The new "orb" spell


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cold Napalm wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


And as long as the vast majority of the things we publish ARE "balanced" and well designed, that reputation can continue. I like to think we're good enough at Pathfinder to be afforded a few mis-steps now and then.

Whether the snowball spell is indeed a misstep... we're still in the knee-jerk reaction phase, so until it's been in play for a while I can't say.

A few mis-step on something new and different...yes perfectly understandable. Mis-steps because you refuse to learn from mistakes of the past? That is less understandable.

We are NOT in a knee-jerk reaction phase. Seriously...this has been done in 3.5 for YEARS already. We already know the story. We've been there done that already. Seriously. If you (you as in paizo staff overall) honestly don't know how this story ends, you all need some new rules people.

Yeah, I don't wanna hear that kind of stuff from the people who ran down 3.5e while claiming they revived it. Sorry James, but I'm taking Napalm's side here on that.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Paul Watson wrote:

Suggestion for 'fixing' Snowball.

Reduce the damage. A lot. I'd suggest a single die (ranging from d3 to d6 depending on how nerfec you feel it should be) that doesn't scale with at most a +1/levels for five levels. After that it changes the spell from a "damage spell with a rider" to a "Stagger 1 target with a damage rider" which is probably more powerful and makes it step on the evoker's toes less.

I like. I mean I just (re)built a winter witch for PFS, and I took the spell as is, but I'd still take this spell as Paul modified it. I think 1d6+(1 per level, max 5) would work. (Though that means a 5th level caster could still do 2d6+10 on a crit.)

Crystal shard wasn't that bad because a) it scaled only by augmenting b) you couldn't heighten it to get around globes and c) in Pathfinder, it would still face DR.


c873788 wrote:
Here's an idea. Play a conjurer instead of an Evoker.

AKA "Just play a Wizard," whenever someone asks about playing pretty much anything in the game.

"But, I really want to deal lots of melee damage, and be a martial beast!"
"Just play a Wizard."

"But, what if I want to be an Evoker? I don't want to conjure things!"
"Just play a conjurer."

It really irks me seeing Paizo repeat the same blunders that D&D did before them. Making the most useful element-based damage spells into Conjuration and bypassing SR was a major contributor to the latter day unwieldy age of Power Creep that ultimately sunk 3.5e.

Thing is, this was not exactly "under the radar" or a corner-case; it was pretty common knowledge in 3.5e's heyday that shifting damage-dealing spells to Conjuration pretty much killed Evocation, and made the already most-powerful classes in the game even more powerful by allowing them to dodge what was supposed to be their weakness... SR.

Yet another thing to add to the "Pathfinder fixed everything! Oh wait..." files.

But, judging from JJ's response, hopefully they take this thread to heart and head-off this potential power-creep disaster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:


Whether the snowball spell is indeed a misstep... we're still in the knee-jerk reaction phase, so until it's been in play for a while I can't say.

I think we're a little past the "knee-jerk reaction" phase. I'd consider the weeks after 3.5e's Complete Arcane and Complete Mage the "knee-jerk reaction" phase.

You guys still have time to turn a corner and fix it once and for all. PF is a living, viable game with lots of eager players, 3.5e is dead and gone.

Just saying "it's all optional anyway" doesn't help. In my own instance, my group doesn't do much research online when it comes to gaming, and veritably take the published word as law when it comes to gaming. "Playtesting in published works" is a big fat goose-egg for groups like ours.

Especially when this kind of spell has already been playtested in the past and the resulting power-creep has been well documented.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

My objections to this spell (and “orb” spells in general) are aesthetic rather than mechanical.

The caster conjures up some non-magical super-snow that could do 5d6 points of damage to some poor unfortunate.

It appears in his hand, presumably, but does no damage to the caster.

The caster can then hurl this non-magical super-snow a distance which varies based on how good he is at casting spells. Presumably the snow ball gets more and more aerodynamic as the caster’s level increases.

If the non-magical super-snow hits, it does the equivalent of 2.5 times the damage of a greatsword. This applies even if the non-magical super-snow hits the target’s shield, and a naked target takes the same damage as one wrapped head to foot in cold weather gear.

Anything not completely immune to cold, (and arguably also anything that is immune to cold) has a chance of being briefly staggered by the sheer coldness of this non-magical super-snow. That’s something not even the supernatural breath weapon of a great wyrm white dragon can achieve.

A snow ball that misses transforms from a non-magical ball of super-snow into a complete non-threat that can be ignored by everyone. Non-magical super-snow clearly melts very quickly into something resembling non-magical normal snow.

The fact that it increases the power of the conjurer and makes a further mockery of the evoker’s niche is just the icing (sorry!) on the cake.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe the snow is yellow?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

People need to grow up. This thread is ridiculous.

It's a good spell, that's all. It only hits one target, not multiple. It does not compare to an archer of equal level and as a fort save for the rider it becomes minor damage at best. Yes, as a 4th level slot you could deal about 15d6 at 10th level. A fireball at this level does the same thing with a 5th level slot.

Those who are wagging their fingers at Paizo, I wag my fingers at you. New materials will be made, some very good, most very useless. I literally own books from Paizo that I don't use a single option from, but they're still a good read. When something is good, just be glad. This is a game and if nothing new was made eventually the best possible builds would be discovered and min/maxers would only play those builds. New materials will shake things up and challenge such people. It makes the game better and us better gamers.

Stop acting like old people afraid of change. It's one lousy spell. I'd rather most new materials made always be useful and balanced, but that is a pipe dream. I'm happy with the game and how it changes with each new release.

Please folks, there's no reason to nitpick or complain about every single new piece of material that is playable.


Kayerloth wrote:
fictionfan wrote:
The Golux wrote:
Vestrial wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
When I say that we like to get a bit more experimental and try out new things, I don't mean to imply we publish things without giving it a lot of design thought.
Can you give us some insight into the thought process behind this spell? Perhaps we are overlooking something that seems obvious to you guys.
"In a land with a lot of snow, wouldn't it be cool if there was a spell for throwing a snowball at someone? It should probably be conjuration, because it's an actual snowball, and do cold damage. And we want it to actually be useful, so how about 1d6 per level, but cap it at 5d6, because it's low level..."
And Make it a touch attack because they are being hit by a snowball.
I suppose it could have a +3 bonus to hit targets not wearing cold weather gear. *wink*

I like it. If people are so worried do it like this:

So Cold damage 1d6/level, ranged attack (not touch, normal AC) that has a +5 hit if target not wearing cold weather gear (remember Shocking grasp is a touch attack, so Snowball needs the hit boost more).
Also if fail save, staggers them 1 rd (Fort partial).
SR No.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shane LeRose wrote:

People need to grow up. This thread is ridiculous.

It's a good spell, that's all. It only hits one target, not multiple. It does not compare to an archer of equal level and as a fort save for the rider it becomes minor damage at best. Yes, as a 4th level slot you could deal about 15d6 at 10th level. A fireball at this level does the same thing with a 5th level slot.

Those who are wagging their fingers at Paizo, I wag my fingers at you. New materials will be made, some very good, most very useless. I literally own books from Paizo that I don't use a single option from, but they're still a good read. When something is good, just be glad. This is a game and if nothing new was made eventually the best possible builds would be discovered and min/maxers would only play those builds. New materials will shake things up and challenge such people. It makes the game better and us better gamers.

Stop acting like old people afraid of change. It's one lousy spell. I'd rather most new materials made always be useful and balanced, but that is a pipe dream. I'm happy with the game and how it changes with each new release.

Please folks, there's no reason to nitpick or complain about every single new piece of material that is playable.

The spell sets a precedent(element damage as Conjuration instead of Evocation and bypassing SR) that was not only a huge blow to balance in 3.5e, but also goes directly against a guideline for spell design in one of Paizo's own books on the very subject.


Pathfinder 2nd Edition should just merge Evocation and Conjuration and be done with it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
Pathfinder 2nd Edition should just merge Evocation and Conjuration and be done with it.

Funny, I'd rather see it go the opposite direction (Mattfinder?) with the schools more stratified but more flexible.

So, for example, Evocation fireball doing (say) d8s to deal with increased hit points. A Conjuration 'fireball' is going to be limited to at most D6s, maybe with less range since you're conjuring 'normal' fire. TRansmutation might be able to do a Fuel Air explosive kind of fireball, etc.

So for a 'blast of cold' from Conjuration for example, you're conjuring cold from somewhere else, but the evocation is more immediate/damaging.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Pathfinder 2nd Edition should just merge Evocation and Conjuration and be done with it.

Funny, I'd rather see it go the opposite direction (Mattfinder?) with the schools more stratified but more flexible.

So, for example, Evocation fireball doing (say) d8s to deal with increased hit points. A Conjuration 'fireball' is going to be limited to at most D6s, maybe with less range since you're conjuring 'normal' fire. TRansmutation might be able to do a Fuel Air explosive kind of fireball, etc.

So for a 'blast of cold' from Conjuration for example, you're conjuring cold from somewhere else, but the evocation is more immediate/damaging.

I agree. The schools should have a more strict outline of what makes them separate and have some guidelines that makes future spell effects fall in line better with one or the other.

My comment was me just being my usual sunny self and throwing out an idea for Paizo to clean things up quick and easy. Quick and easy is not always good, but if the dev's are already playing with the same ideas and power creep that contributed to killing the edition of D&D they based Pathfinder on, maybe something drastic needs to be done.


Torger Miltenberger wrote:

The balance between conjuration and evocation has always been one of the primary complaints against the orbs spells. As such it seems pretty relevant to the OP to me.

"Broken" isn't just about the numbers.

- Torger

Guess we'll just have to disagree. Balance between schools has nothing to do with this spell's power level.


A highly regarded expert wrote:


Vestrial is right. It's the best 1st level blast in the game, now.

Grease >>>>> Snowball.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cpt.Caine wrote:
A highly regarded expert wrote:


Vestrial is right. It's the best 1st level blast in the game, now.

Grease >>>>> Snowball.

Not a blast. Also not really doing much to dispel "conjuration is teh bezt spellz evarrrrrr"


Cpt.Caine wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:

The balance between conjuration and evocation has always been one of the primary complaints against the orbs spells. As such it seems pretty relevant to the OP to me.

"Broken" isn't just about the numbers.

- Torger

Guess we'll just have to disagree. Balance between schools has nothing to do with this spell's power level.

Except for things like School Specialization, flavor, and Spell Resistance. Nope. Nothing at all.


Paul Watson wrote:


Not a blast.

True, my reading comp failed.


Josh M. wrote:
Except for things like School Specialization, flavor, and Spell Resistance. Nope. Nothing at all.

You are right, flavor has nothing at all to do with a spell's balance.

As for spell specialization and spell resistance, many spells are affected by these (or not affected), so using these as an explanation of why Snowball is broken is misleading.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
My comment was me just being my usual sunny self and throwing out an idea for Paizo to clean things up quick and easy. Quick and easy is not always good, but if the dev's are already playing with the same ideas and power creep that ultimately killed the edition of D&D they base Pathfinder on, maybe something drastic needs to be done.

I think 'quick and easy' would be to

a) Move spell research out of the CRB. Voila, quick and easy method of keeping power creep out.

b) Make an 'in house bible' of what the schools do, what they're best at, and what they *can't* do and use that for spell design.*

c) Include the in house bible a year or two down the road in Ultimate campaign II, spellcaster bugaloo.

* Example

Spoiler:
Say that Evocation calls things of a temporary unstable nature into existance. It does damage well, but can't create anything that lasts more than 1/r level. It can't bypass SR (being purely magical). So wall of fire remains evocation, lasts 1r level since it's recreating itself every second, and disappears w/o a trace. Wall of ice becomes wall of cold. A Conjuration wall of ice has hardness and hitpoints is a physical thing, and lasts until it melts. (permanent creation).


Cpt.Caine wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Except for things like School Specialization, flavor, and Spell Resistance. Nope. Nothing at all.

You are right, flavor has nothing at all to do with a spell's balance.

As for spell specialization and spell resistance, many spells are affected by these (or not affected), so using these as an explanation of why Snowball is broken is misleading.

Go back to page 1 of this thread, and go from there. I'm not going to repeat the entire thread for you. Others have explained it much better than I can.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just disapointed that the new Oracle of Winter can't cast it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vestrial wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
When I say that we like to get a bit more experimental and try out new things, I don't mean to imply we publish things without giving it a lot of design thought.
Can you give us some insight into the thought process behind this spell? Perhaps we are overlooking something that seems obvious to you guys.

To add a cold-damage spell at 1st level to support an Adventure Path where there's lots of cold-themed stuff.

In any event, folks have made their opinions known, and we'll certainly be keeping that in mind. Personally, I'm not interested in resurrecting the infamous orb spells from late 3.5; snowball was NOT meant to do that, nor is it the first of five similar spells.

Thanks for the feedback, folks!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe Snowball wasn't meant to resurrect the Orb spells, but that's exactly what it does. This spell is now an automatic no-brainer for any arcane spellcasting build from here on out.


I still prefer Ear Piercing Scream to be honest. I mean, at low levels, wizards miss touch attacks quite frequently, and even when you hit, the enemy gets a save to avoid stagger. Ear Piercing Scream, on the other hand, will pretty much always deal at least some damage, gives the enemy a much worse condition (daze) on a failed save, and has a harder to resist energy type (sonic).

Is Snowball better than Shocking Grasp? Well, yeah, I suppose it is better for a wizard. But then again Shocking Grasp never really was a very good spell for wizards, and is used far more frequently with the magus class.

The spell has problems, but I don't think it's the best level 1 blast.

Edit: And as I mentioned earlier, SR: no really isn't that big of a deal at 1st level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cpt.Caine wrote:

You are right, flavor has nothing at all to do with a spell's balance.

As for spell specialization and spell resistance, many spells are affected by these (or not affected), so using these as an explanation of why Snowball is broken is misleading.

I don't like the term 'broken.' Or 'overpowered.' They engender too much emotional response from many people.

I'll say the spell is poorly designed. Why? Because it is better in every way to an existing 1st level blast, but is not evocation. Which means another school is now best at doing what evocation is supposed to be best at. This would be akin to making a 1st level spell: summon fire sprite (evocation), that is better in every way than summon monster. Except that conjurers don't really care if a spell is labelled (conjuration) or not, but evokers do. (And that's a huge exception).


Do you mean 1st level as in, PC's level 1, or 1st level spells? Because some 1st level spells stay useful throughout a caster's career into higher levels.


Mechalibur wrote:

I still prefer Ear Piercing Scream to be honest. I mean, at low levels, wizards miss touch attacks quite frequently, and even when you hit, the enemy gets a save to avoid stagger. Ear Piercing Scream, on the other hand, will pretty much always deal at least some damage, gives the enemy a much worse condition (daze) on a failed save, and has a harder to resist energy type (sonic).

Is Snowball better than Shocking Grasp? Well, yeah, I suppose it is better for a wizard. But then again Shocking Grasp never really was a very good spell for wizards, and is used far more frequently with the magus class.

The spell has problems, but I don't think it's the best level 1 blast.

Edit: And as I mentioned earlier, SR: no really isn't that big of a deal at 1st level.

At level one you're right. But I don't consider the 'best' of a given level to be the spell you only cast at that level.

Scream allows the baddies a fort save, which is the highest average save in the bestiary. That also means scream will quickly become useless.
It is also not really a blast spell. It's a control spell with a damage rider. We would not be having this discussion if snowball were d6/2 levels.

In contrast, snowball remains the best single-target direct damage spell until, well, forever. You might argue that Disintegrate is better, but it's a weak argument. But even allowing that it is, the fact that this level one spell compares favorably to a level 6 spell is telling (for a dedicated blaster, not just any wizard who throws it in his spellbook).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I dislike the spell and the power creep it represent, but the
attitude of Mr Jacobs of read and think about/ consider the feedback is very laudable.


1d6 + 1/two levels is garbage. its the same reason i hate those blasts for sorcerer bloodlines. at low levels ok, but at higher levels its garbage. i hate those so bad.

and also i look at spells more from a sorcerers viewpoint. whats good for a sorcerer. i dont play wizards.

i dont think the spell is broken or anything. i think its a good spell and has the potential to be useful at all levels. but God forbid we get a spell thats useful at all levels, especially when it does damage to one target.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fnipernackle wrote:

1d6 + 1/two levels is garbage. its the same reason i hate those blasts for sorcerer bloodlines. at low levels ok, but at higher levels its garbage. i hate those so bad.

I believe the correct reply is "That's a feature, not a bug."

When you're fighting the evil red dragon great wyrm you're supposed to bring out the big guns.* a first level spell slot should not be compatible with a 5th level spell, or higher.

If you want to be able to play that your first level spells can do 20d6 damage, may I point you to psions?**

*

Spoiler:
Which is exactly what the blue dragon who manipulated the Red wants you to do.

**
Spoiler:
OF course psionics have their own balances, like that 20d6 crystal shard costing as much as a 9.5th level spell


Frigid Touch
School evocation [cold]; Level druid 2, magus 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
This spell causes your hand to glow with a pale blue radiance. Your melee touch attack deals 4d6 points of cold damage and causes the target to be staggered for 1 round. If the attack is a critical hit, the target is staggered for 1 minute instead.

Snowball may have a save for the staggered effect but as a wizard I'd take the ranged touch with no SR any day. Magus on the other hand can crit stagger for 1 min no save fairly consistently with frigid touch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
Maybe Snowball wasn't meant to resurrect the Orb spells, but that's exactly what it does. This spell is now an automatic no-brainer for any arcane spellcasting build from here on out.

That's bull. I'd hazard the guess that most player have considerations beyond powergaming.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vestrial wrote:
lantzkev wrote:

I'm not sure I ever worried about SR at lvl 1-5 where the level 1 and 2 spells shine.

If you're at the point where you're fighting critters with SR and you think a nuke for 5d6 is awesome that might stagger after it maybe hits, you don't have enough spells known...

This spell doesn't shine at 1-5. It shines at 10, when it's 10d6 base +50% damage from empower, for a 3rd level slot, and is the best blast in the game.

Given that blasting is weaksauce and this is still a single-target spell, which you've at this point invested 2 feats into (both Empower and Intensify), it bloody well better be more damaging than fireball or lightning bolt against a single target. (w.w)

I think what's really the problem is that Evocation needs more love. Damaging mage spells are fine. The problem is Evocation - the poster school for blasting - sucks at dealing damage and has to deal with both saves AND SR throughout its entire career, and takes the longest to hit any good spells (burning hands sucks forever for example).

What we need is options to increase the potency of Evocation. Conjuration has always been a great school (and more classically thematic than evokers, even in name), and Evocation has always been a terrible school. Unfortunately for Evocation, the biggest reason good damage spells end up in Conjuration is because Conjuration is an anti-Spell Resistance school (see Magic chapter).

Evocation is the most resistible school of magic 9/10 spells. If the save and spell resistance didn't drive your damage output into the ground, cheap energy resistances will (energy resistance 10 and a decent reflex save is near immunity to popular evocation spells throughout the low to mid levels). Then you have situational immunities (you like fireball!? What ya gonna do about Spike the Hell Hound?) making enemies outright ignore your effects.

This is one of the reasons why 3.5/Dreamscarred psionic blasters are somewhat viable. Being able to alter the energy type of their "spells" on the fly means that it's more difficult to simply ignore them. If you're fighting against a troll, switch to fire for Xd6+X, or cold for Spike the gargantuan hellhound, or sonic for Xd6-X for when you just need reliable damage or to break a door, or electricity for +2 to attack/save DCs if accuracy is an issue.

IMHO, the only thing that really makes the snowball spell somewhat concerning is the kicker effect (it's really good). I'll withhold final judgment until I've had more time to think about it, compare it to other rival spells, and how much effect it has on the game.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

how to fix this spell is easy. make it evocation. serioudly...that is all that is needed. smack the moron with the conjuration hard on in the head with hammergun and errata that conjuration into evocation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vestrial wrote:

At level one you're right. But I don't consider the 'best' of a given level to be the spell you only cast at that level.

Scream allows the baddies a fort save, which is the highest average save in the bestiary. That also means scream will quickly become useless.
It is also not really a blast spell. It's a control spell with a damage rider. We would not be having this discussion if snowball were d6/2 levels.

In contrast, snowball remains the best single-target direct damage spell until, well, forever. You might argue that Disintegrate is better, but it's a weak argument. But even allowing that it is, the fact that this level one spell compares favorably to a level 6 spell is telling (for a dedicated blaster, not just any wizard who throws it in his spellbook).

Well, then it gives lower level wizards a decent single target damage spell. Doing damage to a single target has largely been one of the weaker points of playing a blaster, so I think if anything, I'd like more spells that can do that.

And of course someone's going to make the disintigrate argument if you explicitly say Snowball is the best spell forever :P But I think Scorching Ray also offers a nice alternative at key levels. At 7th level, it's a nice 8d6 (with two chances to hit in case the target is at low hp.) If you pick up empower, that's 12d6, while snowball is at 7.5d6. At 11th level, Scorching Ray is 12d6 while Snowball is still capped at 5d6. If empowered, it's 18d6, while an Intensified AND Empowered Snowball (also a 4th level slot, but requiring another feat) is 15d6 with a pretty low save for stagger.

So yeah, Snowball is a great spell. It's certainly not anything massively game changing though, as a lot of the outcry here seems to suggest. There are certainly spells I would use in place of it for damage/control over quite a few levels, and even in terms of damage output, it's nothing a wizard hasn't been able to deal before, and not nearly as impressive as the damage output of a dedicated ranged or melee attacker. I'm annoyed this spell wasn't evocation, but oh well... I'd just like there to be more single target damage options for casters, if anything. Not as powerful as physical attackers of course, but more options like that would be nice.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mechalibur wrote:
Vestrial wrote:

At level one you're right. But I don't consider the 'best' of a given level to be the spell you only cast at that level.

Scream allows the baddies a fort save, which is the highest average save in the bestiary. That also means scream will quickly become useless.
It is also not really a blast spell. It's a control spell with a damage rider. We would not be having this discussion if snowball were d6/2 levels.

In contrast, snowball remains the best single-target direct damage spell until, well, forever. You might argue that Disintegrate is better, but it's a weak argument. But even allowing that it is, the fact that this level one spell compares favorably to a level 6 spell is telling (for a dedicated blaster, not just any wizard who throws it in his spellbook).

Well, then it gives lower level wizards a decent single target damage spell. Doing damage to a single target has largely been one of the weaker points of playing a blaster, so I think if anything, I'd like more spells that can do that.

And of course someone's going to make the disintigrate argument if you explicitly say Snowball is the best spell forever :P But I think Scorching Ray also offers a nice alternative at key levels. At 7th level, it's a nice 8d6 (with two chances to hit in case the target is at low hp.) If you pick up empower, that's 12d6, while snowball is at 7.5d6. At 11th level, Scorching Ray is 12d6 while Snowball is still capped at 5d6. If empowered, it's 18d6, while an Intensified AND Empowered Snowball (also a 4th level slot, but requiring another feat) is 15d6 with a pretty low save for stagger.

So yeah, Snowball is a great spell. It's certainly not anything massively game changing though, as a lot of the outcry here seems to suggest. There are certainly spells I would use in place of it for damage/control over quite a few levels, and even in terms of damage output, it's nothing a wizard hasn't been able to deal before, and not nearly as impressive as the damage output...

Except that scorching ray allows SR and is evocation. The save on snowball doesn't reduce damage, so they're equal in that respect.

Really, the spell should allow fort for half damage in addition to negating the condition. Alternatively, it can stay no-save for the damage but add "Yes" on the SR line. Either way, it should be evocation. There's no way a non-magical snowball can do more than 1 or 2 dice of cold damage unless it's massive enough to be doing physical damage as well. In fact, I'd argue that even as-is it should be more physical damage than anything.


Ashiel wrote:

Given that blasting is weaksauce and this is still a single-target spell, which you've at this point invested 2 feats into (both Empower and Intensify), it bloody well better be more damaging than fireball or lightning bolt against a single target. (w.w)

I think what's really the problem is that Evocation needs more love. Damaging mage spells are fine. The problem is Evocation - the poster school for blasting - sucks at dealing damage and has to deal with both saves AND SR throughout its entire career, and takes the longest to hit any good spells (burning hands sucks forever for example).

What we need is options to increase the potency of Evocation. Conjuration has always been a great school (and more classically thematic than evokers, even in name), and Evocation has always been a terrible school. Unfortunately for Evocation, the biggest reason good damage spells end up in Conjuration is because Conjuration is an anti-Spell Resistance school (see Magic chapter).

Evocation is the most resistible school of magic 9/10 spells. If the save and spell resistance didn't drive your damage output into the ground, cheap energy resistances will (energy resistance 10 and a decent reflex save is near immunity to popular evocation spells throughout the low to mid levels). Then you have situational immunities (you like fireball!? What ya gonna do about Spike the Hell Hound?) making enemies outright ignore your effects.

This is one of the reasons why 3.5/Dreamscarred psionic blasters are somewhat viable. Being...

Admixture evokers can change energy types on the fly (acid, cold, electricity or fire), and feats like intensify make those low-level spells more viable going into higher levels. Paizo HAS shown evokers some love. I agree they could use a little more, though, and we don't need conjuration stealing their thunder... or lightning, or whatever.


James Jacobs wrote:

I'm not interested in resurrecting the infamous orb spells from late 3.5; snowball was NOT meant to do that, nor is it the first of five similar spells.

Thanks for the feedback, folks!

That's all I needed to hear.

Thanks for wading through the muck.

- Torger

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
IMHO, the only thing that really makes the snowball spell somewhat concerning is the kicker effect (it's really good). I'll withhold final judgment until I've had more time to think about it, compare it to other rival spells, and how much effect it has on the game.

No, the only thing that is concerning about this spell is the school choice. Seriously, had this been an evocation spell, it would barely be a blip on the power creep radar...because lets face it, direct damage and the evocation school needs some love. The fact that it's conjuration on the other hand is a huge freaking deal.


May I make a suggestion to convert it, with changes, to evocation. Also, awesome on the agile weapon enchantment.


Cold Napalm wrote:
how to fix this spell is easy. make it evocation. serioudly...that is all that is needed. smack the moron with the conjuration hard on in the head with hammergun and errata that conjuration into evocation.

The problem is it isn't that easy at all. At least not if you want consistency (and believe me, consistency is a godsend in a system this robust). If you read the Magic rules it becomes clear as to why it ignores SR (because it's a Conjuration {Creation} spell), and if you simply change it to Evocation without changing the SR you result in a bad inconsistency.

IMHO, Evocation needs more love to make their spells more attractive in the face of things like spell resistance. Effectively go big or go home. The problem is that evocation - the school - doesn't go big. Its effects are quite underwhelming and often more trouble than it's worth (lots of collateral damage, not so much enemy death).

As an example, charm person is a go big or go home spell. If it bypassed Saves/SR/Immunities, the enemy is no longer an enemy and you can even attempt to give them commands with an opposed Charisma check. Colorspray is a go big or go home (if your foe fails their save, they are probably FUBAR). Burning hands...never goes big. Even if you penetrate SR, saves, and roll maximum damage, no one really cares. It deals 1-4, 2-8, 3-12, 4-16, and 5-20 damage by caster level (average damage is 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5). It's a major resource (a level-equivalent spell slot) that is underwhelming. You never go big but you can still "go home" (either the spell is resisted or you get damage so underwhelming as to have been a waste of an action).

A Highly Regarded Expert wrote:
Admixture evokers can change energy types on the fly (acid, cold, electricity or fire), and feats like intensify make those low-level spells more viable going into higher levels. Paizo HAS shown evokers some love. I agree they could use a little more, though, and we don't need conjuration stealing their thunder... or lightning, or whatever.

Here's the thing though. Those are - at best - patches trying to make an underwhelming school of magic more playable. The problem is that even without all the fancy alternate class features, special classes, and special feats, you can rely on the other schools to deliver. See, when I mentioned psionics, all the energy powers do that.

Like, if you're a psion and you take "energy wall" (similar to wall of fire in D&D) then you can change the energy type. If you're a Kineticist (the psi-equivalent to the evoker), you can do it better than others, but you can still do it without being one.

Likewise, intensify spell is nice, but also not all that awesome. It requires a feat creating an opportunity cost, and it doesn't increase save DCs, spell level (lesser globe of invulnerability laughs at your efforts), and all it actually does is keep the spell relevant for a few more levels (unless you're using meta-reduce shenanigans).


Ashiel wrote:
The problem is it isn't that easy at all. At least not if you want consistency (and believe me, consistency is a godsend in a system this robust). If you read the Magic rules it becomes clear as to why it ignores SR (because it's a Conjuration {Creation} spell), and if you simply change it to Evocation without changing the SR you result in a bad inconsistency.

Well, it sounds like you are going to have inconsistency no matter what, because such SR-bypassing spells directly violate Paizo's own spell creation guidelines. /shrug


Ashiel wrote:
(unless you're using meta-reduce shenanigans)

meta what now?

- Torger


I agree with Ashiel. Post was too long to quote, but an evoker as effective as the blastier psions would be nice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Change it to evocation and add "SR Yes" and you're golden.


Ashiel wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
how to fix this spell is easy. make it evocation. serioudly...that is all that is needed. smack the moron with the conjuration hard on in the head with hammergun and errata that conjuration into evocation.

The problem is it isn't that easy at all. At least not if you want consistency (and believe me, consistency is a godsend in a system this robust). If you read the Magic rules it becomes clear as to why it ignores SR (because it's a Conjuration {Creation} spell), and if you simply change it to Evocation without changing the SR you result in a bad inconsistency.

IMHO, Evocation needs more love to make their spells more attractive in the face of things like spell resistance. Effectively go big or go home. The problem is that evocation - the school - doesn't go big. Its effects are quite underwhelming and often more trouble than it's worth (lots of collateral damage, not so much enemy death).

As an example, charm person is a go big or go home spell. If it bypassed Saves/SR/Immunities, the enemy is no longer an enemy and you can even attempt to give them commands with an opposed Charisma check. Colorspray is a go big or go home (if your foe fails their save, they are probably FUBAR). Burning hands...never goes big. Even if you penetrate SR, saves, and roll maximum damage, no one really cares. It deals 1-4, 2-8, 3-12, 4-16, and 5-20 damage by caster level (average damage is 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5). It's a major resource (a level-equivalent spell slot) that is underwhelming. You never go big but you can still "go home" (either the spell is resisted or you get damage so underwhelming as to have been a waste of an action).

The fundamental problem is not that evocation doesn't go big. If it did it would lose its character because it couldn't go big enough to compete without being just another SoD school. The problem is that it goes home. It should be to energy what conjuration is to matter. Someone struck by lightning should not care whether it's natural or magical or caused by nonmagical artifice. The wider effects like fireball and freezing spheere probably shouldn't offer the save for half for targets near the center either.


To make evocation more sexy would require evocation spells to do something else than just damage. Ex: Fireball and Burning Hands put you on fire on a failed save, Lightning Bolt and Shocking Graps dazzle you for 1d4 rounds, Force Punch can trip you, Snowball (which should be an evocation spell that allows SR) and Cone of Cold stagger you for 1 round, etc.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who is creating a winter witch, I like the spell. It gives me a nice starting-gate damage spell that fits thematically with the character. I hope to see more like this.

I'll agree that the spell can be optimized to outclass some other spells, though with intensify it seems pretty comparable to scorching ray. Regardless, if there is a way to make it the mother of all spells that every caster has to have, I simply won't choose that option.

This has happened before. In my first, and still ongoing, campaign, one of the players decided to create a alchemist and for the first time we experienced a character that was 'optimized'. It disrupted party balance, so I talked to him about it and he changed it. Easy solution.

So James, for myself and my players, please keep tinkering and trying new things. You thought it looked fine, and I agree with you.

To the others complaining about it being too powerful, just don't use it, put a damper on it, or ask for tact. It's like the Master Summoner, fulfills a niche and ask for a certain maturity. It isn't game ending. Please stop discouraging Paizo from doing things like this in the future. I appreciate options!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maerimydra wrote:
To make evocation more sexy would require evocation spells to do something else than just damage. Ex: Fireball and Burning Hands put you on fire on a failed save, Lightning Bolt and Shocking Graps dazzle you for 1d4 rounds, Force Punch can trip you, Snowball (which should be an evocation spell that allows SR) and Cone of Cold stagger you for 1 round, etc.

WoW does something like this and it has great benefits. For example, fire spells set foes ablaze. Frost spells slow enemies movement and attack speeds. Arcane spells tend to be highly accurate.

Spells like fireball would be pretty awesome if they ignited you fore Xd6 damage on each round until doused (requiring either splashing you with water or making a new save each round to put it out). Imagine if for every 4d6 worth of damage you dealt with Fireball, victims burned for 1d6 damage / round after. Suddenly, fireball would be an excellent opening spell, because it begins with some damage, and then puts a DoT on the victims (which may aggravate their action economy as they decide between ending the DoT or suffering additional damage).

Likewise, it seems Paizo is moving towards similar kicker effects with their cold spells, as many are staggering or hindering with kickers. Electricity spells like Shocking grasp tend to be more accurate (+3 to hit vs armor for shocking grasp as an example), but daze or stunning effects wouldn't be out of the question.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lloyd Jackson wrote:


To the others complaining about it being too powerful, just don't use it, put a damper on it, or ask for tact. It's like the Master Summoner, fulfills a niche and ask for a certain maturity. It isn't game ending. Please stop discouraging Paizo from doing things like this in the future. I appreciate options!

Actually...DD conjuration that took over the role of evocation WAS game ending. Or at least a pretty big part of a game ending. So please forgive those of us who have been through this once before and learned a pretty dang valuable lesson for being pretty dang wary about it happening AGAIN. Those who forget the past and what not.

151 to 200 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The new "orb" spell All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.