One of my players is interested in the Orbs spells from the Spell Compendium and asked if she could get some of them.
My first response was to mention the changes I made on them a while ago:
- Evocation instead of Conjuration
- d6s damage instead of d8s, for the lesser versions
- Subject to spell resistance
But as my player was quite disappointed and reconsidered them, I am wondering if these changes are not too drastic and if they are not making the spells worthless.
I would like to know what you folks are thinking, how you are handling these spells, if you accept them or alter them...
One of my players is interested in the Orbs spells from the Spell Compendium and asked if she could get some of them.
My first response was to mention the changes I made on them a while ago:
- Evocation instead of Conjuration
- d6s damage instead of d8s, for the lesser versions
- Subject to spell resistanceBut as my player was quite disappointed and reconsidered them, I am wondering if these changes are not too drastic and if they are not making the spells worthless.
I would like to know what you folks are thinking, how you are handling these spells, if you accept them or alter them...
The biggest draw for these spells is that they bypass spell resistance. Take that away, and what's the point?
The biggest draw for these spells is that they bypass spell resistance. Take that away, and what's the point?
I would agree. My take on the Orb spells is that the magic is in the creation and the propulsion of the orbs. That's why it requires a ranged touch attack. The orbs themselves are not magic and therefore not subject to spell resistance.
Greg
But as my player was quite disappointed and reconsidered them, I am wondering if these changes are not too drastic and if they are not making the spells worthless.
IMHO, as written they're too good for what they are, and your changes make them more reasonably balanced.
I might let the damage stay at d8s, but I'm really against anything that trivializes SR unless, absent that, it feels like it should be a spell several levels lower, which the orbs don't.
|
I think that the reason they are conjuration spells is because they create a very tangible force of actual materials that can inflict harm, not necessarily an arcane effect of the same type (as an evocation spell might). As a conjuration, they would bypass SR. As an evocation, they would not. Just my two cents.
Here's another cent thrown in for good measure:
Allow the caster to choose how they want to cast the spell. Cast as an evocation, I would make the casting time a swift action, but does not bypass SR, reduced damage, etcetera. Cast as a conjuration, a longer casting time, does bypass SR, normal damage. Or if this causes too much imbalance, keep the evocation at the normal casting time and increase the casting time of the conjuration.
The problem isn't that you can't logically justify why the orb spells are conjurations and why they bypass SR; the problem is justifying it in terms of game balance. (IMHO.)
IMHO, Dire Mongoose is completely right.
Point being, these spells make no sense even from a story or gameworld standpoint. Check the fire damage of a standard fire, and the one of a fire orb. Do they look the same?
They are conjuration, and this makes Conjuration school better, barring when you face more opponents, than evocation school at blasting things. What's next, an illusion spell creating better undead than necromancy spells?
The expensive material in this case is useles - if it's a damage spell, you should spam it. Expensive component make the spell being just trashed.
Keep the SR, make them evocation.
They are conjuration, and this makes Conjuration school better, barring when you face more opponents, than evocation school at blasting things.
This is what I was getting at but didn't explain very well: that it's not a good idea to let conjuration (which already has summoning, teleporting, and a bunch of other cool things exclusive to it) be better at blasting than evocation, when blasting (+a few wall spells and odds and ends) is almost all evocation has -- and SR: No is a big, big part of what you'd want in an idealized blasting spell at higher levels.
|
The orb spells were very solid spells, perhaps too solid for 1st level and they were honestly a big part of the creep you saw from the start of 3.5 to the end of 3.5.
5d8 damage at close range with a touch attack, no save, no SR and you can cast them through Anti-Magic fields. It was all awesome as a 1st level spell whenever golems or whatever other magic immune thing shows up.
If your player is going to go through the trouble of using the spell creation rules to bring one into the game it probably would be fine all things said. Dropping the dice a side (d4 for sound orbs) and keeping it 1st level or keeping the d8's and making it a 2nd level might be a good way to tone it down as you see fit. 4th level for the higher ones isn't a bad choice as a 4th level slot just for something that hurts a monster isn't really as useful as most of the other 4th level spells.
Just turning it into another Evocation spell because you think all Evocation contains is damage spells is very disingenuous. The Evocation school of magic is also home to the light and darkness spells, the walls spells, the grasping hand spells and many other useful none damage related spells.
Just turning it into another Evocation spell because you think all Evocation contains is damage spells is very disingenuous. The Evocation school of magic is also home to the light and darkness spells, the walls spells, the grasping hand spells and many other useful none damage related spells.
That's not really the point, though -- thematically, big damage blasting is a huge chunk of Evocation's schtick. Giving that away to other schools makes it disproportionately easy to bar Evocation as a specialist. Giving a version of it that's also better than Evocation's version is even worse.
I mean, I like think we could agree that creating an Abjuration spell that's like Animate Dead but better is a bad idea, even if Necromancy has lots of other stuff.
Thanks for the comments, people...
Any other opinion?
I'd settle for making them evocations (I hate that they're conjurations) and getting maybe restricting Force Orb/Sonic Orb somehow.
I'd make the changes that you describe, (Evocation, SR:yes) except lowering the damage dice. Evocation could actually use a few good non AoE "sniping" spells.
My players have been using them RAW for years and we have never had a problem. I'm not sure what the big deal is. They bypass SR but do require a ranged touch, seems reasonable to me. Why not just use them as is? What harm have they done to your campaign?
My only complaints are:
-Why should Conjuration get more stuff while Evocation gets the shaft?-The idea of throwing an orb of "non-magical" force is lame.
YMMV, of course.
I agree on the magical nature of the orbs.
They should be magic. The force effect is a perfect example, Hogarth.
So I assume that making the spell Evocation resolves the issue, as Evocation allows SR, while Conjuration doesn't always.
Or should the spell stay Conjuration but with SR?
About the damage dice, I thought that all the versions should be with d6.
I don't see why a lesser would have d8s while the later version has d6s, even if the number of dice is not the same.
I agree on the magical nature of the orbs.
They should be magic. The force effect is a perfect example, Hogarth.So I assume that making the spell Evocation resolves the issue, as Evocation allows SR, while Conjuration doesn't always.
Or should the spell stay Conjuration but with SR?
I would have them be Evocation spells with no SR (except for Force Orb), but that's just me; half the creatures with SR have resistance to cold/fire/electricity anyways, so that's just punishing the spell twice.
You could try using raw and stop with all the crazy house rules.
If thats no good id stay away from taking away the no SR from it. It goes againt what the spell is ment for, which imo , is hunting magic immune targets.
My thoughts: from practical experience I know they are too powerful for their level - our wizard wreacks havoc with them.
I think the more important question to ask is this:
Is a 5d8 ranged touch conjuration not subject to SR so game breaking that it's worth disappointing my players in order to nerf the spell?
I think the more important question to ask is this:
Is a 5d8 ranged touch conjuration not subject to SR so game breaking that it's worth disappointing my players in order to nerf the spell?
I'd say yes. Your mileage clearly varies.
I agree on the magical nature of the orbs.
They should be magic. The force effect is a perfect example, Hogarth.So I assume that making the spell Evocation resolves the issue, as Evocation allows SR, while Conjuration doesn't always.
Or should the spell stay Conjuration but with SR?About the damage dice, I thought that all the versions should be with d6.
I don't see why a lesser would have d8s while the later version has d6s, even if the number of dice is not the same.
Because the lesser only gets a d8/2 levels, whereas the greaters get a d6/level and a status effect. This is just for the main elements of course, keep the weird ones (sound and force) at a lower dice.
|
|
When the orb spells were first introduced in 3.0, they were evocation, SR=yes; acid was an exception, IIRC. Within the framework of how the various schools are described, I think this makes the most sense.
The 3.5 version is overly strong for a first level spell, IMO. I wrote versions that are close to the 3.0 versions and use these instead of the versions from CaR/SpC.
When looking at whether a spell is appropriate to its level, a couple of good benchmarks are 1) whether it is a "must take spell," and 2) how it compares to the best of breed within a standard reference group, such as the spells in the SRD. Using this comparison, the orb spells need some degree of adjustment.
IMHO, Dire Mongoose is completely right.
Point being, these spells make no sense even from a story or gameworld standpoint. Check the fire damage of a standard fire, and the one of a fire orb. Do they look the same?
They are conjuration, and this makes Conjuration school better, barring when you face more opponents, than evocation school at blasting things. What's next, an illusion spell creating better undead than necromancy spells?
The expensive material in this case is useles - if it's a damage spell, you should spam it. Expensive component make the spell being just trashed.
Keep the SR, make them evocation.
This. In it's entirety.
Just to beat a dead horse, I've never really had a problem with them. In my opinion 3.5 has always somewhat diluted the schools (healing being conjuration) so the spells being conjuration hasn't bothered us at all. I picture the fire/ice/acid/electricity ones being directly summoned from planes that have that material. Force is a little tougher to imagine. No SR doesn't bother me much either. A lot of creatures don't have SR so no big deal. The ones that do, ok so the players have a spell that hurts it. Great, they planned well. The ranged touch attack is nice since many creatures touch ACs are their lowest. But then you have to worry about cover, throwing into melee, miss chance and all the other things that come along with an attack roll. Not many of my casters want to spend two feats to get precise shot and point blank shot.
As far as taking away from evocation, not really IMHO. With the Spell Compendium evocation got quiet a few single target attacks that also have a much better range on them. Evocation is still the master of damage.
Personally, if I felt I had to make all those changes I just wouldn't allow them. There are plenty of evocation spells to fill the role.
|
Point being, these spells make no sense even from a story or gameworld standpoint. Check the fire damage of a standard fire, and the one of a fire orb. Do they look the same?
I actually found this comment a little amusing. Let's compare normal "standard" fire to magical fire? Are they really supposed to look the same?
Howie23 had a good comment -- "look at how the spell compares..."
Compare to Magic Missile (although I've also heard that MM should be higher level...)
Damage
MM -- 1d4+1 - 5d4+5 -- range of 10-25 at max
Orb -- 1d8 - 5d8 -- range of 5-40 at max
(MM has a tighter range while Orb has a greater potential)
Targets
MM -- up to 5
Orb -- 1 only
(So not as much flexibility with orb in that regard)
Attack
MM -- no roll to hit
Orb -- ranged touch attack
(MM has that one pretty well beat)
SR
MM -- Yes
Orb -- No
(Orb has that one beat -- but then I'd argue that this really only affects things at MUCH higer levels where SR actually means something.)
Damage type
MM -- Force
Orb -- Specific elemental type
(The vast majority of things out there are affected by Force damage -- there isn't a cloak of force resistance. While sometimes elemental damage is nice, each element has a different spell which must be taken separately -- either memorized or spell known. Unless I knew exactly what I was going up against, I'd still err on MM.)
With regard to the regular orbs -- it's hard to find a comparison. There isn't much in the way of high level rays and orbs -- ie single target blast spells. (An area to greatly expand on?)
We had a player take Orb of Sound (I believe). There were times that it was annoying to me (the DM), but no moreso than any number of other spells out there. And when he would miss, (which was a fair amount of time) it was kind of big deal. Having a 4th level spell do absolutely nothing because you rolled a 3 to hit is a pretty big deal. (And besides -- I would just give my BBEG extra hit points to make sure that everyone at least had a crack at him. Having a spell that deals damage is infinitely better (IMO) than save or die spells.)
Point being, these spells make no sense even from a story or gameworld standpoint. Check the fire damage of a standard fire, and the one of a fire orb. Do they look the same?I actually found this comment a little amusing. Let's compare normal "standard" fire to magical fire? Are they really supposed to look the same?
Howie23 had a good comment -- "look at how the spell compares..."
Compare to Magic Missile (although I've also heard that MM should be higher level...)
Damage
MM -- 1d4+1 - 5d4+5 -- range of 10-25 at max
Orb -- 1d8 - 5d8 -- range of 5-40 at max
(MM has a tighter range while Orb has a greater potential)Targets
MM -- up to 5
Orb -- 1 only
(So not as much flexibility with orb in that regard)Attack
MM -- no roll to hit
Orb -- ranged touch attack
(MM has that one pretty well beat)SR
MM -- Yes
Orb -- No
(Orb has that one beat -- but then I'd argue that this really only affects things at MUCH higer levels where SR actually means something.)Damage type
MM -- Force
Orb -- Specific elemental type
(The vast majority of things out there are affected by Force damage -- there isn't a cloak of force resistance. While sometimes elemental damage is nice, each element has a different spell which must be taken separately -- either memorized or spell known. Unless I knew exactly what I was going up against, I'd still err on MM.)With regard to the regular orbs -- it's hard to find a comparison. There isn't much in the way of high level rays and orbs -- ie single target blast spells. (An area to greatly expand on?)
We had a player take Orb of Sound (I believe). There were times that it was annoying to me (the DM), but no moreso than any number of other spells out there. And when he would miss, (which was a fair amount of time) it was kind of big deal. Having a 4th level spell do absolutely nothing because you rolled a 3 to hit is a pretty big deal. (And besides -- I would just give my BBEG extra hit points to make sure...
This is a pretty damn good side by side- but you're forgetting the shield spell. I don't think there's a spell that counters the Orb so readily and so specifically.
|
|
This is a pretty damn good side by side- but you're forgetting the shield spell. I don't think there's a spell that counters the Orb so readily and so specifically.Resistance/immunity to element?
Expanding on that...
Counters against...
MM -- Shield -- 1st level wizard spell. (That's it.)
Orb -- Resistance from element (2nd level everyone spell), Protection from element (3rd level everyone spell)
Items that counter against...
MM -- Brooch of Shielding
Orb -- rings of resistance
It's been a while since I've looked closely at magic items, but I think that there are more elemental resistance items.
Basically, Shield can only be cast on the caster which means that no one other than the wizard (barring things that cast spells like ioun stones) can have it. Whereas resistance/protection spells can be cast on anyone -- scroll, wand, or otherwise -- and can offer quite a bit of protection and just about all spell casters have it. Not as complete as the shield spell, but pretty powerful in their own right.
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.
|
|
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.
Maximize spell is, what, +3 levels? So we're talking about the equivalent to a 4th level spell (in theory). Regular Orb spells are 4th level. Dealing 1d6/level gets you close to the 40 point mark without the extra feat. (10d6 should average you around 35 points.) Plus you have the extra effect for the save.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that they aren't powerful. I just don't know that they are game balancing, over the top powerful.
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.Maximize spell is, what, +3 levels? So we're talking about the equivalent to a 4th level spell (in theory). Regular Orb spells are 4th level. Dealing 1d6/level gets you close to the 40 point mark without the extra feat. (10d6 should average you around 35 points.) Plus you have the extra effect for the save.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that they aren't powerful. I just don't know that they are game balancing, over the top powerful.
Normally I'd agree with you, but some shenanigans from the last Ptolus game I was in have me thinking differently. Because of creative use of the maximize spell feat, the battle with the final boss was over in...6 rounds, yeah. Which I think would be the same thing with maximized orbs, resistances to certain elements notwithstanding.
Moff's side by side comparison exemplifies why I say dont reduce the damage die.
The one that throws a ball of force should be changed. I would let the rest stand. Blasting spells are weak enough, and they only affect one target. The caster still has to overcome the issue of firing into melee, soft cover and so on. IIRC they are capped at 10d6, and you only get one per casting. Unless you are fighting golems they won't matter a whole lot.
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.
Agreed, Glitterdust means blind Golem: a much better result than a little damage.
My problem with the orb spells is tied to both their school and the fact they bypass SR. Not from a game balance perspective, mind you, but from what tatters of internal consistency the 3.5 rules claim to be clinging to; or were, until the orb spells appeared. Why is orb of fire conjuration, but fireball evocation? I know there are some fuzzy areas about spell school classifications even within the SRD (why is wall of force evocation but mage armor conjuration; why is mage armor not abjuration, for that matter?). However, I find the effects different enough to justify, however flimsily, the way the spells are. The orb spells are just too similar to precedent spells which are lumped under evocation, and therefore are subject to SR. I normally take the perspective that rules come first, justifying it in game comes second; but the orb spells go a little too far for me. Possibly because I can't justify them in game without it just seeming... weird. Too weird. They strike me as spells that are overly self-aware of their own mechanics and come off as a shallow gimmick. I would argue that allowing the orb of acid and even the orb of force to remain conjuration, though perhaps dropping their damage die, is enough. The others should be evocation and subject to SR. If you want to counter the nerf somewhat, fiddle with the severity of the status effect produced on a failed save.
Also, some people have thrown around that they are balanced in the RAW because, while they bypass SR, they require a touch attack. That is not the rule of thumb in D&D. The rule of thumb is SAVE or TOUCH ATTACK. Scorching ray and ray of enfeeblement require touch attacks, and therefore allow no save; but they are still subject to SR. Only acid arrow is different because its, well, acid; a material substance rather than an energy type, and thus easily conceived as existing on its own in a non-magical state once the initial spell has conjured the goo. An little sphere of fire or, good lord, pure force, which somehow doesn't rely on magic for the brief but definitely measurable amount of time it exists? It flies too far in the face of precedents within the system for me to approve.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest objection to orbs is the SR=no for a damage dealing spell that affects the target. What breaks the camel's back for, though, isn't a matter of game balance, but it is the issue of game mastery and verisimilitude. The game was designed such that a player delving deeply into it could anticipate how things worked. Monte Cook has written on this, for exmaple, and cites the loss as a problem for him in the 3e to 3.5 trasnition.
The orb spells are Conjuration (creation) with instantaneous duration. What that means is that the object comes into existance and then remains permanently. Effectively, the magic is done with their creation. Yet the attack still follows the rules of magic (no range penalty, doesn't harm host, etc). The instantaneous duration is also the logic for SR=No and what gives rise to the debate about their use through an anti-magic area.
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.
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.
I meant every other round.
My biggest objection to orbs is the SR=no for a damage dealing spell that affects the target. What breaks the camel's back for, though, isn't a matter of game balance, but it is the issue of game mastery and verisimilitude. The game was designed such that a player delving deeply into it could anticipate how things worked. Monte Cook has written on this, for exmaple, and cites the loss as a problem for him in the 3e to 3.5 trasnition.
The orb spells are Conjuration (creation) with instantaneous duration. What that means is that the object comes into existance and then remains permanently. Effectively, the magic is done with their creation. Yet the attack still follows the rules of magic (no range penalty, doesn't harm host, etc). The instantaneous duration is also the logic for SR=No and what gives rise to the debate about their use through an anti-magic area.
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.
Magic has always been wonky. Maybe because the magic that brought it into existence is gone the material only last long enough to reach it's target.
The grease from the grease spell goes away so why not the other things.
You can also always change the fluff on something to make it make sense, well most of the time anyway, even if the grease spell did not set any precedent of items being created not lasting forever. Nothing says they have to last forever.
|
|
Magic has always been wonky. Maybe because the magic that brought it into existence is gone the material only last long enough to reach it's target.
The grease from the grease spell goes away so why not the other things.
Because the rules say so. :)
A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence. (bold added)
Grease and the orbs are Conjuration (creation) Grease is of duration other than instantaneous; magic holds it together and then it is gone. The orbs are of instantaneous duration, thus the bold section applies.
I´m not necessarily against these effects being Conjuration school PER SE, but I agree they shouldn´t have the mechanical cheese benefits they currently do (SR:no, Save:no, etc). If it spreads out (elemental) ´blasty´ spells over different schools that´s not So horrible IMHO, evocation NOT having a monopoly on that really puts the onus to emphasize other aspects of evocation, which is good IMHO.
I think the case of Mage Armor as Conjuration is interesting:
On one hand, it should really be Abjuration.
(Abjuration is unfortunately vaguely defined, since it can easily overlap other schools just that it focuses on effects which are protective... even though many protective effects still are classed in other schools, e.g. mirror image)
On the other hand, OK let´s agree it´s Conjuration.
(i don´t really think it should, but just for this case)
That makes me feel better with Conjuration:Force Effects, for example.
I think the instantaneous creation=permanent (which seems to be the basis for bypassing SR, etc) is the problem here. Having Orb spells be Conjuration is OK, but they shouldn´t be Conjuration: CREATION, they should be Conjuration: SUMMONING whose effects are entirely magical (and disappear after taking effect), thus subject to SR and otherwise mehcanically more similar to Evocation spells. Honestly, I really don´t think the RAI flavor is for Orbs to be sticking around forever (whether elemental or ´non-magical force´, ack) even though that´s what their RAW classification entails. This would be consistent with their shift to SR:yes, and I think other stuff (die-shifting) is more nuanced whether it´s needed or not, and is really more of a case-by-case basis, not necessarily all Conjuration Orb type spells.
Magic has always been wonky. Maybe because the magic that brought it into existence is gone the material only last long enough to reach it's target.
The grease from the grease spell goes away so why not the other things.
Because the rules say so. :)
** spoiler omitted **
Grease and the orbs are Conjuration (creation) Grease is of duration other than instantaneous; magic holds it together and then it is gone. The orbs are of instantaneous duration, thus the bold section applies.
I am pretty sure the intent was for the orbs to vanish after they were used. Would it really matter if they had not forgotten to say something along the lines of "as an exception to the rules the orb vanishes as soon as it hits or misses it's target"?
|
|
I am pretty sure the intent was for the orbs to vanish after they were used. Would it really matter if they had not forgotten to say something along the lines of "as an exception to the rules the orb vanishes as soon as it hits or misses it's target"?
I think we're kinda talking past each other here. The entire point is that the original version of the spells were internally consistent; they were Evocation. By the time the CaR/SpC version was written, there was no longer an adherance to underpinnings of the magic system. The foundation of the magic system was abandoned, and along with its internally consistent logic with respect to schools, sub-schools, when spells were subjected to SR, etc.
It shouldn't take a baroque system of exceptions to make the magic system behave when the foundation provides for it just fine.
I am pretty sure the intent was for the orbs to vanish after they were used. Would it really matter if they had not forgotten to say something along the lines of "as an exception to the rules the orb vanishes as soon as it hits or misses it's target"?
I think we're kinda talking past each other here. The entire point is that the original version of the spells were internally consistent; they were Evocation. By the time the CaR/SpC version was written, there was no longer an adherance to underpinnings of the magic system. The foundation of the magic system was abandoned, and along with its internally consistent logic with respect to schools, sub-schools, when spells were subjected to SR, etc.
It shouldn't take a baroque system of exceptions to make the magic system behave when the foundation provides for it just fine.
I was only going on the statement you made about the spell breaking immersion by lasting forever, even though I am sure it was not the intent for it to last forever.
As for the spells' schools changing. They previously appeared in the Miniatures Handbook, and they were Conjuration in that book also. I have the book in front of me. The spell was supposedly in Tome and Blood also, but I don't have access to that book, but one of my friends does so I can't check it until later.
|
|
I was only going on the statement you made about the spell breaking immersion by lasting forever, even though I am sure it was not the intent for it to last forever.
Of course they aren't supposed to last for ever. The fact that they do, as written, is a demonstration that the designers of the revised spells no longer valued the aspects of game mastery nor internal consistency.
The spell was supposedly in Tome and Blood also, but I don't have access to that book, but one of my friends does so I can't check it until later.
Yes, this is where they were originally published as Evocation school spells.
I'm not sure there is a whole much more to say on this in the direction the thread has taken. Cheers!
Thanks to everyone for your interesting points.
It doesn't solve the question, as there are different opinions, but hearing them is good.
Damn orbs ;)
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.
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.