Force Orb Question

[Mistwell]

The object targeted should not have to be a "threat". I think the spell is intended to be able to blow up a door, for example, or prison bars, or breaking through a wall or ceiling or floor, in addition to a "threat" like a trap. So targeting a rock on the ground, or even a distinct square of ground, should be acceptable.

Too many spells already lack utility outside of combat - lets not nerf some of the few that do allow you to effect objects by implying a "threat" tag where none exists.

 

[Nail]

Too many spells already lack utility outside of combat - lets not nerf some of the few that do allow you to effect objects by implying a "threat" tag where none exists.

Agreed.

The wizard can target a square (the ground) with a thrown torch, right? Why can't he target a square with a spell effect that allows him to target objects?

 

[Markn]

So, can you target a square that someone occupies? If so, does the square get cover?

 

[DracoSuave]

The object targeted should not have to be a "threat". I think the spell is intended to be able to blow up a door, for example, or prison bars, or breaking through a wall or ceiling or floor, in addition to a "threat" like a trap. So targeting a rock on the ground, or even a distinct square of ground, should be acceptable.

Too many spells already lack utility outside of combat - lets not nerf some of the few that do allow you to effect objects by implying a "threat" tag where none exists.

In this case tho, the intended result is not the blowing up of a rock, but getting the chance to attack with an Area of Effect that you'd normally have to breach another creature's AC to get at.

We're not talking about trying to blow up a door here (which IS fine) but trying to get the secondary effect by using a tricky way to get around its restriction.

In other words, using a technicality to abuse the intended effect of the spell.

Let's not be dishonest with ourselves and suggest it's otherwise. If you have no problem with them doing that, then allow it. If you do not, then you do not have to allow it, and you're not nerfing the spell by doing so. But make a decision based on that understanding, not on self-deceptions disguised as technicalities.

 

[Dracorat]

In this case tho, the intended result is not the blowing up of a rock, but getting the chance to attack with an Area of Effect that you'd normally have to breach another creature's AC to get at.

[...]

In other words, using a technicality to abuse the intended effect of the spell

I disagree and believe you are asserting your opinion as fact.

I am being honest with myself when I say that this use of the spell falls exactly within the creativity that I expect from D&D and I think some spells and abilities are given to allow such leigh way.

Merry Christmas.

 

[James McMurray]

We're not talking about trying to blow up a door here (which IS fine) but trying to get the secondary effect by using a tricky way to get around its restriction.

What if they're blowing up a door in the middle of afight and there are enemies adjacent to the door? Do you not allow it at that point, and make them wait until the fight is over before they can attack the object?

In other words, using a technicality to abuse the intended effect of the spell

Where is this "intended effect" documented?

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm saying that if you think it's okay for the players to do that, then by all means let them. But don't kid yourself that it's anything -but- exploit. Or in this case 'creativity.'

And yes, blowing up a door to hit others is fine.

Personally I don't mind if they do because the effect of doing so is minor and well within the perview of the wizard. At that point he's spending an encounter power to do a point more damage than a scorching burst. It's a waste of an encounter power to do so.

But it might be in his interest if he has Solid Sound going, or doesn't have scorching burst, or whatever.

But I'm not allowing it because 'The ground could technically be an object.' I'm allowing it because I don't mind the effect. It doesn't 'break things.'

Then my monsters start using this to their advantage.

 

[James McMurray]

Unless you can explain why it's an exploit, we'll have to disagree on that. But I am curious about one thing. If it's a waste of an encounter power to use it that way, how and why are your monsters going to start using the "exploit" to their advantage?

 

[Guyanthalas]

I'm going to side on the "Terrain counts as object" group.
First, I think its creative and this is a game that should reward creativity (when it doesn't destroy the fabric of space).
Second, I see sacrificing a 2-16 + INT damage for a better DC to hit the ground as a worthwhile trade. Worthwhile trade to me means that it at least gives you something to think about, do I want to do less damage for a potential better hit?

I'm a bit on the fence when it comes to the ground having a DC to hit. Looking at it strictly from a wording standpoint, its an attack against reflex. This to me means that the creature has managed to move out of the way of the force orb (if successful), and I don't see the ground as jumping around too much (and you can shove MoTP up your abyss...). Perhaps you can rule that the wizard shot the orb in some wonky direction, but my guess is its pretty easy to hit the ground. Like I said, I can see both sides to this one, so no help there.

If you really need to hit all of the targets (perhaps they're minions), you can target the ground at their feet. You won't do the increased damage of the primary attack, but you're much more likely to get the secondary attacks. Most spells don't alow this, but Force Orb specifies that it can target objects.

Oh thank god, now I can retrain my Scorching Burst to something else...

 

[DracoSuave]

Unless you can explain why it's an exploit, we'll have to disagree on that. But I am curious about one thing. If it's a waste of an encounter power to use it that way, how and why are your monsters going to start using the "exploit" to their advantage?

When Blue Dragons use it to skip 10 squares of their range so they can breath dudes 30 squares away... believe me, the players would cry.

'The ground is a legal target. Your idea, after all.'

But barring some really good circumstances, Force Orbing the ground is a sucktastic tactic anyways, 1d8+x isn't that much better than 1d6+x. Most of the time they'd rather hit an opponent with the primary anyways.