it to a commoner. The best he'll manage to do is possibly daze someone for a round, or make it uncomfortably chilly. OR, he can work on mass producing manuscripts, making a lot more gold than he would tilling the fields, without even having to worry about the accuracy problems that the RL monks had to deal with. And he'd do it considerably faster.
I'm not talking about Elminster or Raistlin sitting around photocopying stuff. I'm talking about someone who's effectively a tradesman, but is so thanks to a slight bit of magical training.
Everyone in the D&D universe is literate, unless you allow for traits from Unearthed Arcana. Everyone. Commoners, barbarians, everyone. Why would they all be literate if books were hard to come by? Honestly, this just makes it make more sense.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Being that there were entire monasteries of cloistered monks who did this all day long for their entire lives in the real world? Yeah, I think you could get people to do it. Don't forget that they might not have anything approximating reality bending power - all it takes is an average of a 10 in INT or CHA, which means you could teach it to a commoner. The best he'll manage to do is possibly daze someone for a round, or make it uncomfortably chilly. OR, he can work on mass producing manuscripts, making a lot more gold than he would tilling the fields, without even having to worry about the accuracy problems that the RL monks had to deal with. And he'd do it considerably faster.
My only concern, in game 'reality' is what would happen to the scriveners and scribers guild? Would they lean on the int 10 guy to join the guild? Would they engage in magical sabotage? (guy with wand of erase and UMD for printing errors, illusionary script errata?) or just plain sabotage (fire, embargos on paper, collusion with other guilds "Today they're Wizkos, tomorrow they'll be using teleportation circles to replace the shipping guilds! Are you with me, my brothers!")?
Having just re-read Absalom, I'd picture not so much the 'peseant taking a level of wizard' as the apprentices and journeymen of the wizard schools taking a job to pay tuition. (ironically, mimicking the student working nights at Kinkos.) At least since it's an exact copy, cheating wouldn't be an issue. "You scored a 100% on your paper Mr. Potter. Now if you would explain to the class why your handwriting is the same as Miss Graingers..." :-)
|
|
Because the 1st level wizard would never get tired of doing this menial task when he can alter the forces of the universe if someone would let him get out of the local Nex Kinkos . . .
I don't buy that any wizard would sit around indefinitely to do this sort of work, at least not enough that they would replace the need for printing presses. I can see a wizard having his apprentice copy books for his personal use, but not a wizard sweat shop to mass produce books.
Sometimes I think there is a bit of a disconnect between being able to do something, according to the rules, and the reality of if something would be done in a given setting just because its possible.
Being that there were entire monasteries of cloistered monks who did this all day long for their entire lives in the real world? Yeah, I think you could get people to do it. Don't forget that they might not have anything approximating reality bending power - all it takes is an average of a 10 in INT or CHA, which means you could teach it to a commoner. The best he'll manage to do is possibly daze someone for a round, or make it uncomfortably chilly. OR, he can work on mass producing manuscripts, making a lot more gold than he would tilling the fields, without even having to worry about the accuracy problems that the RL monks had to deal with. And he'd do it considerably faster.
I'm not talking about Elminster or Raistlin sitting around photocopying stuff. I'm talking about someone who's effectively a tradesman, but is so thanks to a slight bit of magical training.
Everyone in the D&D universe is literate, unless you allow for traits from Unearthed Arcana. Everyone. Commoners, barbarians, everyone. Why would they all be literate if books were hard to come by? Honestly, this just makes it make more sense.
Okay my response to this is that you know 0-level spells aren't unlimited by default right? Look at the adept, 0-level spells limited to a # per day. and then the rogue, a limited amount of magical training and you'll notice he doesn't get that 0-level spell as a cantrip. I mean if you think that a higher level wizard would train a 10 int commoner a little "bending reality to their will" more power to you, I think however that they'd at best be shoved into an NPC class like the adept. I wouldn't expect anyone with less than a 14 in their primary stat to get a PC class, heck even then in my worlds they get NPC classes (Nobody but PCs and villians get PC classes) but i play in lower powered worlds.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Honestly, on a case by case basis is the only way to evaluate the SC in any d20 game, but for the sake of decorum, we'll look at the Pathfinder, based on my hazy memory (IDHtSCIFOM).
Some spells (such as phantasmal assailants) need to be re-evaulated because of the damage. Some need to be modified to reflect the nature of the Pathfinder system. Caltrops is an example here. With the scaling AoE mixed with unlimited cantrips, you could quickly become 'defensive battlefield spam man' I was reading an encounter in Halls of the Mountain King that this would quickly become a factor.
Save or Die and 'blanket immunity' spells would need to be changed.
OT on the Orb spells
Even the fluff for psionic energy is "pulling unstable ectoplasm from the astral plane" and it's subject to spell/power resistance.
I'd fluff the orb of x spells as orb of acid (conjuration) and orb of energy (evocation). I'd even allow the wizard to horn in on the psion's territory and 'dial an energy' on casting. But the evocation orbs would allow spell resistance.
I am definately in the case by case basis camp. There are some really good spells in the spell compendium. I love some of the teleportation spells for conjuration specialist battlefield controllers. There are some spells that are off balance given the changes pathfinder made, so I think sitting down with players ahead of time and picking and choosing (and adjusting) as neccessary is the way to go.
I don't believe in blanket-banning books. I like to go with one of two different approaches:
(a) Allow stuff from non-Core books on a case by case basis (and I'm pretty generous in what I'll allow); or
(b) Don't allow stuff from non-Core books per se, but work with the players to implement their own ideas (which might be similar to something in a splatbook). I.e., if a player wants to learn Benign Transposition, then we work together on making an interesting low-level teleportation spell that we're both happy with.
I used to be pretty open about books - buy it and show me what you want (if I don't have it) and you can use it - but I have had more than one problem with this (including at least a couple with spells from SC). My new thinking is that I will judge any "non-core" stuff on a case-by-case basis and reserve the right to remove (or modify) anything I think is unbalanced after we try it out for a while. That said, I won't ever end up banning more than a handful of things.
So, to the OP, we haven't tried SC out in Pathfinder yet but probably will allow at least a few spells into the game - the player of the cleric in our RotRL game (currently 3.5 and on hold while we try out Crypt of the Everflame with PFRPG) is fond of a couple of spells in there and has been using them with no problems under the old rules so we'll probably try to bring them over.
M
The orb spells force the caster to make an attack roll. There are many ways to foil an attack roll. I dont see the issue with them.
I've had some negative experience with certain spell from the Compendium, particularly Ray of Entropy, multiple castings of which decimated my party in another DM's game. With this group I'm DMing I've instituted a "Core Only" ruling, so none of the spells in the book have come up in play. Yet. I have told my players they are free to develop new spells so if they wish to use the spells from the Compendium they must go through the R&D procedure. I feel this will allow me to adequately control the inclusion of non-core spells to the game, at least for arcane spells. I haven't decided how to deal with new divine spells as it hasn't yet become an issue.
I've had some negative experience with certain spell from the Compendium, particularly Ray of Entropy, multiple castings of which decimated my party in another DM's game. With this group I'm DMing I've instituted a "Core Only" ruling, so none of the spells in the book have come up in play. Yet. I have told my players they are free to develop new spells so if they wish to use the spells from the Compendium they must go through the R&D procedure. I feel this will allow me to adequately control the inclusion of non-core spells to the game, at least for arcane spells. I haven't decided how to deal with new divine spells as it hasn't yet become an issue.
I've used the same ruling. And it the spell is too powerful in my opinion, the research fails. And you can apply to divine spells too, I think it was mentioned in the DMG that you can research new divine spells on your own.
I've had some negative experience with certain spell from the Compendium, particularly Ray of Entropy, multiple castings of which decimated my party in another DM's game. With this group I'm DMing I've instituted a "Core Only" ruling, so none of the spells in the book have come up in play. Yet. I have told my players they are free to develop new spells so if they wish to use the spells from the Compendium they must go through the R&D procedure. I feel this will allow me to adequately control the inclusion of non-core spells to the game, at least for arcane spells. I haven't decided how to deal with new divine spells as it hasn't yet become an issue.I've used the same ruling. And it the spell is too powerful in my opinion, the research fails. And you can apply to divine spells too, I think it was mentioned in the DMG that you can research new divine spells on your own.
The only issue I have with independent research of divine spells is when a player wishes to gain access to a spell that may not be thematically appropriate to the deity granting it. Note this would not be an issue with clerics who do not worship a particular deity, but I normally do not allow such things (a DM quirk of mine I suppose). Granted this can be easily remedied by simply ruling the research a failure as you suggested.
One thing I have toyed around with is the idea of when a divine spellcaster is "petitioning" for new (i.e. non-core) spells from his deity he must succeed in a diplomacy and Knowledge (religion) check with a divine representative. Not terribly different from requiring a Spellcraft/Knowledge (arcana) check from arcane casters, but it does establish a little bit of flavor.
Not sure why you think adding spells to evocation is somehow weakening the school. I suggested it for exactly the opposite reason.Let's compare, shall we, keeping in mind that you called for them to lose their SR bypassing?
Basically, you are looking at the wrong things. The spells don't belong in conjuration.
Take a broswe through core. How many conjuration spells do direct damage? How many conjuration spells do fire damage? How many evocation spells bypass SR?
There is an 8th level spell that does nearly the exact same thing as orb of cold, it's an evocation spell. There is a second level spell that does nearly the exact same thing as orb of fire, it's an evo spell. Both of them allow SR.
There are basically 2 direct damage conjuration spells in core, acid splash and acid arrow. Acid arrow does significantly less damage than scorching ray AND spreads the damage over multiple rounds. Basically it sucks compared to it's evocation counterpart... as it should because evocation should be the most powerful blasting school. There are other conjuration spells in core but they almost all spread their damage out over time because evocation IS the blasting school of magic.
Basically, the orb spells ignore all precedence established in core, and they make the conjurer (one of the best magic schools in core) better than the evoker at what the evoker is supposed to be best at. That IMO is the most broken bit in this puzzle.
I'll talk about how maybe not so broken these spells are in a second.
Let's compare, shall we, keeping in mind that you called for them to lose their SR bypassing?
Not sure why you think adding spells to evocation is somehow weakening the school. I suggested it for exactly the opposite reason.
Both Magic Missile and Scorching Ray have long been considered a bit on the overpowered side for exactly the reasons you say. By benchmarking against the best spells in core you are skewing the power level of the wizard. Also notable is the fact that they are both are evocation spells. A pattern begins to form, the best direct damage spells are evocation, and they both allow SR... Hmmm. Why didn't you compare the orb spells to acid arrow which is much closer to what the orb spells do (Non SR conjuration direct damage spells)?
The big advantage of the orb spells is Touch AC, No Save, No Evasion, and customized energy type. Touch ACs are MUCH easier to bypass than saving throws to the point of being auto-success at higher levels. These spells are downright brutal on dragons who have energy vulnerabilities and high touch ACs. They are also awesome against anything with evasion. As with any decent spells you pick the right target and the spell is great.
If you have to bypass the spell resistance that's what SR is for. It's a defense against magical attacks. It's part of the challenge rating system. By introducing a set of spells which are essentially bypass that defense you are seriously screwing creatures that have that defense.
If orb spells are too weak as 4th level evocation spells that don't bypass SR introduce them as 3rd level spells... I think that's reasonable and doesn't screw with game balance.
Basically, you are looking at the wrong things. The spells don't belong in conjuration.
Not sure why you think adding spells to evocation is somehow weakening the school. I suggested it for exactly the opposite reason.Let's compare, shall we, keeping in mind that you called for them to lose their SR bypassing?
My two cents: they should be evocations (except maybe for Acid Orb) and all spells that do energy damage should bypass SR (why punish evokers twice with SR and energy resistance?).
(And a golem's spell immunity should act more like an anti-magic shell than high SR, but that's a complaint for another time.)
Overall, the spells aren't too powerful compared to PF spells. There are one or two problimatic ones, but quite frankly they aren't anywhere near as bad as certain core ones, even with the nerfs given by Paizo.
The only thing I would be weary of is clerics/druids, since they automatically know all spells within the book if you allow it. It could make certain challenges too easy if the clerics and druids can cherry pick their spells from such a source, but then again, any non-core book with additional spells also suffers from this problem, which will include any PF specific splats as well.
My two cents: they should be evocations (except maybe for Acid Orb) and all spells that do energy damage should bypass SR (why punish evokers twice with SR and energy resistance?).
I could agree with this because it is a consistent rule and because evocation is otherwise fairly weak. The whole concept of "We'll bypass SR by making them conjuration spells" is a joke though. Basically it makes these spells the high level no-brainer damage spells.
The people who don't think orb spells are broken probably haven't really had that much experience with particularly at high levels of play. I'm not so familiar with Pathfinder meta magic feats, but in 3.5 there are some nasty ways to ramp up orbs so that they can be real game breakers. A quicken or maximize metamagic rod and few orbs spells can be truly devastating at high levels.
Example- let's say you have an 13th level party going up against an Iron golem. According to 3.5 rules an iron golem is a CR 13, which is in theory an encounter that will use about 20% of the party's resources (clearly not a very good theory). The golem has an AC 30, which makes it fairly tough to hit, but its touch AC is only 8, and it has 130 hp. A wizard's BaB is +6 at 13th so even with no Dex bonus the wizard would only need 2 or higher to hit with an orb. One of the golem's main defenses is that it is immune to magic. However, according to the rules any magic immunity only works against spells that allow for spell resistance, so orbs would damage it. If you use an orb of electricity the wizard would do (13d6) an average of 45.5 damage and slow the golem. The wizard's first attack can easily reduce the golem by 1/3 of its hp. Now if you maximize this with a maximize feat (which you could do at 13th level with 7th level spell slot) or metamagic rod you can dish out 78 points of damage with your first attack. The poor golem, which in theory should be a danger to spellcasters is now down well less than half its hp from one spell. All this and the rest of the party hasn't even done anything. The golem will be lucky if it gets to act.
IMO this sort of example is typical of just how wacky the 3E system is, especially when you get outside the core rules.
Now if you maximize this with a maximize feat (which you could do at 13th level with 7th level spell slot) or metamagic rod you can dish out 78 points of damage with your first attack.
The last barbarian I had was dealing over 100 points of damage by 9th level, simply via core feats and rage. Spellcasters dealing large numbers of damage don't really sound like a scray prospect to me. Besieds, if you have 7th level spells theres plenty of worse (core) spells you can throw that'll screw over a magic-immune creature.
Golum a threat? You could always entrap them with a Forcecage spell for the same level if they're small enough. Then while it's trying to break out you calmly walk past. What about reverse gravity? Even if it passes the saving throw it's stuck trying to hold onto something. Hell, that can take several Golums out of commission at once.
The sad truth is that if you grant a creature flat immunities, and then therse a way to get around it, they're going to be screwed. If you think orbs are overpowering for Golums, they might be, but then any spell that still affects them will be too since it'll be assumed that magic won't be used against them. That might not be a fault with the spells themselves, but rather the monster.
I still think orb spells somewhat are broken, but the truth of the matter is that in terms of game balance the entire system is f~@*ed, especially once you pass level 9, and I'm not sure if Pathfinder has really solved any of those problems. Things like orb spells don't do it any favors.
Despite how messed up it is, 100 damage in a round from a barbarian at 9th level seems pretty high to me, especially form just core feats and rage (especially if you manage this without landing any crits. I could see it with a critical hit).
Now if you maximize this with a maximize feat (which you could do at 13th level with 7th level spell slot) or metamagic rod you can dish out 78 points of damage with your first attack.The last barbarian I had was dealing over 100 points of damage by 9th level, simply via core feats and rage. Spellcasters dealing large numbers of damage don't really sound like a scray prospect to me. Besieds, if you have 7th level spells theres plenty of worse (core) spells you can throw that'll screw over a magic-immune creature.
Golum a threat? You could always entrap them with a Forcecage spell for the same level if they're small enough. Then while it's trying to break out you calmly walk past. What about reverse gravity? Even if it passes the saving throw it's stuck trying to hold onto something. Hell, that can take several Golums out of commission at once.
The sad truth is that if you grant a creature flat immunities, and then therse a way to get around it, they're going to be screwed. If you think orbs are overpowering for Golums, they might be, but then any spell that still affects them will be too since it'll be assumed that magic won't be used against them. That might not be a fault with the spells themselves, but rather the monster.
My example was actually an iron golem, so I'm not sure that stone to flesh would be that great. However, in subsequent rounds the wizard would still likely have some 4th level spell slots, but there probably wouldn't be any subsequent rounds. Wands and scrolls are pretty useful to supplement your spell supply. Like I said above it's more the balance of the entire system that is messed up than that particular spell. My basic belief is that the system is unbalanced coming out the gate, and the more non core stuff you add in the more broken it will get. It might not seem like a big issue to those who are never behind the dm screen, but if you are the dm and it's your job to try to monitor your players and properly build encounters to challenge them, then these issues start to bother you more- at least that's what I discovered (I'm basically always a dm and never a player). Yes it's easy enough to add more monsters and the like, but then you start having to think about the xp you hand out and so on. After some experience you learn how to deal with it all, but I would still prefer if underlying design actually worked.
The people who don't think orb spells are broken probably haven't really had that much experience with particularly at high levels of play. I'm not so familiar with Pathfinder meta magic feats, but in 3.5 there are some nasty ways to ramp up orbs so that they can be real game breakers. A quicken or maximize metamagic rod and few orbs spells can be truly devastating at high levels.
Example- let's say you have an 13th level party going up against an Iron golem. According to 3.5 rules an iron golem is a CR 13, which is in theory an encounter that will use about 20% of the party's resources (clearly not a very good theory). The golem has an AC 30, which makes it fairly tough to hit, but its touch AC is only 8, and it has 130 hp. A wizard's BaB is +6 at 13th so even with no Dex bonus the wizard would only need 2 or higher to hit with an orb. One of the golem's main defenses is that it is immune to magic. However, according to the rules any magic immunity only works against spells that allow for spell resistance, so orbs would damage it. If you use an orb of electricity the wizard would do (13d6) an average of 45.5 damage and slow the golem. The wizard's first attack can easily reduce the golem by 1/3 of its hp. Now if you maximize this with a maximize feat (which you could do at 13th level with 7th level spell slot) or metamagic rod you can dish out 78 points of damage with your first attack. The poor golem, which in theory should be a danger to spellcasters is now down well less than half its hp from one spell. All this and the rest of the party hasn't even done anything. The golem will be lucky if it gets to act.
IMO this sort of example is typical of just how wacky the 3E system is, especially when you get outside the core rules.
How is that any different than casting Stone to Flesh on it and letting the rest of the party blast it with their high damage abilities?
Not to mention a maximized Orb of x spell uses up that 1 and only 7th level spell slot the wizard/sorcerer...
My example was actually an iron golem, so I'm not sure that stone to flesh would be that great. However, in subsequent rounds the wizard would still likely have some 4th level spell slots, but there probably wouldn't be any subsequent rounds. Wands and scrolls are pretty useful to supplement your spell supply. Like I said above it's more the balance of the entire system that is messed up than that particular spell. My basic belief is that the system is unbalanced coming out the gate, and the more non core stuff you add in the more broken it will get. It might not seem like a big issue to those who are never behind the dm screen, but if you are the dm and it's your job to try to monitor your players and properly build encounters to challenge them, then these issues start to bother you more- at least that's what I discovered (I'm basically always a dm and never a player). Yes it's easy enough to add more monsters and the like, but then you start having to think about the xp you hand out and so on. After some experience you learn how to deal with it all, but I would still prefer if underlying design actually worked.
...The people who don't think orb spells are broken probably haven't really had that much experience with particularly at high levels of play. I'm not so familiar with Pathfinder meta magic feats, but in 3.5 there are some nasty ways to ramp up orbs so that they can be real game breakers. A quicken or maximize metamagic rod and few orbs spells can be truly devastating at high levels.
Example- let's say you have an 13th level party going up against an Iron golem. According to 3.5 rules an iron golem is a CR 13, which is in theory an encounter that will use about 20% of the party's resources (clearly not a very good theory). The golem has an AC 30, which makes it fairly tough to hit, but its touch AC is only 8, and it has 130 hp. A wizard's BaB is +6 at 13th so even with no Dex bonus the wizard would only need 2 or higher to hit with an orb. One of the golem's
Yeah, I had Stone Golem on the mind apparently, sorry for the mistake, was editing my prior post but you posted before I finished it.
For an Iron Golem I'd agree that's a good example of something that bypasses other in place defenses. The part about limited spells and such is still an effective argument. Scrolls, wands, and other items of course increase their overall resources, and would agree that 1 7th level spell isnt 20% of the party's total resources. For most cases I'd agree that its balanced, but for this particular case I'd agree with you. The SR nullification makes it a bit too powerful. Unless, of course the party has a pet rust monster or two.
I still think orb spells somewhat are broken, but the truth of the matter is that in terms of game balance the entire system is f#!%ed, especially once you pass level 9, and I'm not sure if Pathfinder has really solved any of those problems. Things like orb spells don't do it any favors.
I agree... I think Pathfinder helped but it's still far from perfect.
Despite how messed up it is, 100 damage in a round from a barbarian at 9th level seems pretty high to me, especially form just core feats and rage (especially if you manage this without landing any crits. I could see it with a critical hit).
Regardless of whether 100HP/ round is reasonable or not the barbarian is doing it at arms length, in harms way. IMO a fighter/ barbarian who is toe to toe with the enemy SHOULD be out damaging the ranged wizard on a per round basis. Also, I'm not sure off the top of my head what the golems AC is versus the barbarian's BAB which would skew things a lot.
Well a barbarian's BaB would be 13 and the AC of the golem is 30. Factor in about another +8 to +10 for a raging strength bonus and another +3 for a magic weapon, and you have a conservative +25 to hit. Any player who has even a tad of munchkin in him can get this up another 4-5 points, which pretty much equates to an auto hit with your first attack.
My only concern, in game 'reality' is what would happen to the scriveners and scribers guild? Would they lean on the int 10 guy to join the guild? Would they engage in magical sabotage? (guy with wand of erase and UMD for printing errors, illusionary script errata?) or just plain sabotage (fire, embargos on paper, collusion with other guilds "Today they're Wizkos, tomorrow they'll be using teleportation circles to replace the shipping guilds! Are you with me, my brothers!")?
Having just re-read Absalom, I'd picture not so much the 'peseant taking a level of wizard' as the apprentices and journeymen of the wizard schools taking a job to pay tuition. (ironically, mimicking the student working nights at Kinkos.) At least since it's an exact copy, cheating wouldn't be an issue. "You scored a 100% on your paper Mr. Potter. Now if you would explain to the class why your handwriting is the same as Miss Graingers..." :-)
Who says that these wizards/sorcerers aren't the scriveners/scribers guild? Why wouldn't that guild be the ones controlling the supply of obviously skilled and effective means of production? They might get uppity if a PC wizard starts horning in on their territory, but they're probably the ones teaching their members how to do this sort of thing.
Well a barbarian's BaB would be 13 and the AC of the golem is 30. Factor in about another +8 to +10 for a raging strength bonus and another +3 for a magic weapon, and you have a conservative +25 to hit. Any player who has even a tad of munchkin in him can get this up another 4-5 points, which pretty much equates to an auto hit with your first attack.
Not much chance of munchkining in my group, all fairly n00bish other than me.