Orb of Sound! Y U NO deal 1d6/level?

[ninjay]

All of the other "Orb o' X" spells deal 1d6, not 1d4, per level. Now, I understand why Orb of Force deals only 10d6 max; it gets medium, not close, range and is force damage (which is better than energy damage in almost every way). What I have not been able to reason is why Orb of Sound is made to be weaker. It cannot be due to the side-effect (compare deafening to blinding and dazing, for instance), and, as a result, the average damage for Sound is almost the same as for Force, so what gives?

[hymer]

How many creatures do you know with resistance or immunity to sonic damage? I think that's the simple reason. It's hugely reliable.

[Eldan]

Sonic damage tends to be not much worse than force damage. There's barely any resistances to it around.

[ninjay]

That's understood, and that makes sense when compared to Orbs of Fire and Cold, which are essentially ubiquitous, but the difference between acid, or even electricity, and sonic is not worthy of an average of 15 points of damage between them (15d4 is 37 damage on average, whereas 15d6 is 52). Of course, the ability to ignore energy damage via spells (resist energy, protection from energy, energy immunity, etc.) is just as easily done for sonic as for any other type. Nothing personal, but resistance hardly seems like a justification for that much of a difference.

Could it simply be a typo on the part of WotC?


How many creatures do you know with resistance or immunity to sonic damage? I think that's the simple reason. It's hugely reliable.

In case that question was not rhetorical, I have only dealt with two in my campaign, Formians and Slaads (the latter of which are immune to the stuff), and we know that our Guardinal allies have a little. Then again, we haven't gotten out of the basic books plus (DMG, PH, MM1, Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, and Book of Exalted Deeds (for our VoP monk)), so I'm not sure what other fish there are in the sea.

[hymer]

Could it simply be a typo on the part of WotC?

It could. But there's no evidence of it. If you want to consider something about the orb spells strange, it's how acid orbs do d6s. But it only gets people sickened, so there's that.

Sonic damage is actually pretty hard to come by, and it's usually quite a bit behind the damage of other attack spells of the same level. You may disagree on this decision, of course, but it's pretty consistent. No sign of it being a typo.

[Worira]

Angels are immune to acid and resist 10 electricity. Archons are immune to electricity. Demons are immune to electricity and resist 10 acid. Devils resist 10 acid. More than half of the core dragons are immune to one of the two elements.

[ninjay]

It could. But there's no evidence of it. If you want to consider something about the orb spells strange, it's how acid orbs do d6s. But it only gets people sickened, so there's that.

Yeah, nauseating makes more sense and balances better against blinding and dazing, for instance.


Sonic damage is actually pretty hard to come by, and it's usually quite a bit behind the damage of other attack spells of the same level. You may disagree on this decision, of course, but it's pretty consistent. No sign of it being a typo.

Part of the reason that we have Slaads, Slaads Everywhere, in addition to enemy spellcasters that frequently protect themselves from it, is that our party's Archmage has Mastery of Elements. For that very reason, we have as many such spells as we'd like. That is to say, maybe our gaming experience differs as a result, but I still do not see enough of a reason to, say, deny "sonic" for energy substitution, which denies elemental savants the energy, but yet to allow it for archmages, nor do I see enough of a difference between acid and sonic to justify that kind of a damage difference. I think that I've found my first homebrew rule; small as it may be, I do not think that it will break our game.


Angels are immune to acid and resist 10 electricity. Archons are immune to electricity. Demons are immune to electricity and resist 10 acid. Devils resist 10 acid. More than half of the core dragons are immune to one of the two elements.

And Slaads are immune to sonic, while Formians and Guardinals have sonic resistance, and that's just from the core material. What's your point? To the dragons, I do remember our french fighter (rapier-wielding and an accent) bringing in MM2 to try to ride an Emerald Dragon, which is immune to sonic (our DM would not allow it, since it's not 3.5, but he got a Bronze dragon, so he's our animal translator).

[GolemsVoice]

It's not exactly a satisfying answer, but if you feel it should deal d6, nothing stops you from changing it for your campaign, or asking the DM for such a change.

[Noble Savant]

Beyond Slaads, sonic resistances are very rare, in DnD. In any case, it certainly isn't a typo. Sonic damage is consistently lower than that of other, comparable spells. For reference, look at the Energy X line of psionic powers. Your group can homebrew it, if you wish, but that is how the game was written.

[ninjay]

Beyond Slaads, sonic resistances are very rare, in DnD. In any case, it certainly isn't a typo. Sonic damage is consistently lower than that of other, comparable spells. For reference, look at the Energy X line of psionic powers. Your group can homebrew it, if you wish, but that is how the game was written.

Of note is that sonic damage negates object hardness in those powers, a powerful, if situational, effect. For example, it ignores adamantine. It also is funny to fight on the second floor and send your enemies falling through it with a sonic energy missile. (^_^) On a more practical note, what doors and labyrinth walls?

As for homebrewing, one of the reasons that we do it (other than rule of cool, rule of funny, etc.) is to correct what we perceive as mistakes within the game. I don't take WotC as the authors of creation; I'm aware that mistakes are made (I cringed when I saw Mage Armor in the Abjurant Armor description for the Abjurant Champion), and, as has been noted, it may very well be that I am mistaken (as if this small change really matters except to purists), but this will be the first homebrew for me.

P.S. Shoutout to my DM; I'm allowing Complete X handbooks in my campaign, even though it probably means more homework for me.

[Alabenson]

As has already been mentioned, resistances and/or immunities to sonic damage are exceedingly rare. The monsters you've noted as having them just happen to be the exceptions to the rule. As a result, sonic energy is generally viewed as being the superior energy type, and thus spells that deal sonic energy deal less damage to compensate.

[Mithril Leaf]

Because generally the tier of damage types goes something like:
Vile/Divine/<other obscure types>
Force = Positive Energy (When Applicable)
Sonic = Negative Energy
Electricity = Acid
Cold >= Fire
Piercing = Blunt = Slashing

EDIT: Valid point

[Answerer]

Unless you're fighting incorporeal enemies, Vile is pretty clearly better than Force. It's explicitly irresistible, and it cannot be healed.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Per the SRD Sonic and Acid ignore hardness, so all the spells that point it out are just being redundant. All things considered Orb of Sound is the weakest orb, but it still has a place at 1d6/per it would be the most powerful. Personally I think it's a good thing that the oddball element is a situational spell rather than the go to option YMMV.

[Darthteej]

In addition to Slaads, the Wonderland monsters from Pathfinder's Beastiary 2(the Jabberwocky and two others I can't remember), also have hefty sonic resistance. But this only reinforces the pre-existing design- sonic resitance is stupendously rare and used to indicate that a monster is weird and alien.

[Mithril Leaf]

From Fiend Folio,

Immunities (Ex): Devas are immune to acid, cold, and electricity. Monadic devas also have fire immunity.
Note what they're not immune to. Monadic Devas are immune to literally every energy but sonic. They're not a rarity. Sonic is a top tier damage type.

[The Viscount]

That it is. Sonic is almost always a safe bet. A question: Why is negative energy not on the same level as positive? Negative energy resistance is nonexistent. Is it the fact that undead make immunity highly common?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Negative resistence is rare, but immunity is pretty common if you count Undead, Constructs and spells/magic items granting immunity.

[Ravens_cry]

Negative resistence is rare, but immunity is pretty common if you count Undead, Constructs and spells/magic items granting immunity.

Yeah, it's honestly nnot rare at all. Constructs are a common high level enemy and undead are faced at all levels of play I find. From mook skeletons to big bad evil vampires and liches, it sees a lot of play.

[Vaern]

Has anyone brought this up yet? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html)

[Curmudgeon]

Per the SRD Sonic and Acid ignore hardness, so all the spells that point it out are just being redundant.
No, I'm afraid you've misread that.
Energy Attacks

Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness. Acid attacks against objects subtract hardness from the damage just as acid attacks against creatures with hardness do. There aren't a lot of those, but there are some: animated objects and psicrystals are both examples of Construct type creatures with hardness.

There is a reminder of the rule regarding hardness for electricity, fire, and cold attacks. There is no such reminder for acid and sonic attacks. Of course, a failure to repeat that reminder of the normal rule about hardness does not create an exception to the rule. You always subtract hardness from energy damage, whether it's hardness of an object or hardness of a creature.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

The first sentence of that passage makes no mention of hardness. If I'm mistaken, the passage you posted doesn't prove it, in fact it was the passage I checked before posting.

[Talderas]

In case that question was not rhetorical, I have only dealt with two in my campaign, Formians and Slaads (the latter of which are immune to the stuff), and we know that our Guardinal allies have a little. Then again, we haven't gotten out of the basic books plus (DMG, PH, MM1, Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, and Book of Exalted Deeds (for our VoP monk)), so I'm not sure what other fish there are in the sea.

Very few creatures have resistance to sonic damage. Fire, cold, acid, and electricity are all very common. That your campaign predominantly features the very creatures that are immune or resist sonic damage is a deviation from the norm.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Orb of Sound is the poor man's 'Searing Spell Orb of Fire' which does more damage on average, considering how many things are immune to fire, but will not damage things immune to sonic.

[Piggy Knowles]

I don't know if it was a typo or not, but it's consistent with the way they handled elements in XPH. You can swap elements on the fly, but typically fire and cold deal extra damage, electricity deals the same damage (but they give a bonus to the save DC), and sonic deals -1 damage per die, but deals full damage to objects.

[Jeraa]

The first sentence of that passage makes no mention of hardness. If I'm mistaken, the passage you posted doesn't prove it, in fact it was the passage I checked before posting.

Hardness applies to acid and sonic damage. Hardness applies to every form of damage. Energy damage to objects is usually divided before applying hardness, but acid and sonic damage is not. Its specifically cleared up in the FAQ. (Only quoting the relevant part of the answer.)


Hardness applies to acid and sonic attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects, and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a Melf’s acid arrow spell deals to the animated table in your example.

Since hardness is applied to every form of damage, an attack that "deals damage normally" to an object would still be reduced by hardness. Thats normal.

[Curmudgeon]

There is a reminder of the rule regarding hardness for electricity, fire, and cold attacks. There is no such reminder for acid and sonic attacks. Of course, a failure to repeat that reminder of the normal rule about hardness does not create an exception to the rule.

The first sentence of that passage makes no mention of hardness.
Isn't it great when you find you've already answered somebody's argument before they make it?
:amused:

[Asheram]

In my experience. If a spell can be set to deal different types of elemental damage, the sonic one will be one smaller die type than the rest of them

[Lord Il Palazzo]

In my experience. If a spell can be set to deal different types of elemental damage, the sonic one will be one smaller die type than the rest of themIt's pretty common. I think the justification (as noted above) is that it's harder to resist and better for damaging/destroying objects.

[olentu]

Isn't it great when you find you've already answered somebody's argument before they make it?
:amused:

Oh he has a somewhat legitimate complaint with your reasoning. You claim that hardness applies to all damage for both creatures and objects but you fail to provide a source backing that up that so called normal rule. An easy enough thing to show perhaps, but it still needs to be done.

[Asheram]

It's pretty common. I think the justification (as noted above) is that it's harder to resist and better for damaging/destroying objects.

Oh, I'm not complaining. I quite agree with the previous justifications, especially the one that sonic damage is the least common resistance.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Isn't it great when you find you've already answered somebody's argument before they make it?
:amused:

It is, but the argument you preemptively defended against isn't the argument I made. Though it would have been a great argument if it wasn't for animated objects.

The fact that there is a subheading tells us that the following text will be exceptions and special rules regarding the subject of the subheading (Energy Attacks against objects).

So one reads "Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit." as an exception to the normal rules for attacking objects. Looks like RAW to me, aside from just plain making sense to me personally and if the writers meant what you think they meant they choose a truly asinine manner in which to write it. They could easily have not even written the first sentence.

Energy Attacks

Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.

But for one reason or another they did.

[TuggyNE]

So one reads "Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit." as an exception to the normal rules for attacking objects. Looks like RAW to me, aside from just plain making sense to me personally and if the writers meant what you think they meant they choose a truly asinine manner in which to write it. They could easily have not even written the first sentence.

Energy Attacks

Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.

But for one reason or another they did.

Let that be a lesson to us all: inserting redundant clarifications ("acid and sonic aren't halved or quartered when attacking objects") without properly checking their wording only leads to more confusion than would have been caused in the first place.