Orb Of's versus Incorporeal, and other oddities of 3.5 magic

[aleucard]

This is a place for my and your thoughts on the magic of DND 3.5. First up, the Orbs.

From my understanding, the general consensus on them is that only the generation of the Orb itself is magical, thus allowing it to be shot into an AMF without issue. While the Force version is perfectly fine, wouldn't that mean the orbs (and similar spells) do exactly ****all to Incorporeal targets, since the orbs are non-magical in and of themselves (the property that lets them be shot into AMF's)?

Any other odd interactions between the magic system and everything else you can think of goes here. This should be fun. :smallbiggrin:

[Crake]

They can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, +1 or better magic weapons, spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects

It doesn't matter if the orb itself isn't magical after being conjured, it's still part of the spell, and thus has the 50% chance to deal damage as normal for damaging spells vs incorporeal creatures.

[Mr Adventurer]

It doesn't matter if the orb itself isn't magical after being conjured, it's still part of the spell, and thus has the 50% chance to deal damage as normal for damaging spells vs incorporeal creatures.

Would a True Created longsword work too then?

[WildPyre]

Or a summoned monster?

[aleucard]

It doesn't matter if the orb itself isn't magical after being conjured, it's still part of the spell, and thus has the 50% chance to deal damage as normal for damaging spells vs incorporeal creatures.

If it were still part of the spell, it'd be useless against AMF, which has general consensus around here disagreeing with you.

[icefractal]

Yeah, I'd say they don't affect incorporeals. Neither would "conjure a bunch of stop and have it fall on people" spells like Deadfall. It's the downside to non-magical attacks, the upside being obviously that you can laugh at Golems and Antimagic Fields.

Except Orb of Force, obviously, because it's Force damage, which doesn't care about magical or not.

But honestly, Orb of Force is stupid as SR: No anyway. The others - are pretty strange too. But someone (on this forum I think) mentioned viewing them as calling and launching very unstable elementals, which kinda makes sense. Enough for D&D. But Force? There are no Force elementals.

[aleucard]

Yeah, I'd say they don't affect incorporeals. Neither would "conjure a bunch of stop and have it fall on people" spells like Deadfall. It's the downside to non-magical attacks, the upside being obviously that you can laugh at Golems and Antimagic Fields.

Except Orb of Force, obviously, because it's Force damage, which doesn't care about magical or not.

But honestly, Orb of Force is stupid as SR: No anyway. The others - are pretty strange too. But someone (on this forum I think) mentioned viewing them as calling and launching very unstable elementals, which kinda makes sense. Enough for D&D. But Force? There are no Force elementals.

To be fair, there are no OFFICIAL Force elementals. Besides, I don't think this is the kind of elemental that'll show up in a MM. If anything, this is more of an artificial elemental, rather than a summoned one.

[TuggyNE]

To be fair, there are no OFFICIAL Force elementals. Besides, I don't think this is the kind of elemental that'll show up in a MM. If anything, this is more of an artificial elemental, rather than a summoned one.

There is no Plane of Force, either, which very strongly suggests that there can't be elementals for it, created, summoned, or called.

[Psyren]

Maze sort of sends you to a plane of force.


Would a True Created longsword work too then?

This is a bad analogy; you're attacking with the sword in that instance, not with True Creation. Orb spells don't just create the orb effect, they attack with it. You don't have to take a separate action to launch the orb yourself, the spell is doing that.

Orbs work in an AMF, not just because the orb itself is not being held together by magic, but because instantaneous conjuration spells have a specific exemption to the AMF rules. It's just a weird property of how antimagic and dead magic work.

[Chronos]

Another aspect of this is the common tactic of stacking a bunch of metamagic on an Orb. Personally, I argue that the orb itself is nonmagical, and the spell is just creating a nonmagical thing that does damage, so there's no damage done by the spell.

Yet another aspect is that Orbs of Force last indefinitely, until someone disintegrates one or something. So you could pick up an Orb of Force after it's been cast and throw it back.

At least, that's how it works with the rules as written. I'd houserule them all to be Evocations and SR: Yes.

[Talya]

I'd houserule them all to be Evocations and SR: Yes.

You might as well just remove them from the game at that point. You're removing their entire purpose.

Of all the things people could argue are overpowered, orbs aren't one of them. Orbs are at exactly the balance-point at which magic should be. Taking them away just removes the incentive for a spellcaster to be blasting at all and turns their attention toward more game-breaking options. Every round they spend casting an orb is a round they aren't making the rest of your party irrelevant.

(It should be noted that the concept of the orb made its way into Pathfinder. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/snowball))

[The Glyphstone]

You might as well just remove them from the game at that point. You're removing their entire purpose.

Of all the things people could argue are overpowered, orbs aren't one of them. Orbs are at exactly the balance-point magic should be at. Taking them away just removes the incentive for a spellcaster to be blasting at all and turns their attention toward more game-breaking options.

(It should be noted that the concept of the orb made its way into Pathfinder. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/snowball))

Adding SR, maybe, but moving them to Evocation is hardly removing them from the game. The entire Evocation school is barely above a joke as it is, not the least in part because Orbs are Conjuration and do direct damage better than Evocation can. Making Evocation the king of direct damage like it was intended to be is a good idea and might have less people automatically banning it.

[Talya]

Adding SR, maybe, but moving them to Evocation is hardly removing them from the game. The entire Evocation school is barely above a joke as it is, not the least in part because Orbs are Conjuration and do direct damage better than Evocation can. Making Evocation the king of direct damage like it was intended to be is a good idea and might have less people automatically banning it.

Granted. However, the justification for the SR: No is the school that it is in, although I suppose you don't actually need the conjuration school to have "No" in the SR field, although at that point people start wondering why without some explanation in the description.

Also, if you moved it to Evocation, you would need explicit wording in the spell that allowed it to work in antimagic fields, etc.

[eggynack]

I think the orbs would work, because they are a spell, which is the blocking factor here. Notably, I'm pretty sure that creatures with that more encompassing form of immunity to magic, like ironwyrm golems (Draconomicon, 165), are thought to be immune to orbs. If you argue that this doesn't work against incorporeal creatures, then would logically also work against those golems, and orb power would expand along a different axis.

[Chronos]

It wouldn't remove their whole point. Compare, say, Orb of Fire to that old classic, Fireball. Fireball is an area of effect, one level lower, and doesn't require an attack roll. Orb of Fire has a nice secondary effect, a higher damage cap, and doesn't require a reflex save. That sounds about balanced to me, especially considering that ranged touch attack rolls are a lot more reliable than reflex saves. If you have a single target worth hitting, the orb is always better than the ball, even if it's subject to SR. If you have a bunch of targets clustered close together, then the fireball is better... but then, that's why we have different spells, for different situations.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I think the orbs would work, because they are a spell, which is the blocking factor here. Notably, I'm pretty sure that creatures with that more encompassing form of immunity to magic, like ironwyrm golems (Draconomicon, 165), are thought to be immune to orbs. If you argue that this doesn't work against incorporeal creatures, then would logically also work against those golems, and orb power would expand along a different axis.
Spell Immunity is simply unbeatable spell resistance spells that ignore SR ignore spell immunity.

[GreenETC]

The reason everyone tells you blasting is garbage, and I've seen it at work myself, is that it is generally unreliable (as it almost always is SR:Yes and allows a save and resistances). What this then encourages is the casters to do something else, and that something else (like BFC, summoning, or buffing) is generally ridiculously better than blasting in the first place. To make an example of it, there are a collection of X Orb spells in Tome and Blood which are the exact same thing as the Orb of X line, but with the ability to choose more than one target by dividing the damage, and the accursed save for half and SR: Yes, and nobody I know of looks twice at them.

If you make the Orb spells have SR: Yes, then you lose the only good thing about them, which leaves them to be ignored, meaning that your casters will go back to preparing Polymorphs and Solid Fogs in that slot, which are much more likely to make the Fighter feel like garbage.

On the topic of the thread, I'm pretty sure they'd still be magic, because the spell is what originates the effects, they just happen to be Conjuration spells, which are explicitly exempt from Antimagic Fields.

[eggynack]

Spell Immunity is simply unbeatable spell resistance spells that ignore SR ignore spell immunity.
That's true in most cases, but some forms of spell immunity, like the one I cited, are weird. To quote the entry for ironwyrm golems, "An ironwyrm golem is immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects." It's true of some other creatures too, I think, but that's just the first one that came to mind. Thus, orbs may or may not bypass that spell immunity, and that question and this one have their answers inextricably linked.

[Elderand]

The reason everyone tells you blasting is garbage, and I've seen it at work myself, is that it is generally unreliable (as it almost always is SR:Yes and allows a save and resistances). What this then encourages is the casters to do something else, and that something else (like BFC, summoning, or buffing) is generally ridiculously better than blasting in the first place. To make an example of it, there are a collection of X Orb spells in Tome and Blood which are the exact same thing as the Orb of X line, but with the ability to choose more than one target by dividing the damage, and the accursed save for half and SR: Yes, and nobody I know of looks twice at them.

If you make the Orb spells have SR: Yes, then you lose the only good thing about them, which leaves them to be ignored, meaning that your casters will go back to preparing Polymorphs and Solid Fogs in that slot, which are much more likely to make the Fighter feel like garbage.

On the topic of the thread, I'm pretty sure they'd still be magic, because the spell is what originates the effects, they just happen to be Conjuration spells, which are explicitly exempt from Antimagic Fields.

There is also the fact that a lot of blasting spell do exactly as much damage in 3.5 as they did in previous edition. Except everything now has twice to three times or more HP as before.

[Talya]

It wouldn't remove their whole point. ... but then, that's why we have different spells, for different situations.

Yes, it would...because the point of the orb spells is for use against things that have spell resistance/immunity.

They are not, for instance, for use against things with obscenely high touch ACs, or things that are outside of it's extremely short range.

[Grayson01]

That's true in most cases, but some forms of spell immunity, like the one I cited, are weird. To quote the entry for ironwyrm golems, "An ironwyrm golem is immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects." It's true of some other creatures too, I think, but that's just the first one that came to mind. Thus, orbs may or may not bypass that spell immunity, and that question and this one have their answers inextricably linked.

I have to agree with your concept of linking the idea that If the Orb line works against Incorps because of the line "..Spells, Spell-like abilities..." then it the ironwyrm golem is immune to them because of said line. It is logical following the same thinking and you can't really have it both ways.

[Epiphanis]

If it were still part of the spell, it'd be useless against AMF, which has general consensus around here disagreeing with you.

General consensus maybe, not universal. The conjuration spell loophole language the questionable interpretation of which gave rise to that exploit was written before the Orb spells were introduced but closed with the publication of Rules Compendium, which omitted that language from its Antimagic description. As far as I'm concerned Orbs are still spells, spells don't function in antimagic fields, and are treated as any other spell would be against incorporeality.

[Talya]

General consensus maybe, not universal. The conjuration spell loophole language the questionable interpretation of which gave rise to that exploit was written before the Orb spells were introduced but closed with the publication of Rules Compendium, which omitted that language from its Antimagic description. As far as I'm concerned Orbs are still spells, spells don't function in antimagic fields, and are treated as any other spell would be against incorporeality.

It's not a loophole. The wording is also not part of AMF, it's part of the description of the type of spell. Both Conjuration (creation) and Conjuration (calling) have a distinct and obvious advantage when AMFs are involved:


Conjuration

Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation). Creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands.

A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

The creature or object must appear within the spell’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range.


Creation

A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. 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.

[eggynack]

Yeah, there's no loophole here. Just a regular hole. Like, a hole that was intended as part of the original spell. It's not like the lack of effect that AMF has on orbs was invented by orbs. Stuff like acid splash is sitting right there in the PHB, separated from AMF by only a few pages. The rules compendium overwrites nothing about an AMF's lack of effect on instantaneous conjurations, as it makes no explicit mention of such a change, and there does need to be such an explicit mention, given the explicit wording of AMF.

This is how the spells work together, whether you want them to or not. There are some cases where there's a deep ambiguity within the rules, and a general consensus is something that has been adopted only after spirited argument. This is not one of those cases, as the text is quite explicit. I contend that orbs still work on incorporeal enemies, owing to the specific spell-based wording that incorporeality employs, but that is an issue that is more open to debate. Still, as I mentioned above, such a ruling would necessitate opening up another subset of enemy to orbs. It is a less common sort of enemy than incorporeal ones, certainly, but it is also a far more troublesome sort for casters to deal with, particularly because most weapons in a caster's arsenal are going to be magical in nature. Make of that trade off what you will.

[The Glyphstone]

The reason everyone tells you blasting is garbage, and I've seen it at work myself, is that it is generally unreliable (as it almost always is SR:Yes and allows a save and resistances). What this then encourages is the casters to do something else, and that something else (like BFC, summoning, or buffing) is generally ridiculously better than blasting in the first place. To make an example of it, there are a collection of X Orb spells in Tome and Blood which are the exact same thing as the Orb of X line, but with the ability to choose more than one target by dividing the damage, and the accursed save for half and SR: Yes, and nobody I know of looks twice at them.

If you make the Orb spells have SR: Yes, then you lose the only good thing about them, which leaves them to be ignored, meaning that your casters will go back to preparing Polymorphs and Solid Fogs in that slot, which are much more likely to make the Fighter feel like garbage.

On the topic of the thread, I'm pretty sure they'd still be magic, because the spell is what originates the effects, they just happen to be Conjuration spells, which are explicitly exempt from Antimagic Fields.

That's part of it, but it's also that save-or-Xs can cripple or remove opponents entirely, where D&D monsters fight at 100% efficiency until they are at 0 HP. So unless your blasting is optimized to where it can one-shot creatures (which is not easy because of the aforementioned HP inflation), it's generally a worse choice.

[CrazyYanmega]

Wait, Orbs can't be metamagicked? But I was planning to have so much fun with Chain Orb...

[Snowbluff]

If it were still part of the spell, it'd be useless against AMF, which has general consensus around here disagreeing with you.

Entirely wrong for all the right reasoning. Orbs are spells (literally, in DnD terms, "The effect of casting"), and work on ghosts. That's a fact. AMF doesn't affect certain spells of a certain kind, which happens to include orbs.

[Spuddles]

There is no Plane of Force, either, which very strongly suggests that there can't be elementals for it, created, summoned, or called.

Which is why force effects are traditionally in evocation or abjuration, with very few exception

[Spuddles]

It wouldn't remove their whole point. Compare, say, Orb of Fire to that old classic, Fireball. Fireball is an area of effect, one level lower, and doesn't require an attack roll. Orb of Fire has a nice secondary effect, a higher damage cap, and doesn't require a reflex save. That sounds about balanced to me, especially considering that ranged touch attack rolls are a lot more reliable than reflex saves. If you have a single target worth hitting, the orb is always better than the ball, even if it's subject to SR. If you have a bunch of targets clustered close together, then the fireball is better... but then, that's why we have different spells, for different situations.

I mean, if every other spell was balanced around fireball, sure. But compare it to other 4th level spells- wings of flurry, black tentacles, enervate.

[Snowbluff]

Which is why force effects are traditionally in evocation or abjuration, with very few exception
I've always assumed it's made of the same stuff as force dragons. :smalltongue:

I mean, if every other spell was balanced around fireball, sure. But compare it to other 4th level spells- wings of flurry, black tentacles, enervate.
That's a really good point.

[The Glyphstone]

I've always assumed it's made of the same stuff as force dragons. :smalltongue:

That's a really good point.

They're made of 'Shut up, I'm Epic, I don't have to make sense'?:smallbiggrin:

[TuggyNE]

Which is why force effects are traditionally in evocation or abjuration, with very few exception

Yes, orb of force should be an Evocation. :smallwink:

[CrazyYanmega]

Okay, this is really bothering me now. Can Orbs be metamagicked? If they can't, my homebrew character just took a REALLY BAD spell for her class.

[eggynack]

Okay, this is really bothering me now. Can Orbs be metamagicked? If they can't, my homebrew character just took a REALLY BAD spell for her class.
I can't see why not. Metamagic modifies the effects of a spell. Orb of X is a spell. Seems simple enough. You're not modifying the effects of the inherently magical nature of the spell, after all. Even if you were, you're still doing magic when you conjure materials, and that conjuring could still be modified. I don't know of anything in the rules that would stop you from metamagicing an orb.

[Karnith]

Okay, this is really bothering me now. Can Orbs be metamagicked? If they can't, my homebrew character just took a REALLY BAD spell for her class.
Orbs can have metamagic feats applied to them, although note that your previous example (applying Chain Spell to an Orb of X) doesn't work, as the Orbs are effect spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#effect) and hence lack the single target (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets) necessary to apply Chain Spell.

(As a side note, you can't apply Split Ray to the Orbs by RAW, either, as they aren't actually rays. They're still good metamagic seeds, though.)

[CrazyYanmega]

Orbs can have metamagic feats applied to them, although note that your previous example (applying Chain Spell to an Orb of X) doesn't work, as the Orbs are effect spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#effect) and hence lack the single target (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets) necessary to apply Chain Spell.

Awww. Are you saying I can't do this (http://youtu.be/928uH9daFGw?t=18m57s)? Urgh, if so, I think I may have to ask my DM for either a house ruling or permission to feat swap.

[TuggyNE]

Okay, this is really bothering me now. Can Orbs be metamagicked? If they can't, my homebrew character just took a REALLY BAD spell for her class.

Sadly, they can, all manner of logic to the contrary. It's one of the less happy aspects of them.

"Why yes, I am creating a lump of perfectly ordinary pure fire, nothing special about it, except that it sticks into a nice neat ball, magically does about forty times as much damage* as normal fire would, sears incorporeal creatures, and burns even fire elementals. It's still normal fire though, not magical in any way, what are you talking about?"

*15d6 maximized, empowered, and energy admixtured: average of 142.5, vs 1d6 from being on fire for an average of 3.5.

[Max Caysey]

Another aspect of this is the common tactic of stacking a bunch of metamagic on an Orb. Personally, I argue that the orb itself is nonmagical, and the spell is just creating a nonmagical thing that does damage, so there's no damage done by the spell.

Yet another aspect is that Orbs of Force last indefinitely, until someone disintegrates one or something. So you could pick up an Orb of Force after it's been cast and throw it back.

At least, that's how it works with the rules as written. I'd houserule them all to be Evocations and SR: Yes.

I would say, that by empowering an orb you were infact empowering the summon of it, so it would be a more intence or bigger orb of fire... or at this point an orb of magme or plasma from the plane of fire... (dont recall that plane being of pure flame only) And then you simply "throw" it at your target.

[Karnith]

Awww. Are you saying I can't do this (http://youtu.be/928uH9daFGw?t=18m57s)?
Not with Orb of Fire, though there may be some other spell that you could Chain to create a similar effect. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of singe-target, damage-dealing spells; the only such fire spell that I am aware of is Shroud of Flame (Spell Compendium, p. 189), and that one's pretty bad.

EDIT: Checking again, there's also Kelgore's Fire Bolt (Player's Handbook II, p. 116). It isn't terrible (considering that it's a 1st-level spell), but it doesn't deal a lot of damage and offers a save (and is sort of SR: Yes). You could also use Energy Substitution (Fire) if you find an eligible spell that deals a different type of energy damage.

[Rubik]

Not with Orb of Fire, though there may be some other spell that you could Chain to create a similar effect. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of singe-target, damage-dealing spells; the only such fire spell that I am aware of is Shroud of Flame (Spell Compendium, p. 189), and that one's pretty bad.Psionics is even worse, considering that Chain Power is far more heavily restricted (single-target energy damage powers only), and that there are NO powers that work with it, unless you start fudging well past RAI* and go for Weapon of Energy or Energy Conversion.





*Basically you're going by technicality more than what they almost certainly meant.

[Melcar]

If the orbs are not magical when they hit (hence the SR: No) wording, its not considered magical. And if its not considered magical it will work on golems or Demi Liches, even though they have a list of specific spells affecting them. If a creature has SR 250 or complete magical immunity, it is still affected by the non-magical orb of whatever element you throw at it. Even inside AMF antimagic zone, dead magic zone or Globe of Invulnerability. It also cant be counter spelled by anything short of a succesful targeted dispell magic.

But since its not magical when it hits its target (just regular (magically manipulated) fire) it will not affect ethereal or incoporeal targets, as they need some magical effect, to affect them.

[Rubik]

But since its not magical when it hits its target (just regular (magically manipulated) fire) it will not affect ethereal or incoporeal targets, as they need some magical effect, to affect them.Unless it's an Orb of Force, of course.

[eggynack]

But since its not magical when it hits its target (just regular (magically manipulated) fire) it will not affect ethereal or incoporeal targets, as they need some magical effect, to affect them.
Except incorporeality fails against things that are spells, and the orbs are spells. Additionally, orbs are a magical form of attack, even if they're not magic when they hit the enemy. You're using magic to conjure the flame, and thus this is certainly not a non-magical form of attack. In conclusion, orbs do in fact work against incorporeal targets.

[aleucard]

Except incorporeality fails against things that are spells, and the orbs are spells. Additionally, orbs are a magical form of attack, even if they're not magic when they hit the enemy. You're using magic to conjure the flame, and thus this is certainly not a non-magical form of attack. In conclusion, orbs do in fact work against incorporeal targets.

Throwing things about with Telekinesis is also a magical attack, and it's going to be useless against Incorporeals also. Nobody's arguing against it being a spell; however, the damage is non-magical, thus Incorporeality makes them immune.

[eggynack]

Throwing things about with Telekinesis is also a magical attack, and it's going to be useless against Incorporeals also. Nobody's arguing against it being a spell; however, the damage is non-magical, thus Incorporeality makes them immune.
The distinction made within the incorporeal subtype is between spells and non-spells. If this is a spell, then it works on incorporeal foes. As it is a spell, it is effective. I can see no element of incorporeality that would make incorporeal foes immune to an orb.

[aleucard]

The distinction made within the incorporeal subtype is between spells and non-spells. If this is a spell, then it works on incorporeal foes. As it is a spell, it is effective. I can see no element of incorporeality that would make incorporeal foes immune to an orb.

Are incorporeal creatures immune to the fire damage that comes from being in lava? If so, they are immune to non-magical elemental damage. The orb line's damage is non-magical, which is why it works in AMF and is SR: No. Just because it came about from a spell doesn't make the damage magical. Granted, that makes for wonky real-world logic, but that's the logic of the game's rules.

[eggynack]

Are incorporeal creatures immune to the fire damage that comes from being in lava? If so, they are immune to non-magical elemental damage. The orb line's damage is non-magical, which is why it works in AMF and is SR: No. Just because it came about from a spell doesn't make the damage magical. Granted, that makes for wonky real-world logic, but that's the logic of the game's rules.
Yes, they are immune to the lava, and no, they are not immune to the spell. Non-magical damage is not a designation that exists to my knowledge, and it definitely isn't mentioned here. The only relevant factor, as stated in the text, is whether the source of the damage is a spell. The closest thing to what you're mentioning is whether it's a magical or non-magical attack form, and as magic is involved in the process, it falls into the former category. You're citing rules that don't exist, or you're citing rules that do exist, and that I am unaware of. If it's the latter, a quote would be nice.

[aleucard]

Yes, they are immune to the lava, and no, they are not immune to the spell. Non-magical damage is not a designation that exists to my knowledge, and it definitely isn't mentioned here. The only relevant factor, as stated in the text, is whether the source of the damage is a spell. The closest thing to what you're mentioning is whether it's a magical or non-magical attack form, and as magic is involved in the process, it falls into the former category. You're citing rules that don't exist, or you're citing rules that do exist, and that I am unaware of. If it's the latter, a quote would be nice.

This spell line, in functionality, is the same as the spell Transmute Rock to Lava, or even better the Summon Monster line if you want to stay within Conjuration. The spell begins and ends with bringing it forth, the results (the lava in the first, the monster in the second, and the orb in the original discussion) themselves aren't magical unless specifically called out as such. Just as a given summon won't be able to hit an incorporeal target unless it actually has magical attacks of its own due to not being magical by right of being summoned, the orbs called into existence by the Orb Of line aren't magical on their own. Thus, no damaging incorporeal targets.

[eggynack]

This spell line, in functionality, is the same as the spell Transmute Rock to Lava, or even better the Summon Monster line if you want to stay within Conjuration. The spell begins and ends with bringing it forth, the results (the lava in the first, the monster in the second, and the orb in the original discussion) themselves aren't magical unless specifically called out as such. Just as a given summon won't be able to hit an incorporeal target unless it actually has magical attacks of its own due to not being magical by right of being summoned, the orbs called into existence by the Orb Of line aren't magical on their own. Thus, no damaging incorporeal targets.
The thing that you're missing is the fact that incorporeality never states that the damage has to be magical, whatever that means. Orb damage isn't called out as being magical, so it's not magical, but that doesn't actually matter, because it doesn't need to be.

[aleucard]

The thing that you're missing is the fact that incorporeality never states that the damage has to be magical, whatever that means. Orb damage isn't called out as being magical, so it's not magical, but that doesn't actually matter, because it doesn't need to be.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Incorporeality

"They are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. They are not burned by normal fires, affected by natural cold, or harmed by mundane acids."

Clarification over generality.

[eggynack]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Incorporeality

"They are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. They are not burned by normal fires, affected by natural cold, or harmed by mundane acids."

Clarification over generality.
Does that show up anywhere in the actual text? I've been using the d20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#incorporealSubtype), which does not contain that text, and the monster manual, particularly page 310, seems to bear that wording out. There could always be another source for this stuff, but the SRD seems pretty accurate on this count.

[aleucard]

Does that show up anywhere in the actual text? I've been using the d20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#incorporealSubtype), which does not contain that text, and the monster manual, particularly page 310, seems to bear that wording out. There could always be another source for this stuff, but the SRD seems pretty accurate on this count.

Aside from the link I posted, it says "It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms." RIGHT after the segment about spells, SLA's and SU's in your own link, and in the MM as well. Quit being ignorant.

[Deophaun]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Incorporeality
There's a reason that dandwiki.com earns the ire of many people on this board, and that's because, despite its appearance of authority, it is not the SRD and is often wrong.

An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead, but a hit with holy water has a 50% chance of not affecting an incorporeal creature.
The Orb spells are spells, not nonmagical attack forms. There is no general exception for mundane damage.

[eggynack]

Aside from the link I posted, it says "It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms." RIGHT after the segment about spells, SLA's and SU's in your own link, and in the MM as well. Quit being ignorant.
I don't think I'm being ignorant, given that I've mentioned that line several times. Orbs are a magical attack form, whether the ultimate damage being dealt is magic or not. You're conjuring flame, with magic, and you're propelling that flame in an orb state, presumably also with magic. Magic attack form. It's certainly not a mundane attack form.

[aleucard]

There's a reason that dandwiki.com earns the ire of many people on this board, and that's because, despite its appearance of authority, it is not the SRD and is often wrong.

The Orb spells are spells, not nonmagical attack forms. There is no general exception for mundane damage.

My contention is that the actual 'spell' part of the Orb line begins and ends with the bringing of the orb into existence, much like a Summon Monster. Do summoned monsters hurt incorporeal targets even when they aren't called out as using/striking as magical weapons? If no, then neither do Orbs, with Force being the only obvious exception.

[TuggyNE]

Does that show up anywhere in the actual text? I've been using the d20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#incorporealSubtype), which does not contain that text, and the monster manual, particularly page 310, seems to bear that wording out. There could always be another source for this stuff, but the SRD seems pretty accurate on this count.

It does, in fact. It's under Special Qualities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#incorporeality), not the subtype, because what's proper organization?

[Deophaun]

My contention is that the actual 'spell' part of the Orb line begins and ends with the bringing of the orb into existence, much like a Summon Monster.
The summon monster line of spells all have non-instantaneous durations, so I fail to see how they are in any way analogous, especially when you're basing this all on a line about non-instantaneous spells.

Do summoned monsters hurt incorporeal targets even when they aren't called out as using/striking as magical weapons? If no, then neither do Orbs, with Force being the only obvious exception.
Except that you can make an argument that the monster's attack is not part of the spell, as the spell doesn't tell you how much damage they do or to make an attack roll. But the orb line does. Language-wise, they are far, far closer to scorching ray than any summon spell. So does a scorching ray hurt incorporeal targets?

[eggynack]

It does, in fact. It's under Special Qualities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#incorporeality), not the subtype, because what's proper organization?
Organization is only for the most brutish of cads, of course. It does make sense that the two things are separate in the SRD though, given that those lines are apparently drawn from the DMG, page 294. Anyway, in that case, we must define "Normal fire". While the fire from orb of fire is certainly non-magical, can it truly be considered normal? I'm doubtful, given that it deals more damage than normal fire, and has the capacity to daze targets. Normal fire has certain qualities, and the fire of an orb of fire has certain other qualities, and those latter qualities are far from normal.

[CrazyYanmega]

Wow. Orbs are a lot more complicated than I thought. I always thought of them as balls of energy that you launched like a fireball, except it had better damage and no inherent AOE.

Well, glad I'm learning this now rather than later.

[TuggyNE]

While the fire from orb of fire is certainly non-magical, can it truly be considered normal?

That's my line! Give it back! :smalltongue:

Seriously though, the orbs' non-magical lumps of material are probably some of the most inherently unintuitive and bizarre phenomena in 3.x if you examine them closely. They make less sense the more you look at them, in fact.

[aleucard]

That's my line! Give it back! :smalltongue:

Seriously though, the orbs' non-magical lumps of material are probably some of the most inherently unintuitive and bizarre phenomena in 3.x if you examine them closely. They make less sense the more you look at them, in fact.

Oh, goodie, we now have ready-made Eldritch Horrors we can play hackeysack with. Fantastic. ^_^;;

[Melcar]

There's a reason that dandwiki.com earns the ire of many people on this board, and that's because, despite its appearance of authority, it is not the SRD and is often wrong.

The Orb spells are spells, not nonmagical attack forms. There is no general exception for mundane damage.

So in this line of thought, Orb of Dirt or Orb of Iron Would also be a magical attack ????

So if you telekinetically "throw" a piece of iron from Minor Creation, would that be a magical attack?

All Conjuration (Creation) spells creates/gathers some material via magic but then that magic goes away. You would not see an orb of fire with detect magic after it was created either. The spell simply just brings the element in existence.

I agree that this is somewhat making the rules more advance; as it is easy for all to just call all spells, magical. But generally spells with SR: No means that the effect is not magical just the activation of the spell.

[Max Caysey]

That's my line! Give it back! :smalltongue:

Seriously though, the orbs' non-magical lumps of material are probably some of the most inherently unintuitive and bizarre phenomena in 3.x if you examine them closely. They make less sense the more you look at them, in fact.

No doubt... The thing is, that with what we know of the different schools of magic we know what they can do and what they cant. Conjuration (creation) can’t make balls of fire, frost, acid etc. fly forward, but it can create/gather energy in the form of orbs. So this spell should probably be in the school of evocation, unless they’re wrote the spell and explicitly said that the caster had to physical throw the orb as a ranged weapon, (hence the ranged touch).

To me it fits, in its current form, evocation more than conjuration.


Also some conjuration (healing) spells should have been transmutation instead. Like that of Vigor, but somehow the designers made a mistake there, and we might be over analyzing this. I’m guessing that most DMs will just say, Spell = magic = simple rules!

[TuggyNE]

By the way, would the same ruling of "it's magical, so would work normally" apply to my homebrewed orbs? I'm curious, since that sort of tangled interaction is something I'd like to iron out if possible. (Didn't think of this sooner for some reason.)

[Max Caysey]

Only if the spells are cunjuration (creation) i think. And the magma orb should be calling if you want it to work like that... not teleportation. I think! :smallsmile:

[Spuddles]

So if I build my castle out of walls of iron, ghosts will have more difficulty getting through?

[Snowbluff]

So if I build my castle out of walls of iron, ghosts will have more difficulty getting through?
No, because it's a wall. It's entirely different from a damaging spell, which is a magical attack form.

[Spuddles]

No, because it's a wall. It's entirely different from a damaging spell, which is a magical attack form.

Ah, so the ghost is only in danger when the wall topples over on it, such as a casting of wall of iron that leaves it on unstable foundation.

[Deophaun]

So in this line of thought, Orb of Dirt or Orb of Iron Would also be a magical attack ????
Yes. Keep in mind, "orb of dirt" would conjure a ball of acid that otherwise acts like dirt. If that's not magic, I'm not sure what is.

So if you telekinetically "throw" a piece of iron from Minor Creation, would that be a magical attack?
That's a good question, but its answer has no bearing on whether or not an orb is a spell and a magical attack.

All Conjuration (Creation) spells creates/gathers some material via magic but then that magic goes away. You would not see an orb of fire with detect magic after it was created either. The spell simply just brings the element in existence.
It's an instantaneous effect. As soon as it exists, it has flown out, attacked, and done its damage. You simply don't have the time to use detect magic on it. Just as you don't have the time to use it on scorching ray.

I agree that this is somewhat making the rules more advance; as it is easy for all to just call all spells, magical. But generally spells with SR: No means that the effect is not magical just the activation of the spell.
If this is true, then you can find RAW that says it.

[Talya]

If this is true, then you can find RAW that says it.

It's not exactly what he said, but it's close, and it's right there in the SRD:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#conjuration


Creation
A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. 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.


One interesting consequence of this, is the orbs should persist indefinitely after being fired.

Edit: Unless...the orb is considered ammunition. Then it is destroyed upon hitting the target, and usually destroyed if you miss.

[Dalebert]

One interesting consequence of this, is the orbs should persist indefinitely after being fired.


I imagine the basic substance does, but the same thing happens that would happen to any other non-magical ball of fire or blob of acid. The acid undergoes chemical change as it burns flesh. The fire and heat dissipates. It's destroyed and no longer useful but it doesn't just vanish like magical effects do.

[Melcar]

One Conjuration (creation) is no different to the other. So the effect is the same. What ever part of a conjuration creation spell hit (and damages) anything is not a magical attack or any longer a spell effect. An orb is the same as a falling wall of iron.

[Talya]

One Conjuration (creation) is no different to the other. So the effect is the same. What ever part of a conjuration creation spell hit (and damages) anything is not a magical attack or any longer a spell effect. An orb is the same as a falling wall of iron.

You're speaking as if magical and spell effect are the same thing. They are not.

The orbs cease being magical after they are created and hurled away from their conjurer. They do not stop being a spell effect.

It's kindof irrelevant, as spell effects still have a 50% miss chance against the incorporeal and shouldn't be used. An Orb of Force is needed against incorporeal opponents. It doesn't matter that it ceases being magic -- a non-magical force effect (!!) is still a force effect and is therefore 100% effective against the incorporeal.

[Chronos]

Balls of fire or acid are easily destroyed and rendered irrelevant, but what about Orb of Force? Force effects are, in general, really tough to destroy, so there's nothing to keep that orb from sticking around.

[eggynack]

One Conjuration (creation) is no different to the other. So the effect is the same. What ever part of a conjuration creation spell hit (and damages) anything is not a magical attack or any longer a spell effect. An orb is the same as a falling wall of iron.
It'd be nice if you'd actually support these claims, instead of just making them. There's no apparent break in the connection that would make an orb stop being a spell, and shooting an orb of mundane fire at someone with magic is very much a magical attack. What is a magical attack if not an attack that uses magic? Whether a wall of iron hurts incorporeal creatures is a different matter, and it could turn out in the wall's favor, even in that case. Drawing a parallel is rather pointless if you haven't even proved the ineffectual nature of the wall.

[CrazyYanmega]

Here's another Conjuration attack spell, Cometstrike (http://dndtools.eu/spells/frostburn--68/cometstrike--1237/). This spell creates comets that magically strike targets, but they also require ranged attack rolls. Very similar to the orb spells.

[Melcar]

It'd be nice if you'd actually support these claims, instead of just making them. There's no apparent break in the connection that would make an orb stop being a spell, and shooting an orb of mundane fire at someone with magic is very much a magical attack. What is a magical attack if not an attack that uses magic? Whether a wall of iron hurts incorporeal creatures is a different matter, and it could turn out in the wall's favor, even in that case. Drawing a parallel is rather pointless if you haven't even proved the ineffectual nature of the wall.


I simply go by the wording of the conjuration (creation) sub-school. But as some have already pointed out, it actually, probably should have been an evocation spell. Instantaneous Conjuration (creation) creates non-magical things, via magic. So the outcome of a creation spell wont signal on detect magic, and hence when fired, by whatever means, is no longer considered magical. How on Toril Orb of Fire, as it being a conjuration (creation) spells does so much damage, and fly the range it does, beats me, but hey that’s just something we have to accept.

I’m not so sure, that conjuration (creation) can be used to instantaneously create non-magical force, as that doesn't exist. I’m pretty sure you would have to go evocations to achieve that result. And then it would have SR: Yes and stuff.

Again this spell line difficult and I don’t see us agreeing. I do apologize if I come across as stubborn but after reading up on what the spell school is for, at does, I'm sure the spell effect (fire, acid, etc.) is not magical when it hits its target.

[Max Caysey]

Here's another Conjuration attack spell, Cometstrike (http://dndtools.eu/spells/frostburn--68/cometstrike--1237/). This spell creates comets that magically strike targets, but they also require ranged attack rolls. Very similar to the orb spells.

That comet is not reading as magical when it hits... its just normal rock. It was the magic that created it or pulled it out of space, but its not in anyway reading as magical as by detect magic and will penetrate AMF.

[eggynack]

I simply go by the wording of the conjuration (creation) sub-school. But as some have already pointed out, it actually, probably should have been an evocation spell. Instantaneous Conjuration (creation) creates non-magical things, via magic. So the outcome of a creation spell wont signal on detect magic, and hence when fired, by whatever means, is no longer considered magical. How on Toril Orb of Fire, as it being a conjuration (creation) spells does so much damage, and fly the range it does, beats me, but hey that’s just something we have to accept.

I’m not so sure, that conjuration (creation) can be used to instantaneously create non-magical force, as that doesn't exist. I’m pretty sure you would have to go evocations to achieve that result. And then it would have SR: Yes and stuff.

Again this spell line difficult and I don’t see us agreeing. I do apologize if I come across as stubborn but after reading up on what the spell school is for, at does, I'm sure the spell effect (fire, acid, etc.) is not magical when it hits its target.
As I have noted, there is no requirement that the spell effect be magical when it hits the target. There is only the requirement that it be a spell, which it is, and that it be a magical attack mode, which it also is. It also needs to not be ordinary fire, but I think there's reasonable evidence that an orb of fire is far from being ordinary fire. You are correct that the orb is non-magical when it hits the target, but that's irrelevant. Overall, this is an interpretation that may have weird ramifications on other things, like summons or walls of iron, or it may not, but ramifications are pretty irrelevant when considering direct rules text.


but its not in anyway reading as magical as by detect magic and will penetrate AMF.
I'm pretty sure that cometstrike would fail to penetrate an AMF, as it is a spell that is of a non-instantaneous duration.

[Melcar]

As I have noted, there is no requirement that the spell effect be magical when it hits the target. There is only the requirement that it be a spell, which it is, and that it be a magical attack mode, which it also is. It also needs to not be ordinary fire, but I think there's reasonable evidence that an orb of fire is far from being ordinary fire. You are correct that the orb is non-magical when it hits the target, but that's irrelevant. Overall, this is an interpretation that may have weird ramifications on other things, like summons or walls of iron, or it may not, but ramifications are pretty irrelevant when considering direct rules text.


I'm pretty sure that cometstrike would fail to penetrate an AMF, as it is a spell that is of a non-instantaneous duration.


First of all, the more I think of it, the more it annoys me that the Orb spell line is conjuration (creation). It is a spell yes, but as I read it, the spell effect spots the second the ball materialized before the caster, by the wording of the creation sub-school. That means that even though it’s a spell, whatever hit/affects the target is just regular (very hot) fire. That’s why it will enter an AMF, and that to me is why it will enter Globe of invulnerability, and why it will affect someone having magic immunity. Simply because it does not read as magic. Just fire, very hot fire. And therefore it will not, to the greatest of my knowledge have any effect on the ethereal/incorporeal... Because it’s not magical.

I totally get, that its a spell, but the spell part only creates the matter, the rest is purely mundane.

It’s the same with the Vigor spell line: "With a touch of your hand, you boost the subject's life energy, granting him or her the fast healing ability for the duration of the spell." This is actually a transmutation effect. Healing can grant fast healing. It can indeed give a HOT of 1 per round, but will never be able to change something physical about the target. And since it’s a conjuration (healing) spell I'm pretty sure the Augment Healing feat works in conjunction with the vigor spell line.

Sometimes it seems to me that the designers may have made a mistake or two... :smallwink:


Oh btw... I'm I to believe that you consider a Wall of Iron magical or a spell when it falls on your ethereal enemy?

[eggynack]

It looks like orbs would fail against a globe of invulnerability, as it specifies spell effects instead of magic. They would also likely fail against the form of magic immunity I cited before. Overall, a ruling that orbs fail against incorporeal creatures would probably be more beneficial to their workings than it would be harmful, as a caster has more ways to deal with incorporeal creatures than they have to deal with wacky magic immunity and globes of invulnerability. As for the designers making mistakes here, it seems probable. I would call it an error in the wording of incorporeality though, as they could have made the workings of that ability more explicit.

Edit: As for the wall of iron, it's certainly not magical, but it may be a spell. It might not be though, as it's disconnected from the main spell effect. An orb of fire is all a single spell effect, with the orb's creation, its launching, and the resultant damage all acting as part of the spell. For a wall of iron, when it falls on a creature, that's occurring after the spell has ended. That's approximately the logic I would use, anyway.

[Melcar]

It looks like orbs would fail against a globe of invulnerability, as it specifies spell effects instead of magic. They would also likely fail against the form of magic immunity I cited before. Overall, a ruling that orbs fail against incorporeal creatures would probably be more beneficial to their workings than it would be harmful, as a caster has more ways to deal with incorporeal creatures than they have to deal with wacky magic immunity and globes of invulnerability. As for the designers making mistakes here, it seems probable. I would call it an error in the wording of incorporeality though, as they could have made the workings of that ability more explicit.

Edit: As for the wall of iron, it's certainly not magical, but it may be a spell. It might not be though, as it's disconnected from the main spell effect. An orb of fire is all a single spell effect, with the orb's creation, its launching, and the resultant damage all acting as part of the spell. For a wall of iron, when it falls on a creature, that's occurring after the spell has ended. That's approximately the logic I would use, anyway.

A couple of things... What is the immunity you've cited before? I seem unable to find it. As I read the Orb spells, I think the creation of the matter happens between the hands of the caster and then shoots off... Like when a golf ball comes to rest at 300 yds. And so hits the floor at the maximum range of the spell, like a ballistic trajectory. This means that only the sending off (shot) is part of the spell effect. So when the orb is in the air, it’s no longer a spell but a ballistic flying orb of very hot fire. And that’s why I would say it affect monsters with magical immunity or penetrate a globe or AMF... and not ethereal.

[eggynack]

A couple of things... What is the immunity you've cited before? I seem unable to find it.
The monster I usually cite is the set of golems in the draconomicon, starting on page 163. There might be others though.

[Melcar]

The monster I usually cite is the set of golems in the draconomicon, starting on page 163. There might be others though.

Thank you... After reading the writeups... I would say (and rule) that The orbs would affect the golems.

[CrazyYanmega]

Oh btw... I'm I to believe that you consider a Wall of Iron magical or a spell when it falls on your ethereal enemy?

Sorry, I was just trying to find a different spell we could work with that had some, but perhaps not all, of the properties of the Orb line. I thought a systematic breakdown of each of the orb's characteristics would perhaps solve our dilemma. Anyone got spells like that? Druid Spells are all I really know.

[Talya]

That comet is not reading as magical when it hits... its just normal rock. It was the magic that created it or pulled it out of space, but its not in anyway reading as magical as by detect magic and will penetrate AMF.

Exactly like the orbs.

[Melcar]

On a side note... Someone said that the Orbs was a single target spell.. Just to clear up... Its not. So the fact that it striking a creature is just a situational thing, the excact same thing as a wall of iron falling on someone... Not part of the spell.

[Talakeal]

RAW is pretty clear here. Incorporeal creatures are affected by spells, but immune to non magical attack forms.

The orb spells are spells (therefore they affect incorporeal creatures) but they are not magic attacks, therefore the incorporeal creature is immune to the damage.

So you can cast the spell on an incorporeal creature, and the orb can hit them, but they won't be affected by said hit.

[eggynack]

RAW is pretty clear here. Incorporeal creatures are affected by spells, but immune to non magical attack forms.

The orb spells are spells (therefore they affect incorporeal creatures) but they are not magic attacks, therefore the incorporeal creature is immune to the damage.

So you can cast the spell on an incorporeal creature, and the orb can hit them, but they won't be affected by said hit.
The orb itself isn't magical, but the form of the attack is definitely magic. You're using magic to attack someone.

[Melcar]

RAW is pretty clear here. Incorporeal creatures are affected by spells, but immune to non magical attack forms.

The orb spells are spells (therefore they affect incorporeal creatures) but they are not magic attacks, therefore the incorporeal creature is immune to the damage.

So you can cast the spell on an incorporeal creature, and the orb can hit them, but they won't be affected by said hit.


What is your take on Wall of Iron hitting an incoporeal? Its the same school of magic and same sub-school.

And what is your possition on the Orbs vs Dragonbone Golem?

[Talakeal]

What is your take on Wall of Iron hitting an incoporeal? Its the same school of magic and same sub-school.

And what is your possition on the Orbs vs Dragonbone Golem?

The wall of iron works the same as the orbs. The wall is created by a spell, but as the magic has left it after creation it is no longer a magical attack. So it can fall on an incorporeal creature, but the incorporeal creature will be unharmed by it.

I am not sure about Dragonbane golems as I don't have the text to look at in front of me (do you have a book / page number for them?). Is it like the Aleax where it simply can't be affected by anything? If so then ask your DM, because there is no sane RAW answer.


Edit: Also, looking over the rules more closely, an Orb of Force would NOT harm an incorporeal creature. It specifically says only magical force effects have a 100% hit chance, it doesn't say anything about "non magical force effects", probably because until the orb spells existed such a thing would be an oxymoron.

[Max Caysey]

The orb itself isn't magical, but the form of the attack is definitely magic. You're using magic to attack someone.

I believe from this whole thread and re- reading the spell and descrition about the school that the spell ends as soon as its been sent off from the casters hands. Meaning that it has nothing to do with the spell (which by he way just summoned the fire). It the same thing with the wall spell you create and place is with the magic but when it falls (or in the case of the orb, fly through the air) its just a piece of metal just as the fire if just very hot fire.

[Melcar]

The wall of iron works the same as the orbs. The wall is created by a spell, but as the magic has left it after creation it is no longer a magical attack. So it can fall on an incorporeal creature, but the incorporeal creature will be unharmed by it.

I am not sure about Dragonbane golems as I don't have the text to look at in front of me (do you have a book / page number for them?). Is it like the Aleax where it simply can't be affected by anything? If so then ask your DM, because there is no sane RAW answer.


Edit: Also, looking over the rules more closely, an Orb of Force would NOT harm an incorporeal creature. It specifically says only magical force effects have a 100% hit chance, it doesn't say anything about "non magical force effects", probably because until the orb spells existed such a thing would be an oxymoron.

Draconomicon p. 164

It says:
Magic Immunity (Ex): A dragonbone golem has immunity to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects and abilities.

[Deophaun]

It's not exactly what he said
Which might as well be "it's not anything like what he said." I'm looking for SR:No being non-magical, which would, as a consequence, also mean that every supernatural attack is non-magical.

I believe from this whole thread and re- reading the spell and descrition about the school that the spell ends as soon as its been sent off from the casters hands.
Being instantaneous, it comes into existence and deals damage at the exact same time. There's no time in between for it to cease being magical.

[Psyren]

Incorporeal subtype says:

"It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms."

Bold mine. Spells can harm them - therefore orbs work on them, not because the orb itself is magical, but because the spell that creates the orb is also attacking them with it. If it was simply you throwing a ball of acid/fire/force/whatever it would not work, but because the spell is harming them it is effective.

This is why wall of iron does not work. The spell is not attacking anything - it just creates a wall, and you are left to tip it over using other means. In this case, the wall is nonmagical, and the means you are using to attack with it (typically gravity) is also nonmagical.

[Seerow]

Incorporeal subtype says:

"It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms."

Bold mine. Spells can harm them - therefore orbs work on them, not because the orb itself is magical, but because the spell that creates the orb is also attacking them with it. If it was simply you throwing a ball of acid/fire/force/whatever it would not work, but because the spell is harming them it is effective.

This is why wall of iron does not work. The spell is not attacking anything - it just creates a wall, and you are left to tip it over using other means. In this case, the wall is nonmagical, and the means you are using to attack with it (typically gravity) is also nonmagical.

So using a regular longsword with telekenisis does deal damage to an incorpreal creature?


Any way to screw the mundanes works, I guess.

[Psyren]

So using a regular longsword with telekenisis does deal damage to an incorpreal creature?

If telekinesis created a sword and then threw it, sure. My point is that if the spell itself is not doing damage, both components have to be there (magical creation and magical impetus.)

Cloud of Knives has a chance at harming an incorporeal creature for instance.

[TuggyNE]

If telekinesis created a sword and then threw it, sure. My point is that if the spell itself is not doing damage, both components have to be there (magical creation and magical impetus.)

Hang on. What's the RAW justification for the need for the spell to create it? Telekinesis is still a "spell" "harming" the incorporeal creature, is it not?

And how would you adjudge wall of iron being knocked over by telekinesis? The material is magically created, and it is also magically attacked with, both times by spells. The fact that in no case is the damaging object magical is of course quite irrelevant by your interpretation.

[pwykersotz]

If telekinesis created a sword and then threw it, sure. My point is that if the spell itself is not doing damage, both components have to be there (magical creation and magical impetus.)

Cloud of Knives has a chance at harming an incorporeal creature for instance.

But in that case the knives are specifically called out as magic. It looks to me like the rules directly conflict. They can be hurt by spells. The orbs are spells. They cannot be hurt by nonmagical attack forms. The orbs are nonmagical. Thus, it would seem to fall into DM adjudication.

[Psyren]

Hang on. What's the RAW justification for the need for the spell to create it? Telekinesis is still a "spell" "harming" the incorporeal creature, is it not?

And how would you adjudge wall of iron being knocked over by telekinesis? The material is magically created, and it is also magically attacked with, both times by spells. The fact that in no case is the damaging object magical is of course quite irrelevant by your interpretation.

Because the spell has to harm them. A spell that throws an existing nonmagical object is not doing so (the object does the harming) - but a single spell that creates and then throws a nonmagical object is the sole actor in the situation.

For the RAW, reread the passage I quoted.


But in that case the knives are specifically called out as magic.

They only count as magic for damage reduction - they are not actually magical. Incorporeal and DR are two different things.

[Talakeal]

Draconomicon p. 164

It says:

Orbs would not work on the Dragonbane golem.

It is immune to any spell, SLA, or Su ability that targets it, regardless of whether or not spell allows SR.

Whether or not it is immune to spells that do not affect it, I have no idea, I don't know if there is a RAW answer. RAI probably is immune to things like Fire Ball or Wall of Fire, probably not immune to attacks by summoned creatures or able to walk through a wall of force.

[eggynack]

Orbs would not work on the Dragonbane golem.

It is immune to any spell, SLA, or Su ability that targets it, regardless of whether or not spell allows SR.

Whether or not it is immune to spells that do not affect it, I have no idea, I don't know if there is a RAW answer. RAI probably is immune to things like Fire Ball or Wall of Fire, probably not immune to attacks by summoned creatures or able to walk through a wall of force.
If the dragonbone golem is immune to an orb of fire because the orb is a spell, then an ethereal creature is vulnerable to an orb of fire because the orb is a spell. The thing about it being a magical attack form is a non-issue, because shooting an orb of fire at someone with magic is a magic attack form. There is no requirement that the thing hitting the creature be made of magic.

[Talakeal]

If the dragonbane golem is immune to an orb of fire because the orb is a spell, then an ethereal creature is vulnerable to an orb of fire because the orb is a spell. The thing about it being a magical attack form is a non-issue, because shooting an orb of fire at someone with magic is a magic attack form. There is no requirement that the thing hitting the creature be made of magic.

There is also no rule that says all spells are magic attacks, afaik.

The incorporeal subtype says that they can only be affected by spells, magic weapons, and other incorporeal creatures. Then, later, in another sentence, it says that damage from non magical sources is reduced to zero.

The description of the conjuration school says that after their creation spells such as orbs are no longer magical.

Therefore it is, by RAW, a spell, which means it can affect the incorporeal creature, but not a magical attack, so it cannot damage an incorporeal creature.

Dragonbane golem just says immune to spells, it doesn't say anything about magical damage sources.

Is this RAI? Who the hell knows, but being vulnerable to spells and immune to non magical damage are not the same thing, just like a red dragon is not immune to spells but is immune to fire.

Using telekinesis to throw a sword is not affecting the golem / incorporeal creature with a spell. It is affecting a sword with a spell, and then a sword attacking the golem / incorporeal creature. So the sword's immunity to spells / magic and the monster's immunity to swords is what is relevant, not the monster's immunity to spells / magic or lack thereof.

[eggynack]

Then, later, in another sentence, it says that damage from non magical sources is reduced to zero.

Where's it say that?

[Talakeal]

Where's it say that?

DMG page 295. Although it say's immune, not reduced to zero, that wasn't meant to be an exact quote.

Incorporeal creatures can be harmed only be other incorporeal creatures, by magic weapons, or by spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effect. (period, end of sentence). They are immune to all non-magical attack forms.


RAI I don't think the writers ever intended for a non magic direct damage spell to exist. But RAW you can certainly read that the spell affects the, but doesn't do anything because they are immune to the damage.

Although, technically, I suppose one could read it backwards to. They are immune to non magical damage, but still harmed by this damage because it is a spell.


Immunity to magic is really weird once you start dealing with conjuration and area spells. For example, a dragonbane golem could be argued to be able to simply walk through a wall of force or ignore the melee attacks of a summoned creature.
If you go by core where there are no targeted summons or creatures with blanket spell immunity (instead they all act as if they had infinite SR) it is pretty straightforward. Once you go past that we get into this murky stuff.

[eggynack]

DMG page 295. Although it say's immune, not reduced to zero, that wasn't meant to be an exact quote.

Incorporeal creatures can be harmed only be other incorporeal creatures, by magic weapons, or by spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effect. (period, end of sentence). They are immune to all non-magical attack forms.


RAI I don't think the writers ever intended for a non magic direct damage spell to exist. But RAW you can certainly read that the spell affects the, but doesn't do anything because they are immune to the damage.

Although, technically, I suppose one could read it backwards to. They are immune to non magical damage, but still harmed by this damage because it is a spell.


Immunity to magic is really weird once you start dealing with conjuration and area spells. For example, a dragonbane golem could be argued to be able to simply walk through a wall of force or ignore the melee attacks of a summoned creature.
If you go by core where there are no targeted summons or creatures with blanket spell immunity (instead they all act as if they had infinite SR) it is pretty straightforward. Once you go past that we get into this murky stuff.
That quote's been the one I've been arguing against the relevance of. There's no mention of anything like magical damage there, just magical attack forms, which this is. The line that says, "Such creatures are insubstantial and can’t be touched by nonmagical matter or energy," could be problematic though. That seems like the best evidence against this working.

[TuggyNE]

For the RAW, reread the passage I quoted.

I did, several times. It does not appear to say what you think it says; it mentions nothing at all about what, precisely, the spell must do to count as "harming" beyond the most obvious requirement that a spell must be involved at some key point in the chain of events that leads up to harming. If you are trying to argue that the spell must specifically both create and manipulate whatever object or effect is proximately used to do the damaging, you need to support those two specific requirements with some specific RAW — RAW that, as far as I can tell, does not exist.

[Psyren]

I did, several times. It does not appear to say what you think it says; it mentions nothing at all about what, precisely, the spell must do to count as "harming" beyond the most obvious requirement that a spell must be involved at some key point in the chain of events that leads up to harming. If you are trying to argue that the spell must specifically both create and manipulate whatever object or effect is proximately used to do the damaging, you need to support those two specific requirements with some specific RAW — RAW that, as far as I can tell, does not exist.

The spell needs to harm them. Your example of a telekinetically thrown sword fails because the spell is not harming anyone, the sword is. If you threw a feather with TK it would do no damage (not even by RAW, since it weighs less than 25 pounds) so the idea that TK is doing the damage is ludicrous and unsupported.

Similarly, tipping a wall of iron over onto someone is not the spell doing damage, it is the falling object rules - i.e. gravity.

If it is not the spell that is doing the harm, they take no harm. The RAW is pretty clear.

[TuggyNE]

The spell needs to harm them. Your example of a telekinetically thrown sword fails because the spell is not harming anyone, the sword is. If you threw a feather with TK it would do no damage (not even by RAW, since it weighs less than 25 pounds) so the idea that TK is doing the damage is ludicrous and unsupported.

And if the spell was not there, the sword would do no damage, since it would be unable to make attack rolls at BAB + Int/Cha, so the idea that the sword is doing the damage must therefore be "ludicrous and unsupported".


Similarly, tipping a wall of iron over onto someone is not the spell doing damage, it is the falling object rules - i.e. gravity.

And in the case of the orbs, it's not the spell that's doing damage, it's the contact with acid that's doing the damage.

(This is clearest with my own orbs, of course, but even the SpC versions seem to work that way.)


The RAW is pretty clear.

No, it really isn't. If it was, I (and others) wouldn't be confused. It may be unambiguous in the ultimate analysis, although I'm not convinced of that; it is certainly anything but clear.

[eggynack]

That quote I found seems pretty conclusive to me. If the matter or energy is nonmagical, then it's incapable of touching an incorporeal creature.

[TuggyNE]

That quote I found seems pretty conclusive to me. If the matter or energy is nonmagical, then it's incapable of touching an incorporeal creature.

Including the orbs, then? Just trying to get this all sorted out here. :smallwink:

[eggynack]

Including the orbs, then? Just trying to get this all sorted out here. :smallwink:
Presumably, yeah, if my logic holds up. The line actually clears up a lot, including wall of iron, which is also non-magical matter.

[Melcar]

If the dragonbone golem is immune to an orb of fire because the orb is a spell, then an ethereal creature is vulnerable to an orb of fire because the orb is a spell. The thing about it being a magical attack form is a non-issue, because shooting an orb of fire at someone with magic is a magic attack form. There is no requirement that the thing hitting the creature be made of magic.

Thats the same as knocking over a cunjured wall of iron with Gust of wind!


A very important fact in this matter is the sub-school. Cunjuration (creation) is not a attack school. It is meant for magical creation of non-magical matter. If the spell is instantaneous, then the magic goes away just before the orbs hits. (Saying that the orb is createt and hits at the same time I would call directly wrong. And what then happens if you create a wall of iron directly in someones face?) They fly on there own at this point. They might have been acceleratet by magic, but its non-magical, non-spell energy flaying and hitting the foe. So no interaction with incorporeal but yes interaktion with dragonbane golem.

[nyjastul69]

Thats the same as knocking over a cunjured wall of iron with Gust of wind!


A very important fact in this matter is the sub-school. Cunjuration (creation) is not a attack school. It is meant for magical creation of non-magical matter. If the spell is instantaneous, then the magic goes away just before the orbs hits. (Saying that the orb is createt and hits at the same time I would call directly wrong. And what then happens if you create a wall of iron directly in someones face?) They fly on there own at this point. They might have been acceleratet by magic, but its non-magical, non-spell energy flaying and hitting the foe. So no interaction with incorporeal but yes interaktion with dragonbane golem.

There are no attack school spells. There is no school of attack. House rule as you will within your own game. Please don't assume others might adopt your house rulings.

[Psyren]

And if the spell was not there, the sword would do no damage

So you agree that the sword is ultimately the source of the damage then? That's all I want you to admit to. How much damage does a TK feather do?



And in the case of the orbs, it's not the spell that's doing damage, it's the contact with acid that's doing the damage.

If two different spells made and launched the acid you'd be right, but it's all one spell.



No, it really isn't. If it was, I (and others) wouldn't be confused. It may be unambiguous in the ultimate analysis, although I'm not convinced of that; it is certainly anything but clear.

This is Personal Incredulity Fallacy. To me it's clear as day.

[TuggyNE]

So you agree that the sword is ultimately the source of the damage then?

I agree that both are the source of the damage; lacking either, there would be no damage, and there is no exclusive source of the damage here.


If two different spells made and launched the acid you'd be right, but it's all one spell.

And … we know this how?


This is Personal Incredulity Fallacy. To me it's clear as day.

I do not say that it is wrong because I cannot understand it, as Personal Incredulity would have it. I say that it is not clear because I cannot understand it.

If the text was in fact clearly X or Y, then the only debate would be among those who had not looked at it in any sort of proper way. This is not the case, so the text is not clear.

[Melcar]

There are no attack school spells. There is no school of attack. House rule as you will within your own game. Please don't assume others might adopt your house rulings.

True.. but that was not what I meant. Sorry for being un clear on that. WHat I meant was, that instantaneous conjuration (creation) does become problematic as when used offencively. As it creates non magical matter.

[Max Caysey]

Here is the spell in question:

Orb of Acid
Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
Level: Sorcerer 4, Wizard 4, Warmage 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
Spell Resistance: No

An orb of acid about 3 inches across shoots from your palm at its target,
dealing 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d6).
You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target.
A creature struck by the orb takes damage and becomes sickened
by the acid's noxious fumes for 1 round.
A successful Fortitude save negates the sickened effect but does not reduce the damage.


It clearly says "shoots" from your palm, not fly on magic. So the spells proppels the orb of non-magical, mundane acid or fire but then its totally on its own. So even though it might all be acomplished by one casting, its not magical when it hits. If the spell had a single target then yes. But the spell is more than anyting else a connon of acid, which you have to point in the right direction to hit our target. No magic is part of the actual strike of the target.

When it hits its regular fire or acid damage not magic.

[Chen]

Similarly, tipping a wall of iron over onto someone is not the spell doing damage, it is the falling object rules - i.e. gravity.

A wall of iron cast by an 12th level caster would be 12, 5ft squares in area and a thickness of 3 inches (1/4 ft). That is a volume of 75 cubic feet of iron which would weigh ~37000 lbs. That would be ~185d6 damage if it fell from only 10 ft. Yet a falling wall of iron by the spell deals only 10d6 damage. So its definitely not the falling object rules which are causing the damage here, its the spell itself (since apparently a falling wall of iron spell is more than 18 times less damaging than the equivalent weight of non-wall of iron falling iron).

[Dalebert]

The wording is a little weird. Strictly RAW, you could argue the damage from weight is unlimited but it seems they mean to limit damage from falling objects to 20d6 just as they limit damage from falling to that. The wall is not falling from above. It's tipping over. They may have arbitrarily decided that an extremely heavy falling object does 20d6 (the max) and half that from tipping over onto someone. Tipping over is not going to provide the same momentum as a straight fall. It certainly does not imply damage from a spell effect but rather from a mundane heavy wall since they've explained that it's mundane once created. It's more likely they just were a bit ambiguous and/or contradicted themselves in two different places. I know that never ever happens across the many rulebooks released over many years but maybe just this one time it did.

[Psyren]

I agree that both are the source of the damage; lacking either, there would be no damage, and there is no exclusive source of the damage here.

I'll take it - it doesn't change my point, a telekinetically flung sword is not a spell doing damage. It is a sword doing damage after being acted on by a spell.


And … we know this how?

The spell text, of course:

"An orb of acid about 3 inches across shoots from your palm at its target, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d6)."

It makes the orb and shoots it - all one spell.

[Melcar]

I'll take it - it doesn't change my point, a telekinetically flung sword is not a spell doing damage. It is a sword doing damage after being acted on by a spell.



The spell text, of course:

"An orb of acid about 3 inches across shoots from your palm at its target, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d6)."

It makes the orb and shoots it - all one spell.

Somehow is seems you dont get the importance of it being (creation) It does not matter that is shoots off... it is not flying by magic its only initially propelled by the spell... the spell ends when it leaves your hands... therefor fly/falls in a balistic arc and lands on the floor at the max range. It does not fly on magic... it shoots off like a projectile by magic... No magic and no spell hitting the target.

[TuggyNE]

The spell text, of course:

"An orb of acid about 3 inches across shoots from your palm at its target, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d6)."

It makes the orb and shoots it - all one spell.

You misunderstand me. How do we know that this condition, which the orbs undeniably fulfill, is in any way required or connected to the conditions under which incorporeal creatures can be harmed?

You are assuming that this condition is necessary, but I see no such text to that effect, and since it is utterly crucial to your argument, this is a lack that should be addressed.

Without that connection, there is no reason to suppose that two spells that between them create and fling some damaging object would in any way be less effective against a ghost than one spell that does both of those in one go.