Force Orb: Secondary attacks on a miss?

[Stalker0]

Just to note, there is NO reason to shoot force orb at the floor, it provides you NO advantage.

Force Orb hits one target, and then one other. If you shoot it at the floor, then it hits one other. Well if you just wanted to hit that one person you should have just shot it at that person.

 

[eleran]

Just to note, there is NO reason to shoot force orb at the floor, it provides you NO advantage.

Force Orb hits one target, and then one other. If you shoot it at the floor, then it hits one other. Well if you just wanted to hit that one person you should have just shot it at that person.

Actually, no. Force Orb targets one creature or object. If it successfully hits that creature or object it then gets a secondary attack (the splash) against every target that is adjacent to the primary target, so up to 8 other targets.

 

[abeattie]

Actually, no. Force Orb targets one creature or object. If it successfully hits that creature or object it then gets a secondary attack (the splash) against every target that is adjacent to the primary target, so up to 8 other targets.

The question isn't whether it's creative or slippery -- is it within the rules?

This is an exception based system -- so what is the general rule, what is the exception. The exception overrides the rule.

My analysis would go: General rule is that attacks go against creatures. The exception allows for attacks on a creature or an object.

Is "the ground" an object -- not within a strict definition, but a blade of grass, or a rock, or a coblestone are objects.

What justification is there to deny the attack on the object?

The player gives up a chance at high damage for an improved chance at lower damage.

Where is the rule which denies that interpretation? Why would we want to? Is it harmful to the dm if a player wastes an encounter power on minions? Is it difficult to compensate by spreading minions out?

- - - - -

I think the effect is so situational that it makes sense to allow it. Certainly if they targeted a chair or a pillar you would agree that this is "an object" why can't a flagstone or a floorboard be one as well?

 

[keterys]

but not if it breaks the letter AND spirit of a spell or other rule.

As far as I can tell, you're arguing that what appears to be an intended feature of the spell is breaking the letter and spirit of the rules of the game.

Do you know something we don't?

 

[eleran]

The question isn't whether it's creative or slippery -- is it within the rules?

This is an exception based system -- so what is the general rule, what is the exception. The exception overrides the rule.

My analysis would go: General rule is that attacks go against creatures. The exception allows for attacks on a creature or an object.

Is "the ground" an object -- not within a strict definition, but a blade of grass, or a rock, or a coblestone are objects.

What justification is there to deny the attack on the object?

The player gives up a chance at high damage for an improved chance at lower damage.

Where is the rule which denies that interpretation? Why would we want to? Is it harmful to the dm if a player wastes an encounter power on minions? Is it difficult to compensate by spreading minions out?

- - - - -

I think the effect is so situational that it makes sense to allow it. Certainly if they targeted a chair or a pillar you would agree that this is "an object" why can't a flagstone or a floorboard be one as well?

In that case why not decide the entire floor is one object and therefore be able to strike everyone in a 100' x 100' room? I don't object to the interpretation of hitting a square per se, it's the slippery slope i want to stay off of.

 

[Lacyon]

I like to reward creative play as much as the next DM, but not if it breaks the letter AND spirit of a spell or other rule.

Is the ground an object? I think so. Target: One creature or object

Is it contrary to the spirit of the spell to allow this? It bursts against the target and throws off razor-sharp shards of force that cuts nearby enemies to ribbons.

It's what the spell is supposed to do.

Can anyone even think of a non-contrived situation where you might want to use the spell to target a square instead of a creature or object?

What does non-contrived mean in this context? I can provide several examples where the average damage output is higher if you target the ground. Some of them require the attacker to have a good guess as to the reflex defense of the targets. Others require targets to be spread out in such a way that more creatures are in the area if you target the floor.

Which, if any, would you consider contrived?

 

[malcolm_n]

There should be no reason to worry that players would abuse the use of a level 1 power. If the floor in your game is equivalent to "the darkness" (cheese hehe ) then let players know that if they try to target it. Otherwise, no harm, no foul; let them use Force orb as an area-effectish spell.

 

[eleran]

As far as I can tell, you're arguing that what appears to be an intended feature of the spell is breaking the letter and spirit of the rules of the game.

Do you know something we don't?

I don't think I know anything anyone doesn't. I don't even know that I am right. I am trying to reason out how to interpret a question that has come up based solely on the descriptor of the spell as written on the character sheets we have all seen.

To me, it does not seem like the intended feature of the spell. The intended feature of the spell, based solely on the descriptor, is to lob or fire an orb made of magical force at a target. That target could be a creature (from mouse to blue whale) or an object (from ? to ?). If it strikes the targets reflex defense it does a prescribed amount of damage, and bursts doing another prescribed amount of damage to all viable targets adjacent to the original targets. I think the discussion is merely about what constitutes an object. Some say you could target the square, or the floor of a square, and do damage to all adjacent. But I think that starts a slippery slope argument as to what is an object, or perhaps how big of an object could be affected.

A house. Could I target a house, and hope to hit everyone inside or standing next to it?

 

[keterys]

... Bandits around a campfire. Target the campfire. That seems non-contrived.

And yeah, that's fair - no targetting 'The Castle' or 'The City'

 

[eleran]

... Bandits around a campfire. Target the campfire. That seems non-contrived.

To me that seems like a fine use of it too. I am all in favor of that use.