Orbs of X; are they spells or effects?

[Tehnar]

On this board and many others; a reliable way of getting through a antimagic field is it use Orb of X spells, as they are instant conjuration effects that actually conjure a nonmagical blob of fire/acid or whatever which the caster hits creatures with.

So how do they interact with tower shields:



Shield, Tower

This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.


The question I am asking, can you be targeted by a Orb of X when using the tower shield for total cover?

The two possible answers bring forth the following conclusions:

a) You can. Thus the orbs created by Orb of X spells are spells, and thus can't be used to bypass a antimagic field.

b) You can't. Thus the orbs created by Orb of X spells are effects, and thus can be used to bypass a antimagic field.

[Gerrtt]

They are spells that produce an effect, much like many other spells.

The effect itself is non-magical, thus it can be fired into an AMF. But, that which produces the effect (the spell) is magical, and cannot be used within the range of the AMF.

With regards to tower shields, you can still be targeted by the spell. Furthermore, since they are ranged touch attacks the shield does not help any, since it specifically says you can't get cover from targeted spells and the shield bonus does not apply to touch AC.

[Keld Denar]

You can't target the character behind the shield, but you can target the shield. Think of it as an arrow or other ranged attack. Nothing stops you from shooting an arrow at the character taking cover from the shield, but you can't hit the player, no matter how you shoot it.

Range touch spells behave similar to rays. They function like Vectors. They have a magnitude and direction, and go until they intersect with something. You can target squares or inanimate objects or whatever with them.

Its all in the magic guidelines in the PHB. Go read up on the difference between targeted and area and ranged touch and all those different spell qualfiers.

[Claudius Maximus]

I'm going to disagree. It specifically says it doesn't provide cover against targeted spells, so you can still be held.

[Keld Denar]

Oh, so it does....well, ignore what I wrote then. Regardless, has nothing to do with an orb no working, since orbs are ranged touch and not targeted. You don't need a target to fire an orb, you can just fire blindly at a square or object.

[Zanatos777]

You can use the orbs to attack into an anti-magic field?!

Edit: Just noticed they were a creation effect. That is awesome!

[Optimystik]

The question I am asking, can you be targeted by a Orb of X when using the tower shield for total cover?

The two possible answers bring forth the following conclusions:

a) You can. Thus the orbs created by Orb of X spells are spells, and thus can't be used to bypass a antimagic field.

b) You can't. Thus the orbs created by Orb of X spells are effects, and thus can be used to bypass a antimagic field.

Can you be targeted by arrows behind a tower shield? Orb spells are just another kind of ranged attack.

[ericgrau]

IMHO rays are magical effects which is why when you target the shield you somehow hit the creature holding the shield. Orbs become non-magical after you fire them, so they should be blocked by the shield. But they might damage the shield, and as a stationary object it has a rather low AC (5, I think).

But this logic kinda falls apart b/c it explains why ray spells ignore armor but then why would orb spells ignore armor? Then again, orb spells have a lot of problems and I don't think they were very well thought out anyway. The DM should just pick an answer and go with it.

[Yuki Akuma]

Orb spells are Conjuration (Creation) spells. They create missiles which you fling at an enemy as part of the action. They are not targetted spells - the effect of the spell is to create the missile, which is what does the damage.

You can't target a creature with total cover with a ranged attack. You could hit his shield (and possibly break it if you're using Orb of Acid), but not him.

Any spell which requires a ranged touch attack would fail to work against a creature with cover, because you can't target him with a ranged attack, anyway. So not even a Disintegrate would work (although you could target his shield and most likely destroy it).

Note: A targetted spell is not the same as a spell that has a target. Ray spells (and other ranged touch spells) do not have a target; they have an effect which affects whatever it hits. The spell creates the ray.

[Kornaki]

You can use the orbs to attack into an anti-magic field?!

Edit: Just noticed they were a creation effect. That is awesome!


I thought the same thing

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

THE ORB SPELLS DO NOT HAVE A "TARGET" ENTRY!
Therefore, the part about targeting the shield to target the person behind it does not apply in this case. Spells that do have a "Target" entry, such as Magic Missile, Charm Person, and touch-range spells, can be used to target the shield. A spell that produces an effect, such as a Ray, the Orb spells, and a Fireball, never have a "Target" entry and cannot be used against a creature with total cover. If you target a tower shield with an Orb spell, it deals its damage to the shield, possibly destroying it. A person hiding behind a tower shield gets a bonus on his Reflex save versus a Fireball spell. A Ray of Enfeeblement targeted at the shield has no effect, because the shield has no strength score.

[Optimystik]

IMHO rays are magical effects which is why when you target the shield you somehow hit the creature holding the shield. Orbs become non-magical after you fire them, so they should be blocked by the shield. But they might damage the shield, and as a stationary object it has a rather low AC (5, I think).

You're thinking of orb spells in the wrong way; you're expecting them to behave like a thrown weapon would (armor and shields matter, etc.) They are "thrown", but they don't work like thrown weapons do. (I.e., they only require a ranged touch attack as opposed to a ranged attack.) Why?

An orb is less of a pure projectile, and more like a very low-sentience, pocket-sized elemental. It exists only long enough to coalesce in the caster's hand and travel across the intervening space to its opponent, whereupon it loses its cohesion and spreads all over its target. Thus a fire orb is like a mini-fire elemental that rolls itself into a ball to be tossed. Things that don't increase your touch AC (like natural and armor AC bonuses) don't protect you from splash weapons, and that's what orbs are. It also explains why they can exist in antimagic fields.

[ericgrau]

^ In that case the tower shield should block the orb, since it supplies total cover just like a wall when the wielder chooses to use it this way. The orb would splash all over the shield, but not onto the character. Really you answered my second paragraph, where I was thinking maybe an orb might still hit for reasons related to targeting (but maybe not, going by your post).

[Chronos]

Here's a question: Could you use a maximized True Creation spell to make a greatsword that always rolls a 12 for damage? Or a maximized Wall of Iron that always does 60 damage when it falls over?

By the same token, can you use a maximized Orb of Acid spell to make a blob of acid that always does 90 damage? If the answer is different to the above, why?


Another question: If you cast an Orb of Force at someone, can they throw the orb back? It won't disappear magically after it hits its target, since it's an instantaneous-duration Conjuration (Creation) effect, just like Wall of Iron. And it won't dissipate, either, since it's made out of force, which is almost impossible to destroy. Is there anything else you can do with piles of leftover orbs of force?

[Keld Denar]

Is there anything else you can do with piles of leftover orbs of force?

Snowball fight?

[Kornaki]

Another question: If you cast an Orb of Force at someone, can they throw the orb back? It won't disappear magically after it hits its target, since it's an instantaneous-duration Conjuration (Creation) effect, just like Wall of Iron. And it won't dissipate, either, since it's made out of force, which is almost impossible to destroy. Is there anything else you can do with piles of leftover orbs of force?

My next adventure will include a battlefield littered with orbs of force. The PCs will spend the whole time thinking they're surrounded by invisible creatures as they stub toes and bump shins

[ericgrau]

Here's a question: Could you use a maximized True Creation spell to make a greatsword that always rolls a 12 for damage? Or a maximized Wall of Iron that always does 60 damage when it falls over?

By the same token, can you use a maximized Orb of Acid spell to make a blob of acid that always does 90 damage? If the answer is different to the above, why?


Another question: If you cast an Orb of Force at someone, can they throw the orb back? It won't disappear magically after it hits its target, since it's an instantaneous-duration Conjuration (Creation) effect, just like Wall of Iron. And it won't dissipate, either, since it's made out of force, which is almost impossible to destroy. Is there anything else you can do with piles of leftover orbs of force?

P1 & P2: A maximized acid spell probably makes more acid. But you can't make a greatsword that's more great. Its damage isn't part of the spell. Wall of iron is less clear since its damage is in the spell description. But it's not like the size of the wall or anything else about it actually changes, so IMO the spell description is merely describing what any wall of iron - spell created or not - would do and its damage is not affected by maximize.

P3: That's because the orb spells are rather poorly thought out and make little sense when you try to examine them closely. I dunno whether or not the orb should remain, but I don't think it actually remains. It just disappears like a pew pew video game ranged attack. Making them all conjuration, instantaneous and SR:no was a horrible idea in the first place for many reasons including this one. If you're gonna use orbs in your games, then you just gotta decide what makes the most sense. Empower? Maximize? IMO sure, whatever, it's a damage spell; just don't try to make sense of it.

[Keld Denar]

But you can't make a greatsword that's more great.

Its called a "Best Sword" and it does 3dawesome damage to anyone who looks at it. Learn it...know it...respect it...fear it!

[ericgrau]

Lolz. Phear the Bestsword!

[UserClone]

You can't target someone behind a tower shield. A targeted spell is like hold person, not lesser orb of acid. Orbs are ranged touch attacks, and therefore are not part of the specific exemption. Total cover means you cant hit it with a weapon or weapon-like spell (Touch, Ranged Touch, or Ray).

[RebelRogue]

Am I the only one to think that the inclusion of the Orb line of spells was never a good idea, mechanically? There just seems to be so many things wrong with them:

1. Making Conjuration out-evocate Evocation (I understand the in-game-logic behind it being Conjuration, but that's not the point)
2. No spell resistance or save (damage-related save anyway - there's the additional save or suck effects on the higher level ones).
3. Ranged touch attacks are way to easy to make.

Is it just me? I realize the limitations (close range, single target), but I've just found these spells to be annoying as a DM, especially when people start applying metamagics...

[ericgrau]

Google them. You're not the only one. I think they should be evocation, except core versions of those energy types already exist making them simply redundant. Oh, and then the no SR thing breaks them. They're really their own casting system, as a prelude to 4e... except the experiment screwed up 3.5e because it doesn't mesh well with the system at all. Rarely does someone even mention the special effects aspect of them which is what they were experimenting with.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Google them. You're not the only one. I think they should be evocation, except core versions of those energy types already exist making them simply redundant. Oh, and then the no SR thing breaks them. They're really their own casting system, as a prelude to 4e... except the experiment screwed up 3.5e because it doesn't mesh well with the system at all. Rarely does someone even mention the special effects aspect of them which is what they were experimenting with.I doubt they were a 4.x experiment. Those were ToB and ToM, while the Orbs were the first round of Completes(IIRC). I also think they get a bit overmuch love. Compare them to, say, Scorching Ray, which for 12 levels is similar(though a bit lower on average) damage, allows SR, doesn't have a secondary effect, can target mutiple people for less damage, and is 2 spell-levels lower. I'm not saying they're not better than Core, I'm just saying they're not the be-all end-all of damage.

[Keld Denar]

Not even to mention that Scorching Ray is so low, that applying MM to it is WAY less restrictive than Orbs, assuming no MM cost reducers. Empowered Scorcing Ray does ~12d6 damage at level 8, one level after you get any orb at level 7. Thats 50% more damage. Empowering an Orb gives you a 6th level spell...those slots are much more precious. Freezing Fog? WAY better than an Orb. Greater Dispel Magic? WAY more useful than an Orb. Etc. Plus, by the time you hit 12, if you do Empower your Orb, you'll get 18d6. With an Empowered Split Ray Scorching Ray, you'll have 24d6 (4 rays, 6d6 each). SR is kinda a joke against anything that isn't a Golem, especially by the time you are talking about 12th level spells and whatnot.

[Aquillion]

Here's a question: Could you use a maximized True Creation spell to make a greatsword that always rolls a 12 for damage? Or a maximized Wall of Iron that always does 60 damage when it falls over?

By the same token, can you use a maximized Orb of Acid spell to make a blob of acid that always does 90 damage? If the answer is different to the above, why?Because the damage dealt by an orb is one of the variables mentioned in the spell, even if the orb itself is instant conjuration. If it bothers you, just picture it as creating more acidic damage, or more fiery fire.

You can't create a maximized greatsword, since the damage of the greatsword isn't a variable in the spell itself... but I'm not sure about the maximized wall of iron.

Anyway, that's not even the silliest thing to do with Maximize Spell. Try maximizing Awaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/awaken.htm); this will ensure that all the stats generated for the awaken creature are maximized (since they are clearly 'numerical, variable' effects of the spell itself.)

[shadow_archmagi]

Because the damage dealt by an orb is one of the variables mentioned in the spell, even if the orb itself is instant conjuration. If it bothers you, just picture it as creating more acidic damage, or more fiery fire.

You can't create a maximized greatsword, since the damage of the greatsword isn't a variable in the spell itself... but I'm not sure about the maximized wall of iron.

Anyway, that's not even the silliest thing to do with Maximize Spell. Try maximizing Awaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/awaken.htm); this will ensure that all the stats generated for the awaken creature are maximized (since they are clearly 'numerical, variable' effects of the spell itself.)

But the damage for Wall Of Iron is also listed as part of the spell. If all you're doing is "conjuring it harder" than surely you can maximize wall of iron and just call it more ironic?

[Aquillion]

But the damage for Wall Of Iron is also listed as part of the spell. If all you're doing is "conjuring it harder" than surely you can maximize wall of iron and just call it more ironic?
That's why I said I'm not sure... under a strict interpretation of the rules I believe you actually can.

You maximize the spell, you get a somehow denser, heavier wall. Not intentional, but it's not really broken or anything (you could get that much damage many other ways at that level); it's just an unusual way to apply your metamagic.

[shadow_archmagi]

Heavier and denser would be broken, since Wall of Iron already creates obscene amounts of wealth (iron goes for 1 silver per pound. Consider density. Consider the spells volume of over 60 cubic feet.)

[Aquillion]

Heavier and denser would be broken, since Wall of Iron already creates obscene amounts of wealth (iron goes for 1 silver per pound. Consider density. Consider the spells volume of over 60 cubic feet.)...it's a special heaviness that only affects its damage.

Strange? Yes. But 10d6 is already a number getting pulled out of nowhere -- a 'normal' wall of iron, indistinguishable in every other way from a conjured one, wouldn't deal anywhere near that amount if it fell on you.

The rules are focused towards making a good role-playing games, for combat and adventure and treasure. They don't work well when you start thinking about the logic of how much your wall of iron sells for or what exactly it means to maximize its damage.

[Keld Denar]

If all you're doing is "conjuring it harder" than surely you can maximize wall of iron and just call it more ironic?

Its like ray-e-ain...on your wedding day. Its the freeeeee ride...when you already paid.

Sorry, I'll go away now...

[Chronos]

P1 & P2: A maximized acid spell probably makes more acid.And making more acid somehow also makes the acid more consistent? If I have a small vial of nonmagical acid, it does one die worth of damage, and if I have a larger amount of nonmagical acid, it does more dice of damage, but no matter how much nonmagical acid I have, I always need to roll dice to determine its damage. Not so, apparently, for the supposedly nonmagical acid produced by an orb spell.

[Yuki Akuma]

"Maximize Spell" is actually a misnomer - it actually makes spells more accurate when it comes to hitting weak spots.

Or something like that.

"Empower Spell" makes more stuff - "Maximize Spell" makes more accurate stuff. :D

[Aquillion]

And making more acid somehow also makes the acid more consistent? If I have a small vial of nonmagical acid, it does one die worth of damage, and if I have a larger amount of nonmagical acid, it does more dice of damage, but no matter how much nonmagical acid I have, I always need to roll dice to determine its damage. Not so, apparently, for the supposedly nonmagical acid produced by an orb spell.You should be more concerned by the fact that (aside from here, at least) there seems to be only one kind of acid in the entire D&D universe. :smalltongue:

[Zeful]

You should be more concerned by the fact that (aside from here, at least) there seems to be only one kind of acid in the entire D&D universe. :smalltongue:

Actually, you should be more concerned that as a conjuration (creation) effect, you can catch the still persisting acid of a 20th level greater Orb of Acid in a container, then dump it on an enemy and deal only 1d6 damage to them, unless there's enough to cover them, then it's 20d6.

This is clearly not magical acid.

[The Rose Dragon]

I think the acid in D&D is clearly not the one with pH lower than 7, but the acid that causes hallucination trips.

[ericgrau]

It doesn't matter that there's only one kind of acid in d&d. All real-world strong acids have a fairly similar effect. In fact, if you check the rules carefully you'll find that D&D acid generalizes to cover other corrosives. I imagine that'd include damage from bases. Perhaps if you were a responsible mage you'd spend the 2nd round lobbing a base orb at an adjacent baddy. It has the same effect on fleshy creatures as the acid orb (and is affected by the same resistances), except then both orbs drip to the ground, you get some violent fizzing, popping and spattering as the two substances react, and then you've cleaned up your mess like a tidy mage.

[shadow_archmagi]

Actually, the burning and fizzing would happen ON the enemy, for bonus damage.

[Yuki Akuma]

Actually I'd think an Orb of Base* would deal damage over time, because bases tend to be oily and sticky.

Does this mean Melf's Acid Arrow should be called Melf's Base Arrow?

*Not to be confused with the Orb of Bass**, which is just a low-pitched Orb of Sound.

**Not to be confused with the other Orb of Bass, which is a glob of compressed fish.

[Keld Denar]

Actually I'd think an Orb of Base*

All your orb are belong to us!

*Not to be confused with Orb of Basshunter...Vi sitar haer i venten, och spielar lita DotA.

[hamishspence]

the first 3.5 orbs came out almost the same time 3.5 did- Miniatures's Handbook.

Before that, there was Tome and Blood.

[Chronos]

Before that, there was Tome and Blood.Yes, but in Tome and Blood, they were sensibly placed in Evocation where they belong, and they still allowed spell resistance. Trading an area of effect and a save for a single target and a touch attack is fair, but making them work through antimagic and bypassing spell resistance is a bit much.

[Optimystik]

^ In that case the tower shield should block the orb, since it supplies total cover just like a wall when the wielder chooses to use it this way. The orb would splash all over the shield, but not onto the character. Really you answered my second paragraph, where I was thinking maybe an orb might still hit for reasons related to targeting (but maybe not, going by your post).

You can't target someone hiding behind a tower shield with an orb spell. You can toss a fireball into their square and hope it hits, but you can't make an attack roll.


Yes, but in Tome and Blood, they were sensibly placed in Evocation where they belong, and they still allowed spell resistance. Trading an area of effect and a save for a single target and a touch attack is fair, but making them work through antimagic and bypassing spell resistance is a bit much.

I disagree completely; not only do they make more sense in Conjuration, it also makes sense that they bypass SR and AM. Once created, the orbs aren't made of magic anymore.

[The Glyphstone]

They make sense in Conjuration if you consider them to be non-magical. For Fire, Cold, and Acid at least, it's justifiable. Sonic is a little harder....but how do explain non-magical orbs of force?

[Optimystik]

They make sense in Conjuration if you consider them to be non-magical. For Fire, Cold, and Acid at least, it's justifiable. Sonic is a little harder....but how do explain non-magical orbs of force?

That's the easiest one of all. Remember that lots of force effects already bypass antimagic, just lump the orbs in with those.

[Keld Denar]

That's the easiest one of all. Remember that lots of force effects already bypass antimagic, just lump the orbs in with those.

Which ones? Magic Missiles are the biggest force effect I can think of. They can't penetrate an AMF, nor can they affect a golem or other infinite SR foe.

Thunderlance? Nope.

Wall of Force? Blocks an AMF, but can't be constructed in one.

Same with Force Cage.

[Optimystik]

Wall of Force? Blocks an AMF, but can't be constructed in one.

Same with Force Cage.

Duh, you can't construct anything (magically) in an AMF. But if you make it outside one and the AMF later is placed on top of it it won't be suppressed, just like it won't suppress orbs.

[Siosilvar]

If I have a small vial of nonmagical acid, it does one die worth of damage, and if I have a larger amount of nonmagical acid, it does more dice of damage,

(excess material cut)

Technically, it doesn't deal any more damage, unless you completely submerge someone in it.

Or unless you use the epic crafting rules.

[The Glyphstone]

That's the easiest one of all. Remember that lots of force effects already bypass antimagic, just lump the orbs in with those.

Indeed, but that leads to all sorts of wonkiness. For example, If orbs do not vanish after they strike their target, since they're instantaneous conjurations, what do you do with a [non-magical] force orb afterwards? Can you pick it up and throw it back at the caster and deal 10d6 damage to them?

[Zeful]

That's the easiest one of all. Remember that lots of force effects already bypass antimagic, just lump the orbs in with those.

"Lots"? I've got Wall of Force, and... Wall of Force. So unless there's a glut of spells with the Force descriptor in splat books that explicitly state that they're immune to Antimagic field (and just to point this out ahead of time, the phrases "Like/As/Similar to Wall of Force" don't confer AMF immunity because Wall of Force's immunity is an exception to the rules granted by AMF) then the opposite of what you said is true.

[olentu]

"Lots"? I've got Wall of Force, and... Wall of Force. So unless there's a glut of spells with the Force descriptor in splat books that explicitly state that they're immune to Antimagic field (and just to point this out ahead of time, the phrases "Like/As/Similar to Wall of Force" don't confer AMF immunity because Wall of Force's immunity is an exception to the rules granted by AMF) then the opposite of what you said is true.

So an antimagic field cancels itself.

[Optimystik]

(and just to point this out ahead of time, the phrases "Like/As/Similar to Wall of Force" don't confer AMF immunity because Wall of Force's immunity is an exception to the rules granted by AMF) then the opposite of what you said is true.

That's a DM call, just as Rich did with Forcecage in the comic. It can go either way. A reasonable criterion for me would be as long as a force effect says it "resists being dispelled," like Wall of Force, Force Chest, Force Ladder, and Wingbind do. To contrast, force effects that say nothing (or the ones that are specifically vulnerable to Dispel Magic, like Howling Chain) would be suppressed.


Indeed, but that leads to all sorts of wonkiness. For example, If orbs do not vanish after they strike their target, since they're instantaneous conjurations, what do you do with a [non-magical] force orb afterwards? Can you pick it up and throw it back at the caster and deal 10d6 damage to them?

None of the other orbs stick around despite being instantaneous conjurations, why should Force Orb be special? If I wing a ball of glass into your midsection then it'll probably hurt a lot, but it's also unlikely to still be around for you to throw back.

[Yuki Akuma]

So an antimagic field cancels itself.

Uuh... what?

That's a ridiculous argument. "Antimagic field doesn't say it resists itself, so it must cancel itself!" is just an idiotic line of thinking.

You should be ashamed of yourself. :P

[olentu]

Uuh... what?

That's a ridiculous argument. "Antimagic field doesn't say it resists itself, so it must cancel itself!" is just an idiotic line of thinking.

You should be ashamed of yourself. :P

Well I was demonstrating that if one is going to require that a spell explicitly state that it is immune to an antimagic field then an antimagic field cancels itself since it is only explicitly immune to other antimagic fields. I guess that I was not clear that this is not my view and is instead extending the requirement of explicit immunity to the spell itself. I guess that one could say that explicit immunity is required for force spells but not for antimagic field but I would say that is rather inconsistent.

Edit: Also since I do not want to reread the rules compendium and antimagic field entry, for what reason could one not cast a wall of force in an antimagic field.

[shadow_archmagi]

None of the other orbs stick around despite being instantaneous conjurations, why should Force Orb be special? If I wing a ball of glass into your midsection then it'll probably hurt a lot, but it's also unlikely to still be around for you to throw back.

Glass would break and there would be glass fragments near me. But that is because glass is breakable. Force is a unique substance world-renowned for it's ability to be totally indestructible to everything except magically separating the individual atoms. It isn't going to break from being hurled.

The real question is, if only the conjuration is magical, why do all the NON-force options work at all? If it's nonmagical acid existing in a nonmagical way, surely it should poof magically into existence and then fall downward and onto my hand, as gravity intended? Even if we're assuming that my summoning the orb comes free with velocity, there's still the fact that it's going to splatter and spray en route.

Nonmagical fire with no fuel isn't even going to make it all the way to the target.

[Yuki Akuma]

Well I was demonstrating that if one is going to require that a spell explicitly state that it is immune to an antimagic field then an antimagic field cancels itself since it is only explicitly immune to other antimagic fields. I guess that I was not clear that this is not my view and is instead extending the requirement of explicit immunity to the spell itself. I guess that one could say that explicit immunity is required for force spells but not for antimagic field but I would say that is rather inconsistent.

No, you were being pedantic. Why would a spell designed to suppressother spells affect itself?

There are absolutely no spells that affect themselves. Why would this one be any different?

[olentu]

No, you were being pedantic. Why would a spell designed to suppressother spells affect itself?

There are absolutely no spells that affect themselves. Why would this one be any different?

Because whoever wrote the spell thought that people reading it would be satisfied by implied immunity rather then requiring explicit immunity as it would appear is being required in the post I was responding to.

[Zeful]

Because whoever wrote the spell thought that people reading it would be satisfied by implied immunity rather then requiring explicit immunity as it would appear is being required in the post I was responding to.

If that were the case then they wouldn't have included the "(see the individual spell descriptions)" clause. That parenthetical clarification creates a requirement of explicit immunity.

[olentu]

If that were the case then they wouldn't have included the "(see the individual spell descriptions)" clause. That parenthetical clarification creates a requirement of explicit immunity.

As clarification do you mean that the spell description must say that it is immune to an antimagic field for it to be immune to an antimagic field, and in the case of the spell wall of force are you talking about the section where it says that it is unaffected by most spells.

Edit: Also assuming that you disagree with me would you point out the section in the antimagic field description that would make it immune to itself.

[EarFall]

As clarification do you mean that the spell description must say that it is immune to an antimagic field for it to be immune to an antimagic field, and in the case of the spell wall of force are you talking about the section where it says that it is unaffected by most spells.

Edit: Also assuming that you disagree with me would you point out the section in the antimagic field description that would make it immune to itself.

The fact that they WROTE HOW LONG IT LASTS, maybe. Because if it blew itself up, it wouldn't have a duration. It would be instantaneous.

[Yuki Akuma]

As clarification do you mean that the spell description must say that it is immune to an antimagic field for it to be immune to an antimagic field, and in the case of the spell wall of force are you talking about the section where it says that it is unaffected by most spells.

Edit: Also assuming that you disagree with me would you point out the section in the antimagic field description that would make it immune to itself.

Just so you know, I think my IQ has gone down about five points by now.

Thanks a lot, jerk. :smallannoyed:

[olentu]

The fact that they WROTE HOW LONG IT LASTS, maybe. Because if it blew itself up, it wouldn't have a duration. It would be instantaneous.

Antimagic field do not dispel spells, they only suppress spells and the time suppressed counts against the duration.

[EarFall]

Antimagic field do not dispel spells, they only suppress spells and the time suppressed counts against the duration.

In which case it would say that it suppresses itself and only itself, not spellS.

See, it's plural. Implying its effect DOES take place. Otherwise its effect would be "Suppresses itself"

[olentu]

In which case it would say that it suppresses itself and only itself, not spellS.

See, it's plural. Implying its effect DOES take place. Otherwise its effect would be "Suppresses itself"

An antimagic field that is extraordinary rather then magical, and if I am remembering the description correctly one created by a deity or possibly an artifact would work.

[Yuki Akuma]

He's not going to budge, guys. He's trying to play "devil's advocate" without actually knowing what he's doing.

Just drop the subject, it's useless trying to reason with him.

[Optimystik]

Glass would break and there would be glass fragments near me. But that is because glass is breakable. Force is a unique substance world-renowned for it's ability to be totally indestructible to everything except magically separating the individual atoms. It isn't going to break from being hurled.

But it will. Think about it - this is a projectile made of force. Once it has done its impact damage, it has no kinetic energy left. What is holding it together?


The real question is, if only the conjuration is magical, why do all the NON-force options work at all? If it's nonmagical acid existing in a nonmagical way, surely it should poof magically into existence and then fall downward and onto my hand, as gravity intended? Even if we're assuming that my summoning the orb comes free with velocity, there's still the fact that it's going to splatter and spray en route.

Nonmagical fire with no fuel isn't even going to make it all the way to the target.

It isn't "nonmagical." By definition it is magical, because it was something created from nothing (thereby bypassing any physical law of conservation.) What makes it last is that it isn't sustained by magic. It is a self-contained conjuration like any other instantaneous one. Therefore the part of it that is connected to the weave, to use the faerun terminology is not present for an AMF to suppress.

And please don't connect my posts to the olentu/yuki argument... *cringes*

[olentu]

He's not going to budge, guys. He's trying to play "devil's advocate" without actually knowing what he's doing.

Just drop the subject, it's useless trying to reason with him.

I suppose that I could have presented my point in a more effective manner then I did, but there is little I can do about the past at this point.

I however will not agree or disagree on the point of if it is useless to reason with me as what qualifies as useless is a decision that is generally made by individuals.

[Chronos]

But it will. Think about it - this is a projectile made of force. Once it has done its impact damage, it has no kinetic energy left. What is holding it together?The same thing that holds a Wall of Force together, whatever that is. Those don't have kinetic energy, either.

For that matter, what makes you think the other Orbs don't stick around, either? The rules for instantaneous conjurations are quite clear: Once they're made, they stick around until something else happens to undo them.

[Optimystik]

The same thing that holds a Wall of Force together, whatever that is. Those don't have kinetic energy, either.

For that matter, what makes you think the other Orbs don't stick around, either? The rules for instantaneous conjurations are quite clear: Once they're made, they stick around until something else happens to undo them.

In a technical sense, they do; an acid orb leaves droplets sizzling and a fire orb leaves sparks and embers. However, I posit that the "forcelets" left by an orb of force's shattering aren't strong enough on their own to resist being assimilated by the various forces of the surrounding environment, just as the random noises and other small sounds left behind after a sonic orb makes contact would be absorbed into the general hum of its own surroundings. It also explains why a wall of force could stay together even when a force orb would not.

[Seffbasilisk]

I would say that the Tower Shield creates Total Cover, and hence, the orb can't be targeted on the person crouching behind it. However, you could target the shield itself, and likely destroy it in a single hit. If the spellcaster was a Warmage, or other class devoted entirely to blasting, I might allow the damage beyond what is necessary to destroy the tower shield carry over to hit the person hunkering behind...but only because I really dislike tower shield mechanics.

[The Glyphstone]

a single hit. If the spellcaster was a Warmage, or other class devoted entirely to blasting, I might allow the damage beyond what is necessary to destroy the tower shield carry over to hit the person hunkering behind...but only because I really dislike tower shield mechanics.


Or maybe because you play a Warmage? :smallbiggrin::smallsmile:

[Chronos]

However, I posit that the "forcelets" left by an orb of force's shattering aren't strong enough on their own to resist being assimilated by the various forces of the surrounding environment, just as the random noises and other small sounds left behind after a sonic orb makes contact would be absorbed into the general hum of its own surroundings.You're assuming first that the orb shatters into "forcelets" in the first place, and second that despite being made of the strongest material existent in the game, those forcelets have almost no strength of their own. I don't see any justification for either assumption.

[Tehnar]

Wow, a very interesting discussion has propped up. I think its still not clear if Orb of X spells create spells or effects (though most seem to be leaning to the effect side). However, one thing we have a consensus on is that the spells are badly thought out/written.

[shadow_archmagi]

I have it! While an Orb of Force does in fact, create an Orb of Force, orbs of Sound, Fire, Cold, and Acid all create orbs of acid. After all, the spell description of Orb of Acid is

"Creates a ball of acid which flies towards your opponent and deals acid damage"

where the descriptions for the rest of them are
"Works as Orb of Acid, except it deals cold/fire/sonic damage." Nowhere does it mention not being made of acid. It's an acid orb that deals sonic damage.

This means that D&D includes a kind of liquid that is loud to the touch. Imagine it:

"What's this pond, Torgoth?"
"Torgoth stick hand in to investigate! Rawwrgh! Torgoth deafened!"

EDIT: Imagine a refined version; diluting it in water and alcohol in very careful combinations to create the world's only musical mixed drink.

[hamishspence]

Nice :smallbiggrin:

It is true that the style of the Orb spells goes right back to Miniatures Handbook- one of the first 3.5 releases- the first to make them Conjuration, and ignore Spell Resistance and saves. It used the same naming convention as Tome and Blood.

These were, however, the lesser orbs. Only in Complete Arcane did the naming convention change, and 3.5 versions of the standard orbs come out.

So, Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium were really only following Miniatures Handbook in their handling of the Orb spells- all they did was change the names.

[Zeful]

EDIT: Imagine a refined version; diluting it in water and alcohol in very careful combinations to create the world's only musical mixed drink.

Among other things like musical pickles. Or even musical lube.

[shadow_archmagi]

Walkman Water.

Extract of (the) Beatles.

[Aquillion]

Regarding the orbs lasting after hitting, the rules on instantaneous conjurations are:


If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.

The key word are 'indefinitely' (not 'permanently') and 'assembled through magic'. People are assuming that because the orb is no longer magical, it must be completely "mundane" in all ways and obey the rules as they expect them... but that doesn't follow. It's still created by magic; it can be strange and behave weirdly. D&D doesn't follow real-world physics, and a substance created by magic certainly wouldn't have to.

So the orbs are created with the unusual properties of dealing the listed damage and then disappearing. It's strange, sure, but no more strange than gravity, which is likewise bizarre and inexplicable in D&D and not properly detailed by the game rules (things fall, but why do they stay on the ground when they reach it?) Rather than worrying about why the orbs mysteriously disappear after hitting, you should instead worry about why other things don't mysteriously disappear all the time.

Likewise the people protesting about orbs ignoring an AMF are looking at the wrong part of the spell description:
(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

The orbs are strange non-magical (but magically-created) substances that obey different rules from the ones we are accustomed to. That doesn't seem so hard to grasp.

[EarFall]

Regarding the orbs lasting after hitting, the rules on instantaneous conjurations are:



The key word are 'indefinitely' (not 'permanently') and 'assembled through magic'. People are assuming that because the orb is no longer magical, it must be completely "mundane" in all ways and obey the rules as they expect them... but that doesn't follow. It's still created by magic; it can be strange and behave weirdly. D&D doesn't follow real-world physics, and a substance created by magic certainly wouldn't have to.

So the orbs are created with the unusual properties of dealing the listed damage and then disappearing. It's strange, sure, but no more strange than gravity, which is likewise bizarre and inexplicable in D&D and not properly detailed by the game rules (things fall, but why do they stay on the ground when they reach it?) Rather than worrying about why the orbs mysteriously disappear after hitting, you should instead worry about why other things don't mysteriously disappear all the time.

Likewise the people protesting about orbs ignoring an AMF are looking at the wrong part of the spell description:

The orbs are strange non-magical (but magically-created) substances that obey different rules from the ones we are accustomed to. That doesn't seem so hard to grasp.

NOOOOOO everything must be streamlined! YEAAAARGGGGGHBLE!

Seriously though, I agree with you. Having some thing use different mechanics is cool, and something I miss about 3.5. I DON'T miss it about 1st and 2nd edition, because breaking from the mechanics was the NORM. I liked that a few things in 3.5 didn't conform though - was a nice balance.