It also means that the orbs never go away. So, apparently, there are left-over orbs sitting around in the corners of dungeons, strewn about battlefields, etc. No longer powered by magic, yet immune to physics. Just there..burning, freezing, electrifying, sounding, forcing, etc. I've thought that it makes for a couple of amusing adventure hooks were it not for the OGC=No problem.
That is utterly fascinating...I like that.
It depends on the type of battle you're fighting. Despite hyperbole, only a handful of spells could be consider "win the fight" spells in practice as opposed to reality. Then again, I think our personal experiences differ here.Also, let's not forget the maximize spell feat here. 40 non SR auto-damage(if not auto-hit) is a serious punch. And if you work in True Strike, you've got a reliable way to deal 40 points of damage every other round.20 points of damage every other spell as opposed to a "win the fight" spell is bad bargain for the players.
Even if it is not a win the fight spell 20 points of damage to a single creature every other round is not impressive. I did find that the evocation version(Tome and Blood) was from 3.0, but you could hit multiple targets with it. I think that one is more powerful than the single target conjuration version.
This topic has been covered at least twice before, just sayin'.
How I agree: In a party that has an Evoker and a Conjurer (2 separate characters), I could see the Evoker whining about the orb spells, in which case I would probably just allow the Evoker access to them. They really aren't that scary.
How I disagree: So it's OKAY for a 10th level Barbarian(2H), Ranger (Archer), Rogue(TWF), Paladin to pour potentially 100+ damage into... let's say a dragon, but it's game breaking-world ending-OMGDAWGONFYRE for the wizard/sorcerer to toss Orb of Force for 60(10d6) damage max? Which he can't even 'Empower' for +50% until 11th level... which is STILL only 90 damage max. Do you know how hard it is to roll ALL 6s on 10-15 dice? Good luck with that.
As for the SR: I played the SR game (blaster-built celestial sorcerer) for an ENTIRE module during the CotCT AP, basically watching as everyone else played for several gaming sessions AND I had Spell Penetration/Greater Spell Penetration. Near the end of the module we leveled and I took an orb spell... I actually got to contribute in the last fight other than layering Dispel Magic, which our cleric already had well under control. My suggestion, roll up a wizard/sorcerer (without conjuration), fight 2-3 months(real time) of SR heavy creatures, let me know how much fun you're having watching the Barbarian and Rogue play.
How I disagree: So it's OKAY for a 10th level Barbarian(2H), Ranger (Archer), Rogue(TWF), Paladin to pour potentially 100+ damage into... let's say a dragon, but it's game breaking-world ending-OMGDAWGONFYRE for the wizard/sorcerer to toss Orb of Force for 60(10d6) damage max? Which he can't even 'Empower' for +50% until 11th level... which is STILL only 90 damage max. Do you know how hard it is to roll ALL 6s on 10-15 dice? Good luck with that.
As for the SR: I played the SR game (blaster-built celestial sorcerer) for an ENTIRE module during the CotCT AP, basically watching as everyone else played for several gaming sessions AND I had Spell Penetration/Greater Spell Penetration. Near the end of the module we leveled and I took an orb spell... I actually got to contribute in the last fight other than layering Dispel Magic, which our cleric already had well under control. My suggestion, roll up a wizard/sorcerer (without conjuration), fight 2-3 months(real time) of SR heavy creatures, let me know how much fun you're having watching the Barbarian and Rogue play.
I have no problem with the damage the spells can dish out, nor even that there are such spells which bypass SR. My problem with the orbs in its entirety is that they are counter-intuitive to the rest of the 3.x system, which is something that 3.x was supposed to avoid. The result isn't an issue, in my eyes; it's the design philosophy behind it. I think that's what really riles up most others, too. The fact that they deal a non-standard damage die, of a higher value than most other spells, just irks them more. But the core is the elemental blasting spell being lumped (cheesily, it feels) into Conjuration just to bypass SR. There were other options open to the designers to achieve that same end effect; the way the spells are written as-is seems cheap and lazy.
In my experience (running shackled city with a war mage player), the orb spells are very good and probably crucial entries on the 3.5 war mage's limited spell list. But on the general wizard/sorcerer list? I think they're too good.
The effect they had on the game was to make magic resistant creatures like golems fall like dominoes to the war mage. Golems and other magic resistant creatures are one of the major ways to keep spell casters in balance and in need of other adventurer types. If they have a hard time directly affecting the magically resistant target, they'll have to learn to have other tactics to fall back on such as buffing the rest of the party and using more teamwork. For war mages, with spell lists heavy on direct damage evocations and lighter on buffs, the orb spells are important ways to stay effective. Sorcerers and wizards (much less clerics and druids) have other spells to fill those gaps.
And the fact that you need to roll to hit with the orb spells isn't much of a balancing factor. Any wizard/sorcerer interested in making them a major part of their arsenal probably has invested in precise shot (or will do so at first opportunity).
My suggestion, roll up a wizard/sorcerer (without conjuration), fight 2-3 months(real time) of SR heavy creatures, let me know how much fun you're having watching the Barbarian and Rogue play.
I've done it and still felt like the party MVP.
I'm not going to go as far as to say: "If you're doing direct damage, you're playing an arcane wrong", but I would say "If you're doing direct damage as an arcane caster, you can't really blame anyone but yourself if you feel like you don't measure up while doing it."
And, yeah, it would be gamebreaking if the guy who beats the barbarian at everything but pure combat damage output also is his equal there.
|
I have no problem with the damage the spells can dish out, nor even that there are such spells which bypass SR. My problem with the orbs in its entirety is that they are counter-intuitive to the rest of the 3.x system, which is something that 3.x was supposed to avoid. The result isn't an issue, in my eyes; it's the design philosophy behind it. I think that's what really riles up most others, too. The fact that they deal a non-standard damage die, of a higher value than most other spells, just irks them more. But the core is the elemental blasting spell being lumped (cheesily, it feels) into Conjuration just to bypass SR. There were other options open to the designers to achieve that same end effect; the way the spells are written as-is seems cheap and lazy.
This. Well said. I feel wordy and useless in the shadow of your awesomeness.
I have no problem with the damage the spells can dish out, nor even that there are such spells which bypass SR. My problem with the orbs in its entirety is that they are counter-intuitive to the rest of the 3.x system, which is something that 3.x was supposed to avoid. The result isn't an issue, in my eyes; it's the design philosophy behind it. I think that's what really riles up most others, too. The fact that they deal a non-standard damage die, of a higher value than most other spells, just irks them more. But the core is the elemental blasting spell being lumped (cheesily, it feels) into Conjuration just to bypass SR. There were other options open to the designers to achieve that same end effect; the way the spells are written as-is seems cheap and lazy.How I disagree: So it's OKAY for a 10th level Barbarian(2H), Ranger (Archer), Rogue(TWF), Paladin to pour potentially 100+ damage into... let's say a dragon, but it's game breaking-world ending-OMGDAWGONFYRE for the wizard/sorcerer to toss Orb of Force for 60(10d6) damage max? Which he can't even 'Empower' for +50% until 11th level... which is STILL only 90 damage max. Do you know how hard it is to roll ALL 6s on 10-15 dice? Good luck with that.
As for the SR: I played the SR game (blaster-built celestial sorcerer) for an ENTIRE module during the CotCT AP, basically watching as everyone else played for several gaming sessions AND I had Spell Penetration/Greater Spell Penetration. Near the end of the module we leveled and I took an orb spell... I actually got to contribute in the last fight other than layering Dispel Magic, which our cleric already had well under control. My suggestion, roll up a wizard/sorcerer (without conjuration), fight 2-3 months(real time) of SR heavy creatures, let me know how much fun you're having watching the Barbarian and Rogue play.
I know everyone does not have access to the 3.0 version. I did not even know about the 3.0 version until recently, but I would suggest going back to that version which was evocation, and did have SR if the immersion is the only real issue.
Edit:I am not trying to defend them since I now understand the issue is more immersion than power. That was just an alternative to just saying no to them.
My case for leaveing the Orb spells as they are and why.
Simply put I have played too many games where the bad guy was kicking our parties but because of an outragoues SR. We are 11th level charecters for goodness sake and a SR of 28+ means that half of our spells are going to fail. low rolls happen but when you need to do damage in order to save the party SR becomes a mecheanic for TPK.
We don't ususally have a cleric in the party because we use wands and healing belts, we don't need to turn or destroy the undead because that doesn't give us any EXP. so immaterial undead are a real problem for us and the orb spells mean that we have a chance.
Think about just how many spells out there allow for SR and now think about how easy it is to overcome DR as opposed to how nearly impossible it is to overcome SR.
Any stick swinger out there can buy his weapon of choice in adamantite or silver or whatever and he's set for life, even if it's sundered or stolen he probably has a spare or three and it's not like the wizard can't mem "mend" the next day.
Spellcasters have to spend feats to try and keep up or use spells like lower resistance or assay resistance and similar spells. which means he becomes target number one.
Can you imagine a fighter being told he does absolutly no damage to the taget AFTER he has used all his attacks in the round because he didn't overcome the targets DR threshhold of 28 per hit. Oh almost forgot the ones that DID manage to get through he gets to dodge out of the way and take half damage as well.
Spellcasters should not be reduced to buff bots that are nothing more than support charecters for the fighting types and takeing away the very few direct damage spells that by pass SR is what your effectivly reduceing your casters to.
my 2c.p. worth.
I'm not going to go as far as to say: "If you're doing direct damage, you're playing an arcane wrong", but I would say "If you're doing direct damage as an arcane caster, you can't really blame anyone but yourself if you feel like you don't measure up while doing it."
And, yeah, it would be gamebreaking if the guy who beats the barbarian at everything but pure combat damage output also is his equal there.
Spellcasters should not be reduced to buff bots that are nothing more than support charecters for the fighting types and takeing away the very few direct damage spells that by pass SR is what your effectivly reduceing your casters to.
I firmly agree with the latter quote even as I disagree with the former. These arguments together underscore the unfairness that is often aimed at wizards/casters. 90 damage(that is the cap at max with empower spell, yes?) does not equal 100+ points of damage, emphasising the + part.
Spellcasters should not be reduced to buff bots that are nothing more than support charecters for the fighting types and takeing away the very few direct damage spells that by pass SR is what your effectivly reduceing your casters to.
I'm sorry, but this is a false dichotomy.
Golems and other magic resistant creatures are one of the major ways to keep spell casters in balance and in need of other adventurer types.
Personally, I dislike the way golems went from being "totally immune to magic (full stop)" in AD&D to "immune to a certain subset of spells" in 3E. Boo.
Golems and other magic resistant creatures are one of the major ways to keep spell casters in balance and in need of other adventurer types.Personally, I dislike the way golems went from being "totally immune to magic (full stop)" in AD&D to "immune to a certain subset of spells" in 3E. Boo.
I feel the exact opposite. Nothing was more boring/metagamey(god, the tactics we came up with...) than fighting a golem in 2nd ed.
I actually like that there are some SR: No spells and that they're viable golem options, I just don't think the 3.X game designers priced SR: No highly enough in terms of balancing spells. IMHO, SR: No should be almost like a built-in metamagic feat with a 2 or 3 level kick in terms of how spells that have it balance with other spells of their level.
(For the record, I play spellcasters almost exclusively.)
Personally, I dislike the way golems went from being "totally immune to magic (full stop)" in AD&D to "immune to a certain subset of spells" in 3E. Boo.I feel the exact opposite. Nothing was more boring/metagamey(god, the tactics we came up with...) than fighting a golem in 2nd ed.
I can sympathize with disliking AD&D golems, but at least they had a unique niche (an enemy that you can't fight with spells). In 3E, they're just another big, dumb bag of hit points.
I'm sorry, but this is a false dichotomy.Spellcasters should not be reduced to buff bots that are nothing more than support charecters for the fighting types and takeing away the very few direct damage spells that by pass SR is what your effectivly reduceing your casters to.
would you care to elaborate? if not no biggy I was just curious as to why you felt the way you do.
I happen to take the position that there are far too many creatures with SR and that it almost negates the spellcasting classes effectiveness the way evasion and improved evasion do.
I haven't read page 2 yet, so forgive me if this has already been said, however...
Step 1: change evocation spells to SR = no (Leave SR to the kinds of spells that literally screw people up, rather than just dealing some damage.)
Step 2: Change the lesser orb's damage from 1d8+1d8/2 levels to 1d4/level (maximum 10)
Step 3: make orbs and lesser orbs evocation spells.
Done :)
That makes sense and I like it. Evo should be the school of direct damage.
My DM will never go for it but I think it's a good compromise.
I'm sorry, but this is a false dichotomy.Spellcasters should not be reduced to buff bots that are nothing more than support charecters for the fighting types and takeing away the very few direct damage spells that by pass SR is what your effectivly reduceing your casters to.
would you care to elaborate? if not no biggy I was just curious as to why you felt the way you do.
Sure: You have a lot more options than doing direct damage or being a buff bot. Battlefield control, for example. (Or, depending on the fight, maybe the best thing for you to do from a team perspective is avoid burning spells so you have the juice for later.)
Even if you didn't have other options, I don't think it's the end of the world if spellcasters are reduced to playing a supporting role in some combats -- since they tend to have their moment to shine in other combats, and past low levels tend to really dominate non-combat challenges completely.
What I mean by that last is: whether you're doing some kind of investigation, coming up against environmental hazards, dealing with intrigue or diplomacy, gathering other information, running a con on someone, infiltrating enemy lines, whatever, the casters always have something useful to do. Skillmonkey style characters are likely to be useful, as long as their skills line up with whatever the challenge is, and they often will. But the big dumb warrior types probably don't have much to do. As a result, to me, at least some of combat should be their time to shine and be the team MVP because it's about all they have.
Thanks Dire Mongoose,
Now I understand more fully what you were trying to say and I agree with you.
A spellcasters greatest weapon is their versitility.
I guess I have a unusual group because when the fighting starts the two actual honest to goodness fighters don't really do much.
Prime example major boss fight against a very large dragon. One fighter ran away and hide behind cover and the other fighter was upset because the dragon was flying and breathing from the air rather than landing and fighting fair. They both made save vs fear they just ran because the dragon was flying and strayfing the tower. That left me the mage and the two psions to bring this big black dragon down. The fighters had magic crossbows, magic bows and plenty of other ranged weapons but hide.
Without the orb spells we would have been done it would have been a TPK.
we never, ever have a dedicated skills monkey because it's just expected that who ever is the wizard is will knock open the doors so we have a lot of scouts to find the traps but can't disarm them.
Case in point we are 11th level and our skills guy has 1 actual rank in his disable device so anything above a 26 is beyond him.
I agree with you DM but because of my gameing experiance with my standard group anything that hurts spellcasters hurts the entire group too much.
I'm sorry, but this is a false dichotomy.Spellcasters should not be reduced to buff bots that are nothing more than support charecters for the fighting types and takeing away the very few direct damage spells that by pass SR is what your effectivly reduceing your casters to.
would you care to elaborate? if not no biggy I was just curious as to why you felt the way you do.
Sure: You have a lot more options than doing direct damage or being a buff bot. Battlefield control, for example. (Or, depending on the fight, maybe the best thing for you to do from a team perspective is avoid burning spells so you have the juice for later.)
Even if you didn't have other options, I don't think it's the end of the world if spellcasters are reduced to playing a supporting role in some combats -- since they tend to have their moment to shine in other combats, and past low levels tend to really dominate non-combat challenges completely.
What I mean by that last is: whether you're doing some kind of investigation, coming up against environmental hazards, dealing with intrigue or diplomacy, gathering other information, running a con on someone, infiltrating enemy lines, whatever, the casters always have something useful to do. Skillmonkey style characters are likely to be useful, as long as their skills line up with whatever the challenge is, and they often will. But the big dumb warrior types probably don't have much to do. As a result, to me, at least some of combat should be their time to shine and be the team MVP because it's about all they have.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this angle- I've always found in practice that battlefield control is little more than buffing/debuffing with the serial numbers filed off. Still, this is just me.
We are 11th level charecters for goodness sake and a SR of 28+ means that half of our spells are going to fail.
The design philosophy behind spell resistance is that roughly 55% of an appropriately-leveled casters spells will break through. So half of your spells making it in sounds completely in keeping with the intent behind the creature.
we don't need to turn or destroy the undead because that doesn't give us any EXP. so immaterial undead are a real problem for us and the orb spells mean that we have a chance.
Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, but yes, turning/destroying undead gives XP. If you're DM is running some alternate rule, that's a problem with a table idiosyncrasy rather than the system. And any orb spell other than orb of force will be just as (in)effective against incorporeal undead as, say, a fireball or lightning bolt. The issue there isn't spell resistance, it's the incorporeal attribute.
Can you imagine a fighter being told he does absolutly no damage to the taget AFTER he has used all his attacks in the round because he didn't overcome the targets DR threshhold of 28 per hit. Oh almost forgot the ones that DID manage to get through he gets to dodge out of the way and take half damage as well.
That basically happened in the last fight I ran. The party was up against a vampire. The rogue's sneak attacks were useless, and her weapons weren't strong enough to penetrate the vampire's DR, at least not to an extent that its fast healing didn't easily mop up the next round. The barbarian, who had multi-classed into the obscure "lasher" PrC (good with whips) was in a similar situation. The sorcerer had mainly necromancy spells (useless here) and fire (which the vamp knew about beforehand and blocked with protection from energy). They made it through, but barely. One character death, but not from the vampire.
There will be things that block your strengths and play off your weaknesses. It's an inherent part of the game design. I disagree that there are too many creatures with SR. There are plenty out there that a good old fireball will roast just fine. Sometimes a battle will be hard because of one factor, like SR. Again, that's an intentionally designed part of the game.
Finally, know what spell made all the difference in the vampire fight? One extremely well-placed wall of force.
Golems and other magic resistant creatures are one of the major ways to keep spell casters in balance and in need of other adventurer types.Personally, I dislike the way golems went from being "totally immune to magic (full stop)" in AD&D to "immune to a certain subset of spells" in 3E. Boo.
You might not remember but there were MR: No spells like Melf's Minute Meteors. They are 4th level and gave you 1 orb/level you can throw at the enemy (Twfing doubles amount that can thrown/rd).
Unless you meant Core only, but kits/splats were common in 2E I'm pretty sure.
You might not remember but there were MR: No spells like Melf's Minute Meteors. They are 4th level and gave you 1 orb/level you can throw at the enemy (Twfing doubles amount that can thrown/rd).
Unless you meant Core only, but kits/splats were common in 2E I'm pretty sure.
Well, point being, in 3E, golems are immune to spells that give spell resistance (unless they're one of a few spells on their list).
In 2E, golems are immune to all spells period regardless of whether or not they give magic resistnace (unless they're one of a few spells on their list.)
the thing about golems or other constructs is they are honestly very easily handled by summoned creatures or a quick change into a more battle form like ogre or firbolg if you have the hit dice or even Evards black tentatcles and then just get in some ranged practice.
I think freehold is correct that we are simply going to have to agree to disagree and as long as it works at our respective tables who cares.
I maintain that SR is over used in 3.5 and that evasion and improved evasion are too good and take far too much away from the role of damage dealing spellcasters.
either way it sounds like were both haveing fun in our games and thats whats important.
either way it sounds like were both haveing fun in our games and thats whats important.
and
I think freehold is correct that we are simply going to have to agree to disagree and as long as it works at our respective tables who cares.
Well enough, indeed! I'm still curious, however, about...
the thing about golems or other constructs is they are honestly very easily handled by summoned creatures or a quick change into a more battle form like ogre or firbolg if you have the hit dice or even Evards black tentatcles and then just get in some ranged practice.
I maintain that SR is over used in 3.5 and that evasion and improved evasion are too good and take far too much away from the role of damage dealing spellcasters.
Unless you're using adamantine weapons, whether melee or ranged, the golem is going to still be highly resistant to just about any kind of attack. They are the kind of creature that is designed to be that way. Personally, I use them extremely sparingly. I suppose I can understand some animosity toward them if you have a DM who spams adventures which are golem-heavy, but I have trouble thinking why there would be so many running (or... not) around. Sounds like an issue with the DM to me.
And along the same lines, regarding evasion, how many opponents with this ability does your DM throw at you? Off the top of my head, only PC classes get this ability, and only two of them at early levels (rangers never get the improved version, either, I believe). There's also animal companions and mounts, but that seems even less frequent. Unless your DM loves using opponents who are near immune to the party's attacks on a regular basis, I once again can't see how you might be encountering enough rogues and monks to make their improved evasion ability, which was really designed for players, a problem.
So what is your gaming experience? Does your DM have some kind of sadistic streak, or separation issues with his NPCs where he can't stand to see them damaged at all? Again, I'm just wondering if there's another issue at play here, because golems and improved-evasion characters have always seemed like corner cases to me.
I got the empower feat with a -1 level cost reduction, making it free.
Unless Empower Spell is subject to more houserules in this setting than we've been made aware, it is a +2 spell level adjustment, so the -1 would still have a net +1 for the feat. Just FYI.
Also, it sounds like the campaign Seldriss is running is decidedly higher-power than the standard game, with a large emphasis on damage potential. In which case, while I'd still argue that the orb spells need to be changed to make them internally consistent, I'd leave the end result alone. It sounds like they fit right in to what you've already got going!