Force Orb Question

[James McMurray]

So you're automatically assuming that y = 0. Still not the same thing.

But obviously we're on different wavelengths here. If you're convinced that powers which target objects being allowed to target the ground means that all (or just many) powers which target creatures can also target the ground then you should definitely ban it.

The two don't follow one another, but if they do in your head, that's all that matters for your games.

 

[DracoSuave]

I don't. But a DM that determines the ground is an object is now, when he feels it is appropriate, empowered to use monster abilities targetting the ground as an object, as objects -are- legitimate targets for attacks against creatures when the attack makes sense.

Given that it's the DM using the ability AND making the determination of it's ability to be used, he's likely to say 'yes, using an object as a target is appropriate.' It's a very reasonable assumption to make that a DM would do this.

Which means if the ground is an object, it's a legal target for abilities that could reasonably affect the ground.

See, you seem to think that 'targets creatures' cannot target objects, when, in fact, it says explicitly in the books that some abilities can, and should, be used in such a manner. Your argument that they cannot, or should not, or are not, flies directly in the face of rules as written, so I'm not accepting it as a valid premise. It's truth value is zero, which means it has no place in this discussion. Please remove it. In fact, there are traps which have, as deactivation, attacking it. Given most basic attacks and at-wills target enemies (i.e. not objects) then under your interpretation they'd not be able to hit a trap that is designed to be hit in this manner.

In otherwords, you're absolutely incorrect.

So, if you successfully try to use an ability like that, where you're targetting the ground -as an object-, expect the ground to be an object when it is not in your favor as well. That's 'only fair' after all.

 

[Regicide]

You might not get the entire planet this way, but you'll be able to score the continent, complete with the underwater continental shelves.

Thats a very simplistic view of what a continent is composed of and an overly broad definition of object. If you're going to call the continent or earth an object, call the universe one. Your force orb can hit everything adjacent to but not inside the universe.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm not the one calling the ground an object here. I'm the one pointing out how it is a rediculous statement to make.

reductio ad absurdum.

 

[James McMurray]

LOL

Like I said, we're on different wavelengths. I'll do as the DMG says and give my players the benefit of the doubt without feeling the need to extend it to illogical and unfair absurdities. Feel free to clamp your viking hat on tight instead. As long as everyone is having fun, our differing playstyles don't matter in the slightest.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

LOL

Like I said, we're on different wavelengths. I'll do as the DMG says and give my players the benefit of the doubt without feeling the need to extend it to illogical and unfair absurdities. Feel free to clamp your viking hat on tight instead. As long as everyone is having fun, our differing playstyles don't matter in the slightest.

Yeah, you're on different wave-lengths. He's trying to treat the ground like a target-able object, you're trying to treat it like targeting a square with none of the penalties which are properly applied when doing so.

 

[James McMurray]

He's treating it as a creature, and letting effects which would target a creature (such as the dragon's breath) target it. It's certainly within the DM's perogative to do so, but is unrelated to spells which specifically target objects. One asks the question "is the ground an object" the other asks "if the ground is an object, should I also treat it as a creature in some situations?" Sure, you have to answer yes to the first before you bother asking the second, but yes to one doesn't have to be yes to the other.

What penalties? When you target a square, you (sometimes) roll to hit. If you hit (or if no to-hit is needed), you get the effects of the power. When you target the ground with Force Orb you roll to hit. If you hit, you get the effects of a hit. What am I ignoring (other than the absurd "hit everyone on the planet" argument which should be ignored).

 

[LittleFuzzy]

When targeting an object, it is a creature for all intents and purposes. It just may not be a creature you can materially effect with your ability. More accurately, once you've expanded the list of targets to include objects as per the DMG's recommendation of DM fiat being the controlling authority in such cases, then really all creatures are objects. They are interchangeable for the purposes of the action being attempted.

You're never really trying to target a square. Even in a gamist system, squares are a non-real abstraction, just a frame of reference. You're trying to hit things within a square. Just what you're trying to hit may be indeterminant, but you're trying to hit something, not a square. That's why you take a penalty to the attack role with a target-able power *i.e. non-AoE* when you 'target a square'

 

[James McMurray]

There is no target expansion happening. Force Orb specifically states that it can target objects. No fiat, no controlling authority. Just reading the rules of the power under discussion.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

No one has been trying to deny you can't hit objects, whether using the power's target line or by referencing the DMG guideline. The question has always been whether "the ground" is an object. Draco tried to treat it as an object, came up with ridiculous results in doing so, and concluded it should not be treated as an object. You disagree, on the premise of an unstated claim, that each SQUARE of the ground is a distinct object. You're in effect trying to treat squares as a targetable objects