Why no orb spells in UM?


Product Discussion

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The problem with Spell Compendium (and LOTS of other 3.X splat,) is that people were cranking out as much stuff as they could possibly print, with little regard for balance. The game was dead, in their minds.

"Hey, let's make conjuration way better at damage than evocation! That would be funny!"

"Yeah! Blast wizards will become conjurers, and give up evocation altogether! Talk about ridiculous! And yet, people will buy it because we say so! Riot!"

"I can't believe we can write so much craptastic junk and sell it, too!"

"It's called a monopoly, amigo. Quality is irrelevant. Bwahahahaha!"


Orb spell appeared in 3.5 in Complete Arcane. Spell compendium nerfed the range.

Additionally, they appeared in Tome and Blood, the 3.0 arcane splat. But they were way doifferent then (multiple smaller orbs, SR: yes).


Wallsingham wrote:


Suffocation is also a favorite now.

Yeah, I helped implement such a tactic when dealing with some trolls. Bet they wish they didn't hide in that cave. Created wall of thorns, or some vegetation spell, caught it on fire, wall of stone to seal them in while all the air went bad. Ah good times.


Benicio Del Espada wrote:

Bolt of Force

School: evocation [force] Level: sor/wiz 4
Casting time: one standard action
Components: V, S
Range: medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: one creature
Duration: instantaneous
Saving throw: none Spell Resistance: yes

A glowing bolt of force springs from your fingertip and speeds to its target.
You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The bolt deals 1d4+1 force damage per caster level (maximum 15d4+15). Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell.
A shield spell absorbs the first 5d4+5 damage from bolt of force, and a brooch of shielding works normally against it.

Added some text.

BESTEST SPELL EVAR!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

ShadowcatX wrote:

Everyone on the blasting side is using totally unoptimized blasters. Let's take a look at a slightly optimized blaster.

Use Sanctum spell

Stopped right there. Sanctum Spell is a horribly broken feat. You're using a horribly overpowered feat to supercharge a blasting wizard to the point where it can...kill a single cannon-fodder enemy a turn!

Blasting has serious issues for getting anything done, because it needs to go through four layers of defenses: HP, either saving throws or touch AC (sometimes both), elemental resists, and SR. Blasts which are subject to all four of these layers are just not very good, and if there are none that are allowed in your game, then blasting is not a viable career option against level-appropriate foes.

Benicio Del Espada wrote:
"It's called a monopoly, amigo. Quality is irrelevant. Bwahahahaha!"

WOTC hasn't ever had a monopoly on publishing 3e material, what with the OGL and all.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
Benicio Del Espada wrote:

Bolt of Force

School: evocation [force] Level: sor/wiz 4
Casting time: one standard action
Components: V, S
Range: medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: one creature
Duration: instantaneous
Saving throw: none Spell Resistance: yes

A glowing bolt of force springs from your fingertip and speeds to its target.
You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The bolt deals 1d4+1 force damage per caster level (maximum 15d4+15). Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell.
A shield spell absorbs the first 5d4+5 damage from bolt of force, and a brooch of shielding works normally against it.

Added some text.

BESTEST SPELL EVAR!

That's still a bit much I'm thinking.

It being all force damage (and a lot of it at that) makes it the obvious choice as you will never have to deal with energy resistance. That to me screams balance issues.


This is true.

I guess in some game the single target is an important element, in others would not be relevant hence the spell would be really a too obvious choice.


Kaiyanwang wrote:

This is true.

I guess in some game the single target is an important element, in others would not be relevant hence the spell would be really a too obvious choice.

I think the fact that it's a 4th level spell, and only affects one target makes it a spell that only certain casters would bother to use; mostly evokers, arcane tricksters, magi, etc.

This spell could take out a single mook, or hurt the BBEG, but not kill him. A more typical wiz/sor has better uses for a 4th level slot, hence, it's not that great.

I also just don't see a lot of damaging force spells, anyway. Maybe it could be peeled back to a 10d cap, and if you want to intensify it, wait 'til 15th, where it's still kinda wimpy, though certain blasty types woul love it.

Grand Lodge

A Man In Black wrote:


Stopped right there. Sanctum Spell is a horribly broken feat. You're using a horribly overpowered feat to supercharge a blasting wizard to the point where it can...kill a single cannon-fodder enemy a turn!

Blasting has serious issues for getting anything done, because it needs to go through four layers of defenses: HP, either saving throws or touch AC (sometimes both), elemental resists, and SR. Blasts which are subject to all four of these layers are just not very good, and if there are none that are allowed in your game, then blasting is not a viable career option against level-appropriate foes.

Somewhat true. Touch AC is pretty much irrelivant and I would not classify it as a defense. Also force ignore elemental resistence and sonic resistence is so rare, it may as well. And the KEY issue the orb spells is the SR:no as they are instant conjuration spells. So really it is dealing with one defense...HP aka, how much can you block with your face. Course the key issue with blasting isn't so much how well a wizard can do it...it's why are you doing the fighter's job so poorly? Uberchargers can easily do 1000 damage at level 10. Why bother with damage as a wizard? Leave it to people who can do it well and do it all day long. My issues with the orb spells is that it is an instant conjuration spell...it game balance wise should not be in conjuration. Hell I would even like to see DoT out of conjuration. Conjuration is just too good a school even if you took the DoT out. As is, it is a super school...with the orb spell, you kinda pointed and laughed at tim the evoker.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Cold Napalm wrote:
Somewhat true. Touch AC is pretty much irrelivant and I would not classify it as a defense. Also force ignore elemental resistence and sonic resistence is so rare, it may as well. And the KEY issue the orb spells is the SR:no as they are instant conjuration spells. So really it is dealing with one defense...HP aka, how much can you block with your face.

Touch AC is still an additional layer of 5-20% chance to fail, and the strongest Orb is usually Electricity or Acid, because of Sound's lower base damage.

But quibbles aside, the spells just aren't very strong. You illustrate this below...

Quote:
Course the key issue with blasting isn't so much how well a wizard can do it...it's why are you doing the fighter's job so poorly? Uberchargers can easily do 1000 damage at level 10. Why bother with damage as a wizard? Leave it to people who can do it well and do it all day long.

Even without charge-stacking silliness, even core melee sort is going to be doing more damage. 35 damage to one guy at level 10 isn't a lot of damage. Even 5.25 damage per level isn't keeping up with enemy HP pools.

Quote:
My issues with the orb spells is that it is an instant conjuration spell...it game balance wise should not be in conjuration. Hell I would even like to see DoT out of conjuration. Conjuration is just too good a school even if you took the DoT out. As is, it is a super school...with the orb spell, you kinda pointed and laughed at tim the evoker.

I can't get particularly excited about this, because there's almost always a decent spell at every spell level to put in your bonus slots and Spell Focus (Evocation) is a lousy feat anyway.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Why is Sanctum Spell broken?

It's a free Raise to your spell if you're in your Sanctum, and a penalty Lower if you're not. It still uses the same level spell slot regardless...basically, if you're not at home, all it does is give you -1 to the save DC, and maybe a Globe of Inv can affect it.

The 'idea' that you can memorize/cast it in a slot one level lower outside your Sanctum? Don't think so.

==Aelryinth


Kaiyanwang wrote:

Orbs were level 4. Easier to metamagic them, expecially with the Arcane Thesis (another What The Fey feat, that from 3.5 PHII - errataed to be MORE BROKEN).

Force is very powerful since far less creatures are immune. i would cap it to 10d4+10. I like the magic missile pattern too :)

another thing I don't love so much of these spells is that they beat hard evasion classes.

I wish monks could throw back touch attack spells to you as they did in 3.0 epic :(

could be something interesting.. a feat for monk able to make them swict on and off their spell resistance fro free, and 1/day make it shut down for a spell reflection effect ^_^

EDIT: I filled the post with emotes O_o

I think I could get behind a 10d4+10 lvl 4 force bolt, with SR: yes... It'd be useful, but not broken..


Kaiyanwang wrote:

Orb spell appeared in 3.5 in Complete Arcane. Spell compendium nerfed the range.

Additionally, they appeared in Tome and Blood, the 3.0 arcane splat. But they were way doifferent then (multiple smaller orbs, SR: yes).

Yeah, I much prefer the 3.0 orb spells. They are rightfully evocation and have SR: Yes. Of course, with Save for half plus negating the side effect in addition to SR: yes, removing the required touch attack and perhaps removing the option to split the orbs and you have a nice orb spell that is pretty balanced I'd say.


Beckman wrote:
I think I could get behind a 10d4+10 lvl 4 force bolt, with SR: yes... It'd be useful, but not broken..

Now, here's a person who can see reason. Force magic is pretty rare, overall, and could use a mid-level damage spell that isn't overpowered.

There are a few classes that would really like that spell; magi, arcane tricksters, EKs, and any other wiz/sor caster who wants to blast someone. I'm going to try the spell with my EK player, who wants decent ranged damage spells with some buffed swordfighting up close. Perfectly ok, to me. Not a game-changer. He won't have it until 9th (F1/W5/EK3).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The orb spells DO exist in Pathfinder, provided you are using the Words of Power system of magic.

A selected lengthy corrosive bolt with the Intensified Spell metamagic feat is a 2nd-level spell that takes up a 3rd level slot. It has no save and no spell resistance, merely a ranged touch attack to hit.

It does 10d4 acid damage to the target each round for 4 rounds. Not too shabby for a 3rd-level spell slot. For a 6th-level slot it can target 1 creature/level within medium range and within 30 feet of one another. :D


Ravingdork wrote:

The orb spells DO exist in Pathfinder, provided you are using the Words of Power system of magic.

A selected lengthy corrosive bolt with the Intensified Spell metamagic feat is a 2nd-level spell that takes up a 3rd level slot. It has no save and no spell resistance, merely a ranged touch attack to hit.

It does 10d4 acid damage to the target each round for 4 rounds. Not too shabby for a 3rd-level spell slot. For a 6th-level slot it can target 1 creature/level within medium range and within 30 feet of one another. :D

I gotta get that book. XD

Grand Lodge

I sense a messageboard war over WoP and subsequent errata.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I sense a messageboard war over WoP and subsequent errata.

FLAME ON!!

Err... *backs out of the thread quietly*

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I sense a messageboard war over WoP and subsequent errata.

Since when do we get errata?

And didn't they already fix words of power by excluding it from the Pathfinder Society?

Grand Lodge

Jadeite wrote:
Since when do we get errata?

Later print runs. :) Along with vague forum statements that may or may not stick.

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Why no orb spells in UM? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.