Force Orb Question

[James McMurray]

Ah, that explains it. You think I'm saying things I'm not, and disagreeing with them. I've never said a single square of the ground is an object. I'd just have them target "the ground" and hit creatures around that area. I'd know what they meant when they tried it, and they wouldn't expect ludicrous results to happen.

Then again, I don't have to deal with players who would try to say that they get to target the planet and hit everyone, or DMs that would try to treat the ground as a creature just because it's been treated as an object. I'm not always happy with every minute of my gaming time, but the things I read in this thread make me thankful I don't have to worry about the kinds of insane corner cases some folks seem terrified of.

Does it matter that the English language agrees with me?

And I'll take you back to another statement I made: it doesn't matter if the ground is an object or not. This is a valid tactic unless the GM puts on his viking hat and stomps his foot about some sort of presumed "intent of the rules." Objects, with or without the ground, are a major factor in almost every combat in a D&D campaign. The spell lets you target any of them.

 

[TheGogmagog]

I thought this has been clarified but don't care enough to look it up as our DM isn't a tool. That and when you have someone stubborn even that doesn't matter to them (would it?). I only read this far hoping someone would point out where. Quite antidotal, but I thought the DDI demo used force orb in exactly this matter.

There are reasons to attack walls and the ground, are you arguing that they can’t be damaged? If you want to take down a wall, or damage the ground (most likely to get to the floor below, but for other game reasons like near a ledge. In my experience, the damage is always broken down into 5x5 sections. So I have no qualms with treating any 5x5 section of ground as an independent object, not only for the purposes of targeting but for damage with intent to destroy.

The DMG suggestion is for when players or monsters want to use a power to remove a terrain obstacle quickly. The ‘ridiculousness’ you claim that occurs are when you are allowing a power that is intended to target creatures to target objects, not the fact that the ground is an object. The situation is exactly the same if there were any mundane object sitting there. Not reading the dragon ability, I find it hard to believe that the location of the first creature extends range. Come to think of it the only time you need to target the ground is when the terrain is absolutely void of any objects/rubble/refuse which is rare in nature or in inhabited areas. So rare if that IS the terrain it should probably be pointed out.

I suspect DracoSuave and his alt is just being difficult for his own amusement. Attacking a wall or floor is considered to affect a 5x5 section. So the arguments of affecting the entire globe are intentionally factitious, the fact that you are using that as an argument says one of two things about you.

The questions are mute, I’m just throwing my 2cp in for other readers who get this far and not discussing for the reasons stated above.

 

[Danceofmasks]

However, if you allow people to attack floors and doors as a 5'x5' section, then ...
If an enemy occupies that same 5'x5' section, they are in the same space as, and therefore not adjacent, to the primary target.
And suffer no splash damage.

 

[Guyanthalas]

...

There are reasons to attack walls and the ground, are you arguing that they can’t be damaged? If you want to take down a wall, or damage the ground (most likely to get to the floor below, but for other game reasons like near a ledge. In my experience, the damage is always broken down into 5x5 sections. So I have no qualms with treating any 5x5 section of ground as an independent object, not only for the purposes of targeting but for damage with intent to destroy.

...

I suspect DracoSuave and his alt is just being difficult for his own amusement. Attacking a wall or floor is considered to affect a 5x5 section. So the arguments of affecting the entire globe are intentionally factitious, the fact that you are using that as an argument says one of two things about you.

The questions are mute, I’m just throwing my 2cp in for other readers who get this far and not discussing for the reasons stated above.

Yes and no. While I agree with your reasoning (and put it into practice in my games), I still do see that there can be an argument made. For simplification, lets use a large creature:
Force orb attacks the creature, and then it hits all adjacent enemies. This means that it has the potential to hit 12 enemies if it was completely surrounded (excluding 3D).
If we apply the same rules to a large object, say a statue, does the same value hold true? All creatures around the statue get hit? Now the premise of attack terrain becomes a potential problem. As with my earlier discussion with Morgan_Scott, you could make a theoretical argument that it would hit all creatures adjacent to the earth.

As far as the Draco/James argument:
An apple is a fruit, it doesn't mean that if its a fruit its an apple. A creature might be an object, it doesn't mean that if its an object its a creature. Force orb targets creatures, or objects. Most powers DO NOT claim to target objects, this is one of the few.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

Ah, that explains it. You think I'm saying things I'm not, and disagreeing with them. I've never said a single square of the ground is an object. I'd just have them target "the ground" and hit creatures around that area. I'd know what they meant when they tried it, and they wouldn't expect ludicrous results to happen.

You don't say it, but it's what you're doing in practice. Ok, let me set up a couple of examples without the ground.

You target a kobold with force orb. It hits the kobold and does splash damage to the eight squares around the kobold. Perfectly fine.

You target an ogre. You hit the ogre and you do splash damage in the 12 squares surrounding the ogre.

You target a Medium statue. You hit it and you do splash damage in the 8 squares surrounding it.

You target a Large statue. As I understand it, your claim is that you actually select a square of the large statue and do splash damage to the eight squares around that square, right? Rather than splash damage to the 12 squares around the statue?

That brings us back to the doing damage multiple times with the same effect to the same target that the splash rules were designed to avoid. One can argue that it doesn't matter but I can envisison a number of different scenarios where it does, starting with Trap statues. I argue that the exception in this exception-based design is not objects instead of creatures, but only wanting to damage/destroy a specific section of the target, in the fashion Gogamog refers to.

 

[LightPhoenix]

You target a Large statue. As I understand it, your claim is that you actually select a square of the large statue and do splash damage to the eight squares around that square, right? Rather than splash damage to the 12 squares around the statue?

That brings us back to the doing damage multiple times with the same effect to the same target that the splash rules were designed to avoid. One can argue that it doesn't matter but I can envisison a number of different scenarios where it does, starting with Trap statues. I argue that the exception in this exception-based design is not objects instead of creatures, but only wanting to damage/destroy a specific section of the target, in the fashion Gogamog refers to.

Well, Force Orb specifically calls out what get's targeted:

Secondary Target: Each enemy adjacent to the primary target.

So Force Orb very specifically only targets the primary target (be it creature/object/ground) once. In fact, it presents an interesting case: you can have up to 12 Medium creatures adjacent to a Large target, versus 8 for a Medium target. Therefore, FO theoretically has more utility when you target larger creatures.

 

[DracoSuave]

Plus, if you use Force Orb to target an object, unless the DM says in that case it makes sense for the secondary to hit objects, the secondary attack doesn't hit objects, so traps might be unaffected. (it calls out 'enemies')

And no, you can never damage yourself with a Force Orb.

 

[James McMurray]

However, if you allow people to attack floors and doors as a 5'x5' section, then ...
If an enemy occupies that same 5'x5' section, they are in the same space as, and therefore not adjacent, to the primary target.
And suffer no splash damage.

For me it would depend on the terrain. On flat ground I'd count the ground at their feet as being the square under them, and let the secondary effect target them. If the ground is uneven, it must poke up into their square, and so wouldn't count. But I'd usually rule in favor of the PC. IF they're in a position where they're forced to attack the ground instead of an enemy, they probably need the help.

You target a Large statue. As I understand it, your claim is that you actually select a square of the large statue and do splash damage to the eight squares around that square, right? Rather than splash damage to the 12 squares around the statue?

I'm not sure what gave you that idea. If the large object in question is definitively a single object, they would most certainly be able to target the whole thing. It's a per-case ruling though. No "I target the building and kill everyone inside," but "I target the wagon and splatter the minions driving it" is fine.

That brings us back to the doing damage multiple times with the same effect to the same target that the splash rules were designed to avoid.

What are you talking about? Force Orb cannot damage the same target twice. It doesn't matter what the original target was, it won't be targeted by the secondary effect, nor will any of the secondary targets be hit more than once.

 

[DracoSuave]

For me it would depend on the terrain. On flat ground I'd count the ground at their feet as being the square under them, and let the secondary effect target them. If the ground is uneven, it must poke up into their square, and so wouldn't count. But I'd usually rule in favor of the PC. IF they're in a position where they're forced to attack the ground instead of an enemy, they probably need the help.

If they're in a position where they need to attack ground to hit the enemy standing on it for 1d8+whatever instead of the enemy itself for 2d8+whatever, while still getting the same AoE, then this position is called 'Ignorant of Basic Maths.'

They probably need a lot more help than letting them hit the ground will provide.

(and yes I know it's easier to hit the ground, which brings up the question as to where Scorching Burst/Thunderwave have been in his arsenel)

 

[James McMurray]

Not all wizards have Scorching Burst or can/want to get close enough to Thunder Wave, plus Force Orb is more damage, harder to resist, and does extra damage versus incorporeal creatures with the right feat. So yes, it's not always a great tactic, but when it's their best bet why add to the pain by telling them their desperate ploy won't work?