The new "orb" spell


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, I have read several people's opinion on here that the "orb" spells were broken in 3.5. With that in mind, please consider the new spell introduced in "People of the North":

Snowball
Conjuration (creation) [Cold, Water]
Level: Dr1, Ma1, S/W1, Su1, Wi1
CT: 1 Standard Action
Comp: V,S
RNG: Close
Effect: One ball of ice and snow
D: Instantaneous
ST: Fort Partial (see text)
SR: No
You conjure a ball of packed ice and snow that you can throw at a single target as a ranged touch attack. The snowball deals 1d6 points of cold damage per caster level (max 5d6) on a successful hit, and the target must make a successful Fortitude saving throw or be staggered for 1 round.

Note that this is better in many ways than the classic orb spells. 1) It's available to more casters (Druids and Witches stick out). 2) Intensify metamagic makes the full 10d6 is available from a 2nd level spell slot...rather than 4th. 3) It still has a secondary effect (staggering), even from the 1st level slot (unlike the lesser orb spells).


Bluh.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, the obvious comparison is to shocking grasp. This is a ranged version with an awesome rider.

This seems like power creep.


And without the power limiter of SR, with which Shocking Grasp has to contend.

Shadow Lodge

I can't remember the details of the spell precisely, but Ear Piercing Scream in Ultimate Magic is nearly identical - 1d6 sonic damage/lvl (max 5d6) and dazed for 1 round; fort save to avoid the daze and do half damage.

It's not ranged touch, but it's a 30ft radius or something like that.


Avatar-1 wrote:

I can't remember the details of the spell precisely, but Ear Piercing Scream in Ultimate Magic is nearly identical - 1d6 sonic damage/lvl (max 5d6) and dazed for 1 round; fort save to avoid the daze and do half damage.

It's not ranged touch, but it's a 30ft radius or something like that.

Ear Piercing scream is subject to SR and the fortitude save halves damage and negates the rider. Not as good as Snowball, imho.


Ear-Piercing Scream is significantly less "unstoppable" though. Successful save negates the side effect and halves the damage; Snowball's damage is not reduced by the save, the side effect is merely negated.

Also, as with Shocking Grasp, EPS has to content with SR. Snowball does not.

EDIT: And ninja'd.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The orb spells weren't broken. The only problems with them were:

a) They were conjuration; evocation already sucked and conj already ROCKED w/o conjuration just plain out-doing evocation at its own game

b) It was yet another toy for spellcasters to bypass their supposed achille's heel, SR. Of course, SR has been and always will be a joke of a "weakness" for an optimized caster, so it's not that big of a deal. It's just that buffing the caster is so unneeded.

Nothing wrong with direct damage spells that ignore SR. I wish more were like that; direct damage is weak. Though PF did sort of break it w/ the Dazing Spell feat.


Aaaaaand my Ice/Fire admixture evoker just got his first level cold spell to play opposite burning hands.

Liberty's Edge

To compare to the shocking grasp baseline: Snowball has a save, Shocking Grasp has SR, neither has both. SR comes up relatively rarely but everyone can make a fort save (some quite well). The SR completely negates while the save only mostly negates (no condition, half damage) barring possession of Stalwart. That said, when SR comes up the mage usually has much better tricks up his sleeve than blasting, so I think the fact that it has a save makes up for its slightly higher peak effectiveness. While snowball might have the "range" advantage, range itself has several disadvantages (provokes, soft cover issues, shooting into melee issues, etc), so I'll call that a wash.

I hereby categorize this spell as having insignificant, but possibly extant, power creep.

Now, all that said, I hate that conjuration gets to have all the goodies. This isn't new power creep, just an existing weirdness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
StabbittyDoom wrote:

To compare to the shocking grasp baseline: Snowball has a save, Shocking Grasp has SR, neither has both. SR comes up relatively rarely but everyone can make a fort save (some quite well). The SR completely negates while the save only mostly negates (no condition, half damage) barring possession of Stalwart. That said, when SR comes up the mage usually has much better tricks up his sleeve than blasting, so I think the fact that it has a save makes up for its slightly higher peak effectiveness. While snowball might have the "range" advantage, range itself has several disadvantages (provokes, soft cover issues, shooting into melee issues, etc), so I'll call that a wash.

I hereby categorize this spell as having insignificant, but possibly extant, power creep.

Now, all that said, I hate that conjuration gets to have all the goodies. This isn't new power creep, just an existing weirdness.

The fortitude save only negates Snowball's rider. If it halved damage then your conclusion would be valid, IMHO. If you ignore the rider, then this is shocking grasp at range without the bonus against metal clad opponents. It would still be a better spell for (almost) everyone but the magus.


StabbittyDoom wrote:

While snowball might have the "range" advantage, range itself has several disadvantages (provokes, soft cover issues, shooting into melee issues, etc), so I'll call that a wash.

You might want to re-evaluate that one. Especially for over half of the classes that get it.

Liberty's Edge

Whale_Cancer wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:

To compare to the shocking grasp baseline: Snowball has a save, Shocking Grasp has SR, neither has both. SR comes up relatively rarely but everyone can make a fort save (some quite well). The SR completely negates while the save only mostly negates (no condition, half damage) barring possession of Stalwart. That said, when SR comes up the mage usually has much better tricks up his sleeve than blasting, so I think the fact that it has a save makes up for its slightly higher peak effectiveness. While snowball might have the "range" advantage, range itself has several disadvantages (provokes, soft cover issues, shooting into melee issues, etc), so I'll call that a wash.

I hereby categorize this spell as having insignificant, but possibly extant, power creep.

Now, all that said, I hate that conjuration gets to have all the goodies. This isn't new power creep, just an existing weirdness.

The fortitude save only negates Snowball's rider. If it halved damage then your analysis would be valid, IMHO. If you ignore the rider, then this is shocking grasp at range without the bonus against metal clad opponents. It would still be a better spell for (almost) everyone but the magus.

Ouch, good point about the "no half damage" on a good save thing, though inquisitors would still eventually taking nothing (ignorable corner case).

Okay, so I take it back, it's power creep.

(I don't agree that range is a huge deal. It's not a lot of range and those attack rolls are brutal when you can't afford the feat cost of the various archery feats, even against touch. -8 + dex at first level? Good luck.)

Tangent: Seriously, though. Why in god's name did anyone think it was a good idea to let every school deal damage, while giving evocation relatively little that isn't damage?

Liberty's Edge

Cheapy wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:

While snowball might have the "range" advantage, range itself has several disadvantages (provokes, soft cover issues, shooting into melee issues, etc), so I'll call that a wash.

You might want to re-evaluate that one. Especially for over half of the classes that get it.

I already listed the penalties, so I'll assume you're also forgetting that ranged touch means that a miss is a wasted spell, but melee touch lets you try again without using another slot. At low levels this is quite huge, especially for magus.

It's nice, but unless you have a house-rule that lets ranged touch also be used as melee touch it is not strictly better.

Scarab Sages

Avatar-1 wrote:

I can't remember the details of the spell precisely, but Ear Piercing Scream in Ultimate Magic is nearly identical - 1d6 sonic damage/lvl (max 5d6) and dazed for 1 round; fort save to avoid the daze and do half damage.

It's not ranged touch, but it's a 30ft radius or something like that.

Ear piercing scream is 1d6 / 2 levels. You won't get a 10d6 intensified ear piercing scream until level 20.


I tend not to assume that the caster is unable to move anywhere but exactly behind their allies, so the soft-cover reason is more or less a non-issue for me. -4 is easily swallowable for touch AC. It's a standard action. You've got range and a move action to get into a position where soft cover is a non-issue :)

Btw, hello there Rime Spell.


It's tempting but I'll take a (Enforcer) Rime Frostbite over a Rime Snowball Anyday!


Shocking Grasp is usable with spellstrike without the arcana required to make it work.

...that's all I've got.

Edit: I forgot to mention the fact that since it's melee you get flanking bonuses with it.


I'm surprised they put it on the Witch list, as it's probably the best low level direct damage spell available to witches.

It's also a great spell for Arcane Tricksters. I'd consider it as a candidate for Magical Lineage for an AT build.


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

*begins incorporating snowball into cold-themed characters*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a setting splat. I think James Jacobs has the final word on those and he just isn't as conservative as SKR. Witness stuff like the Agile and Guided weapon enhancements and Dervish Dance.

Scarab Sages

Rime-Blooded Sorcerer casting Rime Snowball?

Fort Save or Slow for 1 Round.
Fort Save or Staggered for 1 Round.
Entangled for 1 Round.

3 Snares, 1 Spell.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep. It is a cold blasty spell.

What's the big whoop?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Yep. It is a cold blasty spell.

What's the big whoop?

1) it's a level 1 spell with a powerful rider.

2) it's a conjuration that's better at blasting than any evocation of its level.


Atarlost wrote:
It's a setting splat. I think James Jacobs has the final word on those and he just isn't as conservative as SKR. Witness stuff like the Agile and Guided weapon enhancements and Dervish Dance.

The guided weapon enhacement is a 3.5 weapon enhancement.


Atarlost wrote:
2) it's a conjuration that's better at blasting than any evocation of its level.

2 doesn't bother me other than for flavor reasons; I am a big fan of conjuration having a monopoly on Acid and necromancy having a monopoly on Cold (as you shouldn't be able to evoke or create the absence of something [heat]).

Obviously, creating a snowball and throwing it should be conjuration; I would rather turn it into a necromancy spell both mechanically and thematically.


I guess evokers can't have nice things.

This has just made every single target evocation up to level 5 obsolete because there's no save for half. Slap Intensify on it and it's got the damage cap of a level 2 or 3 spell. Slap Empower on as well and it effectively has the damage cap of a level 4 or 5 spell, except you only have to wait until level 10 to get 15d6 damage.

It can also take the most broken rider metamagics: Rime spell is only a +1 level adjustment and does not care about saving throws, only that there has been damage.

If you don't see something wrong with that you have no business discussing game balance.


For that matter Ear Piercing Scream is power creep IMHO. The problem isn't the amount of damage. It is that it is sonic and no means to be resistant to it. This makes it more powerful than the equivalent spells of the other elements. If you are going to keep adding sonic damage to the game you need to add a means for resistance to it and sonic resistant creatures for balance besides just SR. This "Snowball" is even worse as we now have taken away even the SR.

Scarab Sages

For some casters this will be significant power creep, becoming the new "best available".

For others (magus), meh.


Make the save halve the damage, and make it evocation, and it's fine.

Scarab Sages

Vestrial wrote:

Make the save halve the damage, and make it evocation, and it's fine.

Spells requiring to-hit rolls don't typically allow saves.

I would either damage progression to 1d6/2 levels or raise the spell to 2nd level.

The issue with evocation needs to be addressed by adding a significant number of new spells to the school, allowing for greater diversification of spell selection. I would fully support a new hardcover book equivilent to Ultimate Equipment but dedicated to spells.


Artanthos wrote:
Spells requiring to-hit rolls don't typically allow saves.

This was true in the 3.5. not pathfinder. They added saves to many spells that required to-hit rolls.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm more upset that a magic snowball does as much damage as a fall from a 50' cliff. Sounds like there must be a rock in the center, and that's not cool bro. Not cool at all.


Artanthos wrote:
The issue with evocation needs to be addressed by adding a significant number of new spells to the school, allowing for greater diversification of spell selection. I would fully support a new hardcover book equivilent to Ultimate Equipment but dedicated to spells.

I agree with the problem you've stated. I'm not a fan of providing another full book on magic. For the most part, spellcasters have enough toys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vestrial wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Spells requiring to-hit rolls don't typically allow saves.
This was true in the 3.5. not pathfinder. They added saves to many spells that required to-hit rolls.

Such as?


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Such as?

Off the top of my head, ray of enfeeblement/sickness. Pretty sure there are others as you get higher too but don't feel like sifting through them. I think typically anything that does anything other than pure hp damage has a save.

But in any case, level 1 ranged d6/level no save, no sr spell with a rider is too good (it's too good without the rider). Halving the damage on a save puts it in line with a no-save d6/2lvl spell, but slightly better. And makes it more balanced vs shocking grasp.

No save, no SR is still too good at level 2. That means you could easily have a level 2 spell slot doing 10d6 with no save or sr, or level 4 slot doing 15. That's way better than anything currently in the game.

Sczarni

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...

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Sebastian wrote:
I'm more upset that a magic snowball does as much damage as a fall from a 50' cliff. Sounds like there must be a rock in the center, and that's not cool bro. Not cool at all.

Sarcasm aside, it reminds me of crystal shard with a 'rider' as people put it. I guess it gets accelerated like a rail gun. There's also the fact that it goes through globes and AMS, IIRC.


Atarlost wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Yep. It is a cold blasty spell.

What's the big whoop?

1) it's a level 1 spell with a powerful rider.

2) it's a conjuration that's better at blasting than any evocation of its level.

C'mon, Paizo. Not this, again...


Vestrial wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Such as?

Off the top of my head, ray of enfeeblement/sickness. Pretty sure there are others as you get higher too but don't feel like sifting through them. I think typically anything that does anything other than pure hp damage has a save.

But in any case, level 1 ranged d6/level no save, no sr spell with a rider is too good (it's too good without the rider). Halving the damage on a save puts it in line with a no-save d6/2lvl spell, but slightly better. And makes it more balanced vs shocking grasp.

No save, no SR is still too good at level 2. That means you could easily have a level 2 spell slot doing 10d6 with no save or sr, or level 4 slot doing 15. That's way better than anything currently in the game.

Gotcha. The saves are typically for non-HP things, but I see your point.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Matthew Morris wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
I'm more upset that a magic snowball does as much damage as a fall from a 50' cliff. Sounds like there must be a rock in the center, and that's not cool bro. Not cool at all.
Sarcasm aside, it reminds me of crystal shard with a 'rider' as people put it. I guess it gets accelerated like a rail gun. There's also the fact that it goes through globes and AMS, IIRC.

Oddly enough, I was watching The Sound of Thunder last night (protip: do not watch, it sucks), and the primary weapon they used was a gauss rifle that fired liquid nitrogen bullets (which would melt, leaving no trace or residue in the past).

Now I want an enchantment/compulsion/transmutation spell that freezes the metal on the target and then causes them to put their tongue to it.


Look at it that way: Still worse than battering blast at high level games:P

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vestrial wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Spells requiring to-hit rolls don't typically allow saves.
This was true in the 3.5. not pathfinder. They added saves to many spells that required to-hit rolls.

I should specify:

Damage spells requiring to-hit rolls don't typically allow saving throws. Snowball does allow a save for the non-damage aspect.

As a seperate issue:
Another good spell for comparison purposes is Frigid Touch


A highly regarded expert wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Yep. It is a cold blasty spell.

What's the big whoop?

1) it's a level 1 spell with a powerful rider.

2) it's a conjuration that's better at blasting than any evocation of its level.
C'mon, Paizo. Not this, again...

+1

u.u


Either change the damage to 1d6/2 levels, or drop the rider and make it fort save for half damage.

The progression of spells for low levels is pretty fixed. They used to have a chart in the 3.5 dmg, but I guess PF did not port it.

It goes like this:

Level 1 -> single target, touch range, d6/level ex: shocking grasp
Level 2 -> single target, ranged d6/level ex: scorching ray
Level 3 -> multi-target, ranged d6/level ex: fireball

To improve one of these parameters, you have to make another worse. That's why burning hands does d4s in damage, and magic missile only deals 1d4+1/2 levels. Of course, Magic missile can't miss and deals force damage... I think that's why it is stopped by the shield spell.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone on these forums loves to talk smack and say how damaging spells are garbage. God forbid we finally get a damaging spell worth while and everybody is throwing up their hands. sigh.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

News flash: all spells aren't created equal.

The solution is quite simple. If you aren't comfortable with the spell, don't allow it in your games. It doesn't phase me, personally. Level one blasts suck (except for corner-cases, like a Magus using Shocking Grasp). If a caster at my table wants one that isn't crap, he's welcome to it. It's not going to have a gigantic impact at low levels, and at higher levels he has better options anyway. It's not allowing him to do much that he wasn't already capable of by other means. Just my two cents.


Kazejin wrote:

News flash: all spells aren't created equal.

The solution is quite simple. If you aren't comfortable with the spell, don't allow it in your games. It doesn't phase me, personally. Level one blasts suck (except for corner-cases, like a Magus using Shocking Grasp). If a caster at my table wants one that isn't crap, he's welcome to it. It's not going to have a gigantic impact at low levels, and at higher levels he has better options anyway. It's not allowing him to do much that he wasn't already capable of by other means. Just my two cents.

+12

Scarab Sages

Fnipernackle wrote:
Everyone on these forums loves to talk smack and say how damaging spells are garbage. God forbid we finally get a damaging spell worth while and everybody is throwing up their hands. sigh.

Snowball is so much more than just a blast.

It can be made into something that is very nearly save or die. Cutting damage in half won't change that.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:

Either change the damage to 1d6/2 levels, or drop the rider and make it fort save for half damage.

The progression of spells for low levels is pretty fixed. They used to have a chart in the 3.5 dmg, but I guess PF did not port it.

It goes like this:

Level 1 -> single target, touch range, d6/level ex: shocking grasp
Level 2 -> single target, ranged d6/level ex: scorching ray
Level 3 -> multi-target, ranged d6/level ex: fireball

To improve one of these parameters, you have to make another worse. That's why burning hands does d4s in damage, and magic missile only deals 1d4+1/2 levels. Of course, Magic missile can't miss and deals force damage... I think that's why it is stopped by the shield spell.

I agree on the d6/2.

Magic missile is the 'best' spell because of its legacy status, same with its shield interaction. (Personally I always imagine it hitting the shield and being absorbed with a funky ripple effect in the shield

Amusingly I was looking at this one last night and thinking about building an Irrisen sorcerer with it. Not for the damage, but for the theme. Infrigia!

1 to 50 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.