Force Orb Question

[DracoSuave]

It doesn't matter if you make an argument that 'technically' the ground is an object or that the spell can 'technically' do something.

If the DM can reason that the ground is not a threat and that you are exploiting this technicality so you can get the AoE on the spell without hitting anything, then the DM can invoke the Bag-O-Rats rule and say No.

Technicality based arguments end at that point and the power fails to be able to do what you like.

 

[Griogre]

I disagree. I think it's very specifically worded so that it can be used to get the adjacent attacks without getting the primary in such a manner. Now, were I a DM, I'd rule that you still have to roll to hit the spot you want to, but you'd get a bonus for attacking the ground and wasting the primary hit.

I have to disagree with you here. The definition of Secondary Target and Secondary attack:

"Some powers allow you to make secondary (or even
tertiary) attacks. The power description indicates if
you can make such an attack after the previous attack
was a hit, if that attack was a miss, or regardless of
whether the previous attack hits or misses."

It seems to make clear to me that when it says the in the "Hit" description of Force Orb to make a secondary attack, that if you miss with the primary nothing else happens.

 

[Dracorat]

At what DC?

10

And for the record, that's exactly how I'd handle it.

And in the case of a miss, it misses, not "hits another square instead".

 

[Dracorat]

I have to disagree with you here. The definition of Secondary Target and Secondary attack:

"Some powers allow you to make secondary (or even
tertiary) attacks. The power description indicates if
you can make such an attack after the previous attack
was a hit, if that attack was a miss, or regardless of
whether the previous attack hits or misses."

It seems to make clear to me that when it says the in the "Hit" description of Force Orb to make a secondary attack, that if you miss with the primary nothing else happens.

This example doesn't inhibit the situation that was quoted.

And it's the right reading. If "secondary target" appears in the "hit" section, you must hit. If they were able to be in the miss too, they'd appear again in the miss section.

 

[DracoSuave]

As Draco said, or if it happened on both, it'd be in an Effect section. But because it is in the Hit section, you must hit to get the extra splash on it.

 

[James McMurray]

You definitely have to hit the target, which is either a creature or an object.

 

[Griogre]

This example doesn't inhibit the situation that was quoted.

And it's the right reading. If "secondary target" appears in the "hit" section, you must hit. If they were able to be in the miss too, they'd appear again in the miss section.

Just to be clear I was disagreeing with LightPhoenix saying you didn't have to hit with the primary, specifically - "I think it's very specifically worded so that it can be used to get the adjacent attacks without getting the primary in such a manner."

You've got to hit with the primary to get the secondaries. Some people let you aim at the ground to hit with the primary, some don't.

 

[DrSpunj]

Is it really making the power that much more powerful to let it strike the ground to guarantee the Secondary Attacks occur? You still have to make the same attack rolls against each target and by attacking the ground you've chosen to forego the 2d8+IntMod damage against a Primary Target.

As an encounter power, using it this way turns it into a Super-Scorching Burst that only targets enemies with an average +2 damage against each Secondary Target. IMO it's a creative use of the power that isn't overpowering.

It seems odd any creature in the Primary Target square, standing on the ground the Wizard has targeted, doesn't get hit at all, but again it'd be kind of cool to cast it at the feet of an ally that was swarmed with enemies on multiple sides to help them out.

 

[Ahglock]

And here I thought the spirit of the spell was to allow people to attack the ground, since that is the primary reason the object line was added IMO. You can up your odds on the AoE part working out by giving up the primary damage.

 

[Dracorat]

Just to be clear I was disagreeing with LightPhoenix saying you didn't have to hit with the primary, specifically - "I think it's very specifically worded so that it can be used to get the adjacent attacks without getting the primary in such a manner."

You've got to hit with the primary to get the secondaries. Some people let you aim at the ground to hit with the primary, some don't.

Ah tenfour, I didn't read it that way - thanks for clarification!