3.5e: Counters for "Orb" spells
WDS
the time" for combat. The foes of the group who are parts of
organizations know this but I (as them) am having difficulty coming up
with good counters for it at various levels. Ideas?
Note: we are using the PhB and Spell Compendium for spells only. The
PCs are in the mid teens for levels.
I
Opponents with energy resistance
Opponents with high touch AC
Opponents with concealment of some sort (or displacement, etc.)
WDS
> WDS wrote:
>> One of the players in my campaign has sort of settled on "all orbs all
>> the time" for combat. The foes of the group who are parts of
>> organizations know this but I (as them) am having difficulty coming up
>> with good counters for it at various levels. Ideas?
>>
>> Note: we are using the PhB and Spell Compendium for spells only. The
>> PCs are in the mid teens for levels.
>
> Opponents with energy resistance
This only works for one kind of orb (though I should be watching to see
if he always uses one) and doesn't work for the force ones at all.
> Opponents with high touch AC
That is very difficult, especially for big foes like dragons.
> Opponents with concealment of some sort (or displacement, etc.)
Doh! I hadn't thought of that.
JOanna Rowland-Stuart
>
> Doh! I hadn't thought of that.
Pale lavender Ellipsoid Absorbs spells of 4th level or lower 20,000 gp
It all depends on the resources of the enemy.
Cheers
JOanna
WDS
>>> Opponents with concealment of some sort (or displacement, etc.)
>>
>> Doh! I hadn't thought of that.
> Or even give the BBEG a Ring of Spell Turning, and/or an Ioun Stone.
>
> Pale lavender Ellipsoid Absorbs spells of 4th level or lower 20,000 gp
I don't think that would work because the Orb spells are conjurations
and the spell itself doesn't target the foe.
I'm don't think that Globe of Invulnerability would work either.
> It all depends on the resources of the enemy.
Of course.
JOanna Rowland-Stuart
> *From:* WDS <Bi...@seurer.net>
> *Date:* Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:50:19 -0500
>
> I don't think that would work because the Orb spells are
> conjurations and the spell itself doesn't target the foe.
>
> I'm don't think that Globe of Invulnerability would work either.
>
From the description:
Note that spell effects are not disrupted unless their effects enter the globe, and
even then they are merely suppressed, not dispelled.
An /Orb/ is a *spell effect* whether conjured or not, /ergo/ an /Orb/ may enter the
/Globe/, but will be suppressed (appear to wink out) when entering it. Once inside
it will still be present /in potentia/ until the /Globe/ spell ends, and in that
state be both harmless and unable to be controlled (and presumably immobile) as
long as it remains within the /Globe/
It then becomes a race against time to see whether the /Globe/ or the /Orb/ expires
first. A wizard with a decent rank in Spellcraft may be able to assess the incoming
/Orb/ and weigh its duration against that of the /Globe/, and if neccessary do a
bunk to a safe spot (keeping the /Globe/ between him and the enemy) just before the
/Globe/ expires, or cast another /Globe/ before the first one expires.
As the /Globe/ is 20' across it protects one's allies also, who can harrass the
opposition (especially their casters) with missile fire and spells, while the
caster of the /Globe/ can do likewise (and/or buff his allies).
Cheers
JOanna
DougL
> On 9/22/2010 2:10 PM, JOanna Rowland-Stuart wrote:
>
> >>> Opponents with concealment of some sort (or displacement, etc.)
>
> >> Doh! I hadn't thought of that.
> > Or even give the BBEG a Ring of Spell Turning, and/or an Ioun Stone.
>
> > Pale lavender Ellipsoid Absorbs spells of 4th level or lower 20,000 gp
>
> I don't think that would work because the Orb spells are conjurations
> and the spell itself doesn't target the foe.
Yep, BtB that's a completely nonmagical mundane ball of magical force.
It's also a completely nonmagical mundane acid ball flying through the
air for a touch attack that does more damage than six seconds of
complete immersion in any actual non-magical acid. Ditto for the
little orb of nonmagical fire that flies through the air without any
fuel, hits almost as hard as six seconds of complete immersion in
lava, and stays togather while it does so.
They're all perfectly nonmagical, that's why they have a range
increment like other non-magical missiles (whoops), that's why the
projectiles can be stored and used later (whoops), that's why you can
conjure acid or fire of that power for things other than projectiles
(whoops), that's like all the other non-magical force effects
(whoops), that's like all the other non-magical balls of sound out
there (whoops) ....
The orb spells aren't really overpowered for their level. They're
single target direct damage after all. But the placement as
conjuration rather than evocation and the SR:No lines on the spell
descriptions make a mockery of both the fluff text for what SR means
and of the school descriptions. And they also make any evokers who
WANTED to concentrate on direct damage so they banned conjuration sit
weeping in the corner that the best evokation spells somehow were
placed in a different school.
If those spells are conjuration then it would make MORE sense to also
allow a wizard to "conjure" a vision of a distant place and thus use
conjuration to scry, or to "conjure" an image and use it to create no
save illusions, or to "conjure" the negative energy to animate a
skeleton. At least all of those could CONCEIVABLY be summoning
something from a different place or plane rather than creating a
magical effect.
Bah. Insta-ban. I never seriously considered letting that nonsense
into my campaign, and the inclusion in the Spell Compendium is a major
reason I was never really tempted to get that book. I can make up
spells that break almost every spell invention guideline ever
published myself. Why pay money for a suplement written by people who
can't be troubled to read the rulebooks or to think about what they're
claiming.
DougL
George W Harris
>On 9/22/2010 11:28 AM, I wrote:
>> WDS wrote:
>>> One of the players in my campaign has sort of settled on "all orbs all
>>> the time" for combat. The foes of the group who are parts of
>>> organizations know this but I (as them) am having difficulty coming up
>>> with good counters for it at various levels. Ideas?
>>>
>>> Note: we are using the PhB and Spell Compendium for spells only. The
>>> PCs are in the mid teens for levels.
>>
>> Opponents with energy resistance
>
>This only works for one kind of orb (though I should be watching to see
>if he always uses one) and doesn't work for the force ones at all.
>
>> Opponents with high touch AC
>
>That is very difficult, especially for big foes like dragons.
"Scintillating Scales" is a 2nd level Sorc/Wiz
spell that every dragon should know. It converts
your Natural Armor bonus into a Deflection bonus.
>
>> Opponents with concealment of some sort (or displacement, etc.)
>
>Doh! I hadn't thought of that.
--
Duke Basketball: We Crush Dreams
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Arandor
wrote:
> > > Opponents with concealment of some sort (or displacement, etc.)
>
> > Doh! I hadn't thought of that.
>
> Or even give the BBEG a Ring of Spell Turning, and/or an Ioun Stone.
"The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect
and area spells are not affected. Spell turning also fails to stop
touch range spells."
ORB OF ACID
Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
Level: Sorcerer/wizard 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
=> Effect: One orb of acid <=
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial;
see text
Spell Resistance: No
The orb spells are effect spells. They can not be turned. Sowwy. :-
( They do not "target" anyone, silly as it sounds. RAW, they're
unturnable.
> Pale lavender Ellipsoid Absorbs spells of 4th level or lower 20,000 gp
"After absorbing twenty spell levels, the stone burns out and turns to
dull gray, forever useless."
Depends on if the players use the lesser orbs (lvl. 1), or the orbs
(lvl. 4). There are ways to fire off 4 orbs per round if you put your
mind to it... Which means, the ouch time starts in turn 2.
Plus:
"The pale lavender and lavender and green stones work like a rod of
absorption, but absorbing a spell requires a readied action, and these
stones cannot be used to empower spells."
A readied action... IOW, this sucks. Big time. Not an option.
What does work, also from the SC:
1) /Forceward/ (MIC, pg. 98)
Specifically for Orb of Force. Completely immune! (Suppression, to be
exact, it's a bit like a mobile AMZ vs. force effects only.) It's a
sphere, so people around you get the same immunity.
2) /Ray Deflection/ (MIC, pg. 166)
Completely immune to ranged touch spells, including ray spells. Buh-
bye!
3) /Scintillating Scales/ (MIC, pg. 181)
Turn natural armor into deflection bonus. Have the dragon sing: "Can't
touch this!" by McHammer. :-)
Of course, as others already mentioned, miss chances (/Blink/, /
Blur/, /Displacement/, /Invisibility/, /Mirror Image/ and Greater
versions of any of these) also work.
And getting touch AC up is hard, but not undoable. There are feats
that allow you to use your shield's bonus against touch attacks
(Shield Ward, PHB2)... and to seriously boost that shield. I think
there even are armor enhancements, but not sure of that.
Think also Dodge, Combat Expertise, fighting defensively, it all
stacks. Make a Dex-specced archer or finesse-fighter, and you might be
surprised what kind of touch AC you can reach.
My record was touch AC 50 (without any spells); of course, that was
20th level and I did abuse *cough* a few books (BoED, anyone?). Yes,
she was nekkid. I'm sure it can be boosted much further.
--
Cheers,
Arandor
Arandor
> 1) /Forceward/ (MIC, pg. 98)
Ack! Not enough coffee in the morning. Make that SC, instead of
MIC. :-) Some for the other spells... d'oh.
--
Cheers,
Arandor
WDS
Using that logic then GoI also prevents other conjurations like summoned
animals.
WDS
> On Sep 22, 2:50 pm, WDS<B...@seurer.net> wrote:
>> On 9/22/2010 2:10 PM, JOanna Rowland-Stuart wrote:
>>
>>>>> Opponents with concealment of some sort (or displacement, etc.)
>>
>>>> Doh! I hadn't thought of that.
>>> Or even give the BBEG a Ring of Spell Turning, and/or an Ioun Stone.
>>
>>> Pale lavender Ellipsoid Absorbs spells of 4th level or lower 20,000 gp
>>
>> I don't think that would work because the Orb spells are conjurations
>> and the spell itself doesn't target the foe.
>
> Yep, BtB that's a completely nonmagical mundane ball of magical force.
> It's also a completely nonmagical mundane acid ball flying through the
> air for a touch attack that does more damage than six seconds of
> complete immersion in any actual non-magical acid. Ditto for the
> little orb of nonmagical fire that flies through the air without any
> fuel, hits almost as hard as six seconds of complete immersion in
> lava, and stays togather while it does so.
None of D&D magic (*) makes sense, yes, even spells that have "real
world" effects. So holding one spell to that standard makes, well, no
sense.
(*) Nor a lot of the rest of the rules.
DougL
Who's talking about making sense? I'm talking about internal
consistency and FOLLOWING the rules.
They TELL us what makes a spell SR:No, it doesn't apply to orbs.
They TELL us how to identify a school, orbs are CLEARLY evocation.
If you're not going to follow the rules why have them? Orbs don't even
pretend to follow the rules.
DougL
Arandor
>
> - Show quoted text -
*shrug* Why?
It's conjuration - you *actually* "call" / "create" a blob of acid, or
some highly-charged particles (electricity), or or some plasma (fire),
or super-chilled air (cold). Or something along those lines.
It's conjured and it's actually present when the spell effect is
resolved; it's real. Not subject to SR.
As a second effect of the spell, that blob of acid / etc. gets a
telekinetic "shove" in the right direction. At that point it's a real-
world object, just like an arrow, with inertia. Coming your way.
SR: no. Conjuration: yes.
I don't see the problem?
--
Cheers,
Arandor
Tetsubo
Nor do I. I love the Orb spells.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Ubiquitous
>> WDS <Bi...@seurer.net>
>> I'm don't think that Globe of Invulnerability would work either.
>>
>www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/globeOfInvulnerabilityLesser.htm
>
>From the description:
>Note that spell effects are not disrupted unless their effects enter the globe, and
>even then they are merely suppressed, not dispelled.
>
>An /Orb/ is a *spell effect* whether conjured or not, /ergo/ an /Orb/ may enter the
>/Globe/, but will be suppressed (appear to wink out) when entering it. Once inside
>it will still be present /in potentia/ until the /Globe/ spell ends, and in that
>state be both harmless and unable to be controlled (and presumably immobile) as
>long as it remains within the /Globe/
>
>It then becomes a race against time to see whether the /Globe/ or the /Orb/ expires
>first. A wizard with a decent rank in Spellcraft may be able to assess the incoming
>/Orb/ and weigh its duration against that of the /Globe/, and if neccessary do a
>bunk to a safe spot (keeping the /Globe/ between him and the enemy) just before the
>/Globe/ expires, or cast another /Globe/ before the first one expires.
I'm quite sure that's not what would happen but am drawing a blank right now as to why.
Seebs
> *shrug* Why?
Because conjurations can't "conjure" energy -- only purely physical
things. You can conjure a bear, but not a fireball.
> It's conjuration - you *actually* "call" / "create" a blob of acid, or
> some highly-charged particles (electricity), or or some plasma (fire),
> or super-chilled air (cold). Or something along those lines.
Except that "conjuring" energy is called "evocation".
> I don't see the problem?
Game balance, largely. Conjuration effects are intended to be things
like animal summoning or monster summoning, where allowing SR to work on
them would utterly break them conceptually. Raw energy damage is usually
evocation, not conjuration. Adding a bunch of raw energy damage to
conjuration has several problems:
1. It breaks the designed balance between conjuration and evocation;
it is *supposed* to be less practical to use conjuration as a straight up
direct damage spec.
2. Giving a bunch of spells which are just as good as evocations of their
levels, but which also ignore SR and anti-magic, creates severely overpowered
spells.
Basically, if these spells are conjuration, conjuration is massively
overpowered. Consider how many years 3E has been out, and how few
discussions we've had of needs for "counters" to most of the other damage
spells. These show up because they're way too powerful -- they bypass
one of the checks and balances used to keep spells at least vaguely
limited in power.
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
WDS
> 1. It breaks the designed balance between conjuration and evocation;
> it is *supposed* to be less practical to use conjuration as a straight up
> direct damage spec.
> 2. Giving a bunch of spells which are just as good as evocations of their
> levels, but which also ignore SR and anti-magic, creates severely overpowered
> spells.
But this just isn't true. The orb spells are different but arguably are
not "just as good" for several reasons as the evocation "equivalents".
Compare Fireball and Orb of Fire:
Orb of Fire
Conjuration (Creation) [Fire]
Level: 4
Range: Close
Saving Throw: Fort part
Spell Resistance: No
Ranged touch attack; caster level d6 (fire) damage, Fort save or be
dazed for 1 rd
Fireball
Evocation [Fire]
Level: 3
Range: Long
Area: 20' r. sprd
Saving Throw: Ref half
Spell Resistance: Yes
caster level d6 fire damage. Sets combustibles alight.
Orb spell pluses:
+ SR: No
+ Save: No (except the dazed part)
+ Conjuration
+ higher max damage (because of spell level)
Fireball pluses:
+ Lower level
+ Area
+ Much longer range
+ Always hits target
Tetsubo
Which is one of the reasons why I can never figure out the Orb hate.
Seebs
> But this just isn't true. The orb spells are different but arguably are
> not "just as good" for several reasons as the evocation "equivalents".
Hmm.
So, Orb spell:
* Can target things inside antimagic shells and the like.
* Is unaffected in any way by Evasion, whether or not it's improved.
* Can daze targets (that's a big deal in some cases)
Ranged touch attacks are a very weak defense compared to a reflex save.
I don't think level counts as a real bonus for fireball; I'd rather compare
Orb to a 4th level Evocation to avoid the confusion. The thing is, the
orb spell can bypass a ton of defenses. I agree that the lack of AoE is
a weakness, but for single targets, the orb spell utterly roflstomps fireball,
to a much higher degree than is justified by the one-level difference.
Many targets have evasion (making fireball able to miss them completely)
or improved evasion (capping it at half damage) or SR (allowing fireball
to miss them completely). Critters designed to fight casters are likely to
have anti-magic defenses of one sort or another -- nearly all of which
are useless against conjuration.
WDS
> I don't think level counts as a real bonus for fireball; I'd rather compare
> Orb to a 4th level Evocation to avoid the confusion.
I'll just narrow in on this part.
Actually, the level thing is pretty big. I have a high level wizard in
a campaign and for general adventuring he always has a Fireball readied
but never an Orb of Whatever. He can cast more 3rd level spells to
begin with, 3rd level spells are affected by lesser rods of metamagic,
the pearls of power for 3rd level are not so pricey, and frankly it has
worked out that the fireball is just more useful.
There aren't any good 4th level evocations to compare with, really.
From the PhB:
Evoc
* Fire Shield: Creatures attacking you take fire damage; you’re
protected from heat or cold.
* Ice Storm: Hail deals 5d6 damage in cylinder 40 ft. across.
* Resilient Sphere: Force globe protects but traps one subject.
* Shout: Deafens all within cone and deals 5d6 sonic damage.
* Wall of Fire: Deals 2d4 fire damage out to 10 ft. and 1d4 out to
20 ft. Passing through wall deals 2d6 damage +1/level.
* Wall of Ice: Ice plane creates wall with 15 hp +1/level, or
hemisphere can trap creatures inside.
I frankly was surprised that Ice Storm was an evocation as I remember it
working against things with magical resistance (though that may be from
2e). I don't have a Spell Compendium so I'm not sure what might be in
there.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Ice Storm was subject of quite a long debate here some time ago.
The basic idea has always been that it does some magical cold damage
(which MR would negate) and some purely mundane Batter You With Heavy
Pieces of Ice damage, which MR doesn't work on, at least in some rulings.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Seebs
>> I don't think level counts as a real bonus for fireball; I'd rather compare
>> Orb to a 4th level Evocation to avoid the confusion.
> I'll just narrow in on this part.
> Actually, the level thing is pretty big.
But it's illusory. You're arbitrarily comparing a third level spell to
a fourth level, instead of comparing two fourth level spells to each other,
or two third level spells to each other.
> There aren't any good 4th level evocations to compare with, really.
Ahh, yes. That would be the Big Problem.
So here's a proposed fair comparison: Research a 3rd level variant of the
orb spell, which picks up the lower damage cap, etc., and then compare
them.
> I frankly was surprised that Ice Storm was an evocation as I remember it
> working against things with magical resistance (though that may be from
> 2e). I don't have a Spell Compendium so I'm not sure what might be in
> there.
I have a vague similar memory.
Anyway, easy enough to just make up a third level orb spell that follows
the usual rules, and do the comparison. I think the net result is that, on
a whole lot of targets, a ranged touch attack is much more dangerous than
something with a reflex save, especially if you add in SR.
DougL
So the orb of force is a real ball of immaterial force? Where does it
go after it hits?
It's force, it's not destroyed by impact. It's not being stabilized by
magic so the spell doesn't "end" and it can't go away because the
spell is over. Because the spell was over PRIOR to the orb hitting.
This orb does 15d6 damage from casual contact on a touch attack. They
litter the field after any battle..
And if I cast an Acid Orb into an acid proof flask, I get free 15d6 on
contact acid. That works in your world? I can walk into a shop and buy
15d6 casual contact touch attack acid for 600 GP a dose? Because it's
REAL acid, not magic acid. It's actually here.
Because those sorts of things are the MINIMAL consequences of this
being "real non-magical" stuff that I'm summoning.
The orb of fire burns without fuel, so it ALSO sticks around. Why
should it go away? The magic isn't running out and there isn't any
fuel that produces 15d6 fire in the game, so it must be some sort of
elemental fire stuff, and if it can burn without fuel why should it go
away? It's not a ball of plasma, because such a ball wouldn't stay
together through the air without magic, and THERE IS NO MAGIC!
DougL
Ubiquitous
>> *shrug* Why?
>
>Because conjurations can't "conjure" energy -- only purely physical
>things. You can conjure a bear, but not a fireball.
If memory serves, Melf's Acid Arrow is also a conjuration spell.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Tetsubo
> usenet...@seebs.net wrote:
>
>>On 2010-09-24, Arandor <ara...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>*shrug* Why?
>>
>>Because conjurations can't "conjure" energy -- only purely physical
>>things. You can conjure a bear, but not a fireball.
>
>
> If memory serves, Melf's Acid Arrow is also a conjuration spell.
>
Acid Arrow
Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect: One arrow of acid
Duration: 1 round + 1 round per three levels
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
A magical arrow of acid springs from your hand and speeds to its target.
You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The arrow
deals 2d4 points of acid damage with no splash damage. For every three
caster levels (to a maximum of 18th), the acid, unless somehow
neutralized, lasts for another round, dealing another 2d4 points of
damage in that round.
Material Component
Powdered rhubarb leaf and an adder’s stomach.
Focus
A dart.
Can we shelve this now?
Arandor
> On 2010-09-24, Arandor <aran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > *shrug* Why?
>
> Because conjurations can't "conjure" energy -- only purely physical
> things. You can conjure a bear, but not a fireball.
The thing is: you are not conjuring just energy. You are conjuring
matter.
Look at /Acid Fog/. It's a conjuration spell that summons something
"real", namely acidic vapors.
If you "summon" a blob of magma, that "real" blob is going to have
> > It's conjuration - you *actually* "call" / "create" a blob of acid, or
> > some highly-charged particles (electricity), or or some plasma (fire),
> > or super-chilled air (cold). Or something along those lines.
>
> Except that "conjuring" energy is called "evocation".
But we're conjuring matter. What matter, in turn, does energy damage.
Acidic vapors, blob of magma, things like that. Just because it is not
*solid* matter, does not matter (no pun intended). Matter in liquid
state or gaseous state is still matter.
> > I don't see the problem?
>
> Game balance, largely. Conjuration effects are intended to be things
> like animal summoning or monster summoning, where allowing SR to work on
> them would utterly break them conceptually. Raw energy damage is usually
> evocation, not conjuration.
That is just an interpretation. Your conclusion seems supported by
observation, but isn't. You can come up with a lot of examples to
support your case; I believe that. However, that does not constitute
proof.
I do understand the balance issue. Orb spells are highly effective,
against BBEGs. Defenses force you to think out of the box and many
"generic" monsters have little to no defenses.
> 1. It breaks the designed balance between conjuration and evocation;
> it is *supposed* to be less practical to use conjuration as a straight up
> direct damage spec.
I disagree with that. Both evocation and conjuration are fantastic
school. Don't forget: the teleportation spells are conjuration
now. :-) No Wizard wants to be without...
> 2. Giving a bunch of spells which are just as good as evocations of their
> levels, but which also ignore SR and anti-magic, creates severely overpowered
> spells.
That, I understand. There are however defenses, and I do not believe
them to be "overpowered". Strong, yes. Suitable candidates, yes, but
not a no-brainer.
> Basically, if these spells are conjuration, conjuration is massively
> overpowered. Consider how many years 3E has been out, and how few
> discussions we've had of needs for "counters" to most of the other damage
> spells. These show up because they're way too powerful -- they bypass
> one of the checks and balances used to keep spells at least vaguely
> limited in power.
This, however, I think is too much. It's not as bad as you make it
seem.
--
Cheers,
Arandor
Arandor
> So the orb of force is a real ball of immaterial force? Where does it
> go after it hits?
For /Orb of Force/, you're right: I was surprised upone reading the
spell that this one did not allow SR. But by the book, it doesn't.
> It's force, it's not destroyed by impact. It's not being stabilized by
> magic so the spell doesn't "end" and it can't go away because the
> spell is over. Because the spell was over PRIOR to the orb hitting.
> This orb does 15d6 damage from casual contact on a touch attack. They
> litter the field after any battle..
I can imagine another thing, too. If you just briefly exert force,
that force is real, and not subject to SR. The duration is
instantaneous, so just once.
If I punch you once, I exert force, that's no SR. After that, the
force is gone.
> And if I cast an Acid Orb into an acid proof flask, I get free 15d6 on
> contact acid. That works in your world? I can walk into a shop and buy
> 15d6 casual contact touch attack acid for 600 GP a dose? Because it's
> REAL acid, not magic acid. It's actually here.
And also subject to real-world physics. For all you know the acid
destabilises / loses potency. Just like a distillation process: you
can never achieve 100% alcohol percentage; as soon as you approach it,
the water from the air 'contaminates' it and lowers the potency.
You get 16d6 acid... which rapidly degrades to, say, 2d6. Which is
normal acid that you can buy from an alchemist.
> Because those sorts of things are the MINIMAL consequences of this
> being "real non-magical" stuff that I'm summoning.
>
> The orb of fire burns without fuel, so it ALSO sticks around. Why
> should it go away? The magic isn't running out and there isn't any
> fuel that produces 15d6 fire in the game, so it must be some sort of
> elemental fire stuff, and if it can burn without fuel why should it go
> away? It's not a ball of plasma, because such a ball wouldn't stay
> together through the air without magic, and THERE IS NO MAGIC!
Uhm, hello? It's a spell, the spell calls it into being. At that
point, there most certainly is magic. And there's your super-heated
plasma. Better fling it *right now*, because it's cooling down. Oh,
wait, the orb spell does just that for me. Great.
*shrug* So... was a blob of superheated plasma. Go ahead and put it in
a flask. Then it cools, since it's subject to real world physics.
It's enough to inflict 15d6 damage... provided you immediately fling
it (which, conveniently, the orb spell does). Then it's, for all
intents and purposes, gone, or useless.
acid - acidic vapors
cold - super-chilled air
electricity - super-charged air
fire - super-heated plasma
Note: "inflicts fire damage" is not the same as "is a burning fire".
Go ahead and put it in a flask. :-) Have fun with your flask of...
air.
--
Cheers,
Arandor
WDS
> On Sep 25, 2:18 am, DougL<lampert.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So the orb of force is a real ball of immaterial force? Where does it
>> go after it hits?
>
> For /Orb of Force/, you're right: I was surprised upone reading the
> spell that this one did not allow SR. But by the book, it doesn't.
It could be the D&D equivalent of a shock wave. Watch a high speed
camera video of an explosion.
Seebs
> On Sep 24, 4:27?pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-09-24, Arandor <aran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Because conjurations can't "conjure" energy -- only purely physical
> The thing is: you are not conjuring just energy. You are conjuring
> matter.
That's questionable for the fire orb.
> But we're conjuring matter. What matter, in turn, does energy damage.
> Acidic vapors, blob of magma, things like that. Just because it is not
> *solid* matter, does not matter (no pun intended). Matter in liquid
> state or gaseous state is still matter.
I guess I'd have to see evidence that non-magical matter with the described
properties can exist to accept this explanation.
> That is just an interpretation. Your conclusion seems supported by
> observation, but isn't. You can come up with a lot of examples to
> support your case; I believe that. However, that does not constitute
> proof.
There's no such thing as "proof" in the context of a fairly subjective
determination like what category spells should be. Heck, look at fireball;
if you look at its description, you'll note that your argument for why
the orb spells are conjurations should be able to work for fireball,
too. You're conjuring a thing which explodes, right? (Be sure to read
the 1E PHB description of fireball, which is the clearest about the
thing conjured being a physical object which explodes.)
> I do understand the balance issue. Orb spells are highly effective,
> against BBEGs. Defenses force you to think out of the box and many
> "generic" monsters have little to no defenses.
It's not just that -- it's that the specific defenses which are supposed
to be effective against casters are all gone. The key weakness of casters
is that good saves and SR can defeat them. A large pool of direct damage
spells which ignore SR is unbalancing.
>> 1. ?It breaks the designed balance between conjuration and evocation;
>> it is *supposed* to be less practical to use conjuration as a straight up
>> direct damage spec.
> I disagree with that. Both evocation and conjuration are fantastic
> school. Don't forget: the teleportation spells are conjuration
> now. :-) No Wizard wants to be without...
They're both fantastic, but they're supposed to be fantastic in different
ways. The orb spells combine the advantages of conjuration with the
strengths of evocation.
>> 2. ?Giving a bunch of spells which are just as good as evocations of their
>> levels, but which also ignore SR and anti-magic, creates severely overpowered
>> spells.
> That, I understand. There are however defenses, and I do not believe
> them to be "overpowered". Strong, yes. Suitable candidates, yes, but
> not a no-brainer.
If you show me threads where people ask for help balancing a game because
someone has specialized in evocation spells and they can't figure out how
to defend against that caster, I'll consider this a plausible argument.
Arandor
> That's questionable for the fire orb.
Why? Both gaseous and plasma are states of matter. Next to liquid and
solid.
/Acid Fog/ can conjure acidic vapors (fog). Those vapors - so matter
in gaseous form - can inflict energy damage (2d6 per round, to be
exact). Same for acid arrow: this conjures acid. It is stated to be an
'arrow' of acid, but I'd envision it as a blob, so liquid. Either way,
it does not "matter": matter is being conjured which does energy
damage.
Why would a blob superheated gas / plasma (which is matter) not be
able to inflict fire damage?
> I guess I'd have to see evidence that non-magical matter with the described
> properties can exist to accept this explanation.
Given above. /Acid Fog/ and /Acid Arrow/ both qualify for matter
inflicting acid damage. And trust me: if I somehow manage to conjure
some of the sun's plasma, you're going to get *burned* for fire
damage. Big time. But a small amount of that gas / plasma will soon
cool.
> There's no such thing as "proof" in the context of a fairly subjective
> determination like what category spells should be. Heck, look at fireball;
> if you look at its description, you'll note that your argument for why
> the orb spells are conjurations should be able to work for fireball,
> too. You're conjuring a thing which explodes, right? (Be sure to read
> the 1E PHB description of fireball, which is the clearest about the
> thing conjured being a physical object which explodes.)
I don't have the PHB1, so I will have to take your word for that. But
still, what's the problem?
Conjuration and evocation are different schools. They work in
different ways. Yes, it would be possible to reason how a conjuration
spell would "conjure" a /Fireball/. And, reasoning a different way, it
would be possible to reason how an evocation spell would "evoke" a /
Fireball/. Yay?
> It's not just that -- it's that the specific defenses which are supposed
> to be effective against casters are all gone. The key weakness of casters
> is that good saves and SR can defeat them. A large pool of direct damage
> spells which ignore SR is unbalancing.
I see that as a *feature*, not as a bug. Finally, you're forced to
think out of the box. Your generic "oh, I have good saves, no need to
worry" won't work.
With the introduction of the Orb spells, specific defenses (such as
Ray Deflection, Scintillating Scales, etc.) were also introduced.
Think of it this way. Suppose you allow psionics - a Psion - into your
campaign. And you do not 'equate' Spell Resistance (SR) with Power
Resistance (PR). The monsters in the MM do not have PR. Gee, all of a
sudden you introduced, essentially, a Wizard who has all spells "SR:
no"... because all his "spells" are only opposed by PR, by the book.
If you allow one (the Orbs, or the Psion), you should also pay
attention to the other (specific counter spells for Orbs, equating PR
& SR).
Besides, for any Wizard worth his salt, SR is a joke, really.
> They're both fantastic, but they're supposed to be fantastic in different
> ways. The orb spells combine the advantages of conjuration with the
> strengths of evocation.
Again: that's your opinion ("supposed to be"). That's not written
anywhere, it's not RAW. They're both just schools, with some good
spells and some sucky spells. Guess what, players tend to pick the
spells (they believe) are good and leave the spells (they think) are
sucky. Nothing new there.
> If you show me threads where people ask for help balancing a game because
> someone has specialized in evocation spells and they can't figure out how
> to defend against that caster, I'll consider this a plausible argument.
I don't recall them, but I've personally had "problems" with Wizards
who basically ignored SR (fairly trivial to do) and could Empower /
Maximize basically at will, or often enough to be virtually at will.
And had save DCs through the roof, so making saves was fairly hard and
even if it did happen... that only meant you suffered 75 damage
instead of 150. Still ouchy for many minions.
He had great fun, though, so did everyone else, and I had plenty of
minions where those came from.
If spellcasters put their minds to it, they can be fairly powerful,
fairly quickly. And... why is it a problem?
And finally... what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Have
them run into people with (wands of) orb spells themselves. See how
the players deal with it. They can be highly innovative sometimes.
Then, use their own counter measures against them. :-)
--
Cheers,
Arandor
Seebs
> On Sep 27, 6:28?pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> That's questionable for the fire orb.
> Why? Both gaseous and plasma are states of matter. Next to liquid and
> solid.
In which case, why is "fireball" an evocation rather than a conjuration?
For purposes of D&D, fire is energy.
> I don't have the PHB1, so I will have to take your word for that. But
> still, what's the problem?
The problem is that making something a conjuration has game balance impact
which requires balancing with its other attributes.
>> It's not just that -- it's that the specific defenses which are supposed
>> to be effective against casters are all gone. ?The key weakness of casters
>> is that good saves and SR can defeat them. ?A large pool of direct damage
>> spells which ignore SR is unbalancing.
> I see that as a *feature*, not as a bug. Finally, you're forced to
> think out of the box. Your generic "oh, I have good saves, no need to
> worry" won't work.
You don't get to think out of the box. You have fixed statistics which were
written down in the monster manual before these spells existed.
These spells exist to be unbalanced. That is why they were created. And
as a result, they're unbalanced.
> Think of it this way. Suppose you allow psionics - a Psion - into your
> campaign. And you do not 'equate' Spell Resistance (SR) with Power
> Resistance (PR). The monsters in the MM do not have PR. Gee, all of a
> sudden you introduced, essentially, a Wizard who has all spells "SR:
> no"... because all his "spells" are only opposed by PR, by the book.
Yes. And this is why 1st edition psionics was so ludicrously unbalanced
and overpowered.
> Besides, for any Wizard worth his salt, SR is a joke, really.
I'm not at all convinced of that. It's certainly a non-zero chance of
failure.
>> They're both fantastic, but they're supposed to be fantastic in different
>> ways. ?The orb spells combine the advantages of conjuration with the
>> strengths of evocation.
> Again: that's your opinion ("supposed to be"). That's not written
> anywhere, it's not RAW.
So? It's an opinion which is verifiable by observation of the spells in
the core game. The spell compendium introduces a lot of spells which have
serious game balance problems.
> If spellcasters put their minds to it, they can be fairly powerful,
> fairly quickly. And... why is it a problem?
The problem isn't "fairly powerful", it's "more powerful than the game's
design expects at a given level".
> And finally... what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Have
> them run into people with (wands of) orb spells themselves. See how
> the players deal with it. They can be highly innovative sometimes.
That may actually be a very effective counter. :)
Arandor
> In which case, why is "fireball" an evocation rather than a conjuration?
It could be both schools, as I demonstrated. Supposedly, /Fireball/
was there first. Dibs! Patent filed. :-)
Also: legacy. It's always been evocation and there was no reason to
change.
> For purposes of D&D, fire is energy.
But evocation does not have the "sole rights" to energy. So that's not
a valid argument. Conjuration can demonstrably inflict energy damage,
too. /Acid Arrow/, /Acid Fog/. All that happened was that *more*
spells got added, of conjuration school, that inflict energy damage
instead of summon monsters.
Conversely, there are evocation spells that have nothing to do with
"energy" in the D&D sense (i.e., are not acid / cold / electricy /
fire / sonic, or even force). For example: the various [light] and
[darkness] spells, and some of the [air] spells, like /Gust of Wind/
and /Wind Wall/.
Plus, something else: /Wall of Ice/ is an *evocation* spell. Yet is
"summons"... ice. Matter, not energy. (Yes, IO know about E=mc^2. :-)
Which does cold damage. Hey, wait a minute, wasn't summoning things a
*conjuration* schtick...? :S
Another "weird" evocation spell: /Sending/. What energy is involved
here? Plus, /Contingency/. D'oh?
The list goes on.
> The problem is that making something a conjuration has game balance impact
> which requires balancing with its other attributes.
That is plainly not true. It does not follow from the data. Balance-
wise, it only matters if all schools have "about" the same number of
interesting spells, and if at every level, the spells are about
balanced to each other. If one school happens to achieve a certain
effect in a certain way, and another school has achieved the same
effect in another way: great.
If there were specific "school defenses" prevalent, you might have a
point (higher save bonus, or immunities / resistances against
abjuration spells, etc.) There is actually a feat, with prerequisite
Spell Focus, that does something (from Complete Arcane I think), but
that's the only one I can think of. This should give you a hint: what
school a specific spell is, does not matter. Tell me, which monster
has "resist evocation 10, immunity to abjuration" or some such?
Schools do tend to have "schticks", but all of them vary, and in some
cases overlap, to some degree. There are divination spells that
actually *attack* / interfere with someone (/Unluck/). Hmm, but wasn't
divination only about "gathering info"? Guess not. At least, not
exclusively. By the same token: evocation is not only about inflicting
energy damage (just largely so), and conjuration is not only about
summoning monsters (far from it).
> You don't get to think out of the box. You have fixed statistics which were
> written down in the monster manual before these spells existed.
Sure you can. Interrupt the caster, for example. If you're a
spellcaster (like a Dragon), take the available spells. He casts like
a sorcerer, after all. What's good for the goose, is good for the
gander.
Swap spells / spell-like abilities (you're allowing the PCs something
"extra", do the same to the monsters). There are guidelines for this,
for example in the Fiendish Codex. Still largely RAW, but you're
twiddling, yes. But there is precedent.
> These spells exist to be unbalanced. That is why they were created. And
> as a result, they're unbalanced.
*shrug* You can say that. It's an opinion. And I for one disagree with
it. But that's fine.
> Yes. And this is why 1st edition psionics was so ludicrously unbalanced
> and overpowered.
Something was introduced without adding the counterparts. Duh. That's
giving someone a gun, the other person nothing, and then complaining
it's such an unfair fight. When bulletproof vests do exist. Or not
letting the other guy be smart (duck for cover, try to disarm the guy
up close, fool with disguises, whatever).
> I'm not at all convinced of that. It's certainly a non-zero chance of
> failure.
:-) Not if you half-heartedly invest in it. General SR is in the order
of 11 to 13 + CR. If it's CR + 4, that's *at most* 17 above your
caster level. That's 3 feats and an item (Third Eye Penetrate, 8,000
gp). That's absolute worst case, and I still defeat it automatically.
Being able to Take 10 on caster level checks - which penetrating SR is
- is lots of fun. It mostly already eliminates the need for Spell
Penetration and almost certainly the Greater version.
SR is a joke, really. Add /Assay Spell Resistance/ to taste, if you
don't like investing feats. There ways to boost your caster level.
Etc.
> So? It's an opinion which is verifiable by observation of the spells in
> the core game. The spell compendium introduces a lot of spells which have
> serious game balance problems.
YMMV. I find them fun, but me, and others, still regularly go back to
the core spells. That's a clear signal the spells are balanced with
each other. They're equally considered, not picked by default.
> The problem isn't "fairly powerful", it's "more powerful than the game's
> design expects at a given level".
Which it isn't. Just *different*. You add a dimension. Which is fun.
(Yes, that's my opinion.) A little out-of-the-box is OK.
Consider: to be able to shoot into melee, you need Precise Shot, or
you get a -4 penalty. That's 2 feats right there, since you need Point-
Blank Shot as prereq. So some investment is needed.
Cover works fine, also for monsters, they don't need that defense in
their stat block. And your allies *do* provide cover unless the size
difference is big. Combat Expertise, Dode, fighting defensively all
add dodge bonuses, all available to anyone. It's all there, just start
being creative. Don't just rely on saves and SR.
> That may actually be a very effective counter. :)
Works against *everything*. :-) Plus, they can hardly complain now,
can they? They started it!
--
Cheers,
Arandor
Justisaur
> can they? They started it.
That's always my favorite method. Use it until they beg you to nerf
it, ignore it etc. MAD. Actually can't remember doing that. I
usually let the PCs have their toys, and threaten to use the same toys
against them if they us it in the next campaign again - never had
anyone do it in the next campaign.
- Justisaur
Keith Davies
> On Sep 28, 6:59?pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> Tell me, which monster has "resist evocation 10, immunity to
> abjuration" or some such?
Golems. "Immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell
resistance."
Regarding Conjuration: "These spells are usually not subject to spell
resistance unless the spell conjures some form of energy. Spells that
summon creatures or produce effects that function like creatures are not
subject to spell resistance."
I believe it was posted earlier than the orb spells do not allow SR.
You will note, though, that they do specifically say "conjures some form
of energy", so there is support for conjuration creating energy.
Of course, it's also curious that the Evocation school is described in
the RSRD as "Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source
of power to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out
of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and
evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage."
>> You don't get to think out of the box. ?You have fixed statistics which were
>> written down in the monster manual before these spells existed.
>
> Sure you can. Interrupt the caster, for example. If you're a
> spellcaster (like a Dragon), take the available spells. He casts like
> a sorcerer, after all. What's good for the goose, is good for the
> gander.
Mind you, dragons are crap spell casters for their (too low) CR. Their
spell casting abilities are a point of interest at best. At CR 7 silver
dragons (one of the better ones at casting) have Sor1 casting, and top
out at Sor19 casting when they are Great Wyrms (CR 26).
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you ever get the feeling that
keith....@kjdavies.org you're discovering, rather than
keith....@gmail.com creating, Echelon?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org -- Robin Leung
WDS
> Mind you, dragons are crap spell casters for their (too low) CR. Their
> spell casting abilities are a point of interest at best. At CR 7 silver
> dragons (one of the better ones at casting) have Sor1 casting, and top
> out at Sor19 casting when they are Great Wyrms (CR 26).
Dragons in my experience are best off using their magic for simple
buffing and helping in getaways. Why would you (for instance) toss a
fireball when your breath weapon does so much more damage? OK, you
might do it to catch the wily adventurers who all have ER versus your
breath weapon off guard.
Keith Davies
Silver dragons are (Cold) subtype, so yeah. Mind you, a 5d6 in an EL 15
(Adult silver dragon; Sor5 can't cast /fireball/) encounter (or higher)
is barely a nuisance.
My point was that letting the big guys hit back with the same spells is
not particularly a balancing factor because by they get them (and IIRC
dragons were mentioned specifically) the spell is barely relevant. A
fourth-level orb spell would be cast by a dragon no less than a mature
adult silver dragon, a CR 18 creature.
WDS
> WDS<Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
>> On 9/29/2010 10:28 AM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>> Mind you, dragons are crap spell casters for their (too low) CR. Their
>>> spell casting abilities are a point of interest at best. At CR 7 silver
>>> dragons (one of the better ones at casting) have Sor1 casting, and top
>>> out at Sor19 casting when they are Great Wyrms (CR 26).
>>
>> Dragons in my experience are best off using their magic for simple
>> buffing and helping in getaways. Why would you (for instance) toss a
>> fireball when your breath weapon does so much more damage? OK, you
>> might do it to catch the wily adventurers who all have ER versus your
>> breath weapon off guard.
>
> Silver dragons are (Cold) subtype, so yeah. Mind you, a 5d6 in an EL 15
> (Adult silver dragon; Sor5 can't cast /fireball/) encounter (or higher)
> is barely a nuisance.
>
> My point was that letting the big guys hit back with the same spells is
> not particularly a balancing factor because by they get them (and IIRC
> dragons were mentioned specifically) the spell is barely relevant. A
> fourth-level orb spell would be cast by a dragon no less than a mature
> adult silver dragon, a CR 18 creature.
Do you follow OOTS? The black dragon there had the right idea, too.
Keith Davies
Nit: it would have to be a Black Wyrm. Sor11 can't cast Antimagic Field
(Sor6 spell, must be Sor12). Unless you interpolate and let the 33HD
black dragons cast as Sor12.
However, this does raise the point that characters may not want to
dedicate *all* their mojo to spell casting. In Echelon they can still
assign most or all to spell casting, but they can spread the joy out a
little.
Arandor
> Arandor <aran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 6:59?pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> > Tell me, which monster has "resist evocation 10, immunity to
> > abjuration" or some such?
>
> Golems. "Immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell
> resistance."
And there are plenty of those. Golems are simple melee monsters, not a
threat. Put a /Wall of Force/ in front of him, and you beat him. Or
teleport / dimension hop past him.
You don't always have to *destroy* to win. You *know* a golem is
immune (recognizing them is Knowledge (arcana), right up a Wizard's
alley).
The only thing the orbs add is yet another possibility to destroy the
golem with spells anyway. You could instead have summoned monsters to
bash him. That is just much less efficient for that particular task.
> Regarding Conjuration: "These spells are usually not subject to spell
> resistance unless the spell conjures some form of energy. Spells that
> summon creatures or produce effects that function like creatures are not
> subject to spell resistance."
Notice the word "usually". The "unless" clause can be read in two
ways: spells "conjuring energy" are "usually subject to SR" or "are
subject to SR (period)".
> I believe it was posted earlier than the orb spells do not allow SR.
True. The thing is (yes, it's semantics): there is no energy
*directly* conjured. I'm not conjuring "acid", I'm conjuring acid.
Actual, physical acid. And if you get that in your face, it kinda
burns.
Nothing in the above text says anything about that.
> You will note, though, that they do specifically say "conjures some form
> of energy", so there is support for conjuration creating energy.
It's possible, but not the only explanation.
> Of course, it's also curious that the Evocation school is described in
> the RSRD as "Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source
> of power to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out
> of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and
> evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage."
Or they summon sheets of ice. Hey, wasn't conjuring things a
conjuratin schtick? :)
As you see, the definitions are fairly broad, on purpose. Conjuration
does not only summon things, evocation does not only blow things up.
Yay for variety. Any "spectacular effect" could be evocation. And
conjuration could "conjure" energy. Or matter.
> Mind you, dragons are crap spell casters for their (too low) CR. Their
> spell casting abilities are a point of interest at best. At CR 7 silver
> dragons (one of the better ones at casting) have Sor1 casting, and top
> out at Sor19 casting when they are Great Wyrms (CR 26).
The defense spells are low enough. At CR 7, what's the Wizard going to
have for hitting touch AC? +3 from his BAB, say +2 from Dex, another
+1 from Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. Around that. That's +6, if
he gets with 30' of the Dragon and invested his feats, versus touch AC
10. Dragon could take /Protection from Good/ for +2 deflection, upping
it to touch AC 12. And even if it's a hit... that's the top-level
spell (4th) that does 7d6+1 (again, Point-Blank Shot) to his ~110 hp.
How many different orbs does the 7th level Wizard have available? Fire
works good here (vulnerability), but acid and cold would not have cut
it this time (immune).
Also note the young silver does not yet have SR; that doesn't come
until adult, when caster level is 5th and /Scintillating Scales/ is
available.
Cheap defense: a masterwork buckler (strapped to his forepaw) with a
Least Crystal of Arrow Deflection. The orbs are ranged attacks. That's
+2 AC right there, for total 665 gp.
Or he could use /Obscuring Mist/. The dragon has blindsense. How's the
Wizard doing?
--
Cheers,
Arandor
Arandor
> resistance."
To clarify: the question was to have specific defenses against a
*school* of spells. So "immunity to abjuration" or "resist evocation
10". Blanket immunity to all spells (or at least all spells that allow
SR) does not "count" for this.
What you *do* sometimes see, is a (generally small) bonus on saves. A
+2 versus illusions for Gnomes, a +2 versus enchantment for Monks,
things like that. And I referred to Arcane Defense from Complete
Arcane, a feat giving you a +3 bonus against a specific school you
have Spell Focus for.
But specific resistance or immunity to a whole specifc school does,
AFAICT, not exist.
As for the Golems: beyond actual "no SR" spells, there are always
spells that *do* affect them, even if they normally allow SR. I can /
Fireball/ an Iron Golem... and if it's my own Golem, that might
actually be a smart thing. I can also zap him with /Lightning Bolt/.
He doesn't get damaged, but he does get slowed. And I can /Rusting
Grasp/ him just fine (makes sense, since that spell doesn't allow SR,
so noting it is redundant).
--
Cheers,
Arandor